When Rajnath Singh said that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle was based on the Vedas, it was like gifting the liberals the equivalent of Rahul Gandhi’s famous “politics-in-your-shirt-pant” moment. Liberals, eager to latch on to any right-wing slip-up in these times of Modi as rockstar, BJP as accompanying orchestra and most news channels as groupies, milked it.

The super faithful argue (never underestimate their loyalty or irrationality) that what Singh said isn’t really wrong and mocking him only displays one’s ignorance of Indian scriptures because Hindu scriptures are repositories of knowledge and philosophy.

I haven’t read the Vedas and I have tried to read an English translation of The Upanishads but I gave up halfsiway because it was dreadfully boring. I didn’t pick up the Sanskrit version because even though I had Sanskrit as a third language for three or four years in school, I didn’t learn much more than memorising words by rote and regurgitating them in rows and columns. (Which is why, you can teach kids what you want as a third language. It’s useless unless it’s a medium to communicate).

But without having to read scriptures or deep philosophy, one thing that no one would argue against is that there is a deep connection between religion and science. Especially a religion that is more a philosophical treatise like Hinduism, Buddhism or Sikhism, and less an instruction manual on how to be a good disciple.

The pursuit of philosophers and scientists is basically the same – to find the ultimate truth. This point is made simply and lucidly by American spiritual teacher Gary Zukav in his book, The Dancing Wu Li Masters. Science (notably quantum physics) has come a long way since the book was published in 1979, but it’s a good read for the young and uninitiated into this debate.

Albert Einstein had once famously stated that, “God does not play dice.”  Meaning that he did not believe in chance. Einstein was a determinist. He believed that given all the information of a situation (and by all he meant ALL) one can predict everything. Yes even why I’m writing this and why you’re reading it. Another legendary physicist, Niels Bohr, is believed to have reacted to that with a quip: “Stop telling God what to do, Albert.”

The clash between determinists and those who accept chance as much of a scientific reality as relativity, is old and not likely to be resolved soon (though you never know, it’s the age of Narendra Modi and his Messiah – Ramdev, so anything is possible – homosexuality cures, cancer cures and resolving Quantum physics and relativity). So while the determinist school of thought claims that there is a theory out there that can predict anything, another school says “….the determinism of classical physics is an approximation to a reality where the notion of complete knowledge seems to be an impossibility.” Or to put it simply, the lord moves in mysterious ways and there are things we will never know.

This excellent piece on this debate you will notice is archived under philosophy. Yes Einstein and Niels Bohr were philosophers as much as they were scientists/physicists.

So is there a grand unified theory or a theory of everything through which we can predict everything? Every event and incident in your and my life like nadi astrologers claim to be able to do – “thousands of years ago the great seers (maharishis) recorded the destiny of individual souls for all time. They did this by cognizing the subtle mechanics of creation on the finest levels of their own awareness.” (Read http://nadi-astro.net/)

Let’s say there is such a theory. It can be argued that when Buddha solved the equation, we call it Nirvana or enlightenment and when someone more scientific will crack it, it will be called the Grand Unified or the theory of everything.  So why didn’t the Buddha share that ultimate truth with the rest of us? Maybe because as another spiritual guru and philosopher Amir Khusro said: Jo jaane so kahe nahi, jo kahe so jaane nahi. Or maybe unlike Neo in The Matrix we don’t want to take the red pill and break this illusion of moh and maya.

The Matrix, a brilliant film by the Wachowski brothers, has been dissected for its similarity to Buddhist and Hindu philosophy. It is accused (credited) for borrowing heavily from Christianity as well. If Rajnath Singh read this, he would probably claim that The Matrix is from Bhagavad Gita and Veda Vyasa should be credited with the screenplay.

Coming back to the inconsistency between General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory. Is there a theory that can resolve both or will there never be?

The Gita says: “Karmanye vadhikaraste ma phaleshu kadachana” (your right is only over your action, you have no right or power over the fruits of your action). Einstein would argue: “No dear Krishna. If I know all the variables, each single one and I know exactly what my action will be, the theory of everything will also allow me to accurately predict the outcome,and once I have weighed the pros and cons of the outcomes I will perform my karma.” Rational enough I think.

So if one was to project that immortal line from the Gita scientifically, one can conclude that there is no unified theory of everything. If a scientist in the future conclusively proved that is in fact the case, then would it be smart of Singh to say that this theory is based on the Gita?

On the other hand, let’s say someone were to crack an equation and prove that there is a grand unified theory of everything and it is only that one theory that can predict every scientific and physical possibility ever and explain everything, then would Navjot Singh Sidhu be right in saying that this theory is based on Guru Granth Sahib’s vision of “Ek Onkar Satnam”? There is only one universal creator. His name is Truth.