Veda And Science

Dear Thyagarajan Sir,

You have nicely summarized in a simple sentence of what I was trying to say in my whole snippet.

Which is why science can't comprehend everything that exists and we are limited by the capacity of our brain. Please read the example of "an ant walking on the rug" example given by the author of "Einstein's Enigma".

I read a book that I couldn't put down until I finished the whole book. It is titled, "Einstein's Enigma" and the author is Rodrigues dos Santos. His book was a fiction but there are many scientific facts he included for the readers to consume and comprehend some inexplicable existence. He said our planet has 32 conditions that can't change for life to exist it is not only the axis in which the planet rotates but also the Sun's rays, atmosphere, Oxygon, carbon and many more. He also mentioned in this book that Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr requested a mathematician in Netherlands to work out an algebraic equation that would explain the existence of the universe but didn't succeed as they found more and more inexplicable facts that invalidated their assumptions.

This famous author in his blog written on Sep 4, 2010 said the following:

1) When we search for the scientific proof of God's existence, we first need to establish one crucial thing: what is God? Some people imagine God as an old patriarch with a white beard who looks down at the world, listens to our prayers, and protects us.

2) But, if you look through the end of a telescope on a starry night, no such entity will be visible. So, the question becomes, is there a different form of God out there and how does science uncover Him? First, science deals with God not as a supernatural entity, but as something natural. Remember: the supernatural is only the natural we do not understand.

3) Science looks at the universe and searches for two things: intelligence and intention. Is the universe intelligent? Just look around - there are clever things everywhere. See the extremely intelligent way a cell divides in two, and then in four, and so on, in a process that ends up with a human being. Isn't that intelligent? But what if this intelligence is merely accidental? If the universe is accidental, there is no God and life has no meaning - it's just an accident. But if the universe is intentional, then there is God and, yes, life has a meaning. That's why we also need to find intention. How do we do that?

4) Let us suppose I find a flower lying on the ground. I will think: well, this is a flower, a natural thing, and that's it. But let us suppose that, instead of a flower, I find a pen. I know a pen has a purpose and someone invented it with an intention: to write. I may not know personally who that inventor is, but I know someone invented the pen with an intention. Now, if I can say this about something as simple as a pen, why can't I say the same about a flower? Why do I accept that a pen is an intelligent device created by someone with an intention and I cannot say the same about people, life, the universe? Aren't the trees, and the clouds, and the rain, and the planets, and the stars much more complex and intelligent creations than... a pen?
Or for example, suppose I ask an engineer: "What is television?" He's going to open up a TV set and say: "Well, television is a device with chips and wires and electrical stuff". He's right, of course. But it's much more than that, isn't it? Television is also about news programs, sports, soap-operas, reality-shows, game-shows, movies.

5) But, if you ask a scientist: "What is the universe?" He will say: "Well, the universe is quarks, electrons, protons, neutrons, atoms, planets, stars, constellations, galaxies, clusters". He's right, of course. That's the hardware of the universe, but scientists do not examine the software. What is the program that is playing? What is behind the hardware? The problem is, perhaps, perspective. Imagine there's a small ant on top of a Persian rug. If I told the ant that she's walking on a beautiful rug, she would say: "What rug? What are you talking about? This is just the ground." So, if I want the ant to see how beautiful the rug is, I have to lift her from the ground and show her the rug from a vantage point, giving her the full view.

6) "The Einstein Enigma" is a novel that, through a love and spy story involving a hitherto unknown manuscript by Albert Einstein, addresses God from science's perspective. And it shows, using recent scientific data, that the universe is fine-tuned for life, a discovery with tremendous philosophical implications because it means there is intention in its creation. Because the book is fiction, I get to play with some of these ideas in a way that scientists cannot.

7) Where does Stephen Hawkings' "The Grand Design" fit in? He deals with these same disturbing scientific discoveries explained in detail in "The Einstein Enigma." He admits they are "odd" and "difficult to explain" without accepting God exists, but he tries anyway. How? He comes up with a theory that explains the strange fine tuning of the universe as something accidental. He says: there are zillions of universes and, out of zillions, one was bound to come up fine-tuned for life.

The evidence for this? An interpretation by Richard Feynman on a quantic experiment called The Buckyball Experiment, which involves projecting particles against a double-slit barrier. Feynman states that at every moment the universe is splitting in two in such a way that a particle goes through the left slit on Universe 1 and the same particle goes through the right slit on Universe 2 and the same particle goes back to the left slit on Universe 3 and the same particle goes back to the left slit on Universe 4 and so on and so on.

Hawking discusses Feynman's interpretation of its results by saying that out of these endless possibilities, it was inevitable that a universe fine-tuned for life would emerge - it's just a statistical accident.

Convincing? You decide. Hawking's extravagant theory is all there is to explain the discoveries in a way that does not link the universe to an intentional intelligence. What I say to you, as the author of "The Einstein Enigma," is that the universe is a strange place.

Conclusion:

In fact, quantum theory tells us that things are so bizarre that particles only decide in which place they are when we look at them. If we accept these weird concepts, why don't we accept a simpler evidence: that the universe is intentional?

Remember, we are really ants walking on top of a rug. What I try to do in my novel is to give you a new perspective to see the universe. A vantage point. The solution to Einstein's last enigma.

Regarding man finding divinity inside of him, the Avatars, Saints and Seers of yesteryears have told us that once we experience who we really are, we go beyond the tools of body, mind, and intellect which is what they call as Turya state. We can't find divinity using our cerebreal power but by experiencing it by going inside of us to the exclusion of Maya that exists around us. It can be done through Jnana, Bhakthi or Karma Yoga. Meditation helps us to discover ourselves and how to control the senses and mind that prevents us from going inside.

 

Hahaha. Already humanity is afraid of ChatGPT4 as it could surpass the human brain. Earlier, clowning became a major subject matter of discussion and now it is ChatGPT4.

Rodriques when debating about the purpose of humanity, he said may be life is created as replica of divinity in general, the humans with discrimination in particular, so that future colonies can be created in other planets with humanity joining the mission of the divinity. May be God wanted humanity to do His job.

 

Dear Thyagarajan Sir, Thank you for your second response.

 

Dear Smt. Jayasala:

Thank you for sharing that wonderful insight of scientists why there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being that derived the equation needed for life to exist. They derived their answers through reasoning whereas the religions derived their answers through belief system of their holy books.