I was finally able to read this thru and think about it. There's still many points on both side one could delve into regarding the nature of reality, but... what did Einstein's last comment mean? My thoughts follow (with a PS soapbox).
Nature of reality. Is it independent of human consciousness? Tagore/Indian Philosophy says no. Einstein says yes. Einstein has faith that independent reality is ?something.? Tagore deduces that reality, without some connection to the mind, is ?as nothing so long as we remain human beings.? [don't evolve, don't learn].
Tagore's point is bordering on tautological, I think.
Tagore should agree with this:
Reality (only as we conceive it) is nothing without the mind to conceive it.
But, Inconceivable reality can exist independent of the mind.
Einstein has faith that inconceivable reality can be learned about and conceived of, if we work at it. Relativity and even the atomic model of reality are examples of how at one point we couldn't conceive of a reality based on these conceptions, but now we do know of these concepts and base much of our lives on these (formerly inconceivable) conceptions.
Einstein ?has faith? that something is there, even if he doesn't know what it is yet.
Tagore says ?if? something is there, we can't understand it; and therefore should call it ?as nothing.?
I think Tagore and Einstein would be saying the same thing, except that Tagore defines ?human being? as a static, unchanging consciousness; whereas Einstein has faith that the ?wave function of the universe? is potentially knowable (and therefore must exist).
I think that is why Einstein says he is more religious than Tagore.
????
~samsara
P.S. I think as scientist looking at reality, we easily loose sight of Reality. We too often mistake the Maya and samsara for the Brahman and nirvana (just like fundamentalists do). I think this is why people feel scientists can be just as self-righteous as religious people can be when talking about the Nature of Reality.
~S
