Since antiquity, debates have been used both to determine and further our understanding of truth. I will now give two sides of three important debates. The purpose of this writing is to further the knowledge of the reader as well as encourage people to understand both sides of a debate as a strategy for improving their own skills.
Pro Free Will
I have previously discussed this subject here.
We will define free will to be the capacity to make decisions independently of circumstance. A simple minded person can be said to have a small amount of free will, the ability to make pedestrian choices such as what to eat for a meal or what clothes to wear. An advanced scholar can be said to have a lot of free will. He can imagine arguments from his opponents’ perspective, he can understand his own state of mind and the state of mind of others. He can formulate scientific theories which predict the denouement of universal phenomena.
Generally, we can think of intelligence as the available number of well-defined potential thoughts (quantum mind eigenstates). That is, a simpleton may have two possible thoughts whereas an intellectual has many more. The simpleton experiences life in a limited manner and concerns himself only with what is on the immediate horizon (should I wear my blue or red shoes today?) whereas the adept takes a longer time frame into consideration and contemplates more thoughts (should my vocation be doctor? lawyer? policeman? etc). Thus we can visualise free will as existing on a continuum commensurate with intellectual capacity. We can also extrapolate that the maximum amount of free will occurs when the mind is perfected: where all external stimuli do not disturb the inner state and all possible thoughts can be considered in an objective manner.
Non-belief in free will can easily precipitate a nihilistic attitude: “everything is predetermined, and so there is no point”. A widespread belief in the non-existence of free will lead to people eschewing their duty for self-improvement because they will know that there is ultimately no way to make free choices. Therefore it is our position that regardless of the absolute truth of free will, it is a useful construct for self-improvement. Since we can clearly establish that a belief in free will is of sociological benefit, this will be our default hypothesis when addressing the public.
Against Free Will
In spite of the argument in favour of free will, it can be demonstrated to be universally false. Although there exist clear differences between the respective capacities of people to discern different possible states of mind, all states of mind (and our disposition towards them) are precipitated by previous events and so are deterministic. Thus even the perception of freedom to make free choices is itself precipitated by previous events, themselves deterministic. (When we say deterministic, we do not mean to suggest that the universe is deterministic in the classical sense. Given that the fundamental nature of spacetime is wavelike, this suggests that the operand causal mechanism in the universe is one of quantum determinism. That is: although quantum systems have a plurality of eigenstates, which are indeterminate prior to the event of observation (waveform reduction), there exist a finite number of eigenstates and such are knowable, at least in the probabilistic sense.)
The easiest way to establish the position that free will does not exist is as follows: given the unilateral nature of time, and given the fact that we are unable to travel backwards in time, the past is set in stone. Since any future event is in the past of some later event, the future is as unchangeable as the past. This argument leaves no room for the possibility of free will.
Since we favour absolute truth above all things, we take the position that free will does not exist.
Calculus, which deals with the treatment of continuous functions, both measuring their instantaneous rates of change (the derivative) and the measurement under (the integral) curves. Calculus can be conclusively demonstrated to represent the most exact measurement possible, because it deals in limits. Thus calculus represents the theoretical limit of measurement accuracy.
The numerous applications of calculus as well as the degree to which its philosophy has enriched our understanding of mathematical processes. Given the amount of knowledge forthcoming from calculus, it is certainly useful, if not universally true. Since there exists no alternate to calculus which is more true and able to perform computations with the accuracy of calculus, we take the position that calculus is of net benefit to humanity, in spite of the fact that quantum state exclusion and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle preclude its application on the microscale.
Calculus can hardly be said not to have influenced modern thought. Although its accomplishments are myriad, it has also served to distract from the true nature of the causal universe. Calculus operators (specifically the Hamiltonian) pervade the treatment of fundamental particles in the so-called “Standard Model” and it has given us no deeper insight as to a unified field model. In fact, it can be shown to have distracted from the discovery of such.
Calculus presumes systems under measurement are unchanged by measurements and that distances are infinitely divisible. However, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and quantum state exclusion prove that neither of these things are possible on the microscale. The microscale is determined predominantly by quantum state exclusion, which predicts that transitions occur between quantum states. Since quantum states are delineated energetically, the progression of their spatial configuration is not necessarily continuous. Consider the transition between the Hydrogen and Helium microstates: there exist no intermediary states. Mass is either in the hydrogen OR the helium (or some other) state. It does not transition continuously (as would be required if calculus were applicable), but rather in a stepwise fashion. The canonical conjugation between position and momentum operators (their product has a lower bound) predicts that a very high precision on position (small Δx) causes a proportionately large uncertainty on momentum (large Δp). This change in momentum causes the system under measurement to change relative to its original configuration, rendering any measurement of position undefined, regardless of precision (because the system has changed relative to its original configuration, and distance measurements are only defined when a system’s spatial configuration does not change).
Indeed the over-use of calculus has prevented the rather obvious discovery of a unified field model. Constructs such as Hilbert Spaces, which hinge on the existence and well-defined-ness of the Hamiltonian (calculus) operator, has now been thoroughly debunked by the demonstration of the measurement limit. Each subsequent measurement that a system is subjected to reduces its waveform potential and so the 3 physical dimensions (themselves: measurements (of position)) are not independent on the microscale (as the Hilbert space suggests).
Since calculus fails on the microscale limit, we can conclude that it is not absolutely true and so should not be taught as such.
Read more about meta-mathematics here.
The term idol is derived from the concepts of form, shape and image.
Forms, shapes and images are crucial in the development of ideas and wisdom. They are the backbone of physics and without them mathematics would be substantially more difficult, if not impossible.
A failure to study forms properly has led to improper thinking in science and philosophy. Modern science has failed to deduce the quantum nature of the mind as well as the fundamental nature of waveforms, both of which require considerable powers of visualisation to understand. The persecution of idolatry throughout the last 3000+ years has rendered people afraid to think, which has severely undermined their capacity for reason.
Examples of “Yantras”: symbolic diagrams that aid the learning process
The concept of worshipping images is as old as civilisation itself. To think that images can be eschewed (regardless of whether they are perceived as idols) is naive and not supported on an evidentiary basis. Lack of inspiring imagery has given people what has been dubbed “Mendeleev Derangement Syndrome”. This can be thought of as a ‘squishing’/compression of the mind to conform with the two dimensional rendition of the periodic table (when in actuality it is three dimensional).
In spite of these setbacks, I have demonstrated the true form of the periodic table to be three dimensional, as demonstrated in the model below (blue = s orbital, pink = p orbital, green = d orbital, orange = f orbital). This form is clearly superior to the familiar two dimensional table. It makes the waveform hypothesis easier to establish (because it demonstrates the spherical waveforms comprising it) and it makes it easier to see why there are no elements past 118 (for the same reason we only experience 3+1 spacetime dimensions on the macroscale).
Practically speaking, it is impossible to enforce a ban on idolatry. Historical attempts to ban idolatry have led to the slaughter of countless numbers of innocent people and the institutionalisation of far more degenerate forms of idolatry.
Modern Day Idols
Thus although idol worship is not sanctioned by the Veda, a ban is not practical and can indeed be shown to worsen the problem. It is only superior knowledge that can bring people out of superstition and fanaticism (bad consequences of idolatry) and so we take a neutral to positive view on idolatry here.
One of Swami Dayananda’s most important debates was on the subject of whether the Veda (revealed text of the ancient Natural Religion) sanctioned idol worship. Dayananda successfully defended the position that Veda did not sanction idol worship. Based on the authority of his testimony, we take the position against idolatry.
As you can see, good arguments exist on both sides of all of these complex issues. It is only by understanding both sides of a debate that one can be said to be truly knowledgeable. Otherwise it becomes a game of superstitious apologia. Rather than re-examining and changing one’s position based on new evidence, people double down on it. This is borne of an attachment to the position that one’s beliefs are rational combined with the fear of loss of identity associated with changing one’s opinion. Thus people suffering from cognitive dissonance between their beliefs and reality must cherry pick the evidence until such time as they become convinced to change their opinion.
If we are unwilling to change our opinions in light of new evidence, we will be condemning ourselves to false beliefs. Holding false beliefs is destructive because it makes it harder to perceive truth. This is because the mind only has so much energy and true beliefs are easier to uphold than false ones (require less energy). A refusal to accept truth reroutes the mind’s resources in service of false beliefs which precludes the acquisition of wisdom. The promulgation of false beliefs then takes on a momentum of its own, making it even harder to discern truth. Knowledge of truth is the only way to ensure survival of civilisation in the long term. Knowledge of truth is the only way to gain a perfected state of mind.
Let us all be brave enough to pursue truth, regardless of our temporary emotional attachments. Emotional attachments won’t lead to lasting happiness, only knowledge can do that.
Another interesting debate to learn about: