The type of things science can’t explore with a Monotonic Mindset

Subhash Chandra Sawhney
3 min readNov 28, 2023

Just think — what was unscientific about the ability of Shakuntala Devi (1929–2013) who had set an example by calculating certain things even at a speed faster than the speed at which the computers of those days could calculate?

But is it not true that science is still at a loss to understand how it could have been possible? If something has been demonstrated to be possible — is science not expected to explore how it could have been possible?

So does it not reflect that there has to be some lacuna somewhere?

The lacuna lies in its “Monotonic Mindset”.

You may be wondering what may, at all, be so wrong about its mindset.

The fact is its present mindset bars it from using any techniques which are not considered scientific techniques, by it.

Even I have come to know about the limitations of what we may call “Monotonic Thinking”, only recently.

But I won’t mind sharing what I have come to know about it.

I learnt about it only after reading the following quip.

The quip that made me aware of the limitations of Monotonic Thinking”

In a mother’s womb were two babies as shown in the following diagram.

One of them asked the other, “Do you believe in life after delivery?”

The other replied, “Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.”

“Nonsense,” said the first.

“There is no life after delivery. What kind of life would that be?”

The second said, “I don’t know but we never know — there may be more light there as compared to the light we have here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths? Maybe we will have other senses that we can’t understand now.”

The first replied, “That is absurd. Walking is impossible. And eating with our mouths? Ridiculous! The umbilical cord supplies nutrition and everything we need. But the umbilical cord is so short. Life after delivery is to be logically excluded.”

The second insisted, “Well I think there is something and maybe it’s different than it is here. Maybe we won’t need this physical cord anymore.”

The first replied, “Nonsense. Moreover, if there is life, then why has no one ever come back from there? Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery, there is nothing but darkness and silence and oblivion. It takes us nowhere.”

“Well, I don’t know,” said the second, “but certainly we will meet Mother and she will take care of us.”

The first replied “Mother? Do you truly believe in Mother? That’s laughable. If Mother exists, where is She now?”

The second said, “She is all around us. We are surrounded by her. We are a part of Her. It is in Her that we live. Without Her, this world would not and could not exist.”

Said the first, “Well I don’t see Her, so it is only logical that She doesn’t exist.”

To which the second replied, “Sometimes, when you’re in silence and you focus and listen, you can perceive Her presence, and you can hear Her loving voice, calling down from above.”

Maybe this was one of the best explanation of the concept of GOD.

Even if it may or may not be the best explanations of the concept of GOD — how does it matter?

It, anyway, explains the difference between two altogether different mindsets.

If we may call the mindset of the first twin “Monotonic Mindset”, we may call the mindset of the other twin “Di-tonic Mindset”.

This quip made me aware of the fact that we may call the present mindset of science “Monotonic Mindset”.

We may also say it has blocked its scope of exploring things such as the reason why Shakuntala Devi could calculate just like a human computer only because it has got stuck up with the type of the mindset of the first twin.

So, it has to come out of its shell.

Am I not right about it?

Science may be able to explore the things it is not able to explore at present once it comes out of its shell.



Subhash Chandra Sawhney

A mechanical engineer,born in year 1939, lives in Lucknow, India. Has authored six books. Website;