FQXi Community

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Guidelines

FAQ

Essays: read and discuss

Latest FQXi news

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss • winners

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss • winners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discuss • winners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American
read/discuss • winners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discuss • winners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discuss • winners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Prem N. Tiwari: on 2/3/09 at 14:42pm UTC, wrote Dear Eckard Blumschein, Your last comment is “Consciousness is something...

Eckard Blumschein: on 2/2/09 at 12:58pm UTC, wrote Dear Prem Tiwari, Why do you believe you are the first one who allegedly...

Prem N. Tiwari: on 2/2/09 at 10:44am UTC, wrote Dear Eckard Blumschein As you know the title of my paper is ‘Ultimate...

Eckard Blumschein: on 1/31/09 at 5:13am UTC, wrote Dear Prem Tiwari, I apologize for writing not understandably enough. ...

Prem N. Tiwari: on 1/29/09 at 8:53am UTC, wrote Dear Eckard Blumschein, I am unable to understand most of your comments. ...

Eckard Blumschein: on 1/25/09 at 20:25pm UTC, wrote Dear Prem N. Tiwari, If I understood you correctly, you are calling a...

Prem N. Tiwari: on 1/19/09 at 6:22am UTC, wrote Dear Eckard Blumschein, Though the essay contest is long over still, i...

Eckard Blumschein: on 1/13/09 at 19:21pm UTC, wrote Dear Prem N. Tiwari, What about a or the Big Bang, I see it a speculation...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Dufourny: "In reading the paper of Maudlin quietly, I have ideas , The aim is to..." in The Noise of Gravitons

Steve Dufourny: "The equation that I have writen here is intuitive and needs probably some..." in The Noise of Gravitons

Steve Dufourny: "A kind of strategy is necessary to create all these solutions.FQXi could..." in Global Collaboration

Steve Dufourny: "This project Global collaboration here on FQXi is possible, we could name..." in Global Collaboration

Steve Dufourny: "stop this please, FQXi is well moderated , so don t insist" in George Ellis - How can...

Martin Gray: "What are the different skin conditions that people often face? Every skin..." in George Ellis - How can...

Steve Dufourny: "Jonathan Dickau ,hope you are well, always cool to have your points of vue,..." in 16th Marcel Grossmann...

Steve Dufourny: "This platform is about theoretical physics, it is irritating to have these..." in 16th Marcel Grossmann...

RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

The Math of Consciousness: Q&A with Kobi Kremnitzer
A meditating mathematician is developing a theory of conscious experience to help understand the boundary between the quantum and classical world.

Can We Feel What It’s Like to Be Quantum?
Underground experiments in the heart of the Italian mountains are testing the links between consciousness and collapse theories of quantum physics.

The Thermodynamic Limits of Intelligence: Q&A with David Wolpert
Calculating the energy needed to acquire and compute information could help explain the (in)efficiency of human brains and guide the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence.

Gambling Against the Second Law
Using precision thermometry to make mini heat engines, that might, momentarily, bust through the thermodynamic limit.

Mind and Machine: What Does It Mean to Be Sentient?
Using neural networks to test definitions of 'autonomy.'

read & discuss all articles

FQXi FORUM

July 7, 2022

CATEGORY: The Nature of Time Essay Contest (2008) [back]
TOPIC: Ultimate Reality and Nonmaterial Origin Of Universe by Prem Nath Tiwari [refresh]

Prem Nath Tiwari wrote on Aug. 25, 2008 @ 18:38 GMT

Essay Abstract

Ultimate reality is an entity that is invariant against time and condition. Nothing in the material universe is invariant against time and condition to be termed as ultimate reality. The universe itself did not exist before. It originated 13.7 billions years ago in the so called Big Bang. What, if anything, existed before the Big Bang and from what and how the universe originated are science's most pressing questions. It has been proved by the thought experiment that one knows that he is without bringing his body into picture and without using his five senses, mind and intellect which implies that the knowledge of self existence is independent of body, five senses and mind, and the consciousness that gives rise to the knowledge of self existence has independent existence. Since this consciousness is independent of body and mind it must be the same for all. Because of this it is called undifferentiated consciousness. It has been found that the knowledge of self existence remains unchanged under all times and under all conditions during entire life time of every person. Therefore, undifferentiated consciousness (UC) that give rise to the knowledge of self existence is ultimate reality. UC is timeless because of being changeless. Being ultimate reality ever present UC was before the Big Bang and the universe (energy) came out of it as there was nothing else. Universe originated by the inter conversion of UC and energy.

Author Bio

Dr. Prem N. Tiwari is a Nuclear Physicist, retired as Director of Nuclear Research Laboratory, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi. Professor Tiwari made several pioneering contributions in the application of nuclear methods in agriculture and biology and, authored a book on “Fundamentals of Nuclear Science with Applications in Agriculture and Biology” He has been President of two professional societies and has served on special committees of several scientific institutions. He is one of the main founders of “Society for Scientific Values” that is meant to promote ethics in research and management and is currently its Editor.

Download Essay PDF File

Anonymous wrote on Sep. 14, 2008 @ 10:06 GMT

Hi

I read the paper and it seems to be very impressive. This has given me a whole new tangent to look at. There are so many things and just when you know that there could be no more, you get to read something like this. Only one question- How do you explain everything developing from something like the amoeba?

report post as inappropriate

Prem N. Tiwari wrote on Sep. 19, 2008 @ 06:10 GMT

Thanks,

Findings of the fisrt part of my paper may through some light on your question. But I do not have adequate knowledge of that area.

narendranath wrote on Oct. 4, 2008 @ 05:55 GMT

i read your essay with great interest. it dwells at a topic that is an interface between science and spirituality. it satisfies the curiousity of both the scientists and the social philosophers. Apparently, what one sees is just an image of what one wishes to see.The consciousness gets intricately involved in the process through awareness that connects the mind with the physical world. That indicates an intrinsic connection between the physical and non-physical side of whatever we see and not see but sense otherwise. you are right in concluding that it is the consciousness that must have given rise to the physical creation of the Universe and we humans, besides everything else we see or sense!

Anonymous wrote on Oct. 6, 2008 @ 05:42 GMT

Prem N. Tiwari,

Dr Narendranath,

Thanks for your appreciative comments. The first part of my paper presents the proof of the independent existence of undifferentiated consciousness.This is the main contribution of my paper.Rest is its implication.

report post as inappropriate

Jose Eduardo Calderon wrote on Oct. 9, 2008 @ 21:22 GMT

Dear Dr. Tiwari,

In your essay you write:

“There is only one entity namely the knowledge of self existence that every one knows without the use of five senses, mind and intellect.”

and you repeat the above at least 10 times, in variations. This intrigued me very much. Your statement contradicts everything that Western psychology and neuroscience has discovered about the self, and because you seem to originate from the East (India), I would like very much to understand the way you are thinking. So I would like to ask you the following question:

When you say that you _know_ (of your self existence), how do you know it? Don’t you have a memory of yourself at previous times? Does not _knowledge_ imply _memory_?

If you have no memory of yourself (of your past times), then how can you say you know anything about your self? Without memory, how can one know anything?

But if you do have memory of yourself, then where is that memory? Is it not part of your mind? Aren’t memories the building blocks of _minds_? So then, why do you say that “the knowledge of self existence […] every one knows without the use of five senses, MIND and intellect.”? (my emphasis)

Thank you for any clarification.

Jose Eduardo Calderon

Prem N. Tiwari wrote on Oct. 10, 2008 @ 09:44 GMT

Dear Mr Calderon.

Thank you for going through my some what abstract paper and asking very relevant claifications. My first and simple suggestion is to replace the word knowledge by awareness.Memory is not needed for this unique awareness.

You are right, the first sentence of the second sub- heading of my paper states that"there is only one entity namely the knowledge(awareness) of self existence that every one is aware of without--------". I have proved it by thought experiment which implies that awareness of self existence is independent of body and mind(brain).Do you find any flaw in the thought experiment?

I have used this finding repeatedly to prove that the consciousness (one's awareness of some thing) that give rise to the awareness of self existence has independent exixtence and is not caused by brain. I have also proved that it exists forever.I have called it undifferentiated consciousness (UC). This is totally new to science. The consciousness that we experience as thoughts and emotions etc. is called differentiated consciousness caused by different brain processes that is being studied by neuroscientists and psychologists.Their findinds are not contraticted by UC.However neuroscitists are not able to explain 'self' specially its property of being aware of itself (self is aware of itself).In my view neuroscience will never be able to explain what the self is beacuase self is not caused by mind. It is inherent in UC.

Please do not hesitate to ask questions and seek clarifications if you have any.

matthew kolasinski wrote on Oct. 11, 2008 @ 08:40 GMT

Dear Dr. Tiwari,

i read your paper with interest. consciousness and its interplay with perceived reality is a perennial question which has intrigued me for years.

i tried taking your test. i'm afraid i seem to have failed.

re:

"The first question is, “are you or you are not”."

well, actually, it seems that i am, but to be perfectly honest, i don't really know for sure.

re:

"This knowledge is free from the knowledge of individual I (name, fame, ego, etc.)because it is independent of body, five senses, mind and intellect that give rise to the

knowledge of individual I."

this raises a question for me. is this knowledge actually independent of a body? can we find a way to put this assertion to a test? i'm finding myself challenged by the prospect of trying to find a consciousness with no body to pose the question to. perhaps i am misunderstanding what is intended by "knowledge... independent of body". i have indeed seen that consciousness is not entirely "bound" by the body, but this does not seem to be what you are saying here.

re:

"(every one knows that he is)"

well, yes. this is what most believe. this is a subjective and highly pragmatic convention. however, it may have no basis in actuality.

alternatively, you may not actually exist regardless of whether or no you think you do. i may be the only one who actually exists in the entirety of the universe, and am comprised of pure consciousness, in which the universe is merely my thought, and you, who think you exist, are merely one of my projections, there to keep me amused on my path of self-discovery. perhaps it is such that even krishna dances only because i like the echo of my own laughter.

while i have come to suspect that there is a very good possibility that this may actually be the case (which may sound grandiose, but is actually a depressingly lonely thought), you see, i just don't know. it might be that it is you who are the only one actually here and i am a projection of your consciousness. and if it's not me nor you, then who?

there was a pekingese i met once, back in chicago...

i'm not at all sure i'd want to find out.

to "know" with certainty requires a referential limiting field, such as the sensations of the body in order to be able to define the term.the word itself arises from physical perceptions held to be true, a notion largely due to a perception of a recurrent frequency pattern of one sort or another.

perhaps you are using the word here to point to something else that simply runs past words?

there are indeed some implications for the concept of time in this.

warm regards,

matt kolasinski

José Eduardo Calderón wrote on Oct. 11, 2008 @ 12:03 GMT

Dear Dr. Tiwari,

I reply to your answer (Oct 10) for my post (Oct 9), but I’ve also read matthew kolasinski’s post, above, with whom I totally agree. Allow me to rephrase the problem here:

We have at least two differing views about the “awareness of self” to compare. Let’s put them side by side:

Your view says: “awareness of self existence is independent of body...

view entire post

Prem N Tiwari wrote on Oct. 13, 2008 @ 12:52 GMT

Dear Mr Calderón,

Most of what you have written is differentiated consciousness caused by brain that is being studied by nueroscientists. As I have stated in my first reply to you, my paper doesnt contradict the findings of neuroscientists. But nueroscience is not able to explain the self esp its property of being aware of itself,and that the nuersoscience will never be able to explain what the self is. In response you referred to a well known authority in this field Dr V S Ramachandran. OK, I

quote some portion abot self fom his learned convocation address delivered by him at IIT Madras,Chennai ,India in 2004. It is available on the website of IIT Madras. The portion which I am reproducing deals with self.He has listed five charecteristic of self. About the fifth, he has said this'

"Fifth, and most elusive of all, the self, almost by its very nature, is capable of reflection ,of being aware of itself".

He has presented three ways of solving the probltm of self. I am reproducing the third;

"Third may be the solution to the problem of the self is not a straightforward empirical one. It may instead require a radical shift in perspective, the sort of thing that Einstein did when he rejected the assumption that things can move at arbitrarily high velocities. When we finally achieve such a shift in perspective, we may be in for a big surprise and find that the answer was staring at us all along".

My paper supports the third way of solving the problem of self.Please note that the main purpose of my paper is search of ultimate reality (an entity that remains invarient with respect to time and condition).In searching it I have followed the process of science; namely defining and stating the problem precisely, doing experiment , drawing conclusion from the observations. drawing inference based on the conclusion and veryfying the inference. Completion of this process proves that conclusions drawn are valid. All this has been done in my paper. Please read it again without any preconcieved notions. I hope you will understant the paper. However, It is not your limitation If you are not able understant the paper.The Paper is very abstract and difficult to unerstant unless I present it in a lecture.Let us termimate this discussion.

With my beast wishes,

Prem N. Tiwari

Prem N. Tiwari wrote on Oct. 15, 2008 @ 03:46 GMT

I am extremely sorry for the spelling mistake in the last but one line im my above reply. Please read it as

My Best wishes

Prem N. Tiwari

Prem N. Tiwari wrote on Oct. 20, 2008 @ 10:34 GMT

Explanation of our Subjective Experience of Time flow

The paper of Dr Hrvoje Nikolic on “Block Time: Why many physicists still do not accept it?” has brought in focus another aspect of my paper namely, ‘our subjective experience of time and its flow’. He has used the word time to denote our subjective experience of time and its flow and, has stated that time is one of the manifestation of consciousness and that so far science has not been able to understand the origin of consciousness. Hence at the moment science can not provide the understanding of time. I agree with it. My paper provides an understanding of it as follows.

.

The main aim of my paper is search of ultimate reality (an entity that is invariant against time and condition). Its search following the process of science has resulted in the discovery of a unique consciousness (one’s awareness of something) that has independent existence. It gives rise to the awareness (knowledge) of self existence. It has been shown that awareness of self existence is the same for all (you, me and he). Because of this it is called undifferentiated consciousness (UC). It has been shown that UC remains unchanged through out the life of every one. We experience it as continuity, a sense of an unbroken thread running through whole fabric of experiences (I am the same person as child, as young and as old). UC is timeless because of being changeless.

Along with changeless UC we experience various thoughts and emotions, pleasures and pains, love and hate etc. caused by different brain process. They come and go. The consciousness that give rise to changing thoughts and emotions etc. is called differentiated consciousness (DC).

Thus we all experience two kinds of consciousness, UC and DC. UC (awareness of existence) is unchanging and DC (thoughts and emotions) is changing. UC is like the fixed dial of a clock and DC is like a needle moving over the fixed dial giving rise to subjective experience of flow of time. In this experience the rate of flow is not uniform. Some thought arise and pass quickly others persist longer giving rise to faster and slower rate flow of time.

John Merryman wrote on Oct. 21, 2008 @ 10:50 GMT

Prem,

Might it be the other way around, that UC is the hand of the clock representing the present, that is unchanging, while it is the face of the clock that represents those events in life, the DC, that come and go?

Think in terms of the days, where it is always today, while the motion of the earth, relative to the sun, turns tomorrow into today, then yesterday. We see the sun, moving east to west, but the reality is that the earth is rotating west to east. Since the hand of the clock represents the present, it is actually the face of the clock which moves counterclockwise.

It is motion that gives rise to time, as it creates each situation, then replaces it with the next. Motion is the creator. Events are the created. For life, that is emotion. The mind is the record of events streaming away into the past. That's why our minds only see what is past.

Nitish wrote on Nov. 16, 2008 @ 09:29 GMT

Dr. Tiwari

In explaining subjective experience of flow of time you have stated that the main aim of your paper is search of ultimate reality. Its search has resulted in the discovery of a unique consciousness that has independent existence. You have termed it as undifferentiated consciousness (UC). Will you please explain this discovery and its implications in a simpler way? It is very difficult to understand it from the text of your paper.

Prem N. Tiwari wrote on Nov. 17, 2008 @ 06:40 GMT

Nitish,

Yes, my paper is difficult to understand because it deals with the discovery of the most abstract entity namely a unique consciousness that has independent existence. It is difficult to explain it in written text. However, in response to your question I am explaining it in as simpler a way as I can.

In my explanation of our subjective experience of time flow (see my post of...

view entire post

Narendra Nath wrote on Nov. 17, 2008 @ 12:49 GMT

Dr. Tiwari,

i liked your elaborations. Our apparent differences are merely a reflection of our background, individual biasis, ego , backgroud knowledge acquired and above all our ' Samskaras'- the awareness we are born with. The latter in our ancient scripotures comes with the belief in rebirth, which many in the west do not believe in. There reasons lie in their 'religionous' background.

What you differentiate as undifferentiated and differentiated conhsciousness, i prefer to call it individual and cosmic consciousness in my essay and accompnying early posts that have attachments of my two other manuscripts. The latter led me to write up the essay on this website now!

Venerando wrote on Nov. 20, 2008 @ 15:52 GMT

Appreciated Dr. Tiwari,

I have read your essay and see that you have the belief on which everything has been created by a top entity, assuming that there is something over the simple matter and energy. Though I respect your belief, I am not in agreement completely with your affirmations. To be concrete, I do not agree with the spiritual part that comes out of the merely material thing.

Nevertheless, I coincide with you that in the universe there seems to be something more than only matter and energy, though I am calling it "information". This one is a characteristic inherent in any possible interaction in the physical world, be it being observed by a smart conscience or only by two particles interacting between them and observing themself mutually; the mere exchange of energy already supposes an exchange of information. This information led to a high degree of sophistication is what we might say that shapes the content of a biological or computational mind, name it conscience, soul or "soulware".

To a certain extent, this gives us a certain hope in which something can overcome the simple set of matter and energy, since this "soul" seems to have an independent existence. But there is a problem: there is no a manifestation in the whole universe of which there exists an alone bit of information that does not have as support the matter or the energy. Then, if the end of the universe comes and these disappear, it will eliminate also all the information. How might we do in order that this last would not happen?

Prem N. Tiwari wrote on Nov. 22, 2008 @ 09:30 GMT

Dear Mr. Venerando,

I will respond to your comments and question in a day or two.

Prem N. Tiwari wrote on Nov. 23, 2008 @ 06:37 GMT

Dear Mr. Venerando,

As you know, the title of my paper (essay) is “Ultimate Reality and Nonmaterial Origin of Universe”. The main aim of the paper is search of ultimate reality, an entity that remains unchanged at all times and under all conditions. Nothing in the material world remains unchanged at all times and under all conditions to be termed as ultimate reality. A unique consciousness (Awareness) that has independent existence and is not caused by body and brain as shown in my paper has been found to be the ultimate reality. It is called undifferentiated consciousness (UC) because it is the same for all. You seem to call it a top entity. OK.

You also know that the universe (mater and energy) was not there before. It originated 13.7 billions year ago in the so called Big Bang. It originated from what? It originated from that which was before the Big bang. What was before the Big bang? UC being ultimate reality ever present was before the Big Bang and the universe originated from it as there was nothing else. The universe has originated from UC is not a belief but a hypothesis based on logic, reason and facts.

You say that though, you do not fully agree with me but you do agree that in the universe there is something more than only matter and energy. You call it "information". OK. But what is the source of information? Information can originate only from conscious entity. Energy and matter are not conscious entities. Therefore there has to be a conscious entity in the universe to generate the information. That entity is UC as shown in my paper, and it gives rise to the information (knowledge). How UC is integrated with biological material in the brain to give rise to conscious mind is not known.

Towards the end you seem to agree that there is a conscious entity, you call it ‘soul’ that has an independent existence. But, you say, “there is a problem: there is no manifestation in the whole universe of which there exist any information that does not have as support matter or the energy. Then, if the end of the universe comes and these disappear, it will eliminate also all the information. How might we do in order that this last would not happen?”

I ask you a counter question. The universe (matter and energy) was not there before; it originated 13.7 billions year ago; from what came all the information that has material base? It could have come only from a conscious entity that was there. That entity is undifferentiated consciousness (UC) as proved in my paper. UC being ultimate reality ever present will continue to be even after the end of the universe.

A description of the universe that does not take into account UC is likely to be incomplete.

Prem N. Tiwari

Venerando wrote on Nov. 23, 2008 @ 22:01 GMT

Appreciated Dr. Tiwari,

thanks for your answer.

I think that in these questions of not well know entities, things ends becoming a matter of faith. But we have to be cautious; because, though we are be very sure of something, we can be wrong. Therefore, in no case we must take extreme positions in this matter. In this respect, I appreciated very much your last phrase "A description of the universe that does not take into account UC is likely to be incomplete"; because the word "likely".

About the question you ask me in the previous to last paragraph, I think that information has two sides:

-- the objective one. Intrinsic in all matter and energy that is informing about themself to the rest of the universe.

-- the subjetive one. It is the form in which the observer interprets, saves, and reuses the information that receives.

Regards,

Venerando.

Narendra Nath wrote on Nov. 25, 2008 @ 07:18 GMT

Dear Venerando & Tiwari,

V had posted a similar post on my essay too that i have responded, hopefully for you both to see and respond.

Why are we so worried about the right and wrong? It is common experience that help us go further in our quest for the truth. It is much better to discuss with an open mind any question, but the finality of correct answer should not be a prestige issue for any of us. In my understanding of the meetings with some great well-known scientists, i found that they all had an encouraging attitude towards others. Also, in spite of being quite sure of their answer, they always added, 'may be or may not be correct'. That to me are the characteristics of humility,spirit of openness free of bias, and a spirit of adventure in a child-like manner. These are so essential in any scientific cum academic discussion!

Prem N. Tiwari wrote on Nov. 26, 2008 @ 10:05 GMT

Dear Venerando,

I do agree that in science one should not take extreme position and be open to correction. However, if one is quite certain about his findings, he should be unambiguous in stating it, and be prepared to defend it. In my paper as well in my post of 17th November I have proved that undifferentiated Consciousness (UC) has independent existence. So far no one has given any sound reason to disprove it.

With my best wishes,

Prem N. Tiwari

Cristi Stoica wrote on Nov. 29, 2008 @ 10:18 GMT

Dear Dr. Tiwari,

I loved your essay. There may be some interesting ideas in the Vedanta philosophy that worth be submitted to modern science inquiry. One of them is that of what you name “undifferentiated consciousness”. You make the following deduction:

1) "The knowledge of self existence is the only knowledge that every one has without the use of five senses, mind and intellect."

2) "It means that the consciousness that gives rise to the knowledge of self existence has independent existence."

I take that 2) follows from 1) as a philosophical argument (which seems familiar to affirmations made by various, for example Ramana Maharishi), yet, I am unable to perceive it as a scientific proof. In my opinion, if we can imagine a logically consistent world in which 1) is true and 2) is false, then the implication 1) => 2) is in general false.

In fact, if 2) could be known by the mean of a proof, then it would be known by mind and intellect, contradicting 1).

I don’t make any assumptions about the reality of 2). The UC may exist, or not. If we want to prove its existence scientifically, for many people, like myself, the inference 1) => 2) may be insufficient. On the other hand, it can be accepted as axiom, by “faith”.

A third way to test the UC hypothesis would be the personal experience of a DC of unity with the UC. This would be only personal, because we can always assume that a reported mystic experience is in fact just chemistry of the brain.

Good luck with your research,

Cristi

Prem N. Tiwari wrote on Dec. 1, 2008 @ 16:08 GMT

Dear Mr. Cristi,

Thank you, for your very thoughtful comments which deserve full consideration and response. Let me briefly state the basis on which I have concluded that awareness of self existence (UC) has independent existence.

I have talked about two kinds of consciousness, undifferentiated consciousness (UC) and differentiated consciousness (DC) in my paper and its simpler explanation in my post of 17th Nov. Consciousness may be defined as one’s awareness (knowledge) of some thing. DC is our knowledge (awareness) of things including our body, persons, places, events, thoughts, emotions etc. We acquire this knowledge using our five senses and mind (brain). Since we use our five senses and brain for acquiring this knowledge, therefore DC depends on our body and brain, and has no independent existence. However, if we can prove that we are aware of some entity without the use of our five senses and brain, then that awareness (consciousness) can be said to have independent existence. This is what I have done in my research. I have shown by the thought experiment that 1, we are aware of self existence (UC) without bringing our body into picture and without using our five senses and brain (thinking) 2, which implies that UC has independent existence.

You say that what I have stated “seems familiar to affirmations made by various, for example Ramana Maharishi), yet, I am unable to perceive it as a scientific proof”. As far as I know these affirmations are based on their experience of bliss (perfect peace). Such an experience of UC (awareness of self existence) is predicted by the findings my thought experiment. Since UC has independent existence and is not caused by five senses and mind (brain), it must be free from thoughts and emotions, pleasure and pain, inferiority and superiority, anger and greed etc. caused by five senses and mind. Because of this, experience of UC must be perfect peace (bliss). Affirmation of this by Raman Maharshi and others is the verification of this prediction. This verification completes the full scientific process (experiment, its findings, prediction based on findings and verification of prediction) required to prove that UC has independent existence. You say that you are not able to perceive it as scientific proof. This is perhaps because you like many others are not able to perform the experiment (remain fully conscious but thoughtless to experience bliss) that is required to verify the prediction. No doubt this experiment is very difficult to perform. There are many experiments on matter and energy which many persons are not able to perform. That does not mean that the findings of a scientist confirmed by several other scientists are not valid. Similar is the position of my findings.

You say that “if 2, (independent existence of UC) could be known by the mean of a proof, then it would be known by mind and intellect, contradicting 1 (UC is known without the use of mind and intellect). Let me restate the basis on which it has been concluded that UC has independent existence. The thought experiment, which is the main contribution of this research has proved that 1, we are aware of self existence (UC) without bringing our body into picture and without using our five senses and brain (thinking) 2, which implies that UC has independent existence and is not caused by body and brain. Where is the question of 2 contradicting 1?

Of course, a question arises as to who is aware of self existence (UC) if not the mind. I do not know definite answer. Perhaps UC, being conscious entity is aware of its own existence. Search of definite answer is the subject of my current research.

I thank you for wishing me good luck in my research.

With my best wishes,

Prem N. Tiwari

view post as summary

Cristi Stoica wrote on Dec. 1, 2008 @ 21:51 GMT

Dear Dr. Tiwari,

Thank you for the patience and consideration you manifest in answering my questions.

Initially I misinterpreted the implication 1) => 2) as an attempt of a logical proof. Reading your supplementary explanation, I can see that it is in fact an experiment. My initial interpretation was that you suggest a thought experiment, and in fact it was about a “thoughtless...

view entire post

Amy Ciesielka wrote on Dec. 1, 2008 @ 22:49 GMT

Isn't anything provable if we simply throw out the laws of physics? Isn't our whole universe based on the application of those laws of physics? And wasn't this essay supposed to be about the nature of time and not the nature of existence?

prem N. Tiwari wrote on Dec. 2, 2008 @ 14:01 GMT

Dear Amy Ciesielka,

You have asked three questions. My answer to your first questions is no and to second question mostly but not fully yes if by universe you mean material universe. Regarding your third question, I reproduce the FQXI announcement about it;

“Essays should be topical and foundational.

Topical: Each essay contest will focus on a particular theme, question, or subject that the submitted work must directly address. For the current contest, this is “The Nature of Time,” including, but not limited to, the arrow of time; the emergence of time in quantum gravity; time, free will and determinism; time travel; the beginning or ending of time; and timelessness. Additionally, to be consonant with FQXi’s scope and goals, essays should be primarily concerned with physics (mainly quantum physics, high energy ‘fundamental’ physics, and gravity), cosmology (mainly of the early universe), or closely related fields (such as astrophysics, astrobiology, biophysics, mathematics, complexity and emergence, and philosophy of physics), insofar as they bear directly on questions in physics or cosmology.

Foundational: This contest is limited to works addressing, in one of its many facets, our understanding of the deep or “ultimate” nature of reality. For example, a discussion of new technical methods for measuring precise time intervals is topical, but probably not foundational.”

There are several sub-topics under the nature of time. No one essay can cover all the sub-topics. My paper and its supplementary given in my post of 17th Nov. ,and explanation of subjective experience of flow (arrow) of time given in my post of 20th Oct. cover the underlined three sub-topics under the sub-heading “Topical”. The main emphasis under sub-heading “Foundational” is our understanding of the ultimate nature of reality. The first part of my paper is about the discovery of ultimate reality and study of its nature. Thus my paper is very much in line of the present contest.

It is better not to form opinion about a paper just on the basis of its title.

Prem N. Tiwari

Prem N. Tiwari wrote on Dec. 3, 2008 @ 12:22 GMT

Dear Cristi,

Is the finding of the thought experiment described in my post of 17th Nov. not an experimental proof for the independent existence of UC?

Prem N. Tiwari

Congratulation to Tiwari wrote on Dec. 3, 2008 @ 14:29 GMT

Congratulation to Tiwari, which, together with Stoica, collected more than all the other competitors summed together in only three days, as you can see from the attached table.

I believe that self-voting is not a good practice.

I'd like to know the ratio between downloads and votes, and whether multiple votes came from the same IP. I'd also like to know if multiple submission came from a single IP, so a dummy alterego could vote the main contribution as a participant, since self voting is not allowed for restricted votes. I'd also like to know if members of FQXi are allowed to vote twice, as participants and as members.

attachments: 1_FXQivotesdays.JPG

Narendra wrote on Dec. 3, 2008 @ 15:03 GMT

It is a very interesting discussion between Drs.Tiwari and Stoica on the non-physical entity called 'consciousness'. Although in my essay in the contest, i indicated some holistic considerations, i did not evolve the same. The same were actually covered by me in the two Attachments of the MSS's " Science Interface with Spirituality" and ' Inconstancy of the Physical Constants.....' that preceded the essay now posted. These attachments came in my own posts soon after the present essay was put on this website.

In my view, a 'potential' unified field, with super-intelligence about the logical blue print of the universe pre-existed the creation. It may be associated with infinite potential energy, as it continues to exist in a potentially unknown physical ways for all times before, now or after! This may also be called 'undifferentiated consciousness' or i prefer pure consciousness or cosmic consciousness. It definitely can interact with our individual consciousness or the differentiated consciousness at its 'will'- a kind of super mind!

Cristi Stoica wrote on Dec. 3, 2008 @ 22:32 GMT

Dear Dr. Tiwari,

I like the experiment you proposed in the essay and in the Nov. 17 post. I may agree with the result, or I may not agree. Yet, I am willing to accept it as a proof, if we can reproduce it. If we can have a short recipe, and we offer this recipe to random persons, and they follow the steps, and succeed, and then repeat this experiment with various persons as many times as we consider relevant, then the experiment can be considered a success. We may select for example randomly 100 subjects, give them the recipe, and then, check if the purpose of the test is reached. If the experiment succeeds, we can offer the recipe to various researchers in the world, for confirmation. Please, do not consider me as underestimating your research. I would be very happy to find the results positive.

Cristi Stoica

“Flowing with a Frozen River”,

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/322

Anonymous wrote on Dec. 5, 2008 @ 10:12 GMT

Dear Cristi,

I asked you that "Is the finding of the thought experiment described in my post of 17th Nov. not an experimental proof for the independent existence of UC?"

Your reply is that "I like the experiment you proposed in the essay and in the Nov. 17 post. I may agree with the result, or I may not agree." What is the reason of your saying that you may not agree?

I may add that merely experiencing perfect peace (bliss) is not a proof of independent existence of UC. There is no way other than the thought experiment described in my paper to proove the independent existence of UC.

With my best wishes,

Prem N. Tiwari

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica wrote on Dec. 6, 2008 @ 07:00 GMT

Dear Dr. Tiwari,

Thank you very much for being interested in my humble opinion.

"I like the experiment you proposed in the essay and in the Nov. 17 post. I may agree with the result, or I may not agree."

I apologize for my formulation, which was not intended to mean that I have some arguments against the possibility of experiencing the UC by the method presented in your essay. My intention was to say that

“I may agree with the result (that there is an UC), or I may not agree, but my opinion about this is not relevant. I can agree with the result without accepting the experiment as a valid proof leading to this result. I am willing to accept it as a proof, if any skeptical but honest person can reproduce it and obtain the same result.”

Perhaps this confusion comes from my habit of distinguishing between what I believe, what I know by personal experience, and what I can prove so that any skeptical can accept. And an idea with profound implications in the fundamental level has little chances to be accepted (because it implies great change) unless it solves important currently unsolved problems of science. I did not want to reject or argue against your experiment, just to explain you why it may be difficult to find acceptation. Please note that this is only my humble opinion, I may be totally wrong.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

“Flowing with a Frozen River”,

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/322

Prem N. Tiwari wrote on Dec. 8, 2008 @ 11:03 GMT

Dear Cristi,

You say that “I apologize for my formulation, which was not intended to mean that I have some arguments against the possibility of experiencing the UC by the method presented in your essay. -----.” There is no need to apologize. In fact I appreciate your open minded critical comments. However it seems you have not understood my experiment because there is no question of experiencing any thing in it. The experiment is in the form of question and answer. The answer is either yes or no. I am reproducing the questions below. Please answer to arrive at the conclusion yourself and let me know your findings.

“It is a fact that every one knows that he is. But perhaps no one has asked how he knows that he is? When I asked this question to a friend, he uttered “what what”! He was a bit perplexed. I elaborated the question. I am now asking the elaborated question to you. Others know that you are by seeing your face (your main physical identity), but you can not see you own face, then how you know that you are? You can see your face in the mirror; do you see a mirror to know that you are? Or do you see or touch your body or hear your voice or use other two other sense organs to know that you are? Or do you think of your body to know that you are? Or do you think whether you are or you are not to know that you are? The answer to all these questions is no. Is it not? What does it means? It means that one is aware of his existence without the use of his five senses and mind (brain). In other words, awareness of self existence is independent of five senses and brain. Therefore awareness (consciousness) of self existence has independent existence. Since this consciousness is independent of five senses and mind it must be same for all. That is why it is termed as undifferentiated consciousness (UC).”

With my best wishes,

Prem N. Tiwari

Cristi Stoica wrote on Dec. 8, 2008 @ 17:12 GMT

Dear Dr. Tiwari,

Thank you for the supplementary explanation. I will try to answer your questions.

Q: “It is a fact that every one knows that he is. But perhaps no one has asked how he knows that he is? When I asked this question to a friend, he uttered “what what”! He was a bit perplexed. I elaborated the question. I am now asking the elaborated question to you. Others know that you are by seeing your face (your main physical identity), but you can not see you own face, then how you know that you are? You can see your face in the mirror; do you see a mirror to know that you are? Or do you see or touch your body or hear your voice or use other two other sense organs to know that you are? Or do you think of your body to know that you are? Or do you think whether you are or you are not to know that you are? The answer to all these questions is no.”

A: I agree

Q: “awareness of self existence is independent of five senses …”

I agree

A: “… and brain.”

I don’t know. It is independent on thoughts expressed in words, yes. But we can think without using words. Even before we express our thoughts in internal speech, we “pre”-think them, like a seed from which originates the expression in words. Even if the root of all our thoughts is “I”, this does not mean that it is not a thought.

Maybe the idea of “I” appears to each of us closer than any other idea. We report every idea to this “I”. Therefore, I am forced to conclude that, in my own mind, I do not find something more elementary, more central, than the idea of “I”. But how can I know that it is not just a thought?

Q: “Therefore awareness (consciousness) of self existence has independent existence. Since this consciousness is independent of five senses and mind it must be same for all. ”

A: I don’t know. From “each of us have something which does not depend on the five senses, nor on the brain”, can we conclude that we all have the same thing?

Let’s assume that there is something beyond body and mind, which can be experienced. Even if I go “outside” and experience the infinity, when I come back, I reduce everything to my finite mind, and I translate everything in what my mind can handle. How can we know that this didn’t happen only in my mind? Maybe it is just Maya. The one named “I Am” said: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image”. “The Dao that can be told is not the eternal Dao.” Assuming that I understand and agree with your argument, wouldn’t this put me in the danger of reducing the UC to just an image carved in my DC? Wouldn’t be better to continue with “neti, neti”?

Sincerely,

Cristi Stoica

Flowing with a Frozen River

Prem N. Tiwari wrote on Dec. 9, 2008 @ 10:03 GMT

Dear Cristi,

Let us go step by step. It seems you have read some ancient Indian scripture, though my paper has originated from it, it would be better to put it aside at present because the way of expression is quite different in it. I am reproducing a portion from your reply including my last two questions;

“Do you think of your body to know that you are? Or do you think whether you are or you are not to know that you are? The answer to all these questions is no.”

A: I agree

Q: “awareness of self existence is independent of five senses …”

I agree

A: “… and brain.”

I don’t know. It is independent on thoughts expressed in words, yes. But we can think without using words. Even before we express our thoughts in internal speech, we “pre”-think them, like a seed from which originates the expression in words. Even if the root of all our thoughts is “I”, this does not mean that it is not a thought.”

My last two questions and their reply are; “Do you think of your body to know that you are? Or do you think whether you are or you are not to know that you are? The answer to all these questions is no. Is it not?” You say ‘I agree’. It means that you know that you are without even thinking (without using the brain). It may be very difficult to accept this rational conclusion because of our bias that nothing is known without the use of the brain. But should we not accept this rational conclusion in true scientific tradition?

Face to face discussion is the best way to clear all doubts in such matters.

With my best wishes,

Prem N. Tiwar

Robert Sadykov wrote on Dec. 9, 2008 @ 16:52 GMT

Dear Dr. Prem N. Tiwari,

Your essay again proves, that India is the native land of philosophy.

Regards,

Robert Sadykov

Cristi Stoica wrote on Dec. 9, 2008 @ 17:33 GMT

Dear Dr. Tiwari,

(1) Do we know that we are, or (2) do we think that we know that we are?

I do not know which one is the case. You say that (2) is excluded. Why? Is it impossible to think that we know that we are?

Respectfully,

Cristi Stoica

Antonio wrote on Dec. 9, 2008 @ 18:22 GMT

Dear Dr. Tiwari,

As I understand it, the thought experiment that you propose can only be made in the waking state. Would you say that the UC also exists in the states of, for instance,anesthesia, coma,or more ordinarily, daily deep sleep (and of course death)? I do not see how we could assert that.

Thanks fpr your interesting article. Best regards,

Antonio Franco

Prem N. Tiwari wrote on Dec. 10, 2008 @ 05:43 GMT

Dear Mr. Robert Sadykov,

Thanks for your profound comliment.

With my best wishes,

Prem N. Tiwari

Prem N. Tiwari wrote on Dec. 10, 2008 @ 06:13 GMT

Dear Cristi,

No.1 is true. Of course you can think that you know that you are. But that is not necessary to know that you are. You yourself have confirmed it in answering my last two questions.

WIth my best wishes,

Prem N. Tiwari

Prem N. Tiwari wrote on Dec. 10, 2008 @ 06:50 GMT

Dear Mr. Franco,

The thought experiment has proved that UC is independent of five senses and brain. Therefore UC would exist irrespective of the state of the brain including death. This is what the findings of the experiment asserts.

All the experiments are done in the waking state. But the findings are valid even when we are in coma or in deep sleep.

With my best wishes,

Prem N. Tiwari

Cristi Stoica wrote on Dec. 10, 2008 @ 07:53 GMT

Dear Dr. Tiwari,

I agreed with you that in order to know that we are (or even to think that we know that we are), we don’t need to think whether we are or we are not, because I misinterpreted your question “Or do you think whether you are or you are not to know that you are?” as “Or do you wonder whether you are or you are not to think that you know that you are?”. However, you may be right. Maybe I only think that I think that I know that I am, and in fact I just know that I am. I cannot exclude this possibility, and I never pretended. Anyway, I find interesting your idea.

Best wishes,

Cristi Stoica

FQXi Administrator Kavita Rajanna wrote on Dec. 10, 2008 @ 21:02 GMT

In response to questions regarding Essay Contest voting:

Thanks for giving some thought to some general voting issues in this Essay Contest, which as you can imagine are tricky. In answer to the issues raised, which concern ALL ESSAYS, we would advise all entrants that the provenance of all votes is being recorded. These records for potential essay contest winners will, after voting closes, be carefully examined for consistency with the stated rules that (a) one should not vote for oneself, (b) members or authors can vote for three essays as a restricted voter, and (c) a given author can only submit one essay. Non-adherence to these rules may be grounds for disqualifying votes and/or essays from consideration.

Best,

K Rajanna

FQXi

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

Prem N. Tiwari wrote on Dec. 11, 2008 @ 09:12 GMT

Dear Kavita Rajanna,

I am a bit disturbed by your post. I know the rules of voting. Has some one voted against the rules for me? If so, I would be glad if such votes are delited from my name.

With my best wishes,

Prem N. Tiwari

FQXi Administrator Kavita Rajanna wrote on Dec. 11, 2008 @ 21:58 GMT

Dear Prem,

I have edited my above post to make clear that this message was intended for all essay contest voters, not just those voting for your essay.

At this point we have not looked into any possible voting inconsistencies; we will do so after voting finishes on December 15. Until then we encourage everyone to vote for their favorite essays if they haven't already done so. A refresher on the voting guidelines is available at http://www.fqxi.org/community/vote.

Best,

K Rajanna

Prem N. Tiwari wrote on Dec. 12, 2008 @ 10:23 GMT

Dear Cristi,

It seems you are still not fully convinced that you know that you are without thinking though; the answer which you have given to my questions proves otherwise. Now you are saying that you misinterpreted my questions. I am reproducing the questions.

“Others know that you are by seeing your face (your main physical identity), but you can not see you own face, then how you know that you are? You can see your face in the mirror; do you see a mirror to know that you are? Or do you see or touch your body or hear your voice or use other two other sense organs to know that you are? Or do you think of your body to know that you are? Or do you think whether you are or you are not to know that you are? The answer to all these questions is no. Is it not?”

Your answer was “I agree” Which means that you know that you are even without thinking (without using brain).

What is there in the questions to be misinterpreted? My questions are quite simple which almost any one can reply. I may add that you are not the only person who has difficulty in accepting this rational conclusion. Most of the persons have the same problem because of their bias that nothing is known without the use of mind (brain). This has been the main problem in discovering the independent existence of undifferentiated consciousness (UC). The above simple questions and their answer have removed this problem that lead to the discovery of UC which is invariant against time and condition, and most probably universe originated from it, if the universe has an origin and that was a singularity.

Prem N. Tiwari

Cristi Stoica wrote on Dec. 12, 2008 @ 12:29 GMT

Dear Dr. Tiwari,

I never said that “nothing is known without the use of mind (brain)”. Also, I never rejected your conclusion that there is an UC, nor that we can know about it. I explain this misunderstanding by my improper choice of words (I have the nasty habit to keep open both possibilities until one is proved to be invalid).

Is there a clear way to differentiate between the following two possible situations?

1. I know that I am. (without using my brain)

2. I think that I know that I am. (by using my brain, but not necessarily by thinking in words)

I think that a practical way to distinguish between them will help me to fully understand your proof. Moreover, I suspect that this solution will help even some of the persons having the bias you mentioned.

Best wishes,

Cristi Stoica

Flowing with a Frozen River

Prem N. Tiwari wrote on Dec. 13, 2008 @ 10:07 GMT

Dear Cristi,

It is good to be critical in accepting any new discovery or development. But let me tell you that I have asked the four questions (given in my previous post) to more than 100 persons; all of them gave the same answer as yours, which means that one knows that he is without using his five and thinking (without using the brain). My last question in short is; do you think to know that you are? All of them including you said no. This invalidates No.2. What else proof do you need?

With best wishes,

Prem N. Tiwari

Narendra nath wrote on Dec. 13, 2008 @ 12:33 GMT

after some posts in the second week of Dec., on this essay, i felt like saying a few things.

1. Philosophy and science are sisters, infact the former as subject came first and it included physics within it.

2.consciousness is a term that is strictly not confirmable as a scientific quantity/parameter! Human experiences cover this parameter pretty well. It is one's experience that it ' consciousness ' exists.

3. The awareness about oneself exists with us all through what mechanism? Person in a comma or deep sleep, continues to be aware that he/she exists. That is the consciousness associated with him. No thinking is involved.

4. Brain is a physical part of the human body, but human mind is something that includes both self awareness and brain together.

5.Where does the human soul exists, is it confined to the limits of the human body? To me, the soul is not confined as it remains connected inj varying degrees with the pure/cosmic/undiffrentaited consciousness. To that extent, a human being is considered to be 'enlightened'?

6.The problems /misunderstandings arise o/c words used by different individuals, as our comprehension of the same words do vary in a subtle way from one another.

i am not sure if i have helped the matters being raised on this essay or not!The author and the commentators are the best judge on my comments.

Cristi Stoica wrote on Dec. 14, 2008 @ 06:50 GMT

Dear Dr. Tiwari,

Since, as you say, my own answer confirmed your theory, I see no point for me to be critical.

Respectfully,

Cristi Stoica

Cristi Stoica wrote on Dec. 14, 2008 @ 06:51 GMT

Dear Dr. Narendra Nath,

Wonderful coments!

Best wishes,

Cristi Stoica

Prem N. Tiwari wrote on Dec. 14, 2008 @ 11:02 GMT

Dear Cristi,

I thank you for asking several very good questions on my paper. It has helped me to know the difficulty that a reader may face in understanding the paper.

I feel, I have not been able to fully convince you about the independent existence of UC, especially when the unanimous answer to my four questions leads to the conclusion that one knows that he is without thinking (without using brain). Many persons have the same problem in accepting that they know some thing without the use of the brain.

In summer of 2007, while living in White Plains, New York I met a friendly young bright man in my evening walk. After some general talk I talked to him about my paper. We discussed it for four consecutive days in our walk. He agreed that he is aware of his existence without use of his five senses and thinking. But he was not certain if he is aware of it without use of his brain. When I asked why? He said, some thing other than thinking must be happening in the brain. You have said the same thing “(using my brain, but not necessarily by thinking in words).” I asked him, are you not biased? He said may be. He added that your paper is through and through rational but very strange.

I again thank you for asking very good questions and wish you good luck.

Prem N. Tiwari

I thank you again for asking very good questions.

With my best wishes,

Prem Nath Tiwari

Cristi Stoica wrote on Dec. 14, 2008 @ 17:14 GMT

Dear Dr. Tiwari,

“I thank you for asking several very good questions on my paper. It has helped me to know the difficulty that a reader may face in understanding the paper.”

You are right; my purpose was to ask good questions, and not to criticize your theory. Thank you for your appreciation.

By trying to understand how my mind works, I observed long time ago that one of...

view entire post

Prem N. Tiwari wrote on Dec. 15, 2008 @ 10:31 GMT

Dear Ctristi,

The kind of bias I am talking is a very genuine one. The friend in White Plains, New York and you both, in response to my four questions said that you know that you are without using your five senses and thinking. But when I said, it means you know that you are without using your brain, you both found it difficult to accept. This is because so far all that we have known has been known by using our five senses and brain. Because of this we are not prepared to treat our knowledge of self existence as an exception to it though; there is unquestionable reason for treating it as exception; and that reason is, there is nothing else other than the knowledge of self existence that we knows without using five senses and thinking.

When I pointed it out to the friend in White Plain, he agreed. I do not know about you because you say that you may be using your brain, but not necessarily by thinking in words to know that I am. I hope, you know that the knowledge of self existence is the doubtless knowledge that remains unchanged under all conditions through out the entire life of every person. You also know, how much concrete thinking, checking and rechecking is needed to acquire doubtless knowledge. Despite this, you think that you have this doubtless (knowledge of self existence) by using your brain but not necessarily by thinking in words. How do you thing if not by words or symbols?

With best wishes,

Prem N. Tiwari

Cristi Stoica wrote on Dec. 16, 2008 @ 08:22 GMT

Dear Dr. Tiwari,

I wish to thank again you very much for your beautiful essay, and for the patience with which you answered my questions. I enjoyed discussing with you, and also I enjoyed the interventions of Dr. Narendra Nath.

I wish you all the best,

Cristi

amrit wrote on Dec. 17, 2008 @ 15:45 GMT

Dear DR. Prem

You say: Ultimate reality is an entity that is invariant against time and condition.

I would say: Ulitimate reality is ATEMPOTRAL UNIVERSE itself. We humans experience ATEMPORAL UNIVERSE into model of time and so we are unaware of its godliness.

attachments: 1_INTERACTION_BETWEEN_SPACETIME_GRAVITY_AND_CONSCIOUSNESS__SORLI__2008.pdf, 3_Relation_Between_Time_Mind_and_Consciousness.pdf

Prem N. Tiwari wrote on Dec. 18, 2008 @ 10:17 GMT

Dear Mr Amrit,

Ultimate Reality is an entity that is changeless. I have said with respect to time and condition because that is how the change is perceived. You may remove time from the definition if you wish. The entity to be termed as ultimate reality should be changeless under any condition. Do the universe or its constituents, matter and energy meet this requirement?

According to the General Theory of Relativity the universe has a beginning. So it may have an end also.

.

With best wishes,

Prem N. Tiwari

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 28, 2008 @ 00:49 GMT

Prem N. Tiwari,

Can you imagine someone who does not feel question like Big Bang and before not at all pressing.

Look into my essay and the attachments below.

attachments: 10_Microsoft_Word__How_do_negative_and_imaginary.pdf, 11_Microsoft_Word__How_do_part_2.pdf

Prem N.Tiwari wrote on Dec. 29, 2008 @ 06:25 GMT

Dear Echard Blumschein

I can very well imagine someone (especially an engineer) for whom the question like Big Bang and before are not at all pressing. But I can not imagine a scientist (especially a physicist and cosmologist) saying that it is not a foundational question.

With my best wishes, , Prem N. Tiwari

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 13, 2009 @ 19:21 GMT

Dear Prem N. Tiwari,

What about a or the Big Bang, I see it a speculation that challenges cosmologists to search for possibly related details.

However, as long as we cannot expect an answer to the question for the reason for the reason for the reason ..., and such detours from scientific reasoning are traditionally occupied by religions, I prefer to clearly mark out pertaining speculations as science fiction without any foundational value.

Don't we have enough seemingly weird theories to understand?

Aren't we obliged to unveil fallacious reasoning first?

Someone who like Nimtz claims and claims and claims

having measured propagation of signals with a speed in excess of c might be very valuable to us - as someone who demonstrates how easily we can be cheated. May I ask you to comment on the recent blog by H. D. Zeh on claimed superluminal tunneling?

Regards, Eckard Blumschein

Prem N. Tiwari wrote on Jan. 19, 2009 @ 06:22 GMT

Dear Eckard Blumschein,

Though the essay contest is long over still, i would be glad to respond to any question or comment on my essay.

With best wishes,

Prem N. Tiwari

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 25, 2009 @ 20:25 GMT

Dear Prem N. Tiwari,

If I understood you correctly, you are calling a generalized god the UC and the ultimate reality as did physicists of the middle ages in Europe. I see such god an abstraction from observed true reality and would appreciate if modern physics would be able to subtract this perverse point of view from present deadlocks.

I beg your pardon for outing myself as a non-believer. Perhaps nobody will ever have tangible ideas on what goes beyond our horizons. Aren't white holes science fiction?

Do we really need to know what is definitely impossible to know?

I would consider the awareness that material reality is restricted to the past to be already a huge and advantageous progress of science.

With apologies,

Eckard Blumschein

Prem N. Tiwari wrote on Jan. 29, 2009 @ 08:53 GMT

Dear Eckard Blumschein,

I am unable to understand most of your comments.

Please let me know what is ultimate reality according to middle ages European physicist; and what is perverse point of view?

What are the deadlocks and what in my paper is impossible to know?

I may be able to respond after getting your reply.

I may add that no faith or belief is required to understand my paper which is based entirely on logic reason and facts.

With best wishes,

Prem N. Tiwari

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 31, 2009 @ 05:13 GMT

Dear Prem Tiwari,

I apologize for writing not understandably enough.

Aurelius Augustinus (354-430) wrote (my translation)

God did nothing before he created the universe. There was no time before.

Newton (1642-1727) still wrote:

God is more important as compared with physics and mathematics.

Should we wonder that physicists searched for and allegedly found evidence for a creation?

With the word deadlock I tried to describe obvious disagreement among theories and obvious failure to find hypothetical particles, failure to fulfill the promised superiority of quantum computers, etc. Why should we abandon causality and locality if there is a not yet refuted suspicion that the abstract common notion of time and belonging mathematics are possibly inappropriate?

How can we know whether or not the world was created?

With best wishes,

Eckard Blumschein

Prem N. Tiwari wrote on Feb. 2, 2009 @ 10:44 GMT

Dear Eckard Blumschein

As you know the title of my paper is ‘Ultimate Reality and Non-material Origin of Universe’, it has two parts. First part is ultimate reality and second part is non-material origin of universe. First part deals with the discovery of ultimate reality and the second part is a hypothesis based on the findings of the first part. Your comments are on the second part....

view entire post

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Feb. 2, 2009 @ 12:58 GMT

Dear Prem Tiwari,

Why do you believe you are the first one who allegedly proved the existence of god?

Do you ascribe undifferentiated consciousness (UC) alias knowledge of self existence already to embryos and to animals, too?

Can one loose it temporarily? Perhaps you know that it happens to mentally ill people that they experience themselves as if they were standing outside their own body? Consciousness is something that should be studied by neurologists, it may matter for physicians, but it does definitely not have to do with physics.

With best wishes,

Eckard Blumschein

Prem N. Tiwari wrote on Feb. 3, 2009 @ 14:42 GMT

Dear Eckard Blumschein,

Your last comment is “Consciousness is something that should be studied by neurologists, it may matter for physicians, but it does definitely not have to do with physics.” In response I may point out that FQXi has listed at its website some of the unanswered questions at the foundation of physics and cosmology. One of these is;

How does matter gives rise to consciousness – or does it?

Has FOXI made a mistake by listing the above question as the foundational question of physics and cosmology?

As explained in my preceding mail, my paper has answered this question by proving that undifferentiated consciousness (UC) has independent existence and is not caused by matter.

With best wishes,

Prem N. Tiwari