THE SCIENCE & PHILOSOPHY OF UNIVERSE,

CONSCIOUSNESS AND DIVINITY

As the centuries tick to the third decade, man has forged two strong alleys with which he conquers all of time
and space -- Science and Technology. These giants grow by the instant, inched forward hand in hand, feeding
on each other; and taking man all along the way. However, the walking mind's intuition breaks down when we
traverse the edges of our knowing - we still know little about the cosmos at large or the sub-atomic realm;
where speculations, hypotheses and models lean on to one another; making a monumental yet fragile, subtle
yet incomprehensible mix. Our arsenal is even scant when we come back to ourselves, lodging on less remote
yet infinitely more intriguing subjects, like the meaning of existence and nature of consciousness - the
theorized intuition falls down to zero here -- the truth is bitter but inescapable now, that the superior-
intelligence-beings that we claim to be, know neither of the big nor small, nor are we aware of the state and
nature of the very core of our own selves -- even when we claim to intellectually conquer and creatively tame
the entire creations of the universe, the larger realm will always escape us, the truth lodged an inch beyond
our intuition. These are the answer that mystics once new but mankind later chose to forget, the truth that got
buried under the shrines of modern-science that leverages on cold logic; the answers which can be only found
from within our consciousness; the answers that are the questions themselves.

SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY

Science has answered, with an interweave of theorization and experiments, most of our questions about the
everything in this universe, except the frontiers -- the questions about the beginning and end of time, the
boundaries and nature of space; and the curiosity about what is matter ultimately made about; are stuck with
vague and perplexing answers. Despite our theoretical explorations of the big-bang and the curvature of space
time, rigorous experimentation with particle accelerators that churn out a variety of new particles so often,
eyes set in the space observing the trajectories of galaxies and the red-shift of the light they emit; and
theorization about the picoscopic that feature Higg's bosons, superstrings and p-branes.

The perspectives and pictures that the models that the modern-day science explains matter and the cosmos
with, are nothing short of sheerly perplexing. However, there is one interesting trend - the complex models
that scientists churn out get progressively similar to the philosophical world view of ancient mystics. As the
scientists learn more about atoms and particles, the more strange they get, leaving the only option to entirely
picture the notion as the mystic's point of view. What science is unveiling with constant rigor and years of
experiments and models; the mystics have experienced long ago, with pure mystical exploration powered by
mediation. What we attempt in this discussion is to attain a philosophical understanding of the nature of the
universe that matches the scientific picture of the same. Our exploration is not strictly in lines with the
established philosophical foundations, but rather forms an independent perspective that does not delve too
deep into the intricacies of either realm.

THE NATURE OF SPACE AND TIME

The conceptualization of space and time as an inseparable, interwoven unity is not new, and dates back to
Minkovsky, Lorentz and Einstein -- the de facto picture of the universe now features the hybrid entity called
space-time, where the conventional notions of space and time are interlinked to an extend that makes
seamless transformation from one to another possible. Put simply, two events may seem closer in space and
farther in time to me than they seem to you, this trade-off between space and time governed by the relative
velocity between me and you. [Velocity in the sense of both magnitude and direction. In a strictly relativistic
discourse, however, the distinction between magnitude and velocity is meaningless - magnitude in a sense is
the time-equivalent of the direction of velocity] Time-durations and the concept of simultaneity are no less
relative than distances along different axes are to different observers.

Though the physical framework of this concept can be elegantly outlined in half a dozen neat equations, the
philosophical implication of the relativity of time cannot be belittled. The idea of time being relative and
observer-dependent throws a wrench at the layman's understanding of the world - a sceptical mind can even
start questioning the reality of the world as a whole. Simultaneity is relative in this notion, which directly
means that the sequence that events unfurl is non-definite - the order that a chain of events unfurls may
actually be different to different observers. This immediately shatters any kind of cause-effect relation among
events. Given a cause event A and its effect B (take note of the fact that A causes B to happen, so A should
necessarily happen before B), there can always be another reference-frame, another view-port in the universe,
in which the order of the events are reversed or coalesced, i.e., A, the cause, happens after the effect B has
occurred; how then, can A be called the cause?

The general theory of relativity, put forward later by Einstein, paints an even weirder picture of the universe,
stating that the entire space and time can actually curve. The parabolic path that a ball you send flying forward
is actually a straight line in the curved space; and this simple notion elegantly explains gravity and the pseudo-
forces associated with it, simultaneously opening up more enlightened vistas of philosophical thought.

The bending space-time can also be used to elucidate the notions of the boundaries of space and the end of
time. Like a circle that closes in on itself, the periphery of it having no well-defined ends yet being finite and
limited in both area and circumference; the space-time could form a closed shell, bending in on itself. Neither
the universe, then, nor the time, needs to have a start or an end - The universe is a simple, closed finite entity
in five dimensions [the universe itself having 4 dimensions, we need one additional dimension into which the
four can curve], having no bounds, beginning or end as we know it, existing there as it is in a complex cyclic
loop. Picture travelling long enough in one direction and seeing yourselves where you started off, or living long
enough to see yourselves in your past - a notion no more weirder than what a spherical earth sounded in the
early days of Science.

CAUSALITY: THE NATURE OF CAUSE-EFFECT RELATIONSHIPS

The relative nature of time, as we discussed earlier, puts the notion of cause, effect and event-chains in
question; as whichever event we chose as the cause, we can always find a reference-frame in which the cause
occurs after the effect, as long as these are separated in space - the classical day-to-day notion of cause-effect
relationship is instantly nullified, so is any kind of sequential ordering among the events. What picture can we
have then, of the universe and its proceedings, other than the mysterious equations or vague descriptions?
The answer is embedded in relativity itself - the concept of time as an equivalent axis to the three space axes,
lets us picture the  life and evolution of, say, a particle, as a pattern, a pattern that maps the existence and
extend of the particle along all the four dimensions. A representation of such a pattern with one space and one
time dimension is shown in the diagram, which neatly summarizes the notion of relativity and static nature of
time. The reality is no less simple than the picture, the evolution of the particle is as static as the graph depicts,
the evolution is the pattern. The figure also shows an alternate field of view, in which the particle's evolution
takes a slightly different path.

This indeed paves ground to further theological and philosophical arguments. With a static pattern established
for everything in the universe, the notion of fate can't have a better grounding in Science. The notion of cause,
effect, action, reaction, everything being mere parts of a bigger picture, "part of a plan"; is intuitively explained
with precise logical backing. However, the question that; if our own destinies are such static patterns, with our
deeds having no effect on them; is open for debate, taking into account that the so called "deeds" too are
actually parts of the pattern, the bigger picture. Are we then mere "patterns", and is change an illusion like
time is? One way of tackling this decidedly disturbing question is accepting our mind as part of a pattern - our
perception of the world, our thoughts, intellect and the entire conjecture called consciousness is part of the
plan, a mere static pattern written on the fabric of space-time. There is however, another perception of the
scenario, which puts the Self at a mightier ground - a perception where Consciousness transcends the space,
time, universe, and the entire illusion that we call reality.

CONSCIOUSNESS AND EXISTENTIALISM

What is consciousness? The question encompasses the idea of the essential meditative introspection of "Who
am I", but in a deeper and far more general sense. The discourse about consciousness and its nature can yield
results that are surprising and equally disturbing.
Zen master Shiang Fu once had a dream, in which he was a butterfly. Waking up from the dream, he
wondered, "Did Shiang Fu dream about being a butterfly, or is a butterfly dreaming about being Shiang Fu?"
This simple question beautifully portrays the concept of the fickleness of the so-called reality, the fact that the
world that we experience with our consciousness is really not much different from a dream. The Hollywood
films, Inception and The Matrix attempt a clever yet elegant examination of this subject, examining the  real
world in comparison with dreams and existentialism.

When we are dreaming, we experience the dream like perfectly real, having no clue within the dream making
us aware that we're dreaming - it's only when we awake that the details start to get vague, and the events and
sequences appear weird. Within the dream, everything qualifies perfectly to be called real. How can we then
say with confidence that this world too is not merely a dream? Put differently, how different is our
consciousness and the world we experience with it, from a dream? Furthering on this ground, we can argue
that everything; including life, perception, and this universe, are merely part of a majestic dream we are
having; no more real than the dreams you have in sleep nor any less. Perhaps, the world is merely our
perceptions of it, existing only because we perceive it that way.

SCIENCE & FAITH

All of scientific exploration and philosophical endeavours, at some point, boils down to a three lettered word,
that man has both purported and denied since the start of (his) time - God. While the idea of a central power,
an ultimatum that's beyond space and time, has always been in some form the nexus of all philosophical
thought, Science on the other hand has been labelled blasphemous since its ancient beginnings, while
scientists seemed to have mixed stances on the idea. While some where strong believers, others strongly
discarded the idea of any supreme power, other than nature itself and its laws. To reach a comfortable picture
on the scene, overlaying mystic thought over the intricacies of frontier sciences is essential. The contrasting
colours of Science and philosophy add a new perspective to our vision of the scene, like an anaglyph glass
would.

The essential question of "Does God exist?" can be examined with a slightly more diverse yet essentially
equivalent question - "What is God?"
When we say God, what is it that we actually mean, where do we place our definition of God; on the scale
ranging from a super-powered Avatar, to the non-obstructive, all-encompassing omnipresence? Once we
outline our definition, it's simpler to prove or disprove the Scientific grounding of the subject, and effectively
tackle the question about the existence of God - the ideas we've discussed so far provides enough fuel for an
effective philosophical discussion on the topics of God, Fate and Destiny.

The easiest grip we can get on the complex idea of a divine presence is to consider Energy as equivalent to
God. God is Energy, permeating the entire universe in one form or the other, forming everything from nothing,
being the crux of all matter, forces and life - ah, what else can fit more beautifully to the simplest definition of
God! Energy is everywhere, and is the reason for existence of all of matter and antimatter. The sum total of the
entire energy belonging to the universe is zero, the Void [This may be a weird fact, but true. While all of matter
is comprised of energy, the potential energies assosciated with orbiting bodies under influence of some force-
field is always negative. This way, the total energy contained in the entire universe adds up to zero] Energy and
its manifestation in some form is the basis of the universe as it is - the universe  is Energy. Energy is the
miracles we see. Energy is the life and what sustains it. Energy is the forces, the electrons and the planets, and
the intricate rules that unfailingly govern them each instant. Energy is everything around us, the universe,
Energy is God.

Nevertheless, the more philosophical topics we've discussed along the way paves way for slightly more mystic
pictures of the presence called God. Once we accept the finiteness of our dimensions, it is not difficult to
consider a presence beyond these dimensions that transcends all of space and time. The concept of fate and
destiny are easy to picture too, when change and evolution become mere patterns drawn on a
tetradimensional fabric, with a superior being that transcends these dimensions bestowed with complete
power of redrawing and deciding our fates and the paths that we trace out in time - this picture of Almighty
fits our more stringent definitions of God, where the presence is beyond all of space and time. From this
perspective, the omnipresent energy becomes merely the manifestation of the Almighty within our
dimensions.

Our discourse about the nature of consciousness sets scene for an even more mystic and profound exploration
of the concept of a Divine presence. The conjecture said that this world was merely the projections of our
mind, where then is the place for the Divine presence this way? The answer to this question is one that Sufi
and Indian mystics have discovered long ago, folded neatly in the chants, "Ana-el-Haq" and "Aham
Brahmasmi" - God is within us, God is ourselves. If we are the creators of the monstrous miracle called the real
world, and if the reality if the world is only what we see and conceive of it, how could be God be any place else
but our own minds?

In an existentialist's view, where nothing is real other than his own self, God is indeed part of his self - this
needn't force him to deny the existence of that Divine presence altogether - quite the contrary, this
perspective gives a much more elegant picture of the concept than any other. Almighty is the presence at the
back of your mind; that conjured and manifested your world-view; making things evolve and take form
sometimes the way you want, and sometimes against your will. It is the enlightened subconscious that, during
the moments of meditation, unfurls before you, talks to you. It is the mighty subconscious that heeds your
darkest fears and earnest prayers, and occasionally manifests the world to suit them. A prayer is nothing but a
wish so strong, answered when our own subconscious takes heed of this desire and re-implements the "real-
dream" accordingly, not much different from how a recurring thought in our mind may manifest itself as a
dream.

Once a man understands and accepts the profound elegance of Existentialism, this is perhaps the closest he
can get to understanding the Almighty and his nature. However, Existentialism is not the easiest concept to
grasp and believe in, and the concept in the modest sense is deeply disturbing. In this case, the concepts of
God as either an extra-spatial entity or energy are easier to hold on to, without being bothered by the intricate
hallways of existentialistic thought. The atheist can, on the other hand argue that energy and Subconscious
enlightenment are merely that - energy and subconscious enlightenment, and needn't be adorned with a
three-letter word. There is of course nothing wrong in this argument, as long as one doesn't deny the reality
and existence of the above mentioned entities -- it merely is a matter of nomenclature, the atheist calls it
energy, space and the subconscious mind, the believer simply sums this up in a three lettered word - God.