Quality Tools Find it Fast

Geometric Die

Mastering The Universe

 1. INTRODUCTION

 

Human being got into the act of colleting treasure of knowledge only with the quest in getting complete understanding of outside world. An attempt to make a complete model of outside world results in boundaries of outside world stretched, thus rendering the model incomplete. The state of present science is more pathetic. Technological advancements have enabled us to see cluster of galaxies at large- scale and particles within the ‘fundamentals particles’, at small-scale. Frightened to see the size of outside world; some of us are helpless to conclude that ultimate reality is out of reach to any physical model. Those who still hope to make the absolute model of universe, rely on trying to combine different pillars of science. These attempts, wrongly termed as unification prove to be synthesis. And we know, synthesis is noting but a more complex version of previous two theses.

 

In this presentation, we will explore some novel ideas to the status of a complete theoretical framework. We shall neatly untangle the entangled threads of knowledge humanity has gained so far. This process would include going right at the roots of every concept. We might be required to give up all knowledge for a little time. After the presentation is finished, we shall come up with a refreshed knowledge.

 

So we are not picking the unsolved questions individually to discuss. Rather we are exploring some fresh ideas that will wash up all our confusions. With these ideas we would be able to get a sight of absolute universe. In a sense, we would become the master of the universe.

 

 

2. CONCEPT OF CHANGE

 

 Imagine a ball ‘A’ whose color is getting changed1 slowly. Consider its any three sharply defined states red, yellow and white denoted by Ar, Ay and Aw respectively [figure1 (a)]. Our mind takes Ar, Ay and Aw as three states of same object and not three distinct objects. On the other hand, consider three balls of different colors-red, yellow and white, situated in space in such a way that no two of them are simultaneously visible. Their location is such that eyes have to be removed from red to see yellow and from yellow to see white [figure1 (b)]. Still, mind would not be convinced about the thought that these three are three states of a single object.

 

Whether mind would consider two objects (two states) as two states of a single object (two objects) or not, depends upon the event connecting the two objects (two states). For human mind takes two objects Ar and Ay as two states of a single object, the event connecting the two objects must read like follows. Red no longer exists and yellow   comes into existence via a series of infinitely many in between states. Let us name this kind of events as unifying events. One can get here a clue easily. If we search unifying events for different portions of universe2, then we could see all portions as different states of a single thing called universe.

 

But it is not an easy task. Consider again for example, the situation of figure 1(b). The unifying event here can be the movement of eyes to see A’r then A’y and then A’w. Our mind faces problem in taking event ‘Eryw’ in the case of figure 1 (b) (i.e. Ar’ no longer exist and Ay’ comes into existence via movement of eyes and then Ay’ no longer exist and Aw’ comes into existence via movement of eyes] as unifying event due to following reason.

 

    Eyes are a part of our body. By body we mean, that group of objects (portions of universe) among which ‘excellent’ communication system exists. Though, each and every portion of universe is in excellent communication with every other portion of universe. And we cannot assign grades to their extent of communication. Still, in some groups extent of communication seems better than that in others3.

 

 We will discuss later in this presentation about why this is so. At this point we simply notice the fact that groups in which one ‘master point’ exists (mind, in case of living-beings) which rules all portions of group, seem having excellent communication. We shall later see that this master point could be found for any group of objects (portions of universe) and hence the ultimate group of objects (universe) can be seen as one body. The master point in this ultimate case would be called as ‘Godly point’ or simply ‘God’.

 

Coming back to the case of figure 1(b), the movement of eyes cannot be taken as unifying event because the observer (mind) is infected with a prejudice. Being the master point of the body, it cannot take event associated with its ‘own object’ (eyes here) as the event connecting ‘other objects’ (balls here). Also, it is indigestible to mind that A`r  no longer exists. This is again due to the reason that mind has special attachment with eyes. A`r can be retrieved simply by moving eyes in opposite direction i.e. without doing any work on surrounding [Due to special attachments, mind can not count eyes in surrounding].

 

So, a relationship, as simple as exists between two states of a single object, can be found between any two portions of universe. The task mandatory to find out this relationship is to discover unifying events. It is impossible to find unifying events, which are digestible to usual mind, for all objects.

Digestible events cannot be found, so the only option left is to strengthen digestive capacity of mind. This means nothing but compromise over usual sense of mind.

 

3. CONCEPT OF FUNDAMENTALITY

All our efforts to find ultimate reality have been based on the assumption that human mind can know the universe completely. We do not know at this moment about the extent to which this assumption is correct. But the best thing about this assumption is that the term ‘human mind’ is broadly defined.

 

Human mind is in a state of continuous development at least in terms of knowledge. This increment of knowledge comes as a result of activation of newer function of mind in a time span from as short as a few seconds a learner takes to memorize a formula, to as long as a few generations humanity takes to create a formula.

 

We have not put any limit to the development of mind in defining it. So mind can go to any measure of development needed to know the universe. The mere condition is that it should not get so much developed that it is no longer a mind. I hope this statement does not sound funny, as we have already discussed about unifying two different objects.

 

So in spite of broadness of definition of mind, the fact is that we are relying on human mind to know the universe. Human mind is a portion of universe and there is infinite number of such portion possible. Belief in the capability of mind to ‘observe’ the universe completely must be accompanied by the belief that each and every portion of universe can observe the whole universe. Here, the use of word ‘observe’ needs some explanation.

 

All portions of universe are in communication with the rest universe in different ways. We have given names to the ways of some portion of universe we are familiar with. For example eyes ‘see’, ears ‘hear’, skin ‘touches’, tongue ‘tastes’, mind ‘know/ imagines/ analyzes’ and so on. For a random portion of universe we shall simply use the word ‘observe’. Use of the word ‘observe’ for the portion we are familiar with (eyes, ears etc.) will help us to see these portions in general context. It will help us in getting over the prejudice of mind which in turns means getting out of the horizons of usual mind.

 

Coming back to the point, we are logically bound to believe that all portions of universe are capable of observing the whole universe. If all portion of universe observe the same thing (i.e. the whole universe) then what criteria one should use to distinguish these from each other? They observe the same thing means they are the same thing. Because we are familiar with the concept of relativity according to which no two different observers in this universe can have exactly same observation. We can easily make a conclusion here. There can be only one portion of universe, which can observe the whole universe. Or in absolute sense, we cannot divide universe in portions. A try to describe a portion of universe would lead us to describe the whole universe. We shall later name ‘universe in absolute sense’ as ‘the Godly universe’.

 

There is no ground to the belief that mind is that special portion of universe which is capable of knowing the universe absolutely. So even if we achieve all heights of mind development, the universe we can know is the universe observable from a particular corner. We can only wish that the corner representing human mind were the special corner from where whole universe is observable. But we must bear in mind that in order to observe the whole universe, we might have to see developments from even outside the horizons of mind.

 

We shall here do whatever is necessary to gain absolute knowledge. What if that absolute vision requires a drastic change in mind? And this much change can be done by a few words of this paper. The fundamentality concept can be the enough support for this belief.

 

Consider an object O1 as observed and described (?) by an infant mind. By ‘infant’ mind we mean a mind, which has not observed anything before. In a sense it is empty (knowledge less). If we ask this mind to describe O1 then its answer will be like ‘I am observing O1.’ ‘But what is O1?’ ‘O1 is O1’, its answer will be.

 

As soon as this mind observes another object O2, comparison being it’s characteristic, it starts doing comparison between O1 an O2.It finds some common things between O1 and O2. These common things become the base of its descriptions now. For instance, ‘O1 is of color red and O2 of white’. ‘Color’ is the common thing between O1 and O2. So an object can be said as a composition of a few such common properties (color, figure, smell etc) seen after doing comparison of objects. Let us call it ‘breaking of objects mentally’.

        So O=f (P1, P2, P3... Pn)        where P stands for property.

 

When an infant mind watches physical breaking of an object, it may get inspired to break it more in search of ‘fundamental particles’. Discovery of atom and quarks is a result of the same inspiration

        So O= f’ (p1, p2, p3…. pn)          where ‘p’ stands for particles.

 

This is all about properties and particles we have discovered by doing physical and mental efforts. Cannot some hypothetical properties and particles serve the same purpose? Isn’t it just a matter of changing ‘f’ with the changed variables (P’s and p’s)? There is nothing unreasonable in it except that variables are discovered without efforts.

 

Here one can easily infer that any object or any event can be described in terms of other one or more objects/events. It is just like setting up a dictionary between object/event being described and objects/events being used to describe it.

 

This paper claiming to make the reader understand the universe absolutely can be considered as an object. This object is fundamentally made up of twenty-six letters (and a few more characters). The same object can be translated in any other language. Then it would be said described with number of characters that language has.

 

It is here to be noted that open-reductionism is not digestible to mind. What to talk about expressing an object in terms of hypothetical elements, description of one object in terms of other objects belonging to totally different stream, is not digestible to mind. For example, mind cannot set up a model, which can connect process of DNA replication and subatomic properties.

 

 

‘Wine is made up of only two things-water and milk.’ This statement is false according to our mind. ‘Truth’ and ‘false’ are reactions a particular object mind gives to events. It terms some events as ‘true’ and rest as ‘false’. We know what kind of events is true according to mind (events which occur in testimony of mind are true). So reductionism theories can be framed for all objects. But out of all possible theories some would be true and rest absurd (or false) according to mind. We can increase the number of valid theories by stretching the horizons of mind. Stretching horizons of mind does not mean that we should faithfully take false events as true. It simply means to realize that there is a portion of universe possible, which behaves just opposite to mind. And so, according to that portion events labeled as false by mind are true and vice versa.

 

4. CONCEPT OF CAUSALITY

Causality is the criterion our mind use to label events as true or false. The same criterion makes the boundary of isolated field of knowledge generated by mind. Let us go at the root level of this concept.

 

Again consider an infant mind observing its first event/object. (Existence of object is also an event). This observation brings a change in mind. Changed mind does change nearby objects [most nearby are other parts of body]. Soon it starts observing another event along with the previous one.

 

If we convert above description in the language of a knowledge full mind, it will sound as follows. The first observation of infant mind arise curiosity in it. Following that curiosity, mind orders parts of body to work out to calm it. The final result is the discovery of another event which is ‘the’ cause of previous event (it is actually ‘a’ cause as it is one of infinite causes. But this is the cause, which satisfies mind).

 

Comparing two descriptions, we can easily understand that causality is something associated with the mind (which is nothing special but a particular portion of universe). It is the way our mind behaves in a surrounding. Analogous to it can be considered a metal piece kept in a relatively hot surrounding. Its characteristic is, to get hot (action of surrounding on it, analogous to mind get curious) and then to emit radiations (its reaction to surrounding, analogous to working for discovery).

 

The debate again can be about assigning any event as the ‘cause event’ of any ‘effect event’. The conclusion again is that it needs stretching of horizons of mind. Only those events would be truly the cause event (or digestible to our mind), which have been discovered following physical and mental efforts done in testimony of mind.

 

Our most of the observations are supported causally by radiations (particularly light). In fact, we can explain all events in terms of radiations. For example take irreversible processes.

 

Consider a block moving on a rough table. It eventually stops and the system warms up. The kinetic energy of block gets converted into internal energy of the block and the table. Is the process exactly reversed to it possible? If we heat the block and table system, can the system cool down and block starts moving on the table with the same velocity? The answer is yes. The theory what we name as the radiation theory tells the way it can happen.

 

A causal description of above said events according to radiation theory will sound as follows. A particular pattern of invisible radiations is falling on the block ‘because’ of which it is moving. This pattern slowly gets changed due to its interference with the radiation pattern being emitted out from table. Eventually the pattern falling on the block becomes such that ‘because’ of it the block stops. The pattern of radiation being emitted out from the system also changes. System heats up now so that the pattern being emitted out contains some ‘hotter radiations’. It is here to be noted that radiations are not hot. Actually the meaning of pattern for us is ‘hot’. By doing observations, we can discover a whole new language-the language of radiations. Then it would be just a matter of checking out dictionary to know what pattern of radiations means what?

 

Now take the process just reverse to it. Block is kept at rest on table. We wish to move it by heating the block plus table system. Law of conservation of energy supports our wish. But this wish cannot be fulfilled. Because by heating the system we are applying a radiation pattern with the meaning that block is stopped on the table. To move it we should apply a pattern with the meaning that block is started moving.

 

Every radiation pattern affects the object it is falling on in a unique way i.e. every input (of radiations) has its own unique output. This is a fact of facts. Facts themselves are of no use to us. Every new phenomenon we observe, we get a new and unique fact. The use of previously got facts can be done only after looking out a generalization in them and applying it to newly observed phenomena.

 

Here we must bear in mind that law is something extracted out of a few facts. So it can predict something about the new facts. It cannot completely predict a fact. [We are using the word 'fact' in place of ‘event' just to put our point clearly. actually 'prediction' is something associated with a going to occur-event and not with a fact].

In order to predict an event completely, we are required to be flexible with inventing new laws. We reach close to predicting an event completely only when the bunch of laws we have in hands, as a whole become the description of event to be predicted.

 In the example we have considered, the ultimate law governing the reverse process is as follows. A particular kind of radiation pattern with the meaning that the block will start moving when falls on the block it starts moving [the pattern is also told exactly in this law].

 

That particular pattern referred in this 'law' can only is known after the occurrence of the event. Then this law would be a fact and hence of no other use but to compare it with a few more facts and derive an imperfect law. For example we can find a pattern 'p' with in this pattern 'P'. A law may sound like follows. When a pattern 'p' is found in radiation patterns (P, P’, P’’ etc.) falling on an object, the object may start moving. But the condition with this law, as with any other law is that it may not exactly predict an event.

 

Coming back to the point, the block can be started moving by applying a radiation pattern that means so. When we push the block by physical means, we are doing nothing but applying invisible radiation pattern with the meaning 'to start'. It would be a miraculous discovery if we devise something, which can generate radiations in the required pattern4. Then we might see events occurring without a physical cause. For example, then we could calm our hunger just by bombarding our stomach with the required pattern. But universe then would not become without a cause. Rather, radiation theory will provide the cause.

 

We can make following conclusion about causality. Causality is the characteristic of mind. Hence, it determines the way a mind reacts to the surrounding. The outside world a mind observes keeps on changing (usually stretching) with the discovery of new things.  Causality paves the way to all these discoveries. For example, an explanation of a few phenomena of current outside world (observable to human mind as a whole) needs some new concepts like ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’. This is the causality which drove mind to believe in these kinds of ‘unobservable things’ (these things are no longer unobservable to us we are ‘imagining’ about these. Imagination is also an observation as per our broader definition). The same drive will soon lead us to observing these things ‘actually’.

The importance of the concept of causality lies in the fact that cause events are something within reach of our actions. We cannot directly carry out ‘effect events’. So we do action to make a ‘cause-event’ occur and we get the ‘effect-event’ occurred in turn.

 

4. A FREE DEVELOPMENT OF MIND

How a mind reacts to the surrounding depends upon its present state. Different is the mind; different is the reaction of it to the surrounding. In the process of changing surrounding, mind also changes. We can say that mind has changed not (only) surrounding but (also) itself. It has changed itself being driven by itself. So state of mind at any time is totally determined by its previous states.

 

Series of state of mind at different times can be imagined as a thread. If we have one point of this thread in hand, the whole thread is in our hand as every single point of this thread has complete information about the whole thread. In other words, every state of mind contains information about its previous and next states. This statement is equally true for any portion of universe.

 

Now the critical question is how to decode the information contained in a point. Function representing change in mind, as a whole could be so complex to deal with. We can take mind as a composition of various properties. The change in those properties shall be according to a simpler function. By observing the variations in these simpler functions individually, we can develop an idea about variation in the complex function.

 

For instance, assume that a mind is conservative in nature. The event of change in it will remain biased by its conservativeness. So on the basis of this property; we can know an event horizon. Similarly other event horizons can be known corresponding to other properties. The actual path of occurrence of event can be inferred by keeping in mind these event horizons. It is quite obvious that the actual path of occurrence may go outside some or all event horizons. Figure 2 shows this fact using two horizons. At point where this breach of horizons happens, new and more specified laws need to be introduced.

 

The importance of understanding development graph lies in the fact that one of the infinite states of mind is going to bestow us with complete understanding of the universe. We do not know exactly where that state of mind lies. We should be open enough to break the horizons because it is not necessary that that state of mind will fall with in some horizons. Breach of one horizon means creation of another broader horizon. Development of human mind has seen innumerable breach of horizons. So much is the number of opinions existing that presently we have horizons extending in numerous directions (here directions does not mean directions of space. Rather, various directions have various definitions). This is the case when we talk about human mind as a whole. However individual minds are influenced with their individual opinions and hence they proceed with in their corresponding rather confined areas. This research has been done not to create new horizons but to make a way which satisfies all the horizons, those have been created and those yet to be created.

 

 

 

5. LIGHT: MAJOR CONTENT OF OUR UNIVERSE

For an infant mind, its universe is nothing but clusters of matter located in space. Causality- the inherent characteristic of mind; grows its understanding. With growing understanding, it gets enabled so as to observe new things. Light is one of the most significant thing human mind has discovered in its journey of development. If existence of ‘our’ universe is considered as an event then light is the most significant cause of this event.

 

The universe we observe looks very complex. Human beings have been involved in efforts to find out something fundamental in terms of which everything can be explained. We have seen formerly that the universe cam be explained even in terms of a single thing. Let us denote that single thing as Xo. Xo should have properties something like follows.

 

1. Description of events in term of something hypothetical is of no physical importance. So Xo should have an actual existence.
2. It should be existent in such a way that it can be seen attached with every event. It simply means that Xo should be present everywhere in our universe,
3. When Xo is observed with different events, different should be the observations. These observations would be used to describe corresponding events. In these descriptions, standard would be the observations when Xo is not seen without an event. Those mean, fundamental characteristics of Xo would be used as standard.

 

At least for the universe visible to us, light has above properties. And as we have seen, if we can set up a radiation language, then radiations can be that single thing for the whole universe observable to us.

 

Whether light gets reflected, absorbed or both after falling on an object depends upon the nature of object. So light coming after interacting with an object (or light emitting from an object) carries information about nature of object. Our eyes catch the same information and pass it to our mind where it is decoded. The most important and beautiful thing about light is that it interacts with every portion of universe in a unique way. Thus, there is no event possible in our universe which light cannot carry information of.

 

We must bear in mind that light is something, which we use as information of outside world. Actually, we are naturally intended to do that. We naturally have a scale set up in mind that gives us the measurement of outside world. This scale actually ‘measures’ light coming from outside world.

 

Beside this natural ability, we can study light to come up with principles. Insertion of these principles in mind is nothing but increment of capability of mind to decode light signals. Devices made on the basis of these principles work as helping tools for mind. They help us to know the outside world in deep by doing nothing but reading light signals deeply.

 

Study of light creates a very interesting situation. That is, we start comparing it (light) with something we are known about because of it (light) only. We observe phenomena like ‘particles’ and ‘waves’ with the help of light.  Interesting part comes when we start analyzing whether light (something which tells us what ‘particles’ and ‘waves’ are) has particle like or wave-like character.

 

Actually light is a signal that carries information about particles as well as waves. Consider interaction of a thing X whose character (particle-like or wave-like) is not known, with a particle P. we know a principle from our previous observations that if a particle interact with particle, a phenomena Pp is observed. Otherwise a phenomenon Pw is observed. Assume for a moment that Pp is observed. It means something (let us say X) with particle like character has interacted with P. We get to see via light coming from X that X has interacted with P. 

 

Now take the case when X is interacting with P from a distance. It is doing so via light. For us, the same light becomes the signal telling that X is not visible to us. We are only able to see light falling on P and on our eyes. [It simply means that light coming from X does not have information about looks and location of X] Would this case make us conclude that actually light is interacting with P. This interaction leads to phenomenon Pp, so light is particle-like in nature? This conclusion is simply wrong. Actually, light is neither interacting with P nor it is particle like. It contains information about a particle-like thing, which is not visible. At least in the universe observable to us presently, we should conclude like this. We must make a conclusion keeping in mind that light is an information for us about our universe. These statements can be clearly understood by comparing these with following statement we have already made. ‘The radiations are not hot; actually the object emitting these radiations is hot. Radiations just carry the information about it.’

 

So study of light in a way we do study objects is a confusing task. It is possible only after we discover something that can be used as signal carrying information about light. This discovery seems to be a difficult job as then universe would be totally different. In that universe, we would be observing only light via that something new, carrying information about light.

 

6. OTHER UNIVERSES

Light travels with a speed ‘c’ in vacuum. So in the universe explainable by light, no object can exceed this speed. If an object travels with a speed more than ‘c’, then its information cannot be contained in light. To observe that object we need something having speed greater than ‘c’ as an information carrier. Let us denote that something by ‘C’. If information carrier is new, then the bunch of principles whether naturally set up in mind or inserted ‘artificially’, used to decode that information should also be new. These two sets of principles (of usual universe and universe of C’s respectively) should be kept in mind separately. Mind should be capable of using any of these two when need arises, without confusion. As necessary for anything in terms of which universe is explained, ‘C’ should be present everywhere in its universe. That would allow as to do away light and do catch ‘C’ whenever we need to observe an object with speed greater than that of light. Observation of the object with speed greater than ‘c’ would then be as easy as to switch on to principles corresponding to ‘C’ and decode information carried by C’s with the help of those principles.

 

But it is not as easy as it sounds. The two sets of principles may be totally in contradiction with each other. For instance, according to one set of principles a bird flies away because of throwing stone towards that. While the other set of principles may say that stone is thrown because bird has fly away.

 

It does not mean that in the world of C’s, effect precedes cause. Actually the event, which is a cause event in usual world, becomes the effect event in C’s world. All the observations of C’s world when seen with principles of usual world are absurd. For example, a person dies before she is born and so on. These observations are absurd as long as new principles are not knowable to mind. When the usual mind is kept in the unusual world of C’s, it automatically develops a sense to admit new observations.

 

Presently, human mind is moving towards discovering things with velocities greater than ‘c’ with a satisfactory pace. Lot of confusions our science has gained, are just a result of that quest.

 

For instance, consider a very important approach of modern science. We know that light travels with a finite speed. Light carrying information about an event takes a finite time to reach to us. It means the event ‘actually’ occur a finite time before we actually observe it.

 

There is one more thing we should pay worry about. Light loads itself with the information about an object after striking the object. In this process the object may get disturbed. This disturbance is significant in case of micro-objects like electrons.

 

So what we observe through light is a disturbed object. Observation would have different had there been no light. We can know the effect of light by studying its properties and then this effect can be subtracted to get a ‘pure’ observation. This approach should not be said as ‘observation without light’. It is actually decoding light signals in deep by using extra principles derived from study of light.

 

Firstly it sounds silly that we want to do away light (something with the help of which we can observe) from our observations. But these kinds of efforts are dragging humanity towards discovery of particles moving with infinite speeds. That discovery would bestow us with the capability to observe an event at the time it actually occurs at its place.

 

Now our presentation is at the stage where we start getting sight of broader universe. Human beings are still unable to imagine the horizon of universe explainable with the help of light. Now we know that there may be infinite number of universes depending upon the major content of them. Major content in our universe is light. In other infinitely many universes, major contents are things different from light. Those universes are visible to ‘mind’ in its different stages of development.

 

We can imagine the development of ‘mind’ with time as an infinitely long thread. Mind that observes universe filled with light is nothing but a length of a few centimeters on this thread.

 

It is worth noticing here that when we imagine development of ‘mind’ as infinitely long string, then ‘mind’ is most broadly defined. Actually nothing can be said about this ‘mind’

Except that it can have all possible observations of all possible universes. Different states of this single thing named ‘mind’, observes different outside universes. So it is its observations, which should be used to describe it.

 

Though, we have got a large image of universe with the help of concept of replacing major content of universe. Still a larger image of universe might be out of reach of our mind. Our confined mentality might be still imagining change of major content as a change in ‘matter’. If we try to come out of materialistic boundaries, then a broader universe becomes visible to us.

In language of mind, we say that ‘matter’ of other universes (other than the universe filled with light) may not be like usual matter we are known of. Leave the idea to describe matter of other universes, as we cannot do that. What we can do with our mind is to admit that there is an infinitely extending range of variety of matter. Out of this infinitely long series of various kind of ‘matter’, a very little part is observable to us in the form of usual matter. Rest part of this series (which is almost the whole series) is ‘zero’ or ‘nothing’ for us. If we call the existence of the complete universe (Godly universe) as an event and occurrence of this event as play, then our existence is very insignificant part of the play. The usual matter and our universe come into play right at big bang. This is not the start of the play. Rather play was continued before this small part and will continue after this small part.

 

Getting more enlarged mentality, the play may not proceed in so simple way. If this whole series is scaled from minus infinity to plus infinity, then we may imagine this play as proceeding uniformly over this scale out of which a small range (let us say -10 to +10) is of usual matter. This may be more complex. For example, may be there is even a series of these small parts (a small part means an era between a big bang and big crunch). That is, universe oscillates between eras of expansion and contraction. The play is continued before this series of eras and will continue even after it.

 

We (can) think and observe only a part of the play in which usual matter exists. Our observations about it have enabled us to formulate laws about it. As from now, we start thinking about the play before and after this small part, we may start having useful observations of rest play. If nothing more is achieved, we can increase the size of part of play we know laws about. If we find laws applicable even a little before of big bang and after big crunch, then we may feel more eased as far as puzzles associated with ‘origin of our universe’ is concerned.

 

 7. FREE OBSERVER

We describe the usual mind as something of shape like a walnut. But who knows (observes) that mind has walnut like shape? This ‘who’ not only observes what walnut like mind observes, but also observes an object (mind) of shape something like a walnut. This mean, if walnut like mind observes universe ‘U’ then the universe observable to that ‘who’ is broader than ‘U’. And it is ‘U’ plus walnut like mind. The universe, which includes walnut like mind, is not being observed by walnut like mind. It is being observed by something undiscovered. This undiscovered is not described by its looks (as that too require an observer which would obviously not described in terms of its looks). It is described in terms of what it is observing.

 

This undiscovered does not remain so for long. Being driven by causality, the already discovered mind works and soon it discovers the undiscovered. This is another sort of matter that this undiscovered is found to be nothing but a newer function of already discovered mind (of shape walnut like). After getting discovered, this new thing becomes the part of universe. Then the new universe (universe including recently discovered thing) would be observable to another undiscovered thing. And this process of discovering undiscovered things continues.

 

Let us call this undiscovered thing which observes its corresponding outside universe as ‘free observer’. This free observer sees its outside universe as one body. So it is the master point for its universe. We can feel this ‘free observer’ by forgetting ourselves. When the ‘free observer’ is active, it sees body as an ordinary part of universe and not a special thing. Then we observe communication between every portion of universe as excellent as walnut like mind observes among different parts of living beings’ body.

 

It is here to be noted that walnut like mind was also a free observer in its undiscovered state. The very infant walnut like mind (lacking in any advanced function) observes only its body. So it is ‘master point’ or ‘free observer’ of its universe (which is nothing but the body).

 

To clear the concept of ‘free observer’ take example of newly born baby. She does not have any sense of her body. So her body is in undiscovered stage. Whatever the body observes is a universe whose free observer is the whole body (and not her mind) just like a mind feels itself master of its universe, the body is master of its own universe. It does not observe its universe as a group of things. Rather, the whole universe observable to it is a single thing for it, which is sending information to it and receiving information from it. As the baby starts getting sense, the free-observer replaces it with next5 free-observers. The walnut like mind of the baby is one of next free-observers.

 

  8. WHAT EXISTS ACTUALLY?

Consider the time when different islands on earth were not connected with each other. Navigators were moving in random directions and discoveries were being made incidentally. Suppose that a navigator starts journey from a place ‘A’ and reaches to ‘B’. He notes down the path he moves on. The discovery of ‘B’ gives him a fact. It sounds like follows. If a person situated at ‘A’ does a particular kind of activities (which is nothing but moving on the path discovered), she could be able to observe ‘B’.

 

Then a number of such facts can be known telling what people at different places should do to be able to observe ‘B’. Talking in common language, these facts tell what path persons situated at different places should follow to reach to ‘B’.

 

These facts could be easily remembered by compiling these in the form of a model. Our minds are naturally intended to make this model. We assign co-ordinates to ‘A’ and ‘B’ by setting up a co-ordinate a system. Scales are introduced into this system based on the facts. So fact file is converted into a geometric model that can tell what path a person located at a particular point should follow to reach to ‘B’.

 

So a geometrical model, naturally made by mind, makes us to imagine that different points exist at their definite positions. For instance, according to the current model we are having, objects like moon have their definite position. We are naturally intended to believe that moon exists ‘actually’. We can observe it anytime by doing activities according to the corresponding fact (i.e.

Just watch the sky at night and see the moon).

 

Conclusion is that what we call as ‘reality’ is nothing but a geometrical model of many closely related facts. This conclusion is more knowable in the light of concept of particles moving with infinite speeds. In that case, distance and space would have no meaning. A point can denote whole universe then.

 

This kind of model enables us to observe broader universe at a time. We do not watch moon every time. By this model, we know what we shall have to do to watch the moon.

 

Beside these facts, which can be relived, there are many facts, which could not be relived. These facts are said to be about things ‘located’ in past. An event, which cannot be reoccurred, is said to be a past event.

 

Apart from the events we relive, we make new observations too. Events that are yet to occur are termed as future-events. Co-ordinates of a geometrical model that covers only events occurred (those have given us facts) and reoccur able are called co-ordinates of space. On the other hand, a model which covers only events occurred but not reoccur able and events yet to occur are called having time co-ordinates. Co-ordinates of model covering all above said events are called time-space co-ordinates.

 

Our mind faces a logical obstruction in admitting that observations not reoccur able and yet to occur are also a part of reality. This obstruction can be slightly removed by inventing methods to predict6, 7 yet to occur-events. Then mind may develop a sense that future events have a definite location in time-space co-ordinate system. Another way to challenge this obstruction is to broaden the definition of term 'observation'. Merely what eyes see is not said as observation, as we have marked earlier. Imagination of mind is also a kind of observation. An imagined event does also have an existence. It does also have a definite location in let us say a five dimensional co-ordinate system. Fifth dimension is introduced to justify that a false imagination has no co-ordinates in four dimensions of space-time.

 

9. FINAL PICTURE 

Now we are at a stage of our presentation where we can make a final picture of complete universe.

There are infinitely many universes. Hence, there are infinitely many free-observers corresponding to those universes. On the basis of events joining5 those different universes, we can put all free observers in a series telling which free observer is next to which. If we imagine this series geometrically, then it is not like an infinitely extending thread. Rather it is just a point that can be said infinitely extending and infinitely contracting at the same time. Following is how this is so.

 

Consider any two universes U1 and U2, one next to other. They can be represented joined by a thread. But there also exists a universe U such that U=U1+U2. Let us say it is next to U2. How would it be represented? An area covering U1 and U2 both represents it. And joining U with its next universe U' would obviously require considering U not as an area but as a point.

 

So there is also a universe, which 'covers' all the universes. Universe (or Godly Universe, UG) can be represented as

UG=([{(U1+U2+...)+(U1'+U2'+...)+...}+{U}+...]+[U0]+...)             where U1,U2,UI’,U2’ etc are various universes

 

Important about UG is that there is no universe next to it and those previous to it are included in it. It is like a 'dead point' as there is no change possible in it (actually it is defined1 to contain all changes). At the same time it is ultimately alive point as it covers all the changes.

 

A fact about the series of universes may be that the arrow representing progress of series may go towards an inside universe from a universe containing that inside universe. But in the case of ultimate universe UG this fact proves false. Actually this fact is also 'included' (and not 'governing') in the universe.

 

Definition and description of this universe are too broad to give words to. We can imagine it as a universe, which is made up of all possible dimensions (infinite in number) and all possible things. Any statement given about it could sound philosophical. For example, it is ‘everything’ and ‘nothing’ simultaneously. ‘Everything’ and ‘nothing’ are also relative terms, which are too insufficient to be used for describing the absolute universe.

 

The free observer corresponding to the absolute universe (which can be simply called as God) observes the whole series of universes. It can assign timing to the series. The clock set up by it would be the absolute one. Currently we observe phenomena starting from big bang to big crunch and have a clock defined for this period. This clock is a fragment of the absolute clock. By studying the two clocks collectively, we can increase ability of our observation. Hence a few more fragments of the absolute clock could be discovered increasing the horizons of universe we are masters of.

 

 

10. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

 

Finally I would like to acknowledge support of my father Mr. Mohan Lal Jangra. He supported me in all ups and downs of the path, which led me to do this unique task successfully.

 

11. FOOTNOTES

 

1. Change is completely a matter of consideration. For example, when we say a ball is changing, thing under consideration is ball. If we consider the ‘changing ball’ as a thing then it is unchanged.
2. We are using the term ‘portions of universe’ as a generalized term for ‘objects’. To get absolute perception, we need to consider portions of universe, which do not behave like objects as well. All objects are portions of universe but all portions of the universe are not objects. In this presentation we shall frequently use these two for each other.
3. Body of living beings is a system of objects in which so excellent system exists that a sense of great unity exists among different parts of system.
4. A few therapies like color therapy work with the same idea in root i.e. applying respective radiation pattern in order to carry out a required event. For instance, a principle of color therapy is that yellow color emits radiations, which can make a mind happy. So using this principle, we can turn a sad mind into happy just by surrounding it with yellow color.
5. Suppose a free observer F1 has its observation domain D1. Another free observer F2 has observation domain D2. An event within D1 is such that it joins D1 to D2. This event is called cause of change of D1 into D2 and F2 is called free observer next to F1. In case of development of human mind, the event connecting two ‘consecutive’ free-observers is discovery of undiscovered by recently discovered thing.
6. An event is predicted if its cause is predicted. Doing away the satisfaction of mind, infinitely many causes can be attributed to an event. If we can predict any of these causes then the event can be predicted. Idea of studying events occurring on earth and the events occurring in the solar system (movements of planets) together is not new. Principles of astrology are results of the same study. Movement of planets is an event which we can easily predict with the help of mathematics. As this event can be considered as a cause of earthly events, earthly events can be easily predicted.
7. The science dealing with the predictions of events can be developed to the extent we wish. Imagine that a co-ordinate system is set up in the solar system. According to the fundamental idea of the science of predictions, solar co-ordinates (co-ordinates of imagined system) determine the way space co-ordinates of an earthly particle changes. If solar co-ordinates are collectively described as f (s1, s2,…s9) and co-ordinates of earthly particle as f’ (x, y,z), then

                            f (s1,s2,…s9)=k. f(x,y,z)                    …….(i)

 Initially, set of solar co-ordinates at a particular time (clocks being as set up in the solar co-ordinate system) and set of space co-ordinates of the earthy particle at a time (measured by clocks set up in the co-ordinate system located on earth) are assumed to be the cause and effect respectively. In this way the time of solar co-ordinate system and that of co-ordinate system of earth is synchronized. Then observations are made and mathematics is worked out {i.e. known quantities (s1,s2,…s9) are used to find unknowns (x,y,z)}.

About the Author

Praveen Y. Pparam
S/O Mr. Mohan Lal Jangra
Vill.-Indiwali,P.O.-Devrala,
Tehsil-Tosham,Distt.-Bhiwani,
State-Haryana (India)
Postal Code-127036

Phone no.- +919968977129
+911253281517

email: p.y.pparam@gmail.com

Geometric Distribution: In an experiment, a die is rolled repeatedly until all six faces have finally shown.?

Geometric Distribution: In an experiment, a die is rolled repeatedly until all six faces have finally shown.?
What is the probability that it only takes six rolls for this event to occur? ANSWER = 0.0007716

What is the expected waiting time for this event to occur?

Do you need a derivation to the first part since you already have the answer? Anyway, allow me to check:

Chance of getting a new number on 1st roll = 1 (any number will do)
Chance of getting a new number on 2nd roll = 5/6
etc. .............

So chance of getting a new number on each of the first 6 rolls = 1 x (5/6) x (4/6) x (3/6) x (2/6) x (1/6) = 0.0015432 which is exactly 2 times your answer. How do you account for the factor 2 discrepancy? I don't see an explanation and I believe I'm correct, so please be challenged!.

Waiting time = time per roll x no of rolls.

With no particular haste, let's say each roll takes 5 seconds.

So what is the probable number of rolls?

Number of sides still sought:....... 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1
Most probable no of rolls needed:.1:1.2 :1.5:2 : 3 : 6

Therefore most probable total rolls needed = 15

Multiply by 5 seconds = 1 min 15 secs