What are the opening hours?

Monday 9am - 5pm Tuesday 9am - 5pm Wednesday 9am - 5pm Thursday 9am - 5pm Friday 9am - 5pm Saturday 9am - 5pm Sunday 9am - 5pm

Godi Media Vs Real Media

Home
India
Ujhani
Godi Media Vs Real Media

Contact information, map and directions, contact form, opening hours, services, ratings, photos, videos and announcements from Godi Media Vs Real Media, Media/News Company, Ujhani.
(2)

When BJP President Amit Shah said in a public meeting that 250 terrorists were put to death, the dispute started and the army denied that their work is not to count the dead.

28/07/2020

What is chloroquine?
Chloroquine is used to treat or prevent malaria, a disease caused by parasites that enter the body through the bite of a mosquito. Chloroquine is not effective against all strains of malaria, or against malaria in areas where the infection has been resistant to a similar drug called hydroxychloroquine.

Chloroquine is also used to treat amebiasis (infection caused by amoebae).

Chloroquine has not been approved to treat coronavirus or COVID-19. However, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized emergency use of chloroquine in adults and adolescents weighing at least 110 pounds (50 kilograms) who are hospitalized with COVID-19 or are enrolled in a clinical trial.

It is not yet known if chloroquine is a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19. Do not buy chloroquine from an online pharmacy or use the medicine without a prescription from your own doctor.

Chloroquine may also be used for purposes not listed in this medication guide.

Important Information
Chloroquine has not been approved to treat coronavirus or COVID-19. It is not yet known if chloroquine is an effective treatment for COVID-19.

The FDA has authorized emergency use of chloroquine only in people with COVID-19 who are in a hospital or enrolled in a clinical trial. You must remain under the care of a doctor while you are using chloroquine for COVID-19.

Chloroquine can cause dangerous effects on your heart, especially if you also use certain other medicines including the antibiotic azithromycin (Z-Pak). Seek emergency medical attention if you have fast or pounding heartbeats and sudden dizziness (like you might pass out).

Taking chloroquine long-term or at high doses may cause irreversible damage to the retina of your eye that could progress to permanent vision problems. You may not be able to use chloroquine if you have a history of vision changes or damage to your retina.

Stop taking chloroquine and call your doctor at once if you have blurred vision, trouble focusing, distorted vision, blind spots, trouble reading, hazy or cloudy vision, increased sensitivity to light.

Side Effects
Dosage
Pricing
More

Before taking this medicine
You should not use this medicine if you are allergic to chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine. You may not be able to use chloroquine if you have ever had vision changes or damage to your retina.

High doses or long-term use of chloroquine may cause irreversible damage to your retina (the membrane layer inside your eye that helps produce vision). This could progress to permanent vision problems. The risk of retinal damage is higher in people with pre-existing eye problems, kidney disease, or people who also take tamoxifen.

Tell your doctor if you have ever had:

vision changes or damage to your retina caused by an anti-malaria medication;

heart disease, heart rhythm disorder (such as long QT syndrome);

an electrolyte imbalance (such as low levels of potassium or magnesium in your blood);

diabetes;

liver or kidney disease;

psoriasis;

alcoholism;

porphyria (a genetic enzyme disorder that causes symptoms affecting the skin or nervous system); or

a genetic enzyme deficiency called glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency.

Tell your doctor if you are pregnant or plan to become pregnant. Malaria is more likely to cause serious illness or death in a pregnant woman. Having malaria during pregnancy may also increase the risk of miscarriage, stillbirth, premature delivery, and low birth weight.

It is not known whether chloroquine will harm an unborn baby. If you are pregnant, ask your doctor about the risks of traveling to areas where malaria is common (such as Africa, South America, and Southern Asia).

You should not breastfeed while using chloroquine.

How should I take chloroquine?
Follow all directions on your prescription label and read all medication guides or instruction sheets. Use the medicine exactly as directed.

To prevent malaria: Chloroquine is usually taken once per week on the same day each week. Start taking the medicine 2 weeks before entering an area where malaria is common. Keep taking the medicine during your stay and for at least 8 weeks after you leave the area.

To treat malaria: Chloroquine is usually given as one high dose followed by smaller doses during the next 2 days in a row.

To treat amebiasis: Chloroquine is given in a high starting dose for 2 days followed by a smaller dose for 2 to 3 weeks. You may be given other medications to help prevent further infection.

The best chloroquine dose in people with COVID-19 is not known. You must remain under the care of a doctor while you are using chloroquine for COVID-19.

Chloroquine doses are based on weight in children. Your child's dose needs may change if the child gains or loses weight.

Use chloroquine for the full prescribed length of time, even if your symptoms quickly improve.

Call your doctor as soon as possible if you have been exposed to malaria, or if you have fever or other symptoms of illness during or after a stay in an area where malaria is common.

Use protective clothing, insect repellents, and mosquito netting around your bed to further prevent mosquito bites that could cause malaria.

No medication is 100% effective in treating or preventing all types of malaria. Talk with your doctor if you have fever, vomiting, or diarrhea during your treatment.

While using chloroquine, you may need frequent medical tests and vision exams.

Store at room temperature away from moisture, heat, and light.

What happens if I miss a dose?
Call your doctor for instructions if you miss a dose.

What happens if I overdose?
Seek emergency medical attention or call the Poison Help line at 1-800-222-1222. An overdose of chloroquine can be fatal, and must be treated quickly.

Overdose symptoms may include drowsiness, vision changes, seizure, slow heart rate, weak pulse, pounding heartbeats, sudden dizziness, fainting, shortness of breath, or slow breathing (breathing may stop).

Keep chloroquine out of the reach of children. A chloroquine overdose can be fatal to a child who accidentally swallows this medicine.

What should I avoid while taking chloroquine?
This medicine may cause blurred vision and may impair your reactions. Avoid driving or hazardous activity until you know how this medicine will affect you.

Avoid taking an antacid or Kaopectate (kaolin-pectin) within 4 hours before or 4 hours after you take chloroquine.

Chloroquine side effects
Get emergency medical help if you have signs of an allergic reaction (hives, difficult breathing, swelling in your face or throat) or a severe skin reaction (fever, sore throat, burning eyes, skin pain, red or purple skin rash with blistering and peeling).

Also seek emergency medical attention if you have symptoms of a serious heart problem: fast or pounding heartbeats, fluttering in your chest, shortness of breath, and sudden dizziness (like you might pass out).

Call your doctor at once if you have:

a seizure;

ringing in your ears, trouble hearing;

severe muscle weakness, loss of coordination, underactive reflexes;

low blood cell counts--fever, chills, tiredness, mouth sores, skin sores, easy bruising, unusual bleeding, pale skin, cold hands and feet, feeling light-headed or short of breath;

low blood sugar--headache, hunger, sweating, irritability, dizziness, fast heart rate, and feeling anxious or shaky; or

a serious drug reaction that can affect many parts of your body--skin rash, fever, swollen glands, muscle aches, severe weakness, unusual bruising, or yellowing of your skin or eyes.

Taking chloroquine long-term or at high doses may cause irreversible damage to the retina of your eye. Stop taking chloroquine and tell your doctor if you have:

blurred vision, trouble focusing, trouble reading;

distorted vision, poor night vision;

changes in your color vision;

hazy or cloudy vision;

seeing light flashes or streaks, seeing halos around lights; or

increased sensitivity to light.

Common side effects may include:

nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach cramps;

headache;

unusual changes in mood or behavior;

hair loss; or

changes in hair or skin color.

This is not a complete list of side effects and others may occur. Call your doctor for medical advice about side effects. You may report side effects to FDA at 1-800-FDA-1088.

28/07/2020

Through the fog of alleged misconduct, hope, hype, and politicization that surrounds hydroxychloroquine, the malaria drug touted as a COVID-19 treatment, a scientific picture is now emerging.

Praised by presidents as a potential miracle cure and dismissed by others as a deadly distraction, hydroxychloroquine was spared a seeming death blow last week. On 4 June, after critics challenged the data, The Lancet suddenly retracted a paper that had suggested the drug increased the death rate in COVID-19 patients, a finding that had stopped many clinical trials in their tracks. But now three large studies, two in people exposed to the virus and at risk of infection and the other in severely ill patients, show no benefit from the drug. Coming on top of earlier smaller trials with disappointing findings, the new results mean it’s time to move on, some scientists say, and end most of the trials still in progress.
It just seems like we are ignoring signal after signal,” says Eric Topol, director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute. U.S. President Donald Trump’s promotion of it led to a scientific “obsession” with hydroxychloroquine despite thin evidence for its promise, he says. “We’d be better off shifting our attention to drugs that might actually work.” Peter Kremsner of the University of Tübingen agrees hydroxychloroquine “certainly isn’t a wonder drug.” The new results left him “wrestling” with the question of whether to proceed with two hydroxychloroquine trials, one in hospitals and the other in patients with milder illness at home.

Hydroxychloroquine and its sister drug chloroquine have been used against malaria and other diseases for decades. The first evidence that they might work against SARS-CoV-2 came from test tube data. Since then, hundreds of trials have been launched around the globe. Scientists are trying the drugs in low doses and high doses; alone or combined with the antibiotic azithromycin, the antiviral compound favipiravir, or other drugs; and in patients with mild or severe disease, health care workers, pregnant women, and people living with HIV.

On 5 June, researchers in the United Kingdom announced the results from the largest trial yet, Recovery, in a press release. In a group of 1542 hospitalized patients treated with hydroxychloroquine, 25.7% had died after 28 days, compared with 23.5% in a group of 3132 patients who had only received standard care. “These data convincingly rule out any meaningful mortality benefit,” wrote the investigators, who ended the study early and promised to publish the full results as soon as possible.

The results are persuading some doctors to stop using the drug for COVID-19. “The Recovery trial, in addition to the signals from other studies we have received so far, are enough to convince me to not offer hydroxychloroquine to hospitalized patients,” Nahid Bhadelia, a physician at Boston Medical Center, wrote in an email. Martin Landray of the University of Oxford, one of Recovery’s principal investigators, agrees: “If you, your spouse, your mother gets admitted to hospital and is offered hydroxychloroquine, don’t take it,” he says.

But some scientists say they want to see the full data before making up their minds. About one in four patients died in both arms of the study, Kremsner notes—a very high rate, suggesting they were gravely ill when treatment started. Nicholas White of Mahidol University in Bangkok, who also studies hydroxychloroquine, agrees the full data need evaluation. “But overall, it’s very unlikely, in my view right now sitting here, that anything’s going to change,” he says.

Another hope for hydroxychloroquine, that it might prevent people exposed to the virus from getting sick, also faded last week when David Boulware of the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, and colleagues published the results of the largest study to date of this strategy, called postexposure prophylaxis (PEP). The researchers sent either hydroxychloroquine or a placebo by mail to 821 people who had been in close contact with a COVID-19 patient for more than 10 minutes without proper protection. They reported in The New England Journal of Medicine that 12% of the people who took the drug went on to develop COVID-19 symptoms, versus 14% in a placebo group, a difference that was not statistically significant.

A second large PEP trial has come up empty as well, its leader tells Science. Carried out in Barcelona, Spain, that study randomized more than 2300 people exposed to the virus to either hydroxychloroquine or the usual care. There was no significant difference between the number of people in each group who developed COVID-19, says Oriol Mitjà of the Germans Trias i Pujol University Hospital. Mitjà says he has submitted the results for publication.
The data are important because they come from large randomized trials. So far, most data came from small trials or case series. A meta-analysis of 24 such studies published in the Annals of Internal Medicine concluded there was “insufficient and often conflicting evidence on the benefits and harms of using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine to treat COVID-19.”

The new findings raise questions about whether to stop other trials. Most are much smaller than Recovery, and thus less powerful; their outcomes are unlikely to change many minds. And continuing the trials may prevent researchers from testing drugs with a better chance of working and robs patients of the chance to try those. Landray says the World Health Organization (WHO) is now likely to end the hydroxychloroquine arm of its large COVID-19 treatment trial, named Solidarity. “I think the decision is pretty obvious,” he says. WHO says it is considering the issue.

There is one exception. Many researchers agree that a good case can be made for continuing to test whether hydroxychloroquine can prevent infection if given to people just in case they get exposed to the virus, for instance on the job at a hospital—a strategy called pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). “You have a much better chance of preventing something with a weak drug than you have of curing a fully established infection,” says White, who runs one of the largest PrEP trials. He notes that doxycycline, an antibiotic, has long been used in malaria prophylaxis. “We would never treat anybody with it, it’s too weak. But it’s a very good prophylactic.”

Landray, however, is on the fence about continuing prophylaxis trials: “I suspect it’s one of these decisions where there isn’t a right or wrong.” It’s an important question, Bhadelia says, because an effective PrEP drug could have a major impact on the pandemic. Hydroxychloroquine, a cheap and widely available drug, is one of the few compounds that could fit the bill.

But the Lancet paper, despite its retraction, will make it more difficult to continue current trials, White laments. Published on 22 May, the study claimed, supposedly based on data from 96,000 patients around the world, that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, whether given alone or in combination with another drug, caused a steep increase in deaths. That led many regulatory agencies to ask scientists to halt their trials and make sure they were not harming their patients. Recovery and Solidarity were temporarily halted but resumed after a safety committee took a look at the data.

Many other trials are still on pause. U.K. regulators, for instance, have asked for a raft of additional safeguards, says Joseph Cheriyan, a clinical pharmacologist at Cambridge University Hospital and principal investigator of a PrEP trial in health care workers. That study already excluded patients who take any one of several dozens of drugs, but Cheriyan says regulators have asked for more changes, which will set the trial back weeks. And despite the Lancet retraction, the alarming headlines about the drug’s risks have made it much more difficult to convince people to participate in a trial, White says. “I just think these trials have been really badly damaged and some of them may never restart.”

The problem for scientists is that there’s such a rush to find treatments for the rapidly spreading virus, Mitjà says: “The pressure is immense.” Yet that shouldn’t stop researchers from properly analyzing data and making carefully considered decisions, White says. “We don’t always have to act today,” he says. “Let’s not panic.”
Through the fog of alleged misconduct, hope, hype, and politicization that surrounds hydroxychloroquine, the malaria drug touted as a COVID-19 treatment, a scientific picture is now emerging.

Praised by presidents as a potential miracle cure and dismissed by others as a deadly distraction, hydroxychloroquine was spared a seeming death blow last week. On 4 June, after critics challenged the data, The Lancet suddenly retracted a paper that had suggested the drug increased the death rate in COVID-19 patients, a finding that had stopped many clinical trials in their tracks. But now three large studies, two in people exposed to the virus and at risk of infection and the other in severely ill patients, show no benefit from the drug. Coming on top of earlier smaller trials with disappointing findings, the new results mean it’s time to move on, some scientists say, and end most of the trials still in progress.

28/07/2020

4
The number of fundamental constants that are necessary for the origin of the universe is not even in tens. According to the information so far, these constants are only 6. Scientists say that these constants are also high, because we have not yet found any unified theory for the universe. When we find the unified theory, it is possible that it remains the same. However, whether the constants are 6 or 1, it is certain that their value was accurate enough to give birth to a universe like this. So was some wise God set that value so that this universe can take birth?

The universe in which we exist supports life, but what is the basis for saying that this is the only universe that has ever been born? It is possible that even before this, many different types of universe have been born and destroyed. Or could it also be that many types of cosmos exist at the same time? But one question still remains, what are the reasons that give rise to a universe?

To find the reasons for the origin of the universe, we must first find a unified theory of it. Perhaps in the future when we discover the unified theory, we will be able to understand what are the reasons which give rise to a universe. And then maybe the way the theory of natural selection made us understand the origin and evolution of organisms by taking our consciousness to a new dimension, such a theory would make us understand the reasons for the origin of the universe. Maybe that hour comes soon when we can understand those reasons. But now you have become so understandable that whatever the final reason may be, a wise creator cannot be

B from the wall of devoted👇
4
वे मूलभूत स्थिरांक जो ब्रह्मांड की उत्पत्ति के लिए आवश्यक हैं की संख्या दहाई में भी नहीं है। अभी तक की जानकारी के अनुसार ये स्थिरांक मात्र 6 हैं। वैज्ञानिकों का कहना है कि ये स्थिरांक भी ज्यादा हैं, क्योंकि हम अभी तक ब्रह्मांड के लिए कोई एकीकृत सिद्धांत नहीं खोज पाए हैं। जब हम एकीकृत सिद्धांत खोज लेंगे तो संभव है यह एक ही रह जाए। बरहाल स्थिरांक 6 हों या 1 यह तो तय है कि उनका मान इस जैसे ब्रह्मांड को जन्म देने के लिए एकदम सटीक था। तो क्या उस मान को किसी बुद्धिमान ईश्वर ने सेट किया था ताकि यह ब्रह्मांड जन्म ले सके?

हम जिस ब्रह्मांड में मौजूद हैं वह जीवन को सपोर्ट करता है, लेकिन ऐसा कहने का क्या आधार है कि यही एकमात्र ब्रह्मांड है जो अब तक जन्मा है? हो सकता है इससे पूर्व भी न जाते कितने भिन्न भिन्न प्रकार के ब्रह्मांड जन्म लेकर नष्ट हो चुके हों? या फिर यह भी हो सकता है कि अनेकों प्रकार के ब्रह्मांड एक साथ ही विद्धमान हों? लेकिन एक सवाल अब भी बचता है, वे कारण क्या हैं जो एक ब्रह्मांड को जन्म देते हैं?

ब्रह्मांड की उत्पत्ति के कारणों को खोजने के लिए सर्वप्रथम हमें इसका कोई एकीकृत सिद्धांत खोजना होगा। शायद भविष्य में जब हम एकीकृत सिद्धांत को खोज लेंगे तो हम समझ सकेंगे कि वे क्या कारण हैं जो एक ब्रह्मांड को जन्म देते हैं। और तब हो सकता है जिस तरह प्राकृतिक चयन के सिद्धांत ने हमारी चेतना को एक नए आयाम पर पहुंचाकर हमें जीवों की उत्पत्ति और विकास को समझने लायक बनाया था ऐसे ही कोई सिद्धांत हमें ब्रह्मांड की उत्पत्ति के कारणों को समझने लायक बना दे। हो सकता वह घड़ी शीघ्र ही आये जब हम उन कारणों को समझ सकें। पर अब आप इतना समझने लायक तो हो ही गए हैं कि वह अंतिम कारण कुछ भी हो पर एक बुद्धिमान रचनाकार कतई नहीं हो सकत

अर्पित जी की वाल सेb

28/07/2020

3
Of all the arguments made by theists in favor of the existence of God, who created this vision, the oldest and perhaps the most common logic? Did it happen automatically? But nothing is created automatically? There is definitely some creator of every composition. And such a diverse eye cannot be created automatically. Of course there is some creator of this ghost, and he is God.

There is no doubt that this universe is full of many amazing things that make us think a lot. On every step of the earth, we keep getting two or four of the wonders every day. And then who is the last to see the myriad stars sparkling in the unfathomable sky of the night, that do not become enchanted by this grandeur of the universe? Our brain's reasoning surrenders quickly to the mysteries of this universe and we get lost in the illusion of imagination. In this fantasy of fantasies, we meet God. Since God gives us an immediate solution to our curiosities which have no other solution available, we accept it immediately. But in the joy of getting this solution, we absolutely forget to consider that the solution given by God is actually giving rise to an even bigger problem. By imagining God as the creator of the universe, the existence of the universe is not solved, but gets entangled. Let's see how?

An example is often given by theists, the Aquarius and the Aquarius. They say that Matti cannot automatically construct a Kumbha (pitcher). Kumbha cannot be built without a kumbhakara. Here the soil is matter, the composition of Aquarius and the Aquarius. Soil is a chaotic state of matter, while Aquarius is a systematic state of the same soil. It is argued here that no system can exist without an administrator. This argument fits on things created by Aquarius and living beings, but when this logic is placed on the universe, a big problem arises, because an important fact has been ignored here.

Admin is also an arrangement. And according to this logic, even that cannot come into existence without any administrator. But this is not the end of the problem here. The kumbhkar or the honeycomb or the sparrow that creates the beautiful nest are much more intricately arranged than the one they construct. The composition they produce is extremely simple compared to their own complexity. Creator is always more complex than his creation. Now just think when the potter making a simple structure like a pot is so complex, then it would be unimaginably complex to make a complex creation like the universe. It is only by citing the complex systems of nature that theists claim the existence of an intelligent creator and then no such creator of such a complex creator automatically demolishes this argument by making it self contradictory.

In order to prove their position, the theologians created many great philosophies and logics in the past centuries, despite this the problem remained a nightmare for the theologians. To solve this problem, many intellectual philosophers failed to reach a firm conclusion even after centuries of debate, how can a complex system come into existence automatically without any intellectual intervention? The first ray of hope towards solving this came about 150 years ago today as Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection.
👇3
ईश्वरवादियों द्वारा ईश्वर के अस्तित्व के पक्ष में दिए जाने वाले सभी तर्कों में से सबसे पुराना और शायद सबसे कॉमन तर्क इस श्रष्टि को किसने बनाया? क्या यह स्वतः बन गयी? लेकिन स्वतः तो कुछ भी बनता नहीं? हर रचना का कोई न कोई रचनाकार अवश्य होता है। और इतनी विविधतापूर्ण स्रष्टि स्वतः कतई नहीं बन सकती। अवश्य ही इस स्रष्टि का कोई न कोई रचनाकार है, और वही ईश्वर है।

इसमें तो कोई संदेह नहीं कि यह ब्रह्मांड तमाम हैरतंगेज चीजों से भरा पड़ा है जो हमें बरबस सोचने विवश कर देती हैं। धरती पर ही कदम कदम पर तमाम आश्चर्यों से हम रोजाना दो-चार होते रहते हैं। और फिर रात के अथाह आकाश में जगमगाते असंख्य तारों को देखकर आखिर कौन है जो ब्रह्मांड की इस भव्यता पर मुग्ध न हो जाए? इस ब्रह्मांड के रहस्यों के आगे हमारे मस्तिष्क की तर्कशक्ति शीघ्र ही समर्पण कर देती है और हम कल्पनाओं के मायाजाल में खो जाते हैं। कल्पनाओं के इसी मायाजाल में हमारी भेंट ईश्वर से होती है। ईश्वर चूँकि हमें हमारी उन जिज्ञासाओं का एक फौरी समाधान दे देता है जिनका कोई अन्य समाधान उपलब्ध नहीं तो हम इसे तुरंत स्वीकार कर लेते हैं। लेकिन इस समाधान को पाने की ख़ुशी में हम यह विचार करना बिल्कुल ही भूल जाते हैं कि ईश्वर ने जो समाधान दिया है वह समाधान वास्तव में एक अन्य इससे भी बड़ी समस्या को जन्म दे रहा है। ब्रह्मांड के रचनाकार के रूप में ईश्वर की कल्पना कर लेने से ब्रह्मांड के अस्तित्व की गुत्थी सुलझती नहीं बल्कि और उलझ जाती है। आइये देखें कैसे?

ईश्वरवादियों द्वारा एक उदाहरण अक्सर दिया जाता है, कुम्भ और कुम्भकार वाला। वे कहते हैं कि मट्टी स्वतः कुम्भ(घड़े) का निर्माण नहीं कर सकती। कुम्भ का निर्माण बिना कुम्भकार के नहीं हो सकता। यहाँ मिट्टी पदार्थ है, कुम्भ रचना और कुम्भकार रचनाकार। मिट्टी पदार्थ की एक अव्यवस्थित अवस्था है, जबकि कुम्भ उसी मिट्टी की एक व्यवस्थित अवस्था है। यहाँ तर्क दिया जाता है कि कोई भी व्यवस्था बिना किसी व्यवस्थापक के अस्तित्व में नहीं आ सकती। यह तर्क कुम्भ और जीवों द्वारा निर्मित चीजों पर तो ठीक बैठता है लेकिन जब इसी तर्क को ब्रह्मांड पर बिठाया जाता है तो एक बड़ी समस्या खड़ी हो जाती है, क्योंकि यहाँ एक महत्वपूर्ण तथ्य को अनदेखा कर दिया गया है।

व्यवस्थापक भी एक व्यवस्था है। और इसी तर्क के अनुसार वह भी बिना किसी व्यवस्थापक के अस्तित्व में नहीं आ सकता। लेकिन समस्या का अंत यहीं नहीं होता। कुम्भ का निर्माण करने वाला कुम्भकार या छत्ते का निर्माण करने वाली मधुमक्खी या फिर ख़ूबसूरत घोंसले का निर्माण करने वाली गौरैया अपने द्वारा निर्माण की जाने वाली रचना से कहीं ज्यादा जटिल रूप से व्यवस्थित हैं। उनकी स्वयं की जटिलता की तुलना में उनके द्वारा निर्मित की जाने वाली रचना बेहद सरल है। रचनाकार हमेशा ही अपनी रचना की तुलना में अत्यधिक जटिल होता है। अब जरा सोचिये जब घड़े जैसी सरल रचना को बनाने वाला कुम्भकार इतना जटिल है तो ब्रहमांड जैसी जटिल रचना को बनाने वाला तो अकल्पनीय रूप से जटिल होगा। प्रकृति की जटिल व्यवस्थाओं की दुहाई देकर ही ईश्वरवादी एक बुद्धिमान रचनाकार के अस्तित्व का दावा करते हैं और फिर इतने जटिल रचनाकार का कोई रचनाकार न होना इस तर्क को आत्मविरोधाभासी(self contradictory) बनाकर स्वतः ध्वस्त कर देता है।

ईश्वरवादियों ने अपने पक्ष को साबित करने के लिए विगत सदियों में तमाम बड़े बड़े दर्शनग्रंथों और तर्कशास्त्रों की रचना की, बावजूद इसके यह समस्या ईश्वरवादियों के लिए दुस्वप्न ही रही। इस गुत्थी को सुलझाने के लिए तमाम बुद्धिजीवी दर्शनशास्त्री सदियों तक बहस के बाद भी किसी ठोस निष्कर्ष पर पहुँचने में नाकामयाब रहे, कि आखिर कोई जटिल व्यवस्था बिना किसी बौद्धिक हस्तक्षेप के स्वतः कैसे अस्तित्व में आ सकती है? इसे सुलझाने की दिशा में पहली आशा की किरण आज से लगभग 150 वर्ष पूर्व चार्ल्स डार्विन के प्राकृतिक चयन के सिद्धांत के रूप में सामने आई।

28/07/2020

2
By the principle of natural selection it was first authentically understood that nature is capable of automatically shaping biodiversity without any intellectual intervention. The theory of natural selection presented by Darwin proved to be a very revolutionary idea indeed. This broke the pattern of traditional thinking and brought human consciousness to a new dimension, because for the first time in all human history we were able to understand that things can also happen in this manner. Otherwise, before this, we could not think that how a complex creation without an intelligent creator can develop itself automatically using natural rules? Today we know that if natural selection is given enough time to do its work, it can grow into an extremely complex organism in about 4 billion years, progressively developing an absolutely simple life pattern, which is the question Could ask how this universe was created?

But now here one may ask that considered natural selection can develop simple life forms as a complex organism, but it requires only one life format to work on the simple, and simple life format is also simple There is an arrangement on the right. Also, the cosmic laws due to which this universe came into existence and the natural laws that give natural choice an opportunity to do its work is a system, so how did this system come into existence?

Let's talk about life first. The simplest form of life that came into existence about 4 billion years ago was the molecule that was capable of replicating itself, as far as we have understood about the origin of life. We have identified all the biochemicals necessary for life, and it has also been proved that all those chemicals were possible in the early Earth's atmosphere. But yet all of those chemicals are arranged in such a way so that an automated system capable of replicating itself is an extremely rare combination. Broadly, you can think of it as something that a blind person is able to add to a jigsaw puzzle piece containing hundreds of pieces in an attempt to connect it perfectly. It seems absolutely impossible. But if we consider mathematics, there is nothing like the impossible even in the rarest of rare coincidences, just the probability of its occurrence is extremely low.

In mathematics, probability means that the chance of that desired coincidence is likely to occur on the number of times an event is repeated. For example, if you draw a random card from a deck of cards, then the probability of getting the desired leaf is 1/52. This means if you try 52 times, you will definitely get success once. No matter how rare an event is, but if we know some basic things about it, then we can calculate the probability of its occurrence. All the casinos around the world are running successfully due to accurate calculations of probability. It is important to understand one thing here that if the probability of occurrence of an event is 1/100, it does not mean that success will be achieved only after 100 attempts. It may be that success is achieved in the 10th attempt itself, or it may be found in the 41st attempt, or it may be that the success is achieved in the 100th attempt itself. Probability is the maximum number of attempts that are likely to succeed.

So in this way we find that the probability of a blind person properly arranging the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle may be very low, he may not do it even after trying for a lifetime. No wonder The average lifespan of a human being is only 65 years, which is very little in terms of completing the maximum efforts required for such rare coincidences to occur. What if this age is 65 million years? And what if trillions and billions of blinds are engaged in this effort?
👇2
प्राकृतिक चयन के सिद्धांत द्वारा पहली बार यह प्रमाणिक रूप से समझा जा सका कि प्रकृति बिना किसी बौद्धिक हस्तक्षेप के स्वतः ही जैव विविधताओं को आकार देने में सक्षम है। डार्विन द्वारा प्रस्तुत किया गया प्राकृतिक चयन का सिद्धांत वास्तव में बेहद क्रांतिकारी विचार सिद्ध हुआ। इसने परंपरागत सोच के पैटर्न को ब्रेक कर मानव चेतना को एक नए आयाम पर पहुंचा दिया, क्योंकि सम्पूर्ण मानव इतिहास में हम पहली बार यह समझने में सक्षम हुए कि चीजें इस ढंग से भी घटित हो सकती हैं। अन्यथा इससे पूर्व हम यह सोच ही नहीं सकते थे कि बिना किसी बुद्धिमान निर्माता के कोई जटिल रचना सिर्फ प्राकृतिक नियमों के सहारे स्वतः कैसे विकसित हो सकती है? आज हम जानते हैं कि प्राकृतिक चयन को यदि अपना काम करने के लिए पर्याप्त समय दिया जाए तो यह एक बिल्कुल प्रारंभिक सरल जीवन प्रारूप को उत्तरोत्तर विकसित करते हुए लगभग 4 अरब वर्षों में एक बेहद जटिल जीव के रूप में विकसित कर सकता है जो यह प्रश्न पूछ सके कि यह ब्रह्मांड कैसे बना?

लेकिन अब यहाँ कोई पूछ सकता है कि माना प्राकृतिक चयन सरल जीवन प्रारूपों को एक जटिल जीव के रूप में विकसित कर सकता है, लेकिन इसको काम करने के लिए सरल ही सही पर एक जीवन प्रारूप चाहिए ही, और सरल से सरल जीवन प्रारूप भी सरल ही सही पर एक व्यवस्था है। साथ ही ब्रह्मांडीय नियम जिनके कारण यह ब्रह्मांड अस्तित्व में आया और वे प्राकृतिक नियम जिनके कारण प्राकृतिक चुनाव को अपना काम करने का अवसर मिलता है एक व्यवस्था ही है, तो यह व्यवस्था कैसे अस्तित्व में आई?

सर्वप्रथम जीवन की बात करते हैं। जीवन की उत्पत्ति के विषय में हम जितना अभी तक समझ पाए हैं उसके अनुसार जीवन का सबसे सरल प्रारूप लगभग 4 अरब वर्ष पूर्व अस्तित्व में आया वह अणु था जो अपनी प्रतिकृति बनाने में सक्षम था। हमने जीवन के लिए आवश्यक सभी जैव रसायनों को पहचान लिया है, और यह भी सिद्ध हो चुका है कि उन सभी रसायनों का निर्माण पृथ्वी के आरंभिक काल के वातावरण में संभव था। लेकिन फिर भी उन सभी रसायनों का आपस में इस तरह व्यवस्थित होना ताकि अपनी प्रतिकृति बनाने में सक्षम एक स्वचालित व्यवस्था का निर्माण हो सके एक बेहद दुर्लभ संयोग है। मोटे तौर पर आप इसे कुछ ऐसा समझ सकते हैं जैसे कोई अँधा व्यक्ति सैकड़ों टुकड़ों वाली किसी जिग्सा पजल के टुकड़ों को जोड़ने के प्रयास में उसे बिल्कुल ठीक ढंग से जोड़ने में सफल हो जाए। यह बिलकुल असंभव प्रतीत होता है। लेकिन गणित की मानें तो दुर्लभ से दुर्लभतम संयोग में भी असंभव जैसा कुछ नहीं होता, बस उसके घटने की प्रायिकता बेहद कम होती है।

गणित में प्रायिकता का अर्थ है कि किसी घटना को कितनी बार दोहराने पर उस इच्छित संयोग के घटने की सम्भावना है। उदाहरण के तौर पर यदि आप किसी ताश की गड्डी में से रेंडमली कोई पत्ता खींचते हैं तो इच्छित पत्ता निकलने की सम्भावना 1/52 होती है। इसका अर्थ है यदि आप 52 बार प्रयास करेंगे तो इसमें आपको एक बार सफलता अवश्य मिलेगी। कोई घटना भले कितनी ही दुर्लभ हो पर यदि हमें उसके बारे में कुछ मूलभूत बातें पता हों तो हम उसके घटने की प्रायिकता(probability) की गणना कर सकते हैं। दुनिया भर के तमाम जुआघर प्रायिकता की सटीक गणनाओं के कारण ही सफलतापूर्वक चल रहे हैं। यहाँ एक बात समझना बेहद जरूरी है, कि किसी घटना के घटने की प्रायिकता यदि 1/100 है तो इसका अर्थ यह नहीं है कि सफलता 100 प्रयासों के बाद ही मिलेगी। हो सकता है सफलता 10वें प्रयास में ही मिल जाए, या फिर हो सकता है 41वें प्रयास में मिल जाए, या यह भी हो सकता है कि सफलता 100वें प्रयास में ही मिले। प्रायिकता अधिकतम प्रयासों की संख्या को बताती है जिसमें सफलता मिलने की सम्भावना है।

तो इस तरह हम पाते हैं कि एक अंधे व्यक्ति द्वारा किसी जिग्सा पजल के टुकड़ों को सही ढंग से व्यवस्थित करने की प्रायिकता बेहद कम हो सकती है, हो सकता है वह जीवन भर प्रयास करने के बावजूद भी ऐसा न कर सके। कोई आश्चर्य नहीं। मनुष्य की औसत आयु ही मात्र 65 वर्ष है, जो कि ऐसे दुर्लभ संयोगों के घटित हो सकने के लिए आवश्यक अधिकतम प्रयासों को एक जीवन में पूरा कर पाने के लिहाज से बेहद कम है। क्या हो यदि यही आयु 65 करोड़ वर्ष हो? और क्या हो यदि खरबों खरब अंधे इस प्रयास में जुटे हों तो?

Address

Ujhani
243601

Opening Hours

Monday	9am - 5pm
Tuesday	9am - 5pm
Wednesday	9am - 5pm
Thursday	9am - 5pm
Friday	9am - 5pm
Saturday	9am - 5pm
Sunday	9am - 5pm

Website

https://godimediavsrealmedia.blogspot.com/

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Godi Media Vs Real Media posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.