True, lots of concepts are demonstrated to be incorrect. Gravitational field wasn’t the worst, because at least maths was correct. Force proportional to 1/square of distance is quite correct whenever you think it is field or invisible pixies. But principles of nature (if you mean by that laws of physics) are very precisely following mathematical description. I still remember calculations of the planetary orbits. If exponent (1/r^2) was something else than EXACTLY two, planetary orbits would be unstable - planets would either collapse or escape. It’s a bit freaky in fact…
The mathematical equations work because they are set to work. The equation Gmm/r^2 to calculate gravitational field strength works based on Newton equations of motion. Even the constant G being used here is a mathematical fabrication. So how mathematical formalism works is to explain the empirical world by using math, and deriving facts about the empirical world, by deriving new equations from old equations. Allow me to explain through illustration
O | W
The observer is looking at the world and he notes a phenomena say gravity. It is valid so far because the observer is only saying what they see. However, then the observer makes an illegal move he conceptualizes the phenomenon and comes up with a theory to explain the phenomenon. He then formalizes this theory and creates equations to make predictions about how the phenomenon will behave. To his delight, the equations are working and he can use this knowledge for useful applications like building bridges. He then discovers his equations can be used to explain and predict other phenomena like electricity, magnetism, by just tweaking the old equations, calculating new constants. From this the observer develops a working model of the world.
Then one day the observer makes a new observation that does not seem to fit well into their model. The observer convinced of the validity of their model ignores the observation as an anamolie. Later, he makes more observations that again do not fit the model, so he tweaks the old equations and adds more variables to normalize the new observations. Then there comes a point when the new observations are so fundamentally contradicting the model, that the observer has no choice but to accept their model is wrong and discard it.
This is very much what has happened in the history of physics. Newtonian mechanics failed to give accurate predictions on objects travelling very fast, on microscopic objects and on calculating orbits of bodies in space. Then Einstein came to the rescue completely redrafted Newtons equations, added new variables(space-time) and made it work. This paradigm came to be known as classical physics. Then there came a point where new observations were made that were radically different and could not be explained using classical physics, leading it to be discarded and a whole new model created called quantum mechanics. This lead to completely opposite conclusions about about what was really happening: causal determinism was contradicted by uncertainty; locality was contradicted by non-locality and objectivity was contradicted by weak objectivity(where the observer played a role)
We still use classical physics today but only because it is useful. As far as our current model of physics QM we know it is wrong.
What the above shows us is that mathematicalism formalism is an invalid epistemology. It does not give us anymore knowledge about the empirical world, but rather gives us derivations of our own concepts about the world. So it is not real science. On the other hand, the Hindu scientific methods stick to the empirical world and do not say anything or infer anything which cannot be empirically or rationally demonstrated. All hindu logic consists of valid statements.
I mean you cannot deny for example that you would have no perception of reality if you had no consciousness. You cannot deny for example that everything you know about the empirical world is based on 5 perceptual categories. You cannot deny that there is something called mind and it is not an empirical object. You cannot deny that prior to your perception of an object an interaction takes place between you the observer and the object where your mind receives the sensible data and represents it. You cannot deny the law of cause and effect. You cannot deny that the “you” is something distinct from both your body and mind, because you are the one that knows the body and mind.
So Hindu science is all based on valid statements and facts. There is no speculation, conceptualization, faith and mathematical formalism.
So, if something exists in this plane, does it mean that it is not present in 4D of space-time? Does it violate energy conservation if it appears in 4D? Also, is this prana plane also dimensional or without such characteristics? E.g. if you would want to describe it, would you use e.g. prana density function such as p(d1,d2,…) where d1, d2 would correspond with sort of coordinates in this plane?
The best way to explain how this plane scheme works is to imagine a russian doll which contains dolls inside dolls. The outer most part of the doll contains all of the dolls, but the inner most doll contains no more dolls. So the inner is in the outer but the outer is not in the inner. Just as the mirage is a reflection of the oasis but the oasis is not a reflection of the mirage.
So all objects we see will exist in all planes at once, but the preceding plane will not exist in the proceeding plane. For example the plane in which mind exists is clearly not in the physical plane, otherwise we would be able to measure mind, see each others thoughts and feelings. However, all physical objects will have a representation in the preceeding plane. This is why thoughts also have a physical state.
Prana and other entities beyond the physical cannot of course be described with any kind of formalism because prana does not work in isolation, but it a mutual set of relationships with everything else in the universe. It is infinitely complex to measure and represent. I am afraid beyond the physical plane mathematics and physics end. The rest of science is purely observational in that it is based on the mental lab of the observer.
Hm… Now I’m thinking whether it applies more to perception/interpretation of reality than reality itself. Because physical reality has nasty property to be bit consistent in time. If someone has financial problems they would not go away when he wakes up (in any sense). TV can be switched off and all contents will disappear. But taxes and electricity bills wont… Whatever language I will use – sooner or later I will be faced with exact numbers. Even in dreams if you want to read something again there is a different text. But bills show the same amount every time.
The only difference between dream and waking is that time behaves very differenty. In dream it is very fast and in waking it is slow, but change is common to both. It may not seem like the paper, ink and numbers on yours bills have changed, but in fact there is change. The molecules in the paper and ink are slowly but surely decompsing, the paper will have decomposed in 500 years. There could be a freak accident and a micro wormhole opens and the paper vanishes. The numbers on your bill could change too if suppose there is a computer error which changes the number, if the company becomes bankrupt, or if somebody working at the company loves(lessens your bill) or hates you(increases your bill)
I know extremely unlikey but not impossibe. It may seem impossible that you could walk through a wall, but there is a possibility in quantum physics that if the atoms in the wall became aligned in a certain way, you could pass right through. The truth is there nothing which is substantial in the world, the notion that it has substance is a perceptual error. It’s just as unreal as your dream is. However, as this perceptual error has relative stability we can expect some level of consistency such as the numbers on our bill remaining the same, but it is not certain it will remain consistent.
Rather than a neat progression, Kuhn shows there are entire shifts in perspectives which he calls a gestalt switch which happen all of a sudden and completely transform our understanding of the world.