The very first chapter in our Cambridge Ordinary Level syllabus for Physics is Physical Quantities, Units and Measurement, where students are required to show understanding that physical quantities consists of a numerical magnitude and unit, that different quantities have different units of measurement, that even when measuring the same quantity, different units of measurements and instruments are used, and lastly, to recall the SI units of different quantities; a unified system of measures established by consensus of the scientific community.
From these learning objectives, we can derive several major themes that we can discuss further in a spiritual context, and they are:
1) The wisdom behind measurements
2) The wisdom behind different units of measurements for the same and for different quantities, and the different instruments used to measure them.
3) The allegory of the SI unit
4) Between physical quantities and spiritual qualities
The wisdom behind measurements
If we look deeper into what 'measure' actually mean, do we notice that when we say that something it measurable, we also mean that the object of our analysis and contemplation is something that has a numerical limit? This is because measuring an infinite object is an absurd thing to do. Suppose we want to measure the length of an infinite line. Whether we add 10 cm to it, or subtract 100 km from it, it is still an infinite line; it does not make any difference whether we add or subtract numerical values to this limitless line. Therefore it follows that when something is measurable, we mean that it is something that is limited in some ways.
We impose limits on our own inventions and gadgets, so that they become beneficial to us. When we design a pen, we impose some limits to the physical dimension of the pen so that it can fit in between our fingers. Suppose we do not set a limit in our design; we transgress the limits that the pen should fall within such that the pen's dimensions are now in km instead of cm, we would have an absurd pen that is no longer useful and beneficial to us. In fact, we do not call this thing a pen anymore, although it may look like one.
When we observe some physical phenomena around us, do we notice that everything is bound by a certain limit? This demonstrates two things; that the things around us have a certain Designer, and that any object in nature is bound by a certain proper limit such that if these limits are transgressed, it no longer becomes true. In fact, it becomes absurd for the thing to exist.
The proof of my first point is that our intellect simply cannot conceive that the pen in our hands existed by itself; imagining that the ink, the plastic and metal components self-assembling is an absurd idea that only exists in Harry Potter stories. Similarly, it is absurd to think of the world as a self-assembly of parts. Those who speak of such things are denying their own human nature to reason properly; they are lying to their own selves.
On my second point, limits are either natural or artificial. Natural limits are limits that reflect harmony and wisdom, attempting to mimic the limits imposed by the Designer of this world. Artificial limits, on the other hand, are limits that we imagine in our minds, without reference to the Designer of this world, often causing chaos and imbalance. Why I am saying this is because if we look at the composition of blood, there is some form of natural limits. However, we can also imagine blood having a different set of limits, yet if we put this artificial blood in operation, it does not seem to work as harmoniously as natural blood!
In Arabic, natural limits is called Qadar. We use the same word in the Malay Language as well; 'kadar lemak' refers to natural limits of cholesterol such that if it is trangressed, it would result in a host of medical problems like blocked arteries and so on. In reference to our own actions towards ourselves and towards others, there are also natural limits such that if it is transgressed, it no longer becomes a true; we do not consider it as a good or moral-ethical act.
We know that a student is defined as a person who is learning. Suppose we have a student who is rude and insolent to his teacher; that would mean that he has transgressed the natural limits of a student, and because of his insolence proper learning can no longer take place. And because proper learning cannot take place, the very idea of him being a student becomes an absurd idea. We would then have an absurd student, or a person who is no longer a student, although outwardly he may still be dressed like one. Similarly, the essence of a human being is his spirit. If this human being does not act in accordance to the nature of his spirit designed by his designer, or that he has transgressed the natural limits of his spirit, behaving more like an animal, then we would not have a human being, although outwardly he may look like one.
Contemplating on the wisdom behind measurements brings us to one definitive conclusion; that absolute freedom is absurd. Even the 'free' sparrow knows that if it did not limit its altitude of flight, it would die of a lack of oxygen, or would be blown violently by the winds of the higher altitudes. Freedom only makes sense if we limit our choices to what is good and beneficial to us; what is within our limits to live a harmonious life as proper human beings. Imagine what 'freedom in eating' would do to our weight and health; recently we have encountered in the news of a girl from the United States who died of overconsumption of coca-cola. She was practising her freedom to consume coca-cola freely, yet is this truly a free choice as what we have discussed earlier? It is a choice for absurdity, because it is a choice that is not made within some natural limits, and therefore not a free choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment