The story of the universe has been central to human curiosity, but the way it’s been understood differs significantly between the West and the East. For much of history, the development of modern science was deeply intertwined with religious beliefs, particularly the Judeo-Christian worldview. Early scientists, such as Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, and Maxwell, often saw their work as a way to understand God's creation. The six-day creation account from Genesis was widely accepted, either literally or metaphorically, emphasizing a universe created by God before humanity's arrival. Early scientists like Galileo and Newton embraced this perspective, seeking to uncover the natural laws that reflected God’s objective reality—a world created independently of humanity, reflecting a metaphysical realism rooted in the Genesis account.
Notably, even in the 20th century, this influence persisted. Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Roman Catholic priest and astronomer, proposed the Big Bang theory, which describes the universe’s origin as a singular event—a concept reminiscent of the Genesis creation narrative. Lemaître's theological background profoundly shaped his approach, demonstrating the interplay between scientific inquiry and Judeo-Christian metaphysics.
This view suggests that humanity, created "in the image of God," holds a unique but secondary place in the cosmos. The universe, according to this perspective, existed before human beings and remains fundamentally independent of our existence or understanding. This approach inspired centuries of scientific exploration, emphasizing the search for universal truths accessible through reason and observation, akin to viewing the cosmos through the "perspective of God."
Physicist Stephen Hawking proposed a materialist view of the universe's origins: from the Big Bang arose a mindless universe, followed by the emergence of organic compounds. Through increasing complexity, life and eventually consciousness appeared, culminating in human observers. This "standard view" posits that matter and information existed first, and observers came later to recognize pre-existing realities.
However, theoretical physicist John Archibald Wheeler challenged this model with a radical inversion: starting with observers. Wheeler argued that observation itself is foundational, as information—central to how we understand matter and energy—only arises through interaction with observers. Semantic information, unlike objective physical measurements, carries meaning and informs our conceptual frameworks.
Wheeler emphasized that concepts like matter, energy, and space-time are human constructs derived from observed information. These constructs evolve with our understanding, demonstrating their dependence on the cognitive capacities of observers rather than any inherent, independent reality. This perspective highlights the fluid and relational nature of knowledge, reshaping how we interpret the physical universe.
Image Credit: the-goodcoach
Everything we know about the past—whether the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago or what happened yesterday—is based on observations made in the present. No one travels back in time to verify events; our understanding of the past, is conceived from present-day experiments and observations. Consequently, the past exists only as interpreted by observers in the present.
This forms a "strange loop": the past gives rise to observers, but the past itself depends on these observers to reconstruct it. This aligns with the philosophical view that time and events are not inherently real but relative to measurement and conceptual designation.
Contrasting Views of the Universe: One materialist view describes the universe as a mindless mechanism originating from the Big Bang, with life emerging accidentally through random processes like genetic mutation and natural selection. This reductionist perspective portrays human existence as insignificant.
An alternative view sees the universe as fundamentally an information-processing system, where information is primary, and matter, energy, space, and time are derivative. According to this view, consciousness is as fundamental as information because semantic information requires a conscious observer to assign meaning. This perspective redefines reality as a triad:
The conscious being informed,
The flow of information,
The object of information.
These three are mutually interdependent—remove one, and the others vanish, revealing their interconnected and relational existence. This approach suggests a universe rooted in meaningful interaction rather than randomness, emphasizing the centrality of consciousness in interpreting reality.
In stark contrast, Eastern philosophies, particularly Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism, focus on introspection and direct experience. Here, the universe is not seen as an external, independently created entity but as interconnected with consciousness. Unlike the Western preoccupation with an external creator, these philosophies refrains from positing such a being, prioritizing experiential-based inquiry. Questions about happiness, suffering, and existence are grounded in immediate experience rather than attributed to divine intervention.
This aligns with modern neuroscience, which shows that perceptions like color, sound, and smell arise not from inherent qualities of objects but from interactions with sensory faculties. The perception of a red rose’s color and its scent illustrates how experiences are shaped by interactions between the environment and our sensory systems.
The rose appears red because it reflects light in the red wavelength, which our eyes detect. Photoreceptor cells (cones) in the retina convert this light into neural signals, and our brain interprets them as "red."
Similarly, the rose's smell arises from volatile molecules released into the air. These molecules bind to receptors in our nose, triggering signals that the brain processes as the familiar fragrance of a rose.
In both cases, the "redness" and "fragrance" are not inherent properties of the rose but results of sensory interpretation, dependent on the presence of an observer. Without light or a perceiver, there would be no color, and without olfactory receptors, there would be no scent.
Similarly, conceptual designations—such as atoms, particles, or galaxies—do not exist independently of the minds that define them. This view challenges naive realism and emphasizes the relational nature of all phenomena, suggesting that the universe lacks inherent, independent existence outside perception.
This divergence shapes the foundations of thought: Western science pursued an absolute, God’s-eye view of reality, while Eastern traditions explore the nature of experience and the interdependence of observer and observed. Both paths, though distinct, offer profound insights into the nature of existence.
Here’s a deeper exploration of how Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism diverge from Western thought regarding the universe:
Advaita Vedanta: The Non-Dual Perspective
Advaita Vedanta emphasizes non-duality, positing that the universe is not separate from ultimate reality (Brahman). From this perspective, the universe, as perceived, is a manifestation of Maya—an illusion masking the indivisible truth of Brahman. There is no creator distinct from the creation; rather, all distinctions dissolve upon realizing that the apparent world and the self (Atman) are one with Brahman. Time, space, and causation are seen as constructs within Maya, not absolute realities.
This view contrasts sharply with the Judeo-Christian notion of a universe created by a transcendent deity. In Advaita, the search for truth is not outward but inward, seeking self-realization as the key to understanding the cosmos.
Buddhism: Interdependent Origination
Buddhism, particularly through the lens of doctrines like dependent origination (Pratītyasamutpāda), asserts that the universe arises from a web of interdependent causes and conditions. It rejects the notion of an eternal creator or an independently existing universe. Instead, reality is seen as a flux of phenomena, lacking inherent existence (Śūnyatā).
For example, rather than positing a beginning or end to the universe, Buddhism focuses on understanding the cyclical nature of existence and the causes of suffering within it. Liberation arises from realizing the impermanent and interdependent nature of all things, not from comprehending a divine order.
Key Differences from Western Thought
Ontology: Western thought often assumes the universe is a distinct, objective reality created by God, while Eastern philosophies see it as either illusory (Advaita) or contingent and impermanent (Buddhism).
Epistemology: The Western approach emphasizes discovering universal truths through external observation, while Eastern systems prioritize inner realization and direct experience.
Cosmology: Western traditions frequently reference a linear cosmology (creation and eventual end), whereas Advaita and Buddhism present cyclical or timeless conceptions of reality.
Both Advaita and Buddhism invite a profound shift in perspective, prioritizing consciousness and interconnection over external causality, offering a stark contrast to the God-centered, objective realism that dominated early Western science.
The blog highlights the contrasting worldviews underpinning Western and Eastern philosophies. Rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition, Western science historically pursued understanding the universe as God's creation—objective, external, and real. Eastern traditions like Advaita Vedanta and Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka challenge this, focusing on perception and interdependence.
Future discussions will delve deeper into these differences, exploring scientific realism, the Advaitic concept of Brahman, and Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka view of dependent origination.
Comments