Unimaginable boundary and God

[sridatta]

1. Is the boundary of the universe unreachable by human beings, as said in the Quran?

[A devotee asked: Quran:(55:33) O company of jinn and men, if you have the power to go beyond the bounds of the heavens and the earth, go beyond them! Yet you will be unable to go beyond them for that requires infinite power.

Swami, I came across the above verse in the Quran (one of the interpretations out of several interpretations found in the internet). It seems to be in line with Your divine knowledge which states that the boundary of the universe is unreachable by any human being. The following interpretation of the verse 51:47 also seems to support this.

Quran:(51:47) “And it is We who have built the universe with [Our creative] power; and, verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it.” I request Your comment on the above that my understanding is correct.]

ANSWER:- Going beyond the boundaries of the universe means recognizing the existence of the unimaginable God. Infinite power means the omnipotence of that unimaginable God. The soul not being able to go beyond the boundaries of the universe means that no soul can imagine God. The soul is different from God because the soul has less potency. We are expanding the universe means that we are expanding our worldly desires so that we are moving farther and farther away from God (As we are moving away more and more from God, it means in relative sense that the world is expanding and we are responsible for this expansion of the world. If the expansion of the world is in absolute sense, it can be done by the omnipotent God alone.). The unimaginable God exists beyond the boundary of space or universe (assuming that all the space is filled by universe). In this case, beyond the boundary of space, space cannot exist. Hence, beyond the boundary of space, you cannot speak about expansion and contraction since expansion and contraction are the properties of space. By expansion, an item becomes greater and by contraction, an item becomes smaller. Both these can make the space or universe bigger or smaller respectively. But, by the expansion of space or universe, the unimaginable God (the unimaginable domain) will not be contracted to become a smaller unimaginable God.

2. If the boundary of the universe exists and God is beyond it, doesn't God get smaller if the universe expands?

[A person commented as below regarding the boundary of the universe and the existence of God. I request You to kindly reply to this. The Universe is just infinite and endless because the universe has no boundary. If there is a boundary, and if God exists beyond this boundary, and if the Universe is expanding, then God is getting smaller, contracting, or shrinking. But, there is no boundary. So, there is nothing to be concerned about nor worry about here.]

ANSWER:- The Universe or creation is inherently unreal and God is inherently the absolute reality. Expansion of your dream-space does not make you smaller. The answer for your objection is clearly explained in the answer of the first question.

3. Can energy be created first without any entity that possesses energy?

[“It is a very clear point that the creation of energy was the first process of God and hence, energy was the first item that was created by God.” To the above piece of Your divine knowledge, a person commented in the followed way. Swami kindly please give reply to it.

Energy couldn't have been "the first item that was created by God," because energy is not an independent substance but a dependent attribute of some physical stuff or thing. Therefore, not even God could first have created nothing but "pure energy" without any substantial entity that possesses the energy. Where there is energy, there must be some energized matter or material substance! My point is that God couldn't have created energy/mass without creating something else at the same time whose energy/mass it is, i.e. something else (some substantial entity) which has energy/mass.]

ANSWER:- Scientists say that electromagnetic radiations are independent. When matter is a condensed form of energy, how can you say that matter is primary and energy is secondary? The rest mass of photons can be taken as the subtle property of energy itself. During the process of condensation of energy, the increase in the concentration of the energy increases the subtle mass to become gross mass, which is well perceived by us. You should not think that gross mass of the matter alone is the mass and say that any item possessing any quantity of mass must be matter.

[Diagoras]

Scientists say that electromagnetic radiations are independent.

Can you link to a scientific website to confirm this?

When matter is a condensed form of energy, how can you say that matter is primary and energy is secondary?

I wasn’t going to say that though…

The rest mass of photons can be taken as the subtle property of energy itself. During the process of condensation of energy, the increase in the concentration of the energy increases the subtle mass to become gross mass, which is well perceived by us.

Can you link to a scientific website that defines and explains the concepts of ‘subtle mass’ and ‘condensation of energy’ please?

You should not think that gross mass of the matter alone is the mass and say that any item possessing any quantity of mass must be matter.

Well, a particle of antimatter has mass. Does that matter? Does going to Mass matter, or is that too gross? If something is a matter of fact, is that too subtle to matter, or would that just mass with everyone’s head?

No matter, it doesn’t.

[sridatta]

Scientists say that electromagnetic radiations are independent.

Can you link to a scientific website to confirm this?

When matter is a condensed form of energy, how can you say that matter is primary and energy is secondary?

I wasn’t going to say that though…

The rest mass of photons can be taken as the subtle property of energy itself. During the process of condensation of energy, the increase in the concentration of the energy increases the subtle mass to become gross mass, which is well perceived by us.

Can you link to a scientific website that defines and explains the concepts of ‘subtle mass’ and ‘condensation of energy’ please?

You should not think that gross mass of the matter alone is the mass and say that any item possessing any quantity of mass must be matter.

Well, a particle of antimatter has mass. Does that matter? Does going to Mass matter, or is that too gross? If something is a matter of fact, is that too subtle to matter, or would that just mass with everyone’s head?

No matter, it doesn’t.

God is first. Space is second. Air is third. We can explain the generation of third from second, but not the second from first. Second and third are imaginable items. Space or energy became air. Air means atoms. This is energy condensing into matter. This process of condensation is explicable and debatable. This process is parinama or vivarta. If matter is different from energy only by quantitative way it is vivarta like water condensed to ice. Vivarta brings only physical difference. The parinama is qualitative difference like milk becoming curd. Before the creation of matter, only energy exists. If energy is condensed, it should be vivarta process only, which is physical.

But if all the mater is energy only, how the qualitative difference came between items of matter?
There cannot be qualitative difference between blocks of ice having various sizes. One block of ice may be more concentrated (or condensed) but it cannot bring a qualitative difference. But the qualitative difference between the milk and curd is practically experienced in the world. Milk and curd are also condensed products of same energy and may have quantitative difference.

Thus this point of contradiction brings the unimaginability, which is the characteristic of God. Therefore, the presence of the unimaginable power of God (Maya) is everywhere in the world. The Gita says that this Prakruti is also Maya (Mayam tu prakrutim). Thus the entire world is affected by the hidden power of God (Maya), which is known by deep analysis.

When the energy and work are essentially same, the different quantities of energy-drops (electrons) giving rise to different properties mean different works of God giving rise to different properties. Here the wonder is that the working material and work are one and the same in essence. Therefore, the unimaginable God does wonderful works and His work it self is the working material.

The work is power of God, which it self is the working material. All this creation is work without any separate working material because the working material itself is a form of work. According to science also, any material (matter) is a form of energy and work is also a form of the same energy. Thus, this wonder exists in science, which says that matter is a condensed form energy. For the process of condensation, space is required and the space should be different from energy for the process of condensation to take place. But space is a form of energy as per the special theory of relativity.

In such case, how the energy is condensed? Because, space is also energy. This is another wonder. Like this, when this nature (Prakruti) is analyzed, it is a wonder (Maya) only as said in Gita (Mayam tu..). Thus, Maya becomes the inner substratum of the world. God is the substratum of Maya (Mayinam tu…Gita).

Thus, God is the final substratum of this world. The generation of matter on condensation of energy and the transformation of matter in to energy by dilution are wonders in the context of space being the energy. Thus, the generation, maintenance on substratum and dissolution are works of Maya, which mean wonders of God. Such wonder is for souls only and is well known to God and therefore it is not a wonder to God. Thus, Maya is a logic or science for God, just like the nature is a logical science to the souls. It is only higher logic or super science of God which is above the level of souls.

[brunumb]

If matter is different from energy only by quantitative way it is vivarta like water condensed to ice.

That is incorrect. Matter is qualitatively different from energy. A comparison would be between something like atoms and light. Water and ice are the same matter but qualitatively different because they are simply in different states. The molecules themselves do to change.

Vivarta brings only physical difference. The parinama is qualitative difference like milk becoming curd. Before the creation of matter, only energy exists. If energy is condensed, it should be vivarta process only, which is physical.

This does not make much sense to me. When milk becomes curd there are chemical changes involved. It's more than just simply a physical change.

But if all the mater is energy only, how the qualitative difference came between items of matter?

Matter consists of atoms. They contained stored energy but they are not a form of energy. Atoms combine to form different compounds. Different compounds have different physical and chemical properties. Those result in qualitative differences between them. Water is different from copper.

There cannot be qualitative difference between blocks of ice having various sizes.

Different sizes are precisely qualitative differences.

One block of ice may be more concentrated (or condensed) but it cannot bring a qualitative difference.

That is a nonsense statement. Different blocks of ice contain water molecules arrange in the same pattern. Different sizes are a result of having different amounts of water present. It has nothing to do with concentration.

But the qualitative difference between the milk and curd is practically experienced in the world. Milk and curd are also condensed products of same energy and may have quantitative difference.

Another statement that makes no sense. If you go back far enough we have energy condensing or being converted into matter. This was essentially hydrogen in the beginning. When stars formed, fusion reactions in their cores ultimately led to heavier and heavier atoms like helium, lithium, carbon, oxygen, iron...... Those elements are what have been combined to form your milk and your curd. The quantitative aspect of the energy that the atoms involved have stored in them is irrelevant. They are qualitatively different because they are made up of different compounds.

When you try to combine science with your religion, make sure you understand the science properly.

[sridatta]

When you try to combine science with your religion, make sure you understand the science properly.

Science goes up to the space only, which is very subtle form of energy. Due to bending of space around the boundaries of object, space cannot be treated as nothing since nothing can bend. The topmost scientist, Einstein, treats the space as geometrical entity and not absolutely existing item. He treats space as relatively existing based on the existence of two materialistic items, since space is the distance between two materialistic items. If the matter disappears, space also disappears according to him. If all the matter is converted into energy, you may imagine the situation as space in which the waves of energy travel. Of course, according to Einstein, energy also disappears if matter disappears. In that way, the energy including the space also disappears on the disappearance of matter. Like that, he is correct in his own way. Energy is also treated as matter since the fundamental unit of energy is accepted to have rest mass. Energy and matter become simultaneous forms and are inter-convertible.

While accepting all this, you can also believe that matter is generated from energy by condensation. You may say that the fundamental unit of space, which is energy, also has rest mass and thus, energy and matter are simultaneously created. For the sake of convenience, you can distinguish matter and energy and you can also distinguish space from energy and matter and assume the space as almost nothing. All these are various assumptions based on convenience for analytical studies of the creation. Einstein concludes that matter, energy and space exist or disappear simultaneously. We also agree to this statement based on the above scientific analysis. But, we slightly differ in saying that the space disappears on the disappearance of energy since space itself is energy. If space is nothing, it should exist even on the disappearance of matter and energy. When the total energy disappears, space should also disappear being a part of energy. However, the final conclusion is one and the same.

Science ends its analysis at the space. The characteristics of space are the spatial dimensions (length, width and height), the product of which is the volume. Ancient Indian logic also says that volume (parimana) is the characteristic of space. The Veda says that God created energy as well as space. This contradicts another Vedic statement, which says that God created space, space created air, air created fire, fire created water and water created earth etc. The contradiction is that why God is said to be the creator of space and energy only? If you take the sense of the actual creator to be God, the Veda should have said God as the creator of every item. In the sequential steps of creation, the word ‘Agni’ is used, which is visible energy. But in the context of God creating the energy, the word ‘Tejas’ is used, which is the invisible energy. Since space is invisible energy, the Veda said God as the creator of space, which is invisible energy. There is no contradiction since the essence of this apparent contradiction is only to say that space is a form of invisible energy. X-rays, Gamma rays etc., are also other forms of invisible energy.

Science keeps silent about God since no analysis is possible in the case of God, who is beyond the spatial dimensions. Our intelligence cannot go beyond the spatial dimensions and therefore, can never imagine the entity, which has no spatial dimensions i.e., volume or area or single dimension. The difference between science and philosophy is that philosophy accepts the existence of God, who has no spatial dimensions, whereas science keeps silent about the existence of God due to absence of spatial dimensions. However, both science and philosophy are similar in the inability of imagining God, who does not have the spatial dimensions.

[brunumb]

[Replying to sridatta in post #5]

None of that does anything to correct the gross errors of science in your previous diatribe. Please stop preaching.