Dear Sir,
There is no question of our feelings being hurt by some Essay because we are not personally affected by that. But we are surely hurt when someone distorts the Shastras thereby giving it a bad name. And many people do just that for temporary name and fame.
Big bang is an action. An action can take place in two ways: as a chain reaction to an initial action or induced action by a conscious agent. In our essay we have described how Uncertainty is a law of Nature only to the extent it is related to our system of measurement, but not in the same way as it is generally described by modern physics. Secondly we have shown it does not contradict causality. Thus, the initial action that led to the big bang needs an explanation. But no one is answering that question scientifically. We have a detailed mechanism for that and we will publish it soon. We derive all fundamental forces of Nature from the same initial action and describe the evolutionary process as its bye-product.
If by 'truth' you mean the accurate description of the said mechanism that governs from the big bang to the big crunch, you are correct. Then you have not described that mechanism. But if you use the term 'satya' to describe truth (like that in 'satyameva jayate'), then you have not understood its meaning. It has been used in a composite sense (sa ti yam) here (called saanketika), which has a very important scientific meaning.
Singularity is not the same as absolutely nothing. It only refers to a state that exists (thus not nothing), but cannot be described using the known laws of physics or as you describe it: "a thing made up of matter or energy that we usually talk of in physics". But then you contradict yourself by saying that: "I just know that it exists every where." If "absolutely nothing or singularity" "exists every where", how do you talk about "a thing made up of matter or energy"? Regarding your use of the term reality and imagination, please refer to the definition of reality and measurement in our essay. We thing you are describing "sama rasa" or "eka rasa", which is said to be a characteristic of "Brahman", as singularity. But if it is so, then that description is wrong. Nowhere the Shastras say "Jaganmithyaa".
Perception is the result of measurement using our instruments of sensory perception. Only when this information is processed, it leads to perception. Without perception, the object does not exist for us, though it may exist for others. There is nothing like "universal non-existence". Before you say: "Everything has a mind and nothing is mind itself", you must define mind and prove your statement. We assert that it is a misleading statement. Artificial Intelligence is nothing but programming and all programming is gigo - garbage in, garbage out. Unless the programmer has the complete knowledge, he cannot design and program devices that "could understand themselves fully they would realize that they are just memory locations with some processing power and that every other object (animate and inanimate) is similar to them at the most fundamental level which is just another memory location." "Krishna, Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, Shirdi Sai" gave the philosophy of life. But we are discussing physics.
You have equated I with singularity without explaining how I could be the same as singularity. There is no proof to substantiate your statement that: "I or singularity thinks there will be a tomorrow and the light follows. The day I stops thinking there will be no tomorrow." But there is proof to the contrary. If I think tomorrow will never come, it will be proved wrong. You have still not given any proof that "Thoughts travel faster than light. S=BM^2 (S-Soul, B-Body, M-Mind)." You may refer to Yajurveda, which also speaks of "manaso javiya", which means faster than the mind.
Thus, please stop meddling in science while meddling with sermons without a proper understanding of the Shastras. Otherwise it gives both the sermons and the science behind it a bad name.
Nothing personal.
Regards,
basudeba
