In2-MeC

Prague, Czech Republic
16 June 2004

Worry About Adam, Not the Atom

Part 3

In Part 1 I wrote:

...in quantum physics, matter and energy are translated into an idea. It's an idea that scientists are getting an amazing amount of work out of. But what's going on with matter and energy while they puts out all that work is purely conceptual. A quantum of heat energy, for example, has never been seen. Nor will it ever be seen, because it is not something that happens, it is an idea of something that happens.

Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.3.31:

yatha nabhasi meghaugho
renur va parthivo 'nile
evam drastari drsyatvam
aropitam abuddhibhih

Clouds and dust are carried by the air, but less intelligent persons say that the sky is cloudy and the air is dirty. Similarly, they also implant material bodily conceptions on the spirit self.

Srila Prabhupada points out in his purport:

It is further confirmed herein that with our material eyes and senses we cannot see the Lord, who is all spirit. We cannot even detect the spiritual spark which exists within the material body of the living being. We look to the outward covering of the body or subtle mind of the living being, but we cannot see the spiritual spark within the body. So we have to accept the living being's presence by the presence of his gross body. ... The clouds in the sky and the blue of the sky are better appreciated in this connection. Although the bluish tint of the sky and the sky itself are different, we conceive of the color of the sky as blue. But that is a general conception for the laymen only.

Credit must be given to the founders of quantum physics. They were philosophers of acute discernment. They had a grasp of the principle Srila Prabhupada speaks of above, that "the bluish tint of the sky and the sky itself are different." The nature of their observations of the microworld obliged them to admit that what they were seeing was, so to speak, only "the bluish tint of the sky." Atoms, electrons, waves--all that amounts to the bluish tint. It is for this reason that James Jeans stated, "Precise knowledge of the outer world becomes impossible for us", "The division between subject and object is no longer definite or precise", and, "So far as our knowledge is concerned, causality becomes meaningless."

Physicists who think deeply about what they are doing tell us that quantum physics is an allegory of a subject, not the subject itself. The dictionary defines allegory as "a literary, dramatic, or pictorial device in which characters and events stand for abstract ideas, principles, or forces, so that the literal sense has or suggests a parallel, deeper symbolic sense." The characters of the allegory called quantum physics are atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, photons and so many other subatomic particles. The events are the wavefunction, the quantum leap, quantum nonlocality, quantum tunneling, etc.

But all that is but surface appearance, as James Jeans explained in the quotations presented in Part 2 of this essay. What appears on the surface of the data screen of the physicists' senses is mostly only the numerical values of instrument readings and other such indirect, machine-produced imagery. Atoms, electrons and so on, being too tiny, are never directly observed. Thus these characters and the actions they perform are inventions of the human mind to explain something that is perceived only analogously.

With all this going on, the physicists are made acutely aware of the role that human consciousness plays in observation. And so the winding trail of our reflections on how quantum physics works brings us back to the Bhagavatam verse quoted above. What is to be known (the "bit" from which the "it" comes) is actually nonmaterial, having the nature of pure consciousness. Materiality is an obstruction of our knowledge of that knowledge, just as clouds and dust are obstructions of our knowledge of the sky. We make a mistake when we say, "The air is dusty" or "The sky is cloudy." Similarly it is a mistake to say, "Existence is in the last analysis just atoms, electrons, etc." The sages of the new physics know this much. What they see of the microworld is just appearance; what is is something else entirely, beyond their powers of observation and inference, beyond the reach of mechanistic laws of causation.

Moment-to-moment manifestation

Srimad-Bhagavatam 11.7.49

kalena hy ogha-vegena
bhutanam prabhavapyayau
nityav api na drsyete
atmano 'gner yatharcisam

The flames of a fire appear and disappear at every moment, and yet this creation and destruction is not noticed by the ordinary observer. Similarly, the mighty waves of time flow constantly, like the powerful currents of a river, and imperceptibly cause the birth, growth and death of innumerable material bodies. And yet the soul, who is thus constantly forced to change his position, cannot perceive the actions of time.

Srila Prabhupada, 4 March 1975 in Dallas:

The body is destroyed. It is being destroyed every moment. From scientific point of view we are changing our blood corpuscle and another body like the, what is called, film. One after another picture, one after, one after, one after, and when they are displayed, it appears one. But it is not one. There are so many pictures. They put into the machine, and when they work together, it appears that the man within the picture is moving. Actually, that movement is combination of many pictures.

In the microworld, the "motion" of a unit of energy along the surface of space and time is not motion as we know it. To understand motion at the quantum level we have to translate it into probability: that there is a chance the unit of energy may "go" from here to there, or from here to different place. As John D. Barrow explains in Impossibility--The Limits of Science and the Science of Limits (1998, pg. 24), there is

an appreciable probability for it to be found in a state of motion that is impossible according to Newton's laws. Such states are frequently observed.

This impossible motion that physicists frequently observe speaks for the disappearance (destruction) of the energy unit at one point and its reappearance (reconstitution) at the next point. Now you, dear reader, may have heard about the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics. It was proposed by an American physicist, Hugh Everett, in 1957. In brief, his interpretation entails a bizarre scenario in which the entire universe divides instant by instant into two universes.

In quantum physics, what happens next in our world is a question of chance, like the flip of a coin. But rather than only one choice happening, both happen because the universe instantaneously divides, like a cosmic amoeba, into two. One universe is the head of the coin, the other is the tail. In each of these universes the question of "What happens next?" is answered in the same way: each universe splits off into two more; and each of those into two more, on and on without end. And so it follows that there are infinite universes parallel to ours, each in its own reality; and in each one, you and I are living out possibilities that could have happened but didn't happen in this universe. Parallel reality is the logical consequence of quantum "motion." In one way, the theory of parallel reality shows that quantum theory, even though it "works," extends into absurdity. But in another way it shows the sense of Srila Prabhupada's comparing the instant-by-instant state of our body to the successive frames of a motion picture film.

The many-worlds interpretation--which is still very much a part of today's physics--came about simply because scientists tend to be atheistic. They find it hard to accept that, just as in a film, there is a script and direction for what happens in the universe. The reason for scientists why something happens is chance: either/or.

As we have seen, events in the microworld are described in quantum physics as occurring along a wave of probability. Located at each point along the wave is a "bit"--the potential yes/no answer to the question, "Is the unit of energy here?" Quantum theory demands that the yes/no question be answered by an act of observation. Otherwise it cannot be answered. Though the theory has incredible predictive power, its logic runs into philosophical paradox. Even when we are not observing it, the world seems to run onward in time, things happening one after another. The many-worlds interpretation is an attempt to account for that. The decision whether "either" happens or "or" happens is thus not left suspended in some ghostly state until we arrive with our powers of observation. Both happen--automatically, mechanistically--because the universe is constantly dividing!

Time, space, energy, information

Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.11.4:

sa kalah paramanur vai
yo bhunkte paramanutam
sato 'visesa-bhug yas tu
sa kalah paramo mahan

Atomic time is measured according to its covering a particular atomic space. That time which covers the unmanifest aggregate of atoms is called the great time.

In physics we find a concept known as Sprenger's triangle, named after a Swiss physicist, Daniel Sprenger. At one corner of the triangle is time (t), at another is energy (E), and at the third is information (I). As explained by Barrow in Impossibility (pgs. 146-147),

Any two of the three attributes can be traded in for the other two. Any point in the triangle represents a particular mixture of the three ingredients needed to accomplish a given task.

In Srila Prabhupada's purport to the verse just cited, we find a connection drawn between time, space (energy being the force needed to move from one point in space to another over a specific time), and information (which reveals position, direction and speed, implicit in the manifestation of planets spoken of here).

Time and space are two correlative terms. Time is measured in terms of its covering a certain space of atoms. Standard time is calculated in terms of the movement of the sun. The time covered by the sun in passing over an atom is calculated as atomic time. The greatest time of all covers the entire existence of the nondual manifestation. All the planets rotate and cover space, and space is calculated in terms of atoms. Each planet has its particular orbit for rotating, in which it moves without deviation, and similarly the sun has its orbit. The complete calculation of the time of creation, maintenance and dissolution, measured in terms of the circulation of the total planetary systems until the end of creation, is known as the supreme kala.

Quantum physics employs a system of thought called simultaneous logic that correlates time, space, energy, and information. Because of that logic, one thing, such as a photon (a unit of light energy), can be polarized in two directions; one thing, an electron, can be understood to be in many places at once. Simultaneous logic is pictorially displayed by the famous two face/one vase diagram. In Bhagavata terms, simultaneous logic operates in acintya-bheda-abheda-tattva, the doctrine of simultaneous, inconceivable oneness and difference.

Dr. Subhash Kak of Louisiana State University writes in Vaisnava Metaphysics or a Science of Consciousness (1997-8, pg. 2):

It is important to realize that quantum or simultaneous logic did not first arise in the human imagination with the development of quantum physics. Much of the ancient mystical writings are informed by it. For example, the story of Krsna dancing simultaneously with the gopis is in accordance with such a logic.

Though Bhagavata logic and quantum logic have their points of similarity, the physical cosmology in which they are put to work are not the same. Thus they differ in their descriptions of specific "things" like, for example, an atom. What separates the two cosmologies is that the Bhagavatam reveals the form of the universe in terms of higher-than-human information that comes down from ancient times, and moreover from a much vaster scale of cosmic time relative to Earth's; whereas the model of the physical universe of quantum physics is assembled from the experimental knowledge of human beings who live in the present Earth-scaled time of this Kali Yuga. Put simply, if we triangulate the two systems according to Sprenger's model, we'll see that the time corner and the information corner are different. And in the energy corner, we have to factor into our comparison that Krsna has absolute mastery over the material and spiritual energies; scientists, on the other hand, do not. While the logic of the two systems is similar, the results are sure to be different because the values the logic works with are different.

Adam, where's my atom?

At the end of the day, however, one important aspect of the physical universe is common to both: the invisibility of the atom. Modern science says that single atoms are smaller than the wavelength of light; even with the most powerful optical microscope, it is impossible to see them. Objects as small as a molecule--a particle formed of chemically combined atoms--can be seen with the help of enhanced optical microscopy. According to Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.11.5, a trasarenu or hexatom (a molecule of six atoms) is observable in jala-arka, light shining through a screen. Before dismissing this as impossible, we should remember that the science of the Bhagavatam predates the Age of Kali, which began 5000 years ago. The physical abilities of people before this age is described as far surpassing those of people today. It follows that they may have been able, with the help of a screen, to see a molecular particle.

There may be no connection at all, but this is too interesting not to mention. The first electron microscope, built by Ernst Ruska in 1931, made objects too small for the eye to see visible on a phosphor screen. An electron microscope uses electron waves, which are much narrower in length than light. For that very reason the human eye is unable to see directly images carried by electron waves. A screen of electron-sensitive material must be used to display the image. Nowadays electron microscopes are connected to CRT monitors.

Ernst Ruska's invention met a lot of skepticism from scientists. To be sure, he did receive the Nobel Prize for the new microscope--but not until 1986. Another great step in image magnification was the development of the Scanning Probe Microscope in 1981, which utilizes the principle of quantum tunneling. The first SPM, like the first electron microscope, stirred up a great deal of resistance in the scientific community. Today there are microscopes so powerful that they image a single atom. At least that's the belief. In any case, the images produced by such instruments are indirect. It is a process of the intellect, not of direct sense perception, to identify an image on a CRT screen as an atom.

The point of this discussion on the atom's invisibility is that there's a great deal of uncertainty involved in coming to terms with what an atom really is. That's why this series of three articles is titled Worry About Adam, not the Atom. Because it's through Adam (the human scientist) that you and I, ordinary folks, receive our knowledge of atoms. Atomic knowledge means quantum physics. About quantum physics, Richard Feynman, Nobel prize winner and father of Quantum Electrodynamics, stated:

There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity. I do not believe there was ever such a time. There might have been a time when only one man did, but he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper. But after people read the paper, a lot of people understood the theory of relativity in some way or other, certainly more than twelve. On the other hand, I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.

Can we say that modern science has proved or disproved the physics and cosmology of the Srimad-Bhagavatam? Possibly the biggest name in astrophysics today is Stephen Hawking. As quoted by Kitty Ferguson in The Fire in the Equations, 1994, pg. 21, he says that quantum theory is about "what we do not know and cannot predict." Ferguson furthermore notes, "It is generally agreed that in science nothing can ever be 'proved.'" (pg. 26). About what he called "knowledge concerning the universe as a whole," the great mathematician-philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote, "the proposed proofs that, in virtue of the laws of logic such and such things must exist and such and such others cannot, are not capable of surviving a critical scrutiny." (Problems of Philosophy, 1912, pg. 82)

MacNewsletter physics

It is curious, then, to read the following in the newsletter printed by an ISKCON temple in Europe and sent out to its congregation:

Many of these descriptions (such as the atomic theory of the third canto) have been long disproved by science.

In fairness to the author of this gem of wisdom, but also to sharpen my own arguments regarding his claim to know what is proven by science, I'll quote the whole paragraph in which the sentence is found.

The trance of Vyasa has been painstakingly analyzed by Srila Jiva Gosvami in the first part of his magnum opus, Bhagavata-sadarbha (Tattva-sandarbha 39-48). He uses it as a hermeneutical tool: by understanding so to speak the heart of Vyasa, his motivation for writing the Bhagavatam, one can also understand obscure details of the text. When reading, I also try to follow the twists and turns of the narrative with this in mind. How does this particular detail reflect more light on the glory of the Lord, and how does it help the suffering entities? For example, the second and third cantos contain several descriptions of creation, some--at least to my limited understanding--contradictory. Many of these descriptions (such as the atomic theory of the third canto) are also long since disproved by science. However, the motive of Vyasa in including such material is not to give us a primer in physics, it is to help the suffering living entities. These paragraphs describe how matter appears and becomes variegated and thus--of one works backward from the end--how to end involvement in matter. Not only that, they also show how Krishna is involved in every step of the creation, maintenance and destruction of this world, while all the time remaining separate from it.

There is much in this passage that is excellent, but one can argue--as I believe Srila Prabhupada would if he read this--that it is rendered meaningless in its entirety by the sentence I quoted to start with, "Many of these descriptions..." etc.

So everything is there in Srimad-Bhagavatam. That is the topmost knowledge. That is transcendental knowledge. That is not material knowledge. Material knowledge, if you write some book, it has no meaning, because it is defective. But Srimad-Bhagavatam is not ordinary knowledge. It is transcendental knowledge. There is no defect. Our this mundane brain is defective. We can't... Just like our scientist, Svarupa Damodara. He was speaking that they make experiment in the laboratory according to formula, but still, there is some mistake. Still, there is some mistake. Practically, scientific advancement, scientific knowledge means to find out mistakes. What you were are speaking? What is the exact language you told?

Svarupa Damodara: I said there is always some statistical factor, which is called error. (laughter) Error is always slipping in.

Prabhupada: So nobody can be perfect. Therefore all these so-called perfect leaders, they should close their business. (laughter) It is already experimental, all nonsense. Come to Hare Krsna mantra and chant.

One could say the author of the newsletter article is simply not so convinced about everything that is in the Bhagavatam, that's all. He does write that he sees contradictions in the different accounts of creation "at least according to my limited understanding." All right; he's being honest there. Give him credit. But we have to stick to his words, and the problem is he doesn't stop with a confession of his own limited understanding. He calls upon the authority of science to argue that the atomic theory of the Bhagavatam is "long since disproved", as are "many" other descriptions.

After I read this article, I thought about it for a few days. During that time I happened to read a news report on Yahoo.com. Seems the MacDonald's hamburger chain is ticked off by a popular documentary film called Super Size Me. The film-maker recorded himself eating nothing but MacDonald's fast food (burgers and fries) for a month. As a result he became overweight and unhealthy. The report explained that in recent years MacDonald's has become sensitive to criticism about the unhealthiness of a burgers-and-fries diet, so it's added several healthy items to its menu. (I've seen myself in India that McDonald's promotes a vegetarian sandwich--alongside the MacBurgers, MacChicken, etc.) Therefore MacDonalds takes umbrage at Super Size Me. It's the film-maker's fault that he got fat and sick, the defense goes. Our menu is variegated. You have a choice of healthier items, if you want them.

Prominent among the mind's functions is the drawing of relations between various data. And so it happened that my mind placed the Yahoo new report about MacDonald's trouble with the Super Size Me film next to the newsletter paragraph. I began to see a similarity. The newsletter offers a menu for all tastes. Oh, you're a devotee? You have full faith in Krsna? Here, we at ISKCON MacNewsletter have something you'll enjoy! We call it: the MacShraddha All-Veg Delight!

The Bhagavatam shows how Krishna is involved in every step of the creation, maintenance and destruction of this world. Yummy!

And if your faith is still grounded in modern science, if you approach religious scriptures skeptically, well, we're not going to shove the MacShraddha All-Veg Delight down your throat. Take this: the MacScience Beef Bomb!

Many of these descriptions (such as the atomic theory of the third canto) have been long disproved by science. Mmmm-MMMMMHHH!

Ah-ah-ah, now: just lifting the old nasal orifice 45 degrees and sniffing, "That's NOT a serious response," won't do. My response is no doubt picturesque, but it's as serious as a heart attack. Neither the MacShraddha All-Veg Delight nor the MacScience Beef Bomb will be accepted by a serious devotee, because both are coming off the same griddle and are fried up by the same cook. In other words, the frame of reference out of which "both sides of the story" are coming is the mundane, relative frame. In this frame, all tastes, all points of view--theistic or atheistic--are placed on the same level. You can take your choice. That's called intellectual freedom in the material world.

The new upadhis: liberal and conservative

This relativistic frame of "free discourse" in which proponents of the "liberal and conservative viewpoints" are invited to exchange their ideas in an atmosphere of dry intellectualism has indeed entered ISKCON. It has been nicely analyzed at the ISKCON Culture Journal website (http://siddhanta.com/archives/culture/000042.html). I'll quote some highlights here.

It is a curiosity that those who have adopted new and apparently unauthorized views since Srila Prabhupada's departure, now label anyone who doesn't join their newfound faith (or embrace the practical deviations that must follow from it) as "old-fashioned," "conservative," "fundamentalist," etc.

...[G]iven the general tenor of the preponderance of evidence we've all heard from guru/sadhu/sastra/itihasa, we've hardly an explicit and logically consistent injunction for the liberal interpretation... Hence it cannot be objective either. Yet objective authority is precisely what is required to unify the radical diverse opinions typical of present day ISKCON. We need ground rules, and they are already plentifully available, should we decide to listen to them as much as Srila Prabhupada advised us to.

Therefore, it is essential and only natural to resort to what the Bhagavatam itself holds up as a fourth pramana--itihasa (i.e., tradition)--in order to resolve the conflicting and relative exchange of personal views that will otherwise go on endlessly. This is a no-brainer, I think. The main problem seems to be that those who feel their personal preferences threatened by this recourse will refuse to acknowledge its validity and worth.

...[F]or definite (if yet unknown) reasons, someone feels it necessary to relativize Srila Prabhupada's instructions as merely "the conversative view," as if anyone ever had--or could possibly sustain--such dubious propositions in Srila Prabhupada's presence. I think the guidance of those who received the most personal training by Srila Prabhupada is invaluable in regard to such practical disputes, because the instructions his Divine grace gave them was not only usually practical in nature, but also undeniably objective for anyone who accepts Srila Prabhupada's authority.

...[T]his appeal to newfangled upadhis. When did Srila Prabhupada ever teach anyone about the "conservative" or "liberal" approaches to his instructions on Krsna consciousness?

Tell us, please. The subtext above is that anyone is free to choose either one at whim, as if some sort of transcendentally accredited and recognized option was our established standard.

Frankly, that smells. It seems more like a pernicious social agenda aimed at undermining much of what Srila Prabhupada worked hard to establish, perpetrated by those whose stubborn material attachments have gradually corroded their faith, largely as the result of indiscriminate association. Those so involved can be encouraged to reconsider the precise nature of their adopted beliefs, along with the constitutional prejudices that nurtured them.

Throughout the entire Gita (even in his final conclusions) Krsna consistently reiterates that one must follow the objective and explicit injunctions defining and governing everyone's prescribed duties. These were never questioned by our previous acaryas, who except in rare cases of extremely exalted souls, followed Krsna's rules faithfully and in due humility. So there is a pre-existing consensus; I'm sorry to suggest that it simply isn't we who get to arbitrate such things as much as we might like--or feel qualified--to do.

One instruction Lord Krsna gives, which I think is very relevant to the topic, is that His devotees are to practice austerity of the mind (Bg. 17.16). "Satisfaction, simplicity, gravity, self-control, and purification of one's existence are the austerities of the mind." In the purport Srila Prabhupada writes that in essence, austerity of the mind is to detach it from sense gratification. Sense gratification means to enjoy different material tastes. When we embrace in our mind different focal points of the materialistic account of the world, we are not practicing austerity of the mind. This may not be deliberate. We may reach out to science because we are mentally unsettled and don't know where else to turn.

From the ISKCON Culture Journal again (http://siddhanta.com/archives/culture/000029.html):

Science is such an influential, integral part of mainstream Western culture that when all else fails, we fall back on the ways we are most familiar with--even if those ways are highly questionable.

Historically and culturally, we seek to understand our world through science. Very briefly, science fundamentally involves the study of a real-world process, a model of the real world process that professes to resemble in form the real-world process, some predictions derived from the model, and test data to validate the model. As a byproduct, the scientific method has produced the technological advancement which has more or less convinced the world that scientific reasoning and methodologies are a sound and sure way to understand our universe.

For circumstantial and cultural reasons, we have varying degrees of trust (mostly favorable) that science can discover things about our universe that, when known, will reveal the means to attain our desires. Coping with the complexities, ambiguities and pressures of today�s way of life is something many of us desire, so in good faith we turn to science to help us solve our personal and societal problems.

Hey buddy, can you paradigm? (reprise)

Getting back to the point of the MacNewsletter's claim that science has disproved many descriptions in the Srimad-Bhagavatam, I have a strong inkling that the author is himself pretty uninformed about the new physics. His idea of the atom, I'll bet, comes out of the 19th century, when physicists believed atoms to be solid little balls of matter situated objectively in the world external to us. How else could he be so sure of himself?

Dr. Subash Kak, writing in the same article I quote from above, observes on page 4,

Although the quantum revolution in science took place more than seventy years ago, its ideas, as mentioned before, are not well understood by psychologists or scholars of religion who continue to use classical logic almost exclusively.

Sometimes members of ISKCON trained in the way of religious studies cite a book by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura in which he seems to give credence to some Western accounts of the history of religion. The idea is that he was taking a preaching initiative by making the Bhagavata philosophy more accessible to those trained in the Western way. That may be, but that book was published decades before the new physics. As I explained in Part 1 of this essay, the new physics is a fundamental root to the shift in the paradigm that Western culture is now undergoing.

Now we have come full circle, back to the paradigm. This brings up yet one more curiosity of the MacNewsletter paragraph. The author writes, "by understanding so to speak the heart of Vyasa, his motivation for writing the Bhagavatam, one can also understand obscure details of the text. When reading, I also try to follow the twists and turns of the narrative with this in mind." What the author wants to explain here, it seems to me, is that he tries to enter Srila Vyasadeva's paradigm while reading the Srimad-Bhagavatam. Then why does he a few sentences later say that science has disproved much of what Srila Vyasadeva wrote in the Bhagavatam? When in 1947 Thomas Kuhn had his revelation of how the paradigm shifts, he understood that Aristotle's physics were not wrong, they were just different. Quantum physics seems to support much the same view in its uncertainty principle: that an experiment may prove a certain thing in one instance; yet in the next instance it may prove its opposite. We cannot make arguments of "rightness" nor "wrongness" from such experimental proofs.

I would suggest that the MacNewsletter author invest some time in familiarizing himself with the philosophical issues that have arisen out of new physics. He will learn that we cannot speak of the atoms of modern science apart from the Adams--the scientists--who freely admit that they are constructions of their minds; that the evidence for the existence of atoms is only appearance; and that there is a deeper level of knowledge to which at present scientists have no access.

Scientific theories are supposed to be descriptions of reality; they do not constitute that reality. ... The problem is, how do we know that today's description of the Solar System is right? However certain we are that the present picture describes how the universe actually is, we cannot rule out the possibility that some new and better way of looking at things, utterly unimaginable to us now, will be discovered in the future.

If history is anything to go by, nature has a nasty habit of deceiving us about what is real and what is invented by human beings. The apparent motion of the stars, reflecting the real motion of the earth, is only one of a long list of examples in which scientists have been led astray by taking nature too much at face value.

--Paul Davies and John Gribben, The Matter Myth, 1991, pgs. 33-34, 35

Prabhupada: So nobody can be perfect. Therefore all these so-called perfect leaders, they should close their business. (laughter) It is already experimental, all nonsense. Come to Hare Krsna mantra and chant.

Addendum from the Internet

Boisvert's Paradox of Life and Death

As far as we know, Wilfrid Boisvert is the originator of this paradox.

Problem:

When do we die? In the past, the present, or the future?

Not in the past, as we are still living in the present.

Not in the present, as we are still living in the present. No one can be both dead and living at the same time.

Not in the future, as the future has yet to come.

Solution:

The present has a 1/64,000 of a second duration. After each such period, we make an instantaneous leap into the next period. There can be no motion and therefore no change during any of these periods.

To die is to fail to make this instantaneous atomic leap into the next such period. We therefore die precisely between the present and the future.

If quantum mechanics had been understood in the past, no paradoxes of motion would ever have surfaced.

<< Back