Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 00:41:38 -0800
From: David Bedford <>
Subject: Re: [WEB-20040227.632a27] Message to Darwin

Dear Dr.B.Satish Kumar,

I think that you may have missed my point at the start of “The Simplicity of Existence”.  The discussion was about how a POINT OF SINGULARITY COMPRISING THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE came into being.  I don't believe the creationists who say that a being brought it into being (which implies an entire universe of empty space).  The discussion was also about that being (the creator) coming into existence too.  I don't subscribe to the Big Bang Theory 100%.  There may have been a big bang of sorts but man may never know if it is/was alone in a possibly much larger scale universe that could be being undetected by man due to vast distances.  For all we know really, there may be duplicate/similar occurrences of such big bangs elsewhere before we reach the edge of space.  Also there may very well be a cyclical happening of big bang and contraction, but the contraction never reaches a "point" smaller than containing all the completely occupied space of the universe.

All this talk is mere nonsense anyway because we do not hold a correct concept of time.  "Time" is a function of drag inherited by the displacement of completely empty space and the volume/amount of such, and in relation to the totality of such.  This is not as we think of it and not something that can be calculated accurately with a lot of Cray computers.

It is nonsense to talk about there being a time of start to the universe because time does not work that way.  The vicinity and amount of "creation" whatever its essence is also defines the time measurement of time.  Small things have less drag and may have a quicker pace of time, larger things take more time.  In a sense, the universe is/was just there and time is a behavior between parts of it.

I know that I have done a poor job of languaging time, but I'll keep trying.  We need to develop words that will do the trick.  The ones that we have now are not sufficient to handle the job.

I must go now but thanks for getting me back into the subject.

Darwin Bedford

At , you wrote:
Date and Time: Friday, February 27, 2004, 23:37 PST
Host address: []
Source URL:   

  Dr.B.Satish Kumar


  Dear Inquirer:
  I came across your site when I searched for “Proof for Spiritual Reality” in Google.  I got interested and started reading your views, as I myself have been following my desire to know and reveal the Truth for the past 20 years.  I started off by reading about ordinary routine concepts in Physics, which explain the ordinary daily world, to esoteric, perfectly scientific, and “true” cutting-edge concepts in Physics, like Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, the non-existence of Newtonian Absolute Time, the existence of relative time and time dilation, Quantum Physics and Heidenberg’s Uncertainty principle which states that in the real world, it is theoretically impossible to KNOW BOTH the location and motion of a particle ­ not because of a lack of technical know-how, but because of the very nature of nature. 
  Also esoteric, in the Scientist’s Physical World is the Concept of Singularity, which infers from the Red shift of all stars and galaxies in the Universe that all stars are going away from all stars, that hence all of the universe is expanding, and consequently, if you play the movie of the universe in reverse, all of the universe originated from a single point ­ the Big Bang Theory.  But, today’s cutting-edge Physics is unable to describe the properties of matter in that Point of Singularity.
  Also esoteric is the concept of Black Hole which sucks up everything including light; that time and space dilation and warping occurs in the space in the proximity of the Black Hole.  No one knows what happens to the matter and energy that fall into a Black Hole.  One hypothesis is that they may be coming out as a White Hole in another Universe. 
  The logical extension of the Big Bang Theory, is that one day, gravitational pull will overcome the expanding force of the Universe, that universe will stop expanding and then start collapsing into the Point of  Singularity, which will explode again and create another Universe.  This concept reminds one of the Hindu concept of Brahman, where Brahman, the ultimate reality creates and destroys the Universe CYCLICALLY.  Now to show the limits of the rational human mind and to CONFUSE it, let us picture what happens between the First Collapse and the Next Expansion.  You see, when the First Collapse occurs, Time also collapses. So when the Second Expansion starts, there is NO WAY to tell that the First Collapse occurred because there was no time before the Second Expansion.  Hence the conclusion is that THE SECOND EXPANSION IS IN FACT THE FIRST EXPANSION AND IT WILL ALWAYS REMAIN SO -  Can our Daily Consciousness grasp and feel this ?  I do not think so.
  And so I studied Medicine, Computers, Psychology, Philosophy and Religion to get a better perspective on life, and this is what my current state of knowledge tells me:
  Totality of Existence is UNKNOWABLE through our ordinary Daily Consciousness, but PROBABLY KNOWABLE through Inner-Self Exercises (like Meditation, Yoga).
  I am NOT an ATHEIST, AGNOSTIC OR RELIGIOUS PERSON in the usual sense of the terms.
  I will give you a simple test.  If you can explain in simple steps, HOW YOU CAN BEND YOUR LITTLE FINGER, you have explained existence.  You can make use of the entire body of knowledge which humanity has accumulated including anatomy, physiology, genetics, neurology, psychology ­ ALL BRANCHES OF SCIENCE to explain this little act ­ as little as bending your little finger.
  One’s mind is boggled, when one starts at the very start of this process of bending the little finger -  WHO asked the first Neuron to fire, which initiated a Domino effect of firing of other neurons, the electrical impulse which traveled down and contracted the respective muscles, which resulted in the bending of the little finger ?  WHO ? You can say “I” initiated it.  Then are you the First Neuron?  If not, WHAT WAS BESIDE the neuron which caused it to fire ?  Can Science identify it ? Can it show it to others ? If Science says it cannot, then will you deny the Material Existence of “I”? But you are QUITE SURE “I” EXISTS!   BUT YOU CANNOT PROVE IT!
  Let me show you another fundamental limitation of the Daily Consciousness in trying to understand the Total Reality of Existence.
  Let us take the example of sending rockets to the moon and beyond.  Is there any single brain in NASA which knows every nuance and detail of constructing a successful rocket? I think not.  But there are a multitude of Daily Consciousness in NASA, which are totally aware of / control of (supposedly) a narrow area, which when put together meaningfully, in the COLLECTIVE CONSIOUSNESS of NASA, results in a successful rocket launch.  Can you show me this Collective Consciousness? Probably not. Can you deny its existence? Probably not.  So where does that leave one?  - a state of unknowability.
  Now let us turn our attention to DNA ­ the fundamental molecular structure discovered by Science today, resulting in Cloning, Test-tube life forms and Genetic manipulation.  Do you think man will get the means one day to create DNA from SUB-ATOMIC PARTICLES ?  Manipulate and put together Fermions, Leptons, Hadrons, Baryons, Bosons and Gluons to get the natural elements, and then suitably arrange the atoms of the natural elements to form organic molecules and then put together the organic molecules in a way that is DIFFERENT FROM DNA BUT DOES THE SAME JOB AS DNA ?
  Even if you say yes, and the MAN’S DNA MULTIPLIED BY REPLICATION, how will you explain the TENDENCY for REPLICATION, as Man did NOT program that in?  Look at the fact that billions of Individual Consciousness of human beings, birds, fish, animals and insects exist and function WIHTOUT ANY IDEA OF DNA!  Then what is propelling all these highly complex forms, laws and principles ?  To go to the previous question, will Man be able to create Sub-Atomic particles ? If so from what… and so on…..
  YOU MAY KNOW IT OR FEEL TO HAVE KNOWN IT THOROUGH OTHER STATES OF CONSCIOUSNESS, as told in the various religions and found in the spiritual practices of explorers like us!
  I wish to point out a fallacy in your article on “The Simplicity of Existence”.  You start by asking if the Entire Universe ONCE was an empty space…..Your first assumption is wrong, even scientifically, because according to Big Bang Theory, THERE WAS NO EMPTY SPACE IN THE BEGINNING ­ JUST A POINT OF SINGULARITY COMPRISING THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE.
  So all conclusions drawn from the premise that the Universe was empty at one point, ARE MEANINGLESS.
  You may post this on your website, along with my email-id
  Have a nice day!