മണികര്‍ണ്ണികയിലെ മണ്‍ചിരാതുകള്‍

The description, the described and the one who describes.

We all begin everything based on suppositions and assumptions.  We call everything in and around us as Nature or sometimes we call us a part of nature. What we observe is nature. Here lies an issue. If what we observe is nature are we something separate from nature? If we are separate do we have separate observations and we may end up in so many observed natures which is still another issue.

On the other hand   If not separate then our observation is from within the nature which makes our observation incomplete.   Then we go for assumptions and suppositions and make theories compatible with our incomplete perception of nature.  At present the scientific methods are not accepting existence of something other than what we call as nature.
 Science especially physics depends on the language of mathematics for understanding nature. At this point we have to be careful in analysis. Mathematics like any other language is a representation and not exactly what is that is represented. Mathematics is a tool, a model to describe nature. Its not nature itself. Description can never be the  described.  If there is a description of something which we call as the described, there should be someone to describe who is separate from the two.

You are asked to describe a mountain. You can draw a picture of mountain and describe. But the picture of mountain cannot be the real mountain. When you look at the picture you have a perception and based on that you will start making assumptions. The descriptions and assumptions are made by the one who described it. In that sense description is not independent of the intelligence of one who describes. The more intelligent you are the more close the description to reality but it can never be real. Same is the case with mathematics and scientific approach. We are struck with the beauty of our picture of mountain. The picture can be made more beautiful or even uglier. But the real mountain is hidden. Only way to know is direct experience. You need to go and see the mountain as it is. We are okay with gross things. What if we  deal with subtle things. Complications  are more there. We can't go and check. So we have to draw pictures. We are again struck with assumptions. And as we go subtler and subtler we are dealing with uncertainties. Things are much more complicated.

Our descriptions are being challenged by uncertainty. The mismatch between described and description increases. So how can the one who describes know what actually subtleties are? Models and tools are failures. We need to know the subtle for that make the gross. We need to change the conventional scientific approaches of direct experience. Isn't this the time to change our language to describe subtlety?