Why Black and White? Why not brilliant spectrum of Grey ?
What the phrase, black and white conjures apart from the colour contrast is a sharp defining line of ‘what it is’ and ‘what it is not’. In the current lexicon, we would term it as digital sharpness of 0 and 1, yes or no. There is no space for any hesitation, in definitiveness, ambiguity, uncertainty – a brazen and stark projection of absolute certainty. The moot question that arises then is, is it always possible to decide on anything with absolute certainty? How does one measure this absoluteness?
Of course, when comes to measurement, one resorts to modern science and its most reliable and powerful method. Let’s ask the basic question. Does science make absolute statements? The answer to that is a bold and resounding NO. Science makes statements within a given premise – framework, and their validity is guaranteed only in that framework. In science frameworks change or are enlarged as and when something profound is not admitted in the existing framework. For example, Newtonian mechanics described motion of all bodies, but not of light. Light exists and it moves, and hence its motion should be incorporated in the mechanics which supposedly describes motions of all kinds. We then arrive at one of the most remarkable enlargements of a framework, from Newton’s absolute space and time to Einstein’s fantastic synthesis of marrying space and time into one whole – space-time. It is light that binds or marries space and time together into space-time. What it simply means is that space and time are not two independent entities, but they are related by the velocity of light which is the same for all. The critical realization here, is existence of a universal velocity which obviously cannot be accommodated in the Newtonian framework, where velocity is observer dependent. For instance, the train has certain velocity relative to a person on the platform at rest, and it has zero velocity relative to the passenger riding in it.
Note that enlargement of the framework here – the realization that space and time are related by a universal velocity, was dictated by light having the same velocity relative to all observers. The enlargement automatically incorporated motion of light in the new Einsteinian relativistic mechanics. This led to great enlightening revolution, a new paradigm of relativistic view of the Universe and Nature. This was a renaissance in concept and understanding.
This however does not happen often. Simply because profound questions, I mean phenomena are not easy to identify. Then addressing them squarely and comprehensively takes a lot of time, and thought of best of the minds before some inkling of new direction emerges. Of course, there are always things we don’t know or understand. The first and foremost task is to formulate a meaningful question that could be tackled by the existing tools of analysis and experiment. Often one has also to invent and devise new tools. Since over half a century, the search is on for the enlargement of Einstein’s framework, to marry theories of quantum and gravity together but of no avail so far.
Well, you need an Einstein to show the way beyond, and Einsteins don’t come easily and so very often. In the meantime, it is the task for others to create an environment, a charged atmosphere so that someone someday sees the light leading to new synthesis of quantum and gravity.
More importantly, there are strong and unavoidable limitations on measuring things with absolute precision required for making absolute statement. It is in the nature of things, that when one is pushing for greater and greater precision, there comes a stage where your instrument of measurement begins affecting what is being measured. Thus there would always remain a degree of uncertainty inherent in all measurements. There is thus an inescapable limit on accuracy that could in principle be attained. The answer then cannot be digitally sharp 0 or 1 but could be given in probability of something lying between 0 and 1. This is in essence the Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty of quantum theory, that defines the ultimate limit on precision of measurement – certain degree of indefinitiveness or indeterminacy is thus inevitable. All measurements have to comply with this absolute limitation, in principle and essence.
Absolute statement is therefore completely unsustainable on two elemental counts: one, of framework dependence that means its validity within a given premise or framework, and the other of the impossibility of measuring things with absolute precision and accuracy. With this being the case, it is up to one’s own sense of truth seeking with adherence to reason and objectivity to make an absolute statement in black and white, 0 or 1. In broader context it is one’s own commitment to honest and truthful living.
We all seem to have a psychological urge for true and pure in the sharpest digital state. This is however impossible to achieve. We therefore have to accept that purity and truth could only be realized in probabilistic and not in absolute terms, and hence they cannot be unique and absolute. This is a projection on the social plane of the scientific fact; that there is inescapable limitation on knowing and measuring things with absolute certainty and infinite accuracy. We should therefore, always keep some space open for alternative realizations which are or could be equally valid. This is the demand of being true and objective. The real question then is to adapt this rational and scientific viewpoint – worldview on the socio-cultural-political plane. The call of the times is to take this viewpoint as a social abiding value. That is the real challenge.
Then there is a question of faith and belief on things that could not even be subjected to any test of validity. The things that could be tested and measured cannot be done absolutely. What of things that are not supposed to be measured or tested or even understood? Faith and belief need no proof of truth and validity. For instance, it is claimed that it is immaterial whether Ram was actually born in Ayodhya or not, it is true because people believe so – a glaring example of post-truth. This is in stark opposition to what scientific method and to the enthralling endeavour of creating a society with scientific temper. Once you take a thing out of sphere of enquiry, you are defying not only reason and science but more importantly rational basis of living and functioning. Isn’t it ironical and paradoxical that at one end we would like to live truthfully and honestly while on the other end we accept and believe in things in absolute terms without even questioning?
This is the biggest bigotry and falsehood of modern times. It is modernity that has given us paradigm of reason and everything has to be tested on its anvil with utmost objectivity? There could be nothing more affront to this paradigm than believing in anything without questioning. This raises a few questions, how do we accommodate post-truth in the overall perspective and more specifically: are we really modern or not? What is at stake is not only our modern worldview but more critically our honesty and commitment to ourselves and to society at large.
It is modern science that shaped the governing paradigm of modernity – adherence to reason and asking questions to understand the Nature and Universe we live in. The scientific laws are universal in the sense that they apply to all bodies of a category without caring about other specific properties. The most universal force is gravity, which acts on all bodies irrespective of their shape, mass, colour and any other attributes. It is a democratic force that treats everyone equally. Its projection on social plane is in equality, democracy and secularism. Modernity is reason based rational paradigm. That is why it is intellectually so attractive and it provides a rational framework for social interactions.
On the other hand, science empowered technology has radically changed the shape of the world and gave rise to new world order – developed and developing. It was clear that salvation and progress for under developed societies lies in adaption of scientific method or scientific temper in Nehru’s words. The question is, are we turning wheel of progress and enlightenment back, by anchoring on faith and belief and post-truths – totally unfounded imagined view?
It may be noted that the modern values of equality, freedom, democracy and secularism are firmly rooted in modern science paradigm. On the other hand one has to admit that it is the modernity that has reinforced urge for absolute and unique. The irony is that modernity falls flat within its own framework. It has to enlarge its paradigm to include inherent limitation and constraint on determinacy and certainty of measurement. The urge for absolute and unique has to be given up to be true and honest to the modern paradigm of reason and verification by experimentation and observation.
Once we enlarge the paradigm, then it is natural to entertain and accept the possibility of alternative viewpoints and truths existing simultaneously and being valid equally. They need not have necessarily to be in conflict – one doesn’t have to be wrong for the other to be right. The crux of the matter is in entertaining a certain degree of uncertainty and healthy suspicion in one’s beliefs and hunches. Faith and belief stem from our psychological need for completeness of the picture which in principle, can never be complete because we would never know everything. So there would always remain unknowns. Faith or belief is about the projection that you put on that unknown. How tenable is one’s belief within the existing canvas of what we know, and what has been established? For instance, does it stand to reason the belief, that ancient Indians had rocket science which had left no trace behind? Intellectually such claims could only be made by those who are outrageously courageous and outlandishly pompous and jingoistic.
What if further projects on the social plane is that plural or inhomogeneous systems (human or otherwise) are not only most natural but rationally imperative. It is an absolute and unique conceptualization which may not be attainable in practice, that breeds fundamentalism (obsessive urge for a pure state of purity or goodness or anything). This is nothing but extremism in conceptualization of driving force of organization and life and society. It is here we need to be open to new and plural conceptualization and perception of truths and beliefs. None need to be superior to the other. They can all live happily sharing the same space on equal footing.
Things do not occur in pure states in nature rather they always occur in dual – as compliment to each other like black and white, good and evil, fair and unfair, and so on. There is nothing that could be a singleton without its dual. If there is one, that has to be self dual in the sense that it also contains its own dual. One well known example of self duality is light, which could be both particle like and wave like. That is, in some experiments it behaves like a particle while in others like a wave. There is nothing wrong in it, except demonstrating the validity of principle of duality — things always occur in dual, even in the extreme situation.
Since nothing could occur without having its dual, so should be the case of profound truth. By profound truth, we would mean a truth which is self dual. It contains its own dual that is its opposite is also truth. In other words, a plural realization of truth is what characterizes profoundness.
Though digital sharpness was one of the greatest feats of modern scientific method, it is time to realise limitation of this method. It has served the human society in understanding Nature and Universe around us more comprehensively and truthfully. Further it gave rise to technology that has revolutionized our life and its organization – change the shape of things all around. All this is most benign and welcome. At the same time as we have discoursed that it has also strengthened or reinforced urge for absolute and unique. More importantly it has provided scientific and rational basis for this urge. We have thus to worry about wider social projection of this paradigm.
Let me make my stance clear. I am not arguing against acceptance and adaptation of scientific method, which is the primary requirement of an enlightened society.
What I am arguing for is enlargement of the method to accommodate deep down, a degree of ambiguity and uncertainty for possible alternative realizations; within the confines of the probing method and experiment. The social projection of this enlarged paradigm would then provide scientific validity for continuum in truth plane rather than digital discontinuity. That would have profound impact on the way we think and imagine about things which are not accessible in concrete practical sense.
It is ironically interesting that continuum is made of digits – nothing could exist as perfect continuum. They are dual to each other; one can’t exist without the other. In science, the most profound question is how to understand space-time both as continuum as well as discrete digital at micro structure level. This is the profound question that is asking for enlargement of the framework to take us see beyond Einstein. We do however, have no clue of this enlargement yet!
Let me raise another question about absoluteness and purity. Such a state would be inert because there is nothing you could do it – there is no scope for any creative manipulation and invention. It is like pure gold, you can’t do anything to it, it opens up for creative manipulation of goldsmith only when it has a little bit impurity of copper. For instance, heaven is imagined as a configuration which is perfect and true in all respects. This is all fine and beautiful but it cannot be a living creative place. Creativity requires things or ideas of different kinds to play with, to create new, novel and sublime. If it is all true and beautiful, there is no room for one to give vent to one’s imagination to create something. Perfect and pure conceptualizations are good as markers but are neither attainable nor desirable for a society. Society and people, and in the broader sense Nature and the Universe we live in is a creative arena. This is what makes it interesting and worth living.
It is not black and white but rather a wide rainbow spectrum of grey that we require to live truthfully and creatively. It all exists only in plural and dual. It is time that we give up the overriding obsession of pure and unique. Pure and unique mean supremacy – there is one and only one that is supreme. As if this is a law of nature that there is place for only one at the top. The top doesn’t have to be razor sharp, it could very well be a plateau that could accommodate all those who are equally good and talented. Look, in the quiz game, when the two teams are tied, you go on asking meaningless question till the tie is broken. That in no way establish one is better than the other – it is rather a matter of chance. Would heavens fall if both the players or teams adjudged as winners?
We have to learn to accept plural manifestations in all human endeavours. That would mark the dawn of enlightened modernity which would promote peace and inclusion. Plurality and duality are the new mantra of enlightened modernity.
