I thought let me revise my Economics and so asked my colleague Prof Amit Kapoor to suggest a suitable textbook. He gave me a copy of James D Gwartney & others Economics, private & public choice. Right at the beginning, the authors claimed economics was a study of trade-offs, for scare resources have numerous uses.
A thought crossed my head, why trade-off. Is it because these possible uses are mutually exclusive, that all potential N uses of a resource cannot simultaneously co-exist. Now one route is through human ingenuity and innovation, i.e. if we can have ways and paths for extracting several uses together from the same resource.
Happened to see a Television set and a microwave, placed adjacently on a table in the room. Obviously these two occupied different spaces, and space is a resource. Could these two occupy same space? Wow, that would be great, the Japanese would love this. And then we can possibly, by extension, pack the entire universe in the same space, a point.
Liquids are placed in same space, when they are miscible, because they occupy each other’s interstitial spaces. Solids have problems when we wish to merely push the microwave into the space of the TV set. But how do I know the solids do not occupy the same space already? More correctly, the problem is can two or more solids/objects occupy same space at the same time. When I look at object A and quickly shift my look to object B, I perceive these two occupying different spaces at the same time, assuming my shifting of look took zero time. If it didn’t take zero time and something happened in this while, then?
However, when light rays seem to travel parallel from object A and nearby placed object B to my eyes in the same look span, I would say I am looking at them at the same time occupying different spaces. And many observers in the room would have an agreement to the effect that the TV set and the microwave are occupying different spaces at the same time.
So I visualize an experiment in which Stage I has the two objects as described earlier and Stage II has the two occupying same space. Now this could traditionally happen three-ways:
a) in my imagination, which I feel is somewhat akin to faith/ Bhakti yoga;
b) through my action, where I do some maneuver; and
c) through my understanding of science or something where knowledge is used to effect the transition from Stage I to Stage II.
I begin thinking that the rigid relationships between molecules of an object are not permitting its fusion with another object. However as the object moves through space, is it not leaving a few of its molecules in the space it went through. Is not motion acquiring new space to occupy and surrender space already occupied? And can I think that similarly a few molecules of the object would already be present in the space it is yet to acquire? But then if so, what analysis would apply to, let us say, a few molecules object or a one molecule object. Is it that this one molecule object has occupied all space of the universe, cumulatively?
My textbook meanwhile stated “The Test of a Theory is its ability to predict”. Pray why? Inspite of best understanding of day to day things, haven’t I seen future turning out different than what I foretold. Is it not safer to assume that a theory is at best an analysis of past observations and just cannot predict events; unless ceteris paribus applies, which we all know never is valid. The chaos proponents would be happy with my assertion.
Coming back to our three-ways, a), b) and c), scriptures value a) the most while Western philosophies shun it. b) is adopted most by majority of humans. The advancement of Western economies is based on commitment to c). Can we hypothesize that an analog of three entwined tubules connect Stage I to Stage II, tubules dedicated to either of a), b) or c). To define another experiment B in which Stage I is a couple planning to engage in lovemaking and Stage II is experiencing orgasmic bliss by the couple, a play of all three tubules fetches maximal attainment of Stage II. The imagination/ feeling/ emotional component adds its own; the physical humping and caressing etc is obviously a vital part; but an enabling of all this through knowledge of the process and its technicalities enriches immensely. If it all is so, in our earlier experiment, now called A, the co-existing in same space at different times is readily seen. Sameways, co-existing of different spaces at same time is acknowledged. Issue is co-existing of same space at same time! To complete the 2 x 2 matrix, what about co-existing of objects in different spaces at different times, ummm…, again we all agree it is possible and happens all the time.
What about objects experiencing a D(x,y,z)/Dt, i.e. a size variation with time? And how do I know two unoccupied spaces at different times have no relationship, the static universe-view I carry tells me they are unrelated, but are they?
To reiterate, same space same time is the problem. Formalization done, now more thought needed, or rather more of a), b) needed alongwith c).
written 5th March, 2006.
