INSTITUTE OF PHILOSOPHY OF NATURE
Editorial Board Members
IPN President's Note-1
Humble Prayer
We have a wide range of sciences to comprehend all facets of nature. Despite the fact that all sciences aim to comprehend nature, there is unfortunately no harmony among them. Again, there are multiple disciplines in modern science. Multidisciplinary research has emerged as a new trend with more success in contemporary science, even as every discipline advances through research. In order to comprehend the fundamental laws of nature, which is accessible to any discipline and in all domains, it is extremely useful to combine the fundamental ideas and assumptions of many sciences (Vedic science, spiritual science, and contemporary science). We could get access to a complete, unified knowledge of nature by using a multidisciplinary scientific method. Concerning material science, spiritual science, and how to approach different aspects of nature, Vedic science’s fundamental presumptions remain constant.
I intuitively feel that incorporating the fundamental ideas of Vedic science in the right way would give micro domain physics a universal significance and aid in advancing modern science to create a domain-free universal science that will broaden the scope of science until nothing is left outside of it. There are several restrictions on current modern science. If a new comprehensive unified science is feasible then its acceptability would depend on how it explains all phenomena of nature beyond the limits of modern science. Therefore, it is outside the purview of contemporary science to accept or reject new fundamental ideas. Instead of focusing on how far the new comprehensive unified science departs from the core ideas of current science, we must consider how much it describes the natural world. The articles from the IPN-journal ‘Towards unified understanding of nature’ will introduce the new unified science. While reading the articles in the aforementioned publication, one must be open.
Prof. B. C. Mohanty
President IPN
23.05.2023
IPN President's Note-2
Modern science, particularly in the macro domain, has evolved through human sensory observation, rational inquiry, and systematic interpretation of natural phenomena. Spiritual inquiry, though operating through a different mode of cognition, also seeks to understand reality by emphasizing higher states of consciousness and intuitive perception. Despite their methodological differences, both scientific and spiritual traditions ultimately pursue the same objective: the understanding of nature and existence.
Human comprehension of reality develops fundamentally through direct experience. Observable objects and events do not ordinarily require artificial conceptual models for their basic understanding because they are directly accessible to perception. Even when direct perception is limited, as in the case of visually impaired individuals, understanding can still emerge through tactile and simplified representations of reality. Through continuous interaction with the external world, the human mind gradually forms internal conceptual structures that constitute commonsense knowledge. This process is possible because nature exhibits order, consistency, and intelligible regularity.
The micro domain, however, lies beyond direct sensory perception. To understand it, science has historically relied upon analogies derived from the observable world. Early atomic theory, for example, interpreted the atom through a solar-system-like model in which electrons revolved around the nucleus in a manner analogous to planetary motion. Although later developments revealed limitations in this model, it nevertheless represented an attempt to preserve conceptual continuity between the visible and invisible domains of nature.
As modern physics advanced, scientific emphasis gradually shifted from physically intuitive models toward highly mathematical and result-oriented formulations. While this transition produced remarkable predictive success, it also encouraged the view that nature behaves fundamentally differently across the macro, micro, and quantum domains. Consequently, separate conceptual frameworks emerged for different scales of reality, often with limited continuity between them.
Had scientific development remained more firmly guided by the principle of uniformity of nature, a more unified and physically interpretable framework might have evolved. Today, many foundational concepts in modern physics remain abstract, hypothetical, or mathematically defined without direct physical visualization. Under such conditions, alternative reality-based approaches frequently appear incompatible with prevailing theoretical structures, even when they attempt to restore conceptual clarity and continuity.
Nevertheless, significant scope remains for the development of alternative scientific frameworks for the micro domain based upon physically meaningful assumptions while still utilizing the analytical power of mathematics. Such an approach need not reject modern science; rather, it may complement and reinterpret existing knowledge within a more coherent reality-oriented foundation.
A scientifically meaningful synthesis may emerge when macro-domain science, micro-domain science, philosophy, and consciousness-based inquiry are viewed not as isolated disciplines, but as interconnected approaches to understanding reality. Commonsense reasoning and higher consciousness both attempt to comprehend nature in a direct and natural manner, whereas excessive abstraction can sometimes distance scientific interpretation from physical intuition. Therefore, scientific advancement should ideally preserve harmony between mathematical formalism, physical reality, philosophical consistency, and experiential understanding.
The path toward a deeper unification of sciences may therefore depend upon re-examining micro-domain physics through reality-based interpretation and physically visualizable principles. If scientific thought progresses in this direction, humanity may move closer to an integrated framework of knowledge capable of unifying rational analysis, empirical investigation, and consciousness-based insight.
The journal Towards Unification of Sciences is dedicated to encouraging the study of nature through such a natural, integrative, and open-minded perspective. New proposals directed toward the unification of scientific understanding deserve thoughtful examination, particularly when they attempt to restore conceptual continuity between different domains of reality, even if they challenge prevailing interpretations.
For example, it may be argued that a consistently reality-based particle interpretation of light, combined with improved structural understanding of light particles and the space medium, could potentially explain optical phenomena without complete dependence upon abstract wave formalism. Likewise, several domain-specific abstractions in modern science may eventually be replaced or reinterpreted through physically meaningful hypotheses, thereby contributing toward a more unified and domain-independent understanding of nature.
Prof. B. C. Mohanty
President, IPN
22.05.2026
IPN President's Note-3
The reality-based understanding of nature presented through the series of articles published in Towards Unification of Sciences naturally gives rise to an important scientific question: How should the merit of a new scientific model be evaluated when it proposes to replace an existing paradigm rather than merely extend it? This question is fundamental because every major scientific revolution in history has emerged through the replacement of earlier conceptual frameworks by more comprehensive and realistic ones. A theory that only supplements an existing concept may be examined within the assumptions of the prevailing framework. However, a theory that seeks to replace the existing paradigm cannot be judged exclusively by the principles of the very theory it intends to supersede. Such an approach inevitably favors the established concept and hinders the natural evolution of scientific knowledge.
The appropriate criterion for evaluating a new scientific theory should therefore be its ability to explain natural phenomena in a realistic, consistent and universally applicable manner. A theory deserves serious scientific consideration when it provides a physically meaningful model, preserves the universal principle of cause and effect and establishes conceptual harmony among the various branches of science that investigate different aspects of the same nature. When a realistic model explains observed phenomena while simultaneously offering a unified understanding of nature, there is little justification for continuing to rely upon abstract interpretations that lack physical realism and provide no scope for scientific unification.
The history of science repeatedly demonstrates that every successful conceptual revolution initially appeared incompatible with the prevailing scientific viewpoint. Such incompatibility is not evidence of error but a natural consequence of scientific progress. Unless new ideas are examined with an open, objective and unbiased scientific attitude, apparent conflicts between established and emerging concepts will continue to delay the acceptance of theories that may represent physical reality more faithfully.
This discussion naturally leads to another fundamental question regarding the role of commonsense knowledge in scientific inquiry. With the exception of certain prevailing interpretations in micro-domain physics, almost every branch of science has advanced by respecting the principles of consistency and uniformity that govern nature. Consequently, knowledge acquired through direct sensory experience, together with higher insights attained through disciplined consciousness, has always served as a valuable guide in understanding reality. Commonsense knowledge is often regarded as elementary because it arises from everyday experience; yet it is precisely this experience that reflects the natural behavior of the physical world. Similarly, consciousness-based knowledge attained through higher states of yogic awareness is also a manifestation of nature and therefore deserves careful scientific examination rather than outright dismissal.
In contrast, several prevailing interpretations in micro-domain physics appear to depart from the universally accepted principle of causality. Throughout the observable universe, every effect is understood to arise from an identifiable cause. This causal relationship forms the very foundation of scientific reasoning. If causality is abandoned in one particular domain of nature, the consistency and universality of natural law itself become questionable. Since the universe is governed by common fundamental principles, the law of cause and effect should remain valid in the macro, micro and micro-micro domains alike, although its mode of manifestation may differ according to the scale of observation.
The extraordinary success of mathematics has undoubtedly transformed modern science by providing remarkable precision and predictive power. Nevertheless, mathematics is fundamentally a language for describing reality; it cannot replace reality itself. Difficulties arise whenever mathematical convenience is allowed to take precedence over realistic physical assumptions. Mathematical models constructed upon hypothetical axioms may successfully reproduce experimental observations, yet still remain detached from the underlying physical reality. Quantitative agreement alone should therefore not be regarded as the ultimate criterion of scientific truth.
A comprehensive scientific theory must satisfy two complementary requirements. First, it should present a realistic qualitative model that faithfully describes the physical mechanism responsible for the observed phenomenon. Second, it should provide rigorous quantitative verification through mathematical analysis. When the qualitative foundation itself is hypothetical or physically unrealistic, mathematical elegance alone cannot compensate for the absence of physical reality.
A truly reality-based scientific framework must therefore integrate commonsense knowledge, consciousness-based understanding, realistic physical modelling and rigorous mathematical analysis into a single coherent system. Such an approach preserves the universal principles of consistency, uniformity and causality that characterize nature in every domain. If abstract theoretical models, despite departing from physical reality, are capable of producing quantitative predictions that successfully explain diverse natural phenomena, there is no rational basis for assuming that a reality-based model cannot achieve comparable or even greater quantitative success. On the contrary, a theory founded upon realistic assumptions is expected not only to yield mathematical precision but also to reveal the underlying physical mechanisms responsible for observed phenomena. By maintaining continuity with the universal laws governing every level of nature, such a framework naturally provides the conceptual foundation for unifying the sciences that investigate different aspects of the same reality. The pursuit of a reality-based unified science is therefore not merely an alternative interpretation of existing theories; it is a constructive endeavor to establish a comprehensive understanding of nature in which qualitative reality, quantitative analysis, causality and the unity of knowledge coexist in harmony.
Prof. B. C. Mohanty
President, IPN
23.07.2026
Read our Journal 'Towards Unification of Sciences'
The journal publishes brainstorming articles on new and break through ideas, concepts and theories.