Dissecting Brahman-Atman Operational Theory (3)
October 14, 2016
Today, we continue with providing meaningful answers to more of the four Big Questions. To review, yesterday we addressed the first question and will continue with the rest today. To remind you,
1. Compared to the universe, does Brahman exist or not exist?
2. How did Brahman, or God, come to be in the first place?
3. Is there a time when Brahman was not?
4. Why Something rather than Nothing?
Continuing with the second and third questions, we ask how Brahman, or God, came to Be? By asking this question, we enter into the murkiness of Temporality and its orthogonal relationship to Eternity. By temporality, I introduce the notion of Motion, a favorite study of Zeno of Elea (c. 490 – c. 430 BCE, pre-Socratic philosopher living in Magna Graecia).
For our psychoistic notions of time arise primarily from two human perceptual experiences. Type 1 motions correspond with our common perception of ‘spatial change,’ that is, seeing an unchanging object translate from one set of spatial coordinates to another set (moving arrows or hands of a watch). Type 2 motions, correspond with our perceiving ‘cyclic changes’ in one or more properties of an object or an animal, such as the changing seasons of the year or aging, which are synchronous with cyclic Type 1 motions, the yearly solar cycle.
The concept of time utilized in standard physics is a Type 2 motion and is defined and quantified by measuring a highly regular physical process, such as a caesium atomic clock. A standard second is defined, under standard conditions, as the time for a cesium atom to undergo electronic transitions between two hyperfine transition states 9,192,631,170 times. Such transitions are extremely cyclic and regular having an error rate of about one standard second in 1.4 million solar years.
Temporalities defined in terms of highly regular clocks, without or without second hands, do not concern a fundamental conceptualization of the actual nature of time from the view of Brahman or the universe globally. For instance, the temporal lengths of a clock’s measuring intervals are dependent of their physical environment. All physical clocks are altered by variations in gravity, inertial acceleration, and even temperature. The temporal periods measured by two observers using identical clocks situated in two, different uniformly translating laboratory reference frames are dependent upon the relative difference in translational velocity. Both of the above effects analyzed in Special Relativity Theory.
To counter the above, I define temporalities from a Brahmanic observation point. As the sum total of the momenergy (momentum and energy) in our universe is a conserved property, though its internal distribution changes over time because of motions, I can situate a clock at the center of mass-energy distribution of the universe which by default must always be at rest. One might call this point of rest, the Alpha, or Beginning Point in space. Though, I will not discuss them today, I have a number of other arguments to support this hypothesis.
If the above is even approximately true, the fundamental definition of time follows simply from the moment the universe came into beginning. I define absolute time as:
Accrued Universal Time equals the Number of Collapses of the Grand Wave Function times Planck’s Time Constant. As the Grand Wave Function collapses every 10**(-43) seconds.
I am drawn to this particular definition, as I opine that Pythagoras was correct when he said, “That all is Number.”
I am hearing a murmur in the audience, “so what does this have to do with our second and third questions?” Much actually.
Remember, yesterday, we established that Brahman, to be Eternal and Infinite, can only be conceived as being present ‘without that which is temporal, finite, and observable.‘ Brahman cannot reside within our universe. I use the word ‘present’ as I know of no better word.
Subsequently, as Brahman, or God, is “without” observable time and space, the utilization of the concepts of space and time are not applicable to discuss Brahman. Concepts of space, time, and momenergy apply solely to linguistic and mathematical modeling of measurable quantities, observables, present within the spatial boundary of our universe of matter or mind.
Therefore, the answer to our second and third questions is, “Brahman, or God, cannot be said to have first arisen from a time when it was naught, as Brahman has no beginning or ending in time, Brahman is beyond physicality and aphysicality, it is forever nonexistent to existential creatures.
Tomorrow, we finish with the last question and introduce some more specific questions as to the ‘Inherentness’ of Brahman.
Tootles, until we meet at Eternity.