Ultimate Reality and Nonmaterial Origin Of Universe by Prem Nath Tiwari

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

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

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

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 experiment", to allow the experience of bliss.

I agree with you that the bliss experiences can be considered as an experimental proof of UC. There may be one reason why this kind of experience remains controversial in the current form of science. As I already mentioned, when somebody experiences the UC, the bliss is interpretable as brain chemistry. This may make many researchers to consider that the UC experience is just a hallucination, autosuggestion, etc. Please note that I never claimed that I do or don't accept the UC. I also never claimed that I did not experience the bliss. I am just discussing about the means of reproducing this experience of UC by others. You can discuss about it, and not be understood or believed. You can experience it in the more sophisticated laboratory, under qualified observation, and this experience be considered by other scientists just brain chemistry. Therefore, you can't transmit it by the means of objective science (including logical proof and objective experience).

Let's take your proposal: experience it by meditation. If somebody tries to do this, and fails, he/she may consider that there is no bliss, no UC. Whenever somebody will fail to do the experiment, the person who proposes the experiment may consider that it was because he/she was not able to be consciousness and thoughtless in the same time. So, the skeptic will remain skeptic, and the believer will keep his faith.

This makes the experiment totally different that what is usually considered an experiment in science.

I do admit that the science should not be limited to objective, measurable experiments, and logical deduction. I believe that, for mind processes, there should exist a "subjective science", which presents clearly experiments, together with scales for measuring them. One example may be what you proposed: the experiment to be performed is to meditate, and the measurable result is to experience the bliss and the UC. I think that it would be even more helpful if we can complete this experiment with two ingredients:

1. A way to make sure that it really was the UC experience and not a hallucination.

2. A way to make it doable by anyone who can follow a list of steps, like in a cookbook, without being required extraordinary skills for succeeding.

Everybody can throw rocks from a tower, or can decompose the light with a prism. But you say that not everybody can perform the UC experiment.

If this experiment requires special skills, can these skills be decomposed in smaller experiments? For example, a body builder can count the repetitions, and can measure the weights he uses. But how can we decompose the UC experience in small steps, like small recipes in a cookbook? Such that, each day you make one recipe, receive a feedback of your progress, to really know that you succeed in that particular recipe, and in short time you do the entire cookbook. And the cookbook is required to be doable in short time, not in several life spans, so that only in a future life to experience the bliss.

I do not intend to criticize your work. I am rather interested in it, and I propose several features to the UC experience, that can make the experiment reproducible by any curious scientist (or not scientist), and that can make us sure that is not madness, but real bliss.

If you consider these features desirable and doable, then the UC experience will be freely available.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

"Flowing with a Frozen River",

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

P.S. It happens to me often to try my best in being neutral, and to be perceived as rejecting an idea by its supporters, and as a supporter by the ones who reject it. I don't want to offend any side; I am just trying to understand both of them every time.

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?

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

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, 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.Attachment #1: 1_FXQivotesdays.JPG

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Dr. Prem N. Tiwari,

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

Regards,

Robert Sadykov

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

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

Dear Mr. Robert Sadykov,

Thanks for your profound comliment.

With my best wishes,

Prem N. Tiwari