Short answer: they can inform each other, but they do not try to do the same job. Jain cosmology is a spiritual map for liberation; modern science is an empirical map of measurable phenomena. Read them together with care, using Jain principles like anekantavada (many‑sidedness) and naya (standpoints).

Ways they fit or fruitfully interact

• Eternal, law‑governed universe: Jainism holds the loka to be beginningless, without a creator, operating by natural laws. Science also seeks lawful explanations without appealing to a creator. The purposes differ, but the non‑creationist stance is a meeting point.
• Matter as endlessly divisible and transformable: Pudgala (matter) is described as aggregates of paramanu undergoing constant modification (paryaya). This resonates loosely with modern views of particulate/microphysical structure and conservation/change. It is only an analogy; do not equate paramanu with atom or any specific particle.
• Space and time are fundamental: Akasha (space) and kala (time) are basic dravyas. Science also treats spacetime and temporal order as fundamental. But Jain akasha/kala are eternal substances with scriptural definitions, not the mathematical entities of physics.
• Many‑sided inquiry: Anekantavada and syadvada encourage qualified, contextual statements—very similar to model‑pluralism in science. This Jain discipline helps avoid dogmatic “one equation explains all” thinking and supports humility in interpretation.
• Ubiquity of life and non‑violence: Jain texts recognize countless living beings, including extremely minute forms, and center ethics (ahimsa). Modern biology’s discovery of vast, often microscopic life gives a practical field where Jain ethics can guide research, food systems, ecology, and medicine without needing cosmographic agreement.
• Causality with ethics: Karmic bondage is explained as a subtle pudgala process linked to intention and conduct. While this is beyond current scientific tests, it motivates rigorous self‑study and ethical discipline that can inform fields like psychology, public health, and environmental stewardship.

Where they do not align (and should not be forced to)

• Shape and tiers of the loka: The Jain triloka form, Jambudvipa‑Meru layout, upper/middle/lower worlds, etc., are part of a soteriological cosmography preserved in scripture. Modern astronomy and geology do not adopt these maps; they answer different questions.
• Dharmastikaya and adharmastikaya: These unique Jain substances that enable motion and rest have no direct scientific counterpart. Treat them as doctrinal categories, not as undiscovered physical fields.
• Time cycles: Jain ascending/descending half‑cycles (utsarpini/avasarpini) do not map onto Big‑Bang/expansion models. They frame spiritual conditions across vast eras, not astrophysical history.

How to read them together, faithfully and intelligently

• Keep standpoints distinct: From vyavahara‑naya (practical standpoint), use empirical science for worldly predictions and technology. From nishchaya‑naya (ultimate standpoint), use Jain doctrine to purify conduct, perception, and knowledge for liberation.
• Use analogies with care: Say “from one standpoint (syat), this resembles…” and stop short of claiming identity. This preserves doctrinal purity and intellectual honesty.
• Let ethics lead applications: Regardless of cosmographic differences, Jain vows (ahimsa, satya, asteya, brahmacharya, aparigraha) offer powerful guidance for modern challenges—animal welfare, environmental limits, responsible AI/biotech, and consumption.
• Respect tradition across sects: Digambar and Shvetambar agree on the six dravyas and the broad triloka scheme; some measurements and lists differ. When details matter (e.g., lokakash dimensions), follow your tradition’s texts and teachers.

Bottom line

• Harmony comes from right standpoint, not from forcing sameness. Let science explain measurable “how,” and let Jain Dharma guide “why” and “how to live,” while preserving the spiritual intent of our cosmology.