(From a discussion in Quora on science vs philosophy)
— Max Planck: “I had always looked upon the search for the absolute as the noblest and most worth while task of science.”
M – ‘There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy’… Objectivism in science was given up long ago (no doubt you know it, from what you are saying). I said previously that knowledge or truth is the relationship /’adequatio’ of ‘rei’ (subject matter) and/with the intellect. I still like that medieval definition of ‘truth’.
In advaita philosophy all truths, being merely conceptual, are relative (mithya) – all of them; they are not only falsifiable but sublatable or stultifiable. The only ‘thing’ that is unsublatable is experience of the transcendental ‘something’ (Consciousness, Atma… the name is not important – “sages call it by many names”), which is indescribable, the only reality there is, and which pervades everything (like the Tao in that other tradition). I happen to be interested in/attracted by this ‘thing’ and this way of thinking about it. The evidence? Purely subjective – in a metaphysical sense, different from the subjectivism of science referred to above). You can call it mysticism if you wish, but it is something more than that, and not just mental speculation… and I cannot provide any evidence for you.’
Y – “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
Yep, and what is the best way to find out what those things are? Rational inquiry, or just making stuff up? Personally I’ll stick with rational inquiry.
M – – ‘It cannot be found by searching, but only those who search may find it’ (Nicolas of Cusa). I am not particularly fond of entering into a (forced) marriage between science and philosophy or “spirituality”, so I don’t particularly recommend dipping into a site called ‘Non-duality North America’, or something like that – where a bunch of physicists and cosmologists have their say. Rationality? Why not say ‘(searching), unbiased Intelligence’? That includes the former.
P.S. I said that the evidence is ‘purely subjective’, and that is because there is only one ‘Subject’ – with no object/s. Consciousness reflects on itself, ‘knows’ itself. It cannot be said that Consciousness is aware of ‘anything’, or knows ‘anything’, but everything is known, etc. in its presence, as it were. There are no things; there is only Consciousness (I am no-thing).