Science has undeniably transformed our understanding of the physical world, providing extraordinary technological advancements and deep insights into the universe. However, when it comes to fundamental questions about consciousness, existence, and meaning, scientific explanations often fall short.
Philosophical traditions like Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism, on the other hand, take an inward approach—examining the nature of the self, perception, and reality itself. Rather than conflicting with science, these traditions offer an alternative perspective, addressing aspects of experience that empirical methods struggle to quantify.
Recently, a good friend of mine, a strong advocate for science, asked me what "mind-blowing" insights I found in these esoteric philosophies that modern scientific discoveries cannot match.
But what does "mind-blowing" even mean? Must something be outrageous to be valid? Isn’t the perception of what is profound entirely subjective? What truly matters—complicated theories about the material world, however sophisticated they may sound, that fail to bring us closer to understanding our lived experience? Or philosophical inquiry that takes us on an inward journey, ultimately answering deeper questions about reality itself?
This blog explores the interplay between scientific discoveries and non-theistic philosophies, questioning whether modern physics and ancient wisdom are converging in their search for truth—or if they are simply two distinct yet complementary ways of understanding reality.
The Divergent Nature of Modern Science
One of the fundamental challenges with the scientific approach today is its increasing divergence. In earlier decades, science seemed to be moving toward a unified, convergent understanding of reality. For instance, fields like particle physics aimed to uncover the fundamental building blocks of the universe, giving rise to models like the Standard Model. However, modern theoretical science, particularly in areas like string theory and quantum gravity, has taken a different turn.
Consider the exploration of 11-dimensional space-time, where the goal was to reconcile gravitation and quantum mechanics. Instead of producing a single elegant solution, this has opened the floodgates to infinite possibilities, leading to countless theories. Each variation can explain reality in its own way, but the sheer number of possibilities makes it increasingly difficult to identify one definitive model. This divergence raises questions about whether we are approaching the limits of scientific explanation in certain domains.
Moreover, the effort to expand our understanding into higher dimensions seems to create more complexity rather than clarity. While this pursuit has advanced our knowledge in some respects, it has also introduced an overwhelming array of theoretical constructs, such as gluons, strings, and branes. These ideas, while mathematically robust and sound incredibly clever, often lack empirical evidence, leaving many scientists grappling with abstract concepts that seem to drift further from physical reality.
This situation highlights the limitations of pure theoretical science in its current form. It suggests that while science remains an invaluable tool, it may not always converge toward a singular "truth." This is where philosophical and introspective approaches, such as those found in non-theistic philosophical traditions, can complement science by offering frameworks to explore questions that resist empirical reductionism.
The Limitations of the Scientific Reductionist Model
Another issue with the scientific approach lies in its reductionist tendencies. Science often tries to explain the vast complexity of the universe by breaking it down into its smallest components. For decades, this approach worked remarkably well. The belief was that the physical world could be explained in terms of infinitesimal building blocks, such as quarks and particles, each with specific attributes like mass, charge, and spin. By assigning these attributes, science developed models that seemed to describe the world with great precision.
However, this reductionist approach faced a major shift in the 1920s with the advent of quantum mechanics. The discovery of quantum phenomena revealed that the universe operates in fundamentally strange ways at the smallest scales. Unlike the predictable attributes of classical particles, quantum particles defy clear explanation. They exhibit behaviours like wave-particle duality, uncertainty, and non-locality, challenging our intuitive understanding of reality.
This quantum revolution has left many physicists grappling with the implications of their discoveries. Concepts like wave functions, entanglement, and probabilities resist being reduced to simple, tangible components. This has led to the realization that our reductionist framework, while useful, cannot fully capture the nature of reality.
This again highlights the need for a broader perspective—one that transcends purely physical explanations and acknowledges the possibility of alternative frameworks, like those found in certain philosophical traditions, to address the deeper questions about existence.

Image Credit: Midjourney
Is Science the New Religion?
Science, at its core, is meant to simplify our understanding of reality by providing clear, testable explanations based on empirical evidence. However, as we progress, it seems to be doing the exact opposite—becoming more convoluted and abstract.
Rather than arriving at a fundamental understanding of reality, science keeps introducing an ever-growing list of concepts: subatomic particles, quantum fields, multiple dimensions, parallel universes, and now even infinite variations of reality. Instead of offering a unifying explanation, it keeps fragmenting into increasingly complex and competing theories. At this rate, the idea of a single God in heaven seems far simpler and more comprehensible than the endless maze of scientific models attempting to explain existence.
What’s even more telling is that, despite claiming to be based on objective facts, science is riddled with divisions. Whether it's interpretations of quantum mechanics, the nature of time, or the origins of the universe, there is no clear consensus among scientists. If science were purely empirical, shouldn't there be one undeniable truth? Instead, it increasingly resembles a belief system, with different “sects” advocating for different models—be it string theory, loop quantum gravity, or many-worlds interpretation—none of which have been definitively proven.
At some point, one must ask: is science truly leading us toward truth, or has it become just another form of dogma, endlessly searching for answers in a way that makes reality more elusive rather than more accessible?
The Pitfalls of Blind Adherence to Scriptures
Not everything mentioned in ancient scriptures or philosophical texts should be taken as the ultimate truth either. These texts were written in specific historical and cultural contexts, often using metaphorical language to convey deeper insights. Misinterpreting them or forcefully aligning them with modern science can be misleading and unproductive.
The true value of these philosophies does not lie in validating scientific discoveries but in addressing fundamental questions that science often overlooks—such as consciousness, ethics, and the nature of existence. By engaging with them critically, rather than dogmatically, we can extract timeless wisdom while remaining open to new discoveries.
Going Back to What I Found "Mind-Blowing"
After investing hundreds of hours into these explorations, the most profound realization I’ve had is that everything we experience is, in a sense, an illusion—constructed by our own subjective awareness.
String theory, M-theory, quantum phenomena—our entire understanding of these concepts, including this very blog you are reading, exists within our consciousness. Can you name a single experience that occurs outside of your awareness? There isn’t one. The very nature of experience is that it must be perceived.
Parallel universes, probabilities, multiverses—these can easily be seen as constructs of our minds, much like the worlds we create in our dreams, certain personality disorders or even under the influence of hallucinogenics. Dreams conjure worlds that are not “created” or “destroyed” but simply arise and dissipate in our sleeping state. The same goes for our waking experience. So, the question arises: who is dreaming up these so-called “real life” experiences?
All of you exist in my reality, just as I exist in yours. But for me to comprehend whether something exists outside of me, I must first exist. In that sense, without me, none of this exists.
The continuity of existence, as I perceive it, hinges on my very own existence.
Reconciling Science and Philosophy
In conclusion, science and philosophical traditions don’t have to exist in opposition. Instead, they can work in unison, complementing each other to deepen our understanding of reality.
Science excels in explaining the external, observable world through empirical methods, while philosophy addresses the inner dimensions of consciousness, ethics, and meaning. When these two approaches intersect, they enrich our knowledge and experience, helping us see the world in a more holistic way. Together, they bring us closer to comprehending the reality we live and experience.
Instead of pitting science and philosophy against each other, perhaps the best way forward is to view them as complementary: science for understanding the external and scriptures or philosophy for diving into the internal. When you approach either with genuine curiosity, you start seeing the truth in ways that transcend domains and help make sense of it all.
Commenti