In veD: .... an universe is called
bRHmaaND = EGG OF CREATOR bRHmH....A
bRHmaaND is created by the
yog (union) of
puruSH and pRkruti.....
....puruSH is formed of a primary
shkti (power) of
creator bRHmH called
chaeetany which is consciousness of
creator bRHmH...pRkruti
is what is created as first creation when creator
bRHmH empowers His own primary shkti
(power) called mHaa-maayaa to produce
manifestations of His wish and desire......creator
bRHmH's desire and wish are to have company to remove the
loneliness He feels....And through this company creator
bRHmH wishes to become a
bhokt (consumer and enjoyer in
creation) of bhukt (creations to be
consumed and enjoyed)......
..creator bRHmH is thus the
creator, consumer and enjoyer of all that is called creations in a
universe...this concept is understood from the
mHaa-vaaky (great aphorism) in veD:
tt tvm asi = YOU (creation) ARE THAT
(creator bRHmH).....
....mHaa-maayaa has
3-guno which are
sttv, rjs and tms
....To create a bRHmaaND first
pRkruti is created when the
3-guno in
mHaa-maayaa are made unequal in strength by creator
bRHmH's another primary
shkti (power) called
mHaa-kaal ( Supreme Time).....this
unbalancing of 3-guno produces a
female shkti called pRkruti........when
pRkruti unites with
puruSH through
yog a bRHmaaND
(egg of creator bRHmH) is formed....
....In a bRHmaaND then is created
everything that we see in our universe: galaxies, solar systems with planets and
domains of seen and unseen creations and where life forms can exists with
supporting animate and inanimate creations...
....veD states there are billions
of millions of bRHmaaND formed and are being continuously formed in an eternal
process called sARj (creation) as creator
bRHmH keeps on wishing and desiring for company and to be
bhokt of
bhukt in eternal cycles ....(explanation from
SRii chmpklaal daajibhaai misTRii, a
volunteer of PVAF in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) .....
Now current science is starting to research about the above TRUTH....read
more about this research by clicking on the next line an article from
NEW YORK TIMES
entitled A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE MULTI-VERSE
|
A Brief History of the
Multiverse
By PAUL DAVIES
From
NEW YORK TIMES
Imagine you can play God and fiddle with the settings of the great cosmic
machine. Turn this knob and make electrons a bit heavier; twiddle that one and
make gravitation a trifle weaker. What would be the effect? The universe would
look very different — so different, in fact, that there wouldn't be anyone
around to see the result, because the existence of life depends rather
critically on the actual settings that Mother Nature selected.
Scientists have long puzzled over this rather contrived state of affairs. Why is
nature so ingeniously, one might even say suspiciously, friendly to life? What
do the laws of physics care about life and consciousness that they should
conspire to make a hospitable universe? It's almost as if a Grand Designer had
it all figured out.
The fashionable scientific response to this cosmic conundrum is to invoke the
so-called multiverse theory. The idea here is that what we have hitherto been
calling "the universe" is nothing of the sort. It is but a small component
within a vast assemblage of other universes that together make up a "multiverse."
It is but a small extra step to conjecture that each universe comes with its own
knob settings. They could be random, as if the endless succession of universes
is the product of the proverbial monkey at a typewriter. Almost all universes
are incompatible with life, and so go unseen and unlamented. Only in that
handful where, by chance, the settings are just right will life emerge; then
beings such as ourselves will marvel at how propitiously fine-tuned their
universe is.
But we would be wrong to attribute this suitability to design. It is entirely
the result of self-selection: we simply could not exist in biologically hostile
universes, no matter how many there were.
This idea of multiple universes, or multiple realities, has been around in
philosophical circles for centuries. The scientific justification for it,
however, is new.
One argument stems from the "big bang" theory: according to the standard model,
shortly after the universe exploded into existence about 14 billion years ago,
it suddenly jumped in size by an enormous factor. This "inflation" can best be
understood by imagining that the observable universe is, relatively speaking, a
tiny blob of space buried deep within a vast labyrinth of interconnected cosmic
regions. Under this theory, if you took a God's-eye view of the multiverse, you
would see big bangs aplenty generating a tangled melee of universes enveloped in
a superstructure of frenetically inflating space. Though individual universes
may live and die, the multiverse is forever.
Some scientists now suspect that many traditional laws of physics might in fact
be merely local bylaws, restricted to limited regions of space. Many physicists
now think that there are more than three spatial dimensions, for example, since
certain theories of subatomic matter are neater in 9 or 10 dimensions. So maybe
three is a lucky number that just happened by accident in our cosmic
neighborhood — other universes may have five or seven dimensions.
Life would probably be impossible with more (or less) than three dimensions to
work with, so our seeing three is then no surprise. Similar arguments apply to
other supposedly fixed properties of the cosmos, such as the strengths of the
fundamental forces or the masses of the various subatomic particles. Perhaps
these parameters were all fluke products of cosmic luck, and our exquisitely
friendly "universe" is but a minute oasis of fecundity amid a sterile space-time
desert.
How seriously can we take this explanation for the friendliness of nature? Not
very, I think. For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be
tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the
universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the
slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of
universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and
more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific
verification.
Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological
discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the
unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen
Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in
essence it requires the same leap of faith.
At the same time, the multiverse theory also explains too much. Appealing to
everything in general to explain something in particular is really no
explanation at all. To a scientist, it is just as unsatisfying as simply
declaring, "God made it that way!"
Problems also crop up in the small print. Among the myriad universes similar to
ours will be some in which technological civilizations advance to the point of
being able to simulate consciousness. Eventually, entire virtual worlds will be
created inside computers, their conscious inhabitants unaware that they are the
simulated products of somebody else's technology. For every original world,
there will be a stupendous number of available virtual worlds — some of which
would even include machines simulating virtual worlds of their own, and so on ad
infinitum.
Taking the multiverse theory at face value, therefore, means accepting that
virtual worlds are more numerous than "real" ones. There is no reason to expect
our world — the one in which you are reading this right now — to be real as
opposed to a simulation. And the simulated inhabitants of a virtual world stand
in the same relationship to the simulating system as human beings stand in
relation to the traditional Creator.
Far from doing away with a transcendent Creator, the multiverse theory actually
injects that very concept at almost every level of its logical structure. Gods
and worlds, creators and creatures, lie embedded in each other, forming an
infinite regress in unbounded space.
This reductio ad absurdum of the multiverse theory reveals what a very slippery
slope it is indeed. Since Copernicus, our view of the universe has enlarged by a
factor of a billion billion. The cosmic vista stretches one hundred billion
trillion miles in all directions — that's a 1 with 23 zeros. Now we are being
urged to accept that even this vast region is just a minuscule fragment of the
whole.
But caution is strongly advised. The history of science rarely repeats itself.
Maybe there is some restricted form of multiverse, but if the concept is pushed
too far, then the rationally ordered (and apparently real) world we perceive
gets gobbled up in an infinitely complex charade, with the truth lying forever
beyond our ken.
Paul Davies, professor of natural philosophy at the Australian Center for
Astrobiology, is author of "How to Build a Time Machine."
|
