Ultimate Reality and Nonmaterial Origin Of Universe by Prem Nath Tiwari

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?

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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

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 and mind(brain)".

My view says that the awareness of self-existence requires at least some neurons in a brain to function as they have been trained for years. No neurons means no awareness of self-existence. (I allow for the possibility that, in the remote future, when we have a complete "theory of mind", we'll learn how to program a computer so that its software, too, will have awareness of self existence; but let's leave that for the future; now we know only of brains and neurons.)

So, we have two possible "theories" that explain our observations, i.e., the observation that there is something we call "awareness of self-existence". What is it that we do when we have two opposing theories?

One solution is to start waving our hands, and shout to the top of our lungs in desperation, and whoever has a louder voice and better hand-waving gestures wins. Not a solution befitting civilized people.

Another solution is to appeal to authority. Whoever can point to some ancient and well-respected figure of the past that supported our opinions with his wisdom, wins. This is actually the solution still followed in many occasions in non-Western thought: "X said it, therefore it's true." (I don't want to be specific, lest I insult anyone.) The trouble with this solution is that it often happened that ancient/respected authorities often got it wrong. It didn't appear wrong in their times, but it proved wrong later. This solution puts the mind before the matter (or: the cart before the horse), and it doesn't lead us very far.

A third solution is to put the matter before the mind, i.e., look at whatever data we have, observe reality, and only then form some opinion that explains the data. If any of our observations contradict the theory, it is the theory that's abandoned, not the observations.

(If you know of some fourth solution, I'll be happy to consider it.)

Assuming that it is only the third solution that is compatible with the scientific view, which has led to our present state of affairs (evidence is the medium of communication that we use now, which would be inconceivable if we had only relied on authority), I suggest that we look at the available evidence that supports our corresponding two "theories", or views about awareness of self: yours, and mine.

Evidence that supports my theory comes from neuroscientists who examine a particular type of neurons in the brain, the "mirror cells," which are capable of responding when you see another person doing something, as if you do that something by yourself. It is suspected that mirror cells participate in making a model of yourself in your mind, so that you have awareness of yourself. It's not that your awareness depends _only_ on such cells, but that those cells are essential, i.e., without them you wouldn't have your awareness. You can read about these developments by a compatriot of yours, Dr. V. S. Ramachandran, at this site:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ramachandran07/ramachandran07_index.html

More evidence that self-awareness depends on the brain comes from simple observations that everyone can make, such as this one: suppose you are alone in a room, and you concentrate, being fully aware of yourself. However, I have inserted a pipe in that room (without you knowing it), through which I can transmit a gas that, when inhaled, causes you to lose your consciousness; you aren't self-aware anymore. But we all know what that gas does: it affects some neurons in your brain. (We even know exactly in which chemical ways your neurons are affected.) So, if your self-awareness does not depend on your brain, then how do you explain that when the gas influences your neurons in a well-known way, then you lose your self-awareness? Why is your "I" affected, if the "I" is independent of the brain?

And there is more trouble for your view coming from other observations. When does a human infant become aware of itself? Clearly, as a single fertilized cell it's not aware of anything. But as a five-year-old child, s/he is aware of the "self". When, at which magical moment during this time does the child acquire self awareness? Your view requires a magical moment. But my view requires no magic: because awareness is not an all-or-none issue, an infant with only a few brain cells trained, has very little awareness of itself. The more brain cells are trained, and the better they are trained, the better self awareness becomes.

You ask, "Do you find any flaw in the thought experiment?" Well, the flaw that I see is that you don't support it with evidence. So now, would you please be so kind as to list the evidence that supports your view? Or, if it is not evidence, then convince me why I should believe that you are right?

Thank you for this discussion, I'll be waiting to learn your opinion.

Kind regards,

José Eduardo Calderón

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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 20th October) I have talked about two kinds of consciousness, differentiated consciousness (DC) and undifferentiated consciousness (UC). Consciousness may be defined as one's awareness (knowledge) of some thing. UC is awareness of self existence. 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 as explained below.

Some obvious questions that escape human mind for very long time, when asked, result in major discoveries. For example, It has been a common knowledge since very long that fruits fall on the earth, but the question why when asked (by Newton as is widely known) resulted in the discovery of omnipresent gravity. Like wise it has been perhaps known since the advent of man on the earth that every one knows that he is. Though, this knowledge is much more subtle than the knowledge of fruits falling on the earth and most of the people may have even not thought of it, nevertheless when asked, are you or you are not, every one replies spontaneously that I am. This shows that every one knows that he is. But hardly any one has raised the question, 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. 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 of self existence is a consciousness which has independent existence. This consciousness is the same for all as it is independent of five senses and mind. That is why it is termed as undifferentiated consciousness (UC). The consciousness that one experiences by the use of five senses and mind is different for different for persons and it goes on changing with time. That is why it is termed as differentiated consciousness (DC).

The UC (awareness of self existence) is not only the same for one and all but it remains unchanged at all times and under all conditions through out the entire life of every person. No one at any time (child, young and old) and under any condition (happy or unhappy, wealthy or poor, healthy or sick etc.) has known that he is not. Therefore UC is ultimate reality (an entity that remains unchanged for ever).

Since UC is independent of five senses and mind, its experience which one can have in thoughtless state would obviously be perfect peace.

There are many implications of my work. FQXi has listed some of the unanswered questions at the foundation of physics and cosmology. Three of these are;

1. How matter gives rise to consciousness - or does it?

2. What is ultimate reality and what is its nature?

3a.What, if any thing existed before the Big Bang.

3b.What, if any thing happened before Big Bang.

The findings of my paper provide answer to all the three questions. The answers are;

1. Undifferentiated consciousness (UC) has independent existence and is not caused by matter. It is the fundamental part of nature.

2. UC is ultimate reality. It is very difficult to describe it. It is neither matter nor energy. It is not confined to any place. Its nearest description is conscious space with one major difference. It does not need space to exist because it is volume less like thought and emotion. It is timeless because of being changeless.

3a. UC being ultimate reality ever present was before the Big-Bang.

3b. Energy emerged from UC before the Big Bang. This is the hypothesis presented in my paper to explain the origin of universe.

Apart from providing answer to above questions the discovery of UC has enabled me to explain our subjective experience of flow (lapse) of time (see my post of 20th October). It also enables us to understand the most elusive property of self; the self being aware of itself. Dr. V. S. Ramachandran (neuroscientist) has proposed three ways of solving the problem of self. About the third he has stated that 'the problem of self is not a straight forward empirical. 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' (see my post of October13).

I do not want to sound big, but the discovery of independent existence of consciousness (UC) is a radical shift in our knowledge. UC being awareness of self existence would obviously be aware of itself.

There may be many more implications of it. One of it is the fact that it is not the matter but consciousness that is the ultimate reality. Wide spread and deep realization of this fact may change the attitude of society towards matter resulting in greater harmony, peace and happiness.

I hope this is a simpler description of the discovery of UC and its implications.

Prem N. Tiwari

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!

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?

Dear Mr. Venerando,

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

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

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.