What Was There Before the Big Bang?

Gill sahib, chhaddo parey..eh kehRay chakkar ch paye ge je? article te article..... retirement da maza maano baadshao... khao peeyO aish karo..dil par kisay da dukhayeO na....
baaki jo houooo........howeyyyyy.:-)

Mr Gill,

You ask, `What Was There Before the Big Bang.`

Answer. A Patel Corner shop.

Umer M.

Q: What Was There Before The Big Bang?
A: A couple of big djinns probably

---

hehe

Dr. Hoodboy care to help Dr. Gill?

Okay,

How about just another universe? The impulse-wave symbol is so prevalent throughout the universe, be it the 5 year economical cycles to the rise and fall of civilsations to the waves in a pond to the waves of eletromagnetic radiation, to the rise and fall of animal species...

Umer M.

``What was there before the big bang?``

The question is meaningless and deserves to be treated as such. Thus, no need for the above discussion!

The fundamental error in the whole shabang is the conception of time as a real variable.
There is no reality in time, i.e., time does not correspond to any thing physical. Time is a mental construct, unlike pressure.

Time is merely a shortcut for description of physical phenomena. It is CONVENIENT to use the term but most people, including physicists (!), start taking the chimera for reality.

There is an intimate connection between time and energy but that is merely formal not substantive.

We need to learn to describe the objective reality in terms of interacting equilibria, each one of which is inherently unstable. Thus, the whole universe is relly an interplay between quasi-equilibria.

Yaar Momammad bhai this was very long winded! We both fell asleep but then Right started to snore which woke me up… anywhoslebees...

Einstein was asked the question, “What was there before the big bang and what sudden event caused the singularity to be disrupted to put time in forward motion?” He replied, “God snapped his fingers”. This statement of course threw into a tizzy all sorts of theologicians who started yelling from the rooftops that the world’s greatest scientist had acknowledged the existence of god. Years later Einstein would explain that his tongue in cheek comment was intended to simply mean that he did not have an answer to that question. Just as you say “God knows”, when you really mean “I don’t know”.

The answers to the questions that surround us that are inadequately explained by existing science will always be ascribed to some higher being. When man did not know jack squat every thing in our existence including the winds, the tides, the sun and the moon were ascribed to some higher power. Thousands of years ago even the wisest man on the planet thought that the earth was the center of the universe. Today a Kindergartener knows the earth’s place in the solar system.

Of course there will always be the unexplained and the unfathomable. We will never be able to perceive and articulate four mutually perpendicular axes let alone eleven. We will never be able to fully comprehend infinity. We will never be able to arrive at a static morality and we will never be able to grapple with the workings of probability. So god will be around forever. As a necessary crutch.

Now I must put forth a Dennis Miller disclaimer and say that this is just my opinion and I could be wrong. My despicable twin Right seems to disagree with me on these issues like most others. He’s a creationist, thinks male on male sex is an abomination (he doesn’t mind girl on girl action), and believes in afterlife. And none of this deters him from being an alcoholic, a porn addict and a compulsive masturbater!

Regards,

Left.

Inquirer, Care to expand a little on the nonsense about quasi-interacting equilibria?
Time is measured using a real variable, is a concrete physical quantity which mixed up with spatial directions thanks to special relativity. Many experiments have confirmed special relativity to a many decimal places.

Your statement ``objective reality in terms of interacting equilibria, each one of which is inherently unstable`` may confuse a lay person into believing that you know something but is essentially a meaningless collection of words.

#7, plancherel:
****Inquirer, Care to expand a little on the nonsense about quasi-interacting equilibria? ****

If you need information you need to be polite.

****Time is measured using a real variable, is a concrete physical quantity which mixed up with spatial directions thanks to special relativity. Many experiments have confirmed special relativity to a many decimal places. ****

Have you tried to contrast time and pressure as I indicated? Have you studied relativity? Regurgitating wont help.

****Your statement ``objective reality in terms of interacting equilibria, each one of which is inherently unstable`` may confuse a lay person into believing that you know something but is essentially a meaningless collection of words.****

If you are convinced, then why do you want expansion?

What is north of the North Pole?

Dear Inquirer, I apologize if I was not polite in the earlier email.
What irritated me about your earlier post was the total incoherence
of what you were saying. It seemed like you have come up with
another crackpot theory like so many other people who email the
physics newsgroups.

I do know a little bit about relativity and that is the reason without
even knowing the details of your theory I am almost completely
convinced that its not a scientific theory. I would appreciate it if
you can explain your theory in a bit more detail. Thanks.

Is the concept of ``time`` even valid ``before`` the big bang?

We need some serious discussion here over the nature of ``reality`` itself...

Inquirer #4,

Gill saab, Reading you earlier articles, I used to think that you`re at the very limit of those topics that chowk brainpower can handle. Never imagined you`d go even further ;)


``The fundamental error in the whole shabang is the conception of time as a real variable.
There is no reality in time, i.e., time does not correspond to any thing physical. Time is a mental construct, unlike pressure.``


No doubt...the concept of time is inextricably linked to memory (mind). Only something which has memory has a concept of time.

Question is, does the universe have memory? Does it remember a previous state??

If it does, then time is real for the universe.

I believe this question is answered by the entropy principle. The universe seems to prefer going from less entropy to more. Therefore it does `remember` its previous state...and therefore `time` is a real variable for it !

- - - - -

Now, is entropy itself a `real` variable...and not simply a mathematical construct?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Another great article on issues related to that great question we: What is everything? Actually, we seem to be able to go back with good confidence to about 280,000 after the Big Bang (and as I mentioned on the previous board on this subject, the COBE telescope has even taken a picture of the universe when it was a mere child of that age). Clearly one cannot envisage a Big Bang without thinking in terms of other dimensions (per the string theory), and as such we will probably hear a lot more in the years ahead of the last theory you mention. Since progress in testing the predictions of string theory will help accept or reject the implications as well - including what happened ``before`` (if one can talk of ``before`` for clashes of branes that took place before the start of time itself) the Big Bang.

oops...a right post in a wrong place...

.....o God........the MORON has not only bankrupted us Morally............he is about to bankrupt us Financially......a miscalculation 530 billion dollars?.....pleeeze get rid of him in November.....we can`t AFFORD this Miscalculatin Mongoloid.....o Lord ....get rid of him........pretty pleeze

a great summery of current cosmological thought -- precise and eloquent -- Gill saab!

most of the problems may be due to the unidirectional forward-going `arrow of time` --

`before` the BIG BANG of the `BIG ATOM` - there was TIME -- but it was reversed TIME -- this is how the Big Atom came to be so dense -- so dense that it couldn`t be anymore denser -- and exploded -- into Big Bang

my prejudice -- time travels in both directions -- forward and backward -- the day a baby is born and starts to grow -- it is getting that much closer to death -- if time moves in only one direction -- we would have only a macro world -- no micro world -- the micro world is the product of `time reversal --

the WHEEL of Time moves Forward and also -- Backward -- from Molecules to Men -- from Men to Molecules .............silly......:-)

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

The question ``What was there before big bang?`` is NOT meaningless even though Big Bang theory provides no explanation for it. That`s becuase Big Bang theory is an incomplete postulation. The whole universe was NOT created out of thin air.

Hence - the Big Bang theory has been super-imposed by another theory - that the universe expands and collapses alternatively. Big bang is just one leg of this eternal journey. After its current phase of expansion is complete - the universe will start shrinking .... every thing will happen in reverse .... the rules of universe will be diametrically opposite. The whole universe will collapse into a single point from where it will have another big bang and start expanding again.

So those who are seeking Origin of Time or Anything else ....well ... there is no such thing. There is no beginning and there is no end. The universe is eternal. So is time - which is moving forward or backward depending on whether the universe is expanding and collapsing.

``After its current phase of expansion is complete - the universe will start shrinking``(Mohar)

Mohar that was old stuff -- the new stuff -- Universe is expanding and expanding and will expamd for ever...the distance between the glaxies will continue to increase....no chance of shrinking back because of repelling or `repulsive gravity` -- a definitely repulsive idea....:-)

unless we find out that the same Universe is shrinking -- at the same time -- in some other Dimension....:-)

nasha

I think ``expand for ever`` is one of the three possibilities as derived from Friedman theory.... the other two being - 1. Expand and collapse 2.exapnd and hold.

The jury is still out on this. It all comes down to a problem of weight :)... the weight of universe, that is :). More correctly - the mass of the universe. If the mass of the universe is less than a critical value, then the gravitational force will be smaller than required to slow down the expansion and hence the universe will expand forever. But if the mass is more than that crictical value then grvitational pull will slow down the expansion and eventually will stop it ... then it will start contracting. If the mass is just eqal to that critical value then the universe will expand to a finite size and then stop and will stay there.

Now the problem is to calculate the mass ... with uncertainty principle playing truant ..... invisibel mass such as blackholes out there .... and apparently, there are other kind of mass that we don`t know about. Then there is also theories about mass being created while the universe expands.

So I think the ``expand and collapse`` is the favored theory at this point.

As little as I understand, mohar11 is correct in stating that Einstein’s theory of relativity contains the three possibilities for the universe, namely, 1. It expands for ever if its mass density is less than the critical mass density. The ratio of the mass density and the critical mass density is denoted by omega. The universe expands if omega is less than 1.

2. It contracts if omega is greater than 1.

3. It remains static if it is equal to 1. One of the first solutions was given by Willem de Sitter for the empty universe, i.e., for omega equal to zero.

The oscillating universe that is a sequence of big bangs and big crunches was predicted by Friedmann from Einstein`s theory of relativity.

Einstein had introduced the cosmological constant to counterbalance the antigravity repulsive force to keep the universe static. He was very well aware of the consequence of the expanding universe. At t (time) = 0, the universe will have to come into being. And anything that starts to exist arguably needs a cause for doing so. And who could be better cause than God.

Now God has no role, as far as we know, in science. When you introduce God or any divine intervention in science, it does not remain science; it becomes metaphysics as I had mentioned in my earlier paper (Is Science without Religion Really Lame?). Einstein and other great scientists did not want to infect science with metaphysics. After Hubble’s convincing evidence in favor of an expanding universe, Einstein did not have any recourse but to accept it. However he qualified his belief in God with a caveat that he did not believe in a personal God, i.e. the God of rewards and retributions.

However quantum mechanics has introduced new uncertainty in the cause – effect syllogism, and the early universe is governed by quantum mechanics. In the micro-world of quantum mechanics (the early universe started from a subatomic particle), there is no cause for events to occur; they just happen. Their probability can be computed with an amazing accuracy but it cannot be said with absolute certainty that a particular electron will go left or right after colliding with another particle. Also the matter loses its continuity; it’s just foam, quantum foam. There is no directional time hence no ‘before’ and ‘after’. We probably cannot say that the universe began at a certain moment because time did not exist the way we know it.

Our present knowledge about our universe is far too scant. Most of the matter in the universe is in the form of ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’; we do not know where it is. On the theory side, until we develop a unified theory which holds good for the whole lifetime of the universe, our predictions are tentative. Again our mathematical theories are elegant but it is difficult to verify their predictions empirically.

In spite of all this, we are living in exciting times in which human analytical skills and innovative technological capabilities are making it possible to hope that better understanding will be achieved one day, sooner or later, respecting the origin of our universe.

Mohammad Gill

On the question of inflationary universe, it is important to keep in mind that the rate of inflation that the universe has not followed a linear path: rather, as was determined in 1998 and in subsequent studies, the universe had decelerated in the early stages after the Big Bang, and then started accelerating which it is doing to this day. This behavior seems best explained by our old friend, the string theory. What is more, this behavior ties the incredibly tiny strings to the incredibly huge universe into one common conceptual construct.

More specifically, this ``dhhakka start`` (deceleration-acceleration) of inflation at cosmological scales is a result of the nature of the graviton which exists at the micro-scales of sub-sub-sub atomic world of the strings. The graviton, responsible for the gravitational field, has the property of being able to traverse the 11 dimensions predicted by the string theory and its properties are considered to explain this observed phenomenon quite well. Indeed, these properties can be tested through increasingly powerful instruments, and these tests include increasingly precise measurements of the orbit of our ``everyday`` heavenly body, namely the moon. It is expected that before this decade is over we should have a much better understanding on the causes of this deceleration-acceleration of the inflation of the universe, and of how the strings tie everything together.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Inquirer: Good luck trying to explain to desi`s that time isnt real...

Before we start talking about the billion and one THEORIES out there, we should recognise the limitations which are placed on the mind if one chooses to use the scientific method (which is just one of hundreds of methods for understanding reality).

No matter how far this discussion goes, the following will always be true.

1. To KNOW (from a scientific standpoint especially) requires context. FACTS must b insync with previously discovered facts.

2. We are dealing with the macro of all macros and therefore have NO CONTEXT to even begin a decent investigation. We can try and figure it out from a micro level (as per string theory) but the resolution will be limited as we ONLY have ONE universe.

3. This is akin to understanding the properties of a balloon, while being IN a balloon and not ever knowing anything similar to a balloon.

4. It is ILLOGICAL too apply the laws of the physical world to understand a world which MAY NOT B bound by the physical world. This is key ladies and gentlemen. Our extrapolations will ALWAYS have an asterisk after them...

5. This discussion is like saying would white exist if everything was white... We cannot talk about what a NO-THING is if weve always Had THINGS to use as a frame of reference. Even what some of us erroneaously consider as a no-thing - ``empty`` SPACE is composed of billions of things, particles and of course dark matter...

Cosmology is a field of science in which some of the crucial concepts still cause some consternation to some renowned cosmologists. Robert Dicke, for instance, was a cosmologist of good standing. Alan Lightman and Roberta Brawer have included his interview in their book ``Origins``. One of the questions that was asked Dicke in the interview was: How comfortable do you feel with taking the big bang model and extrapolating it backwards to the first few minutes or to the first second? Dicke responded as follows:

A little uncomfortable, I must confess. It`s a tremendous extrapolation. But not as uncomfortable as I feel about extrapolating the model beyond that. There`s still one point in cosmology that I find very disagreeable, and that`s the idea of time and space having no meaning up to a certain point and then suddenly appearing. A universe that is suddenly switched on I find highly disagreeable. I guess what bothers me is a sudden barrier, a discontinuity, whether it`s in time or space - because I`m used to continuity. To have space exist on one side of a sheet and not exist on the other I would find most disagreeable.

In the biographical profile of Robert Dicke, Lightman and Brawer noted, ``Bob Dicke is one of a small fraction of physicists who are outstanding in both theoretical and experimental work.`` So there is still a great deal to learn and discover about the fundamental aspects of the big bang theory.

Mohammad Gill

Good post mr Gill.

Ur efforts to steer the sheep away from the usual political dribble havent gone unnoticed.

will the Universe continue to expand -- forever``?

the Holy Quran says again yes:

``Expanding universe:

{ And it is We who have built the universe with our power; and, verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it. } [Quran 51:47].....................:-)

EId Mubarak my unbliever friends.....:-)

will the Universe continue to expand -- forever``?

``21-Dec-1998
Antarctic Evidence On Universe Expanding Forever:

`` Researchers from Carnegie Mellon University, using a National Science Foundation (NSF) microwave telescope in Antarctica, have made a crucial measurement of cosmic background radiation that may help science to settle a fundamental question of whether the universe will EXPAND forever or COLLAPSE BACK UPON ITSELF. ``


20-Aug-1998
New Galaxy Cluster Hints Universe Will Expand Forever:

`` In the traditional view of the universe, space holds just enough matter to be on the cusp of EXPANDING forever or COLLAPSING under its own weight into a REVERSE BIG BANG. If this theory is true, then finding such a massive cluster so early in time is extremely unlikely, Donahue said. ``

( taken from University Science news http://unisci.com/stories/0820981.htm )



Now let us read what was written in the noble Quran

Big Bang theory:

{ Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before We clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? } [Al-Qur`an 21:30]...................:-)

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

DRUMZ #27, #29

Have you officially fled from the other board - the one where you regaled us with your opinion that zero is an ineffable notion?

#10,pencherel:
**** Dear Inquirer, I apologize if I was not polite in the earlier email.****
OK.

****What irritated me about your earlier post was the total incoherence
of what you were saying. It seemed like you have come up with
another crackpot theory like so many other people who email the
physics newsgroups.****
There is nothing incoherent there. You need to understand the point I am making. I am saying that you cannot sense time nor is there any instrument that can sense it. The concept of time is entirely personal. All physicists, worth their salt, acknowledge it, since Einstein described it with the example of time in connection with “the girlfriend.”

****I do know a little bit about relativity and that is the reason without
even knowing the details of your theory I am almost completely
convinced that its not a scientific theory. I would appreciate it if
you can explain your theory in a bit more detail. Thanks.****
I do not have any theory. I am simply making the observation that the concept of time is a just a book-keeping method. The dependence of other physical variables has been cryptically described in terms of passing of time and it is found to be convenient.

YOU FAILED TO ASK ABOUT THE TREATMENT OF PHYSICAL SYSTEMS AS QUASI-EQUILIBRIA. THAT IS THE CRUX OF MY ARGUMENT.

---

#12, ironman:
****``The fundamental error in the whole shabang is the conception of time as a real variable. There is no reality in time, i.e., time does not correspond to any thing physical. Time is a mental construct, unlike pressure.``
No doubt...the concept of time is inextricably linked to memory (mind). Only something which has memory has a concept of time.
Question is, does the universe have memory? Does it remember a previous state??
If it does, then time is real for the universe.
I believe this question is answered by the entropy principle. The universe seems to prefer going from less entropy to more. Therefore it does `remember` its previous state...and therefore `time` is a real variable for it !
- - - - -
Now, is entropy itself a `real` variable...and not simply a mathematical construct?****
Voltaire once said that before one can carry out serious discussion there is need for commonality of definition of words. Though it is interesting how you interpret entropy as “memory,”the argument is fallacious. Memory can be defined ONLY in terms of a living observer. Thus the inanimate universe has NO memory. And, indeed, entropy is MERELY a mental construct just as time is.

---

#27,drumz:
****Inquirer: Good luck trying to explain to desi`s that time isnt real... ****
Do you imply that you subscribe to my concept?

****No matter how far this discussion goes, the following will always be true.
1. To KNOW (from a scientific standpoint especially) requires context. FACTS must b insync with previously discovered facts.
2. We are dealing with the macro of all macros and therefore have NO CONTEXT to even begin a decent investigation. We can try and figure it out from a micro level (as per string theory) but the resolution will be limited as we ONLY have ONE universe.
3. This is akin to understanding the properties of a balloon, while being IN a balloon and not ever knowing anything similar to a balloon.
4. It is ILLOGICAL too apply the laws of the physical world to understand a world which MAY NOT B bound by the physical world. This is key ladies and gentlemen. Our extrapolations will ALWAYS have an asterisk after them...
5. This discussion is like saying would white exist if everything was white... We cannot talk about what a NO-THING is if weve always Had THINGS to use as a frame of reference. Even what some of us erroneaously consider as a no-thing - ``empty`` SPACE is composed of billions of things, particles and of course dark matter...****
1 is ok if you are referring to verifiable experiments. 2 is just a way of saying that our universe is all there is.
3. is not always true, e.g., nonlinear geometries and the extension of human senses with instruments provide extension of crude human powers.
4. We are not interested in non-physical worlds in science.
5. The discussion by Gill while interesting amounts to really nothing, as it fails to make any coherent statement. It is a pot pourri of undigested thoughts. This is confirmed by his return as freethinker in #28.

Inquirer: Yup. Time being relative is a fact. The ``present moment`` can never be exactly pinpointed.

#3. Regardless of extending human powers, the actual analysis can only be done from a perspective ``in the balloon``. Even the best devices are limited to existing within the balloon.

#4. I am refering to the world which caused the big bang. It cannot be understood by an understanding based on the laws of the known world.

Aleph: I did not run, I suppose i will return and make another post but im losing my patience. Theres only so many times one can be explained the simplest of concepts. And based on all our interactions, all thats going to happen is im gonna blaze ur post and u will ignore everything i write and run off on a tangent.

#35, DRUMZ:
I wish I had not seen your personality description page. While I am impressed by your age, I am disappointed with your forte at Chowk. That is not your fault, however.

Remember, science , art and any thing that humans conceive are ESSENTIALLY dependent on mental constructs but the belief in objective reality exists in an entirely personal - though most crucially confirmed by collective agreement of the competent - faith that humans can arrive at truths that ARE independent of themselves. It is in this context that one should interpret the human mind, instrumental results and so on. And also, THE FAITH INDICATED is the raison detre of all science.
Above specifically addresses to your #3 and #4 statements in #35 post.

Re: Aleph`s comment and your response:
Which discussion is being talked about? You guys probably need to have a consensus on what effability is before discussing.

inq: The page isnt entirely accuarate, i am 23 now. anyways i absolutely agree with that post. Its difficult to even understand THIS world based on the laws of this world (as their measurements are based on an agreed upon system).

And its interesting u use the word ``faith.`` It ties into the other build we were having located on the left side on the first page. its called ``is science really lame w/o religion.``

#37, DRUMZ:
``agree`` with which post?
How else can you understand this world?
What do you mean by ``build ... on the left side?``
There are coherence problems in your post!

Inquirer #36, #38

See the exchanges on Is Science Without Religion Really Lame? (Mr. Gill`s previous article).

My notion on `effable` is the dictionary one: `Capable of being uttered or explained, utterable.` It`s quite possible that Drumz is working with something else (in addition to confusing the precise notions of zero in mathematics with vague notions of `NOTHINGNESS` etc.).

inq: If i reply, then u reply and then i reply again, OBVIOUSLY i would be refering to the post which appeard rite before mine. As for understanding this world, READ what i wrote dont read INTO it.

And lastly ``BUILD`` iz SLANG for ``a discussion``............... and itz funny az hell that u would bring up coherence after u made a post (NUMBER 36) which had a (rambling) four line sentence.

Aleph: In the real world one would think you wouldnt be touching any post im on with a 10 ft pole but for some reason u keep coming back. and again i know the people who frequent this site are morons so i managed to reiterate my thesis a billion and four times:

I was relating zero to the physical world. ie u cannout possess something of which there are no quantities. I schooled u in 2 conclusive posts which u completely evaded....give it up.

inq: If i reply, then u reply and then i reply again, OBVIOUSLY i would be refering to the post which appeard rite before mine. As for understanding this world, READ what i wrote dont read INTO it.

And lastly ``BUILD`` iz SLANG for ``a discussion``............... and itz funny az hell that u would bring up coherence after u made a post (NUMBER 36) which had a (rambling) four line sentence.

Aleph: In the real world one would think you wouldnt be touching any post im on with a 10 ft pole but for some reason u keep coming back. and again i know the people who frequent this site are morons so i managed to reiterate my thesis a billion and four times:

I was relating zero to the physical world. ie u cannout possess something of which there are no quantities. I schooled u in 2 conclusive posts which u completely evaded....give it up.

#39, Alephnull:
I reviewed your response (#147) to DRUMZ (#133) in the discussion: ``Is Science Without Religion Really Lame?``
I believe you are absolutely right in the following there:
``I hope this take seems ‘reasonable’ to some people – I don’t know about DRUMZ or people with concrete-bound mentalities. `` Makes full sense to me.
DRUMZ is too immature to understand your arguments. Allow him the credit for his training of measly 23 years. This particularly due to his specialities described in his personality profile.
Now I am expecting the spilling of his ``curse encyclopedia.``

So first u are impressed with my age and now its a hinderance?

I would take u more seriously if u possessed more personality then fungus and managed to remain consistent for more then 2 minutes.

Ladies and gentlemen 99% of the people on this site are idiots who cannot extend their rebuttles past sophmoric remarks about ones age. computer nerds....

a pure conjecture and speculation on my part..


Universe is in a constant flux.....every thing ...even laws are chaning within it..


it like some one siting on the trunk of an elephant....and all he can see is the trunk...



wait till be is able to see the tail or for that matter..... the Big foots of elephant.....

and he will realize....the plain trunk is now something circular.......and if by any chance.....he could allevate him to such heights from which he can view the complete elephant......he may not even recognize what he has seen..


........

#44, aqaris:
You seem to have an ant`s view. There is a difference between ant and man!

We do are like Ants....Our vision in the grand scale of Universe is no more than an ant`s vision of this world....

Like an ant which cannot go to all possible places in this world....cannot even comprehend whats beyond....his immediate surroundings...

Yes we humans are superior in this regard..l..We use tools.....and think.....and do try to get more then just an idea....

but again our perceptions are limited by the five-active senses we have.....


For example....just suppose a deep water creature some how manages climb a mountain...
for it he will need some kind of protective gear around him....so as to survice without water...

and some sort of viewing glass through which it might be able to view whats around him..
now it will be limited with at least two constraints..
1- the visible window in the protective gear.....if its small it will have a smaller view..
2- the material on that viewing window....say for example glass.....what if suppose this glass`s colour is...let us say...RED.....then it will view all the things...in shades of red...even green grass will look different....


Same is the case with us.....our limited known senses five+ the sixth as some one would say...

will not allow us to fully comprehend.....what exactly is the reality..


I would quote some one who quoted something from the Film Matrix....on some other subject in this same forums..


what if we are in a dream....and are unable to wake up.....


its again a pure conjecture on my part....maybe over active imagination.

Whatever is not perceivable is of little interest.

ur answer can be found from this book,in a most clear and concise explanation...take the time to read it, it really makes u think twice...

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/part_5_section_2.html