Observers, Freedom, and the Cosmos

  • Subhash Kak
Part of the Analecta Husserliana book series (ANHU, volume 107)


Science provides partial explanations for the place of observers in the universe and the process by which the conception of the cosmos is obtained. But it uses two irreconcilable paradigms: one based on a machine-view of the material world, and the other postulating freedom and agency for the observer. These paradigms lead to problems such as why is it that the brain-machine has awareness whereas the computer does not, or what is the basis of the information paradox related to the increase in the information in the universe since the Big Bang. Recent ideas on “consciousness science” as an approach complementing that of astronomy are presented. It is shown how the astronomy of its times and specific ideas on the nature of the mind led to certain cosmological ideas of ancient India. The central role played by cosmology, relating both to the outer and the inner reality, in defining the world-view of a culture is examined. A summary of the larger issues confronting astronomy and cosmology in the contemporary world is presented.


Mental Experience Independent Existence Delayed Choice Experiment Open Boat Machine Paradigm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Balasubramaniam, R., and J.P. Joshi. 2008. Analysis of terracotta scale of Harappan civilization from Kalibangan. Current Science 95: 588–589.Google Scholar
  2. Barrow, J.D., and F.J. Tipler. 1986. The anthropic cosmological principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Danino, M. 2008. New insights into Harappan town-planning, proportions, and units, with special reference to Dholavia. Man and Environment 33: 66–79.Google Scholar
  4. Gazzaniga, M.S. 1995. The cognitive neurosciences. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Hadamard, Jacques. 1954. The psychology of invention in the mathematical field. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  6. Jung, C.G. 1972. Synchronicity – an acausal connecting principle. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  7. Kak, S. 1999. The speed of light and Puranic cosmology. Annals Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 80: 113–123.Google Scholar
  8. Kak, S. 2004. The architecture of knowledge. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
  9. Kak, S. 2007. Quantum information and entropy. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 46: 860–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kak, S. 2008. The wishing tree. New York: iUniverse.Google Scholar
  11. Kak, S. 2009. Time, space and structure in ancient India. Presented at the Conference on Sindhu-Sarasvati Valley Civilization: A Reappraisal, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, February 21 & 22.Google Scholar
  12. Kangle, R.P. 1986. The kautiliya arthasastra. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
  13. Koestler, A. 1972. The roots of coincidence. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  14. Melzack, R. 1989. Phantom limbs, the self and the brain. Canadian Psychology 30: 1–16.Google Scholar
  15. Moore, W. 1989. Schrödinger: Life and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Pauli, W., and C.G. Jung. 1955. The interpretation of nature and the psyche. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  17. Penrose, R. 1994. Shadows of the mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Sacks, O. 1985. The man who mistook his wife for a hat. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  19. Segal, N.L. 2000. Entwined lives. New York: Penguin Putnam.Google Scholar
  20. Wilson, H.H. (trans.) 1840. The Vishnu Purana. London: John Murray.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA

Personalised recommendations