One-stop shop to make India 20 times richer

Energy came first, then matter, then gravity (and hence space, therefore time)

Ramesh Umarane has a theory that consciousness came first, then space time, then energy ["there can be no energy without space"]. That is a derivative of Advaita, an otherwise plausible theory if it is considered to be a form of pantheism.

The actual sequence, however, is the following (note there is much more complexity, but for that you'll have to go to a proper book on the subject).

From the singularity (a concept currently contested under multiverse theories) came a "dense" soup of energy at unimaginable 'temperature'. This blew "out" (inflation) instantaneously, creating space-time as it went along.

"The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward. the Big Bang flung energy in all directions at the speed of light (300,000,000 meters per second, a million times faster than the H-bomb) and estimate that the temperature of the entire universe was 1000 trillion degrees Celsius at just a tiny fraction of a second after the explosion. The Big Bang did not expand through anything. That's because there was no space to expand through at the beginning of time. Rather, physicists believe the Big Bang created and stretched space itself, expanding the universe. " [Source]

In my view (not the standard theory! so beware!) energy travelling faster than the speed of light created its own 'gravitational' field (sub-atomic) and distorted space. It kept travelling in a straight line but space had by now been created and what appeared to be a straight line was a tiny particle. Any light slower than that (a general minimum speed being c – although light can travel slower than that), became a 'photon' and kept travelling (and continues travelling today) at the speed of light. Now there are things like the Higgs bosons, etc. and they are probably right to imagine that there is a "particle" that constitutes matter, but I prefer my 'theory' of the smallest particles being nothing but energy "travelling" faster than light that has created and distorted space to such an extent that it appears to have mass.  

But ignoring my "theory" for a moment (I bring not the slightest rigour to prove this idea, so it is best ignored), the fact remains that it took THREE SECONDS for proper atoms to form after the commencement of the universe. "Proper" space and matter took time to form. And as the matter expanded, space expanded along with it, and also time.

So the sequence is ENERGY > MATTER + SPACE + TIME.

Then, 14 billion years (appx.) later comes human consciousness. So the sequence is:

ENERGY > MATTER + SPACE + TIME > ORGANIC PROTEINS > RNA > LIFE > EVOLUTION > CONSCIOUSNESS

A sequence that imagines that consciousness came first is plain wrong.

Another visualision:

  

Sanjeev Sabhlok

View more posts from this author
16 thoughts on “Energy came first, then matter, then gravity (and hence space, therefore time)
  1. Atul

    The theory of Mr Ramesh has serious flaws, and is very similar to Advaita. Though Brahmans realized some of those flaws and tried to drop the idea of realism by accepting even more idealistic (and metaphysical) theory from buddhism now known as vijñapti-mātra (ultimate reality is pure consciousness).
    There are three possibilities,
    1) World is subjective, and exists only in consciousness (aka Matrix).
    2) World is objectively real but not independent of conscious observer. (Mr Ramesh’s theory same as initial advaita version)
    3) World is objectively real independent of conscious observer (Scientific theory).

    I would not like to comment on theory (1) at all as if you let go of objective reality all you get is a useless assumptions without any verifiable and falsifiable results.

    Theory (2) requires that the world to exist there must be consciousness. It still does not derive from this that you need consciousness first (both can bootstrap together). But for argument’s sake let’s say we add one more assumption and assume consciousness exists before world. What follows is this… you can still get all the results same as real world what we see, the whole of big bang history, evolution etc. The only thing is that, then there is no requirement of consciousness assumption at all, apply an occam’s razor and you can get rid of the assumption of consciousness. Why so ? because even after you assume consciousness first, the world to be objectively real, the energy still has to be assumed else you will end up with a metaphysical world again. Any attempt to derive energy from consciousness will be futile since all you can observe in objective world is energy(space+time+mass+energy) and hence will not be falsifiable. So application of occam’s razor is also well justified. Your theory will essentially turn into Theory (3).
    By the way one more implication of theory (3) is that consciousness is completely materialistic and emergent phenomenon from laws of nature. Sanjeev claims that it has origin in macroscopic quantum phenomenon and I claim it is electro-chemical but none the less we both agree its not metaphysical. Mr Ramesh objection elsewhere in the comments, that since consciousness is the entity which assumed the existence of energy hence it follows that consciousness can not be derived from energy is plain wrong from logical point of view. Think about it this way, let there be an known planet in objectively real world, a set of people A know this fact and are conscious about it, some other set of people B do not know about it and are not conscious but they assume that no such planet exists. If you accept the objectively real nature of that planet, then it follows that set of people B are wrong and hence, their consciousness is not required for existence of the planet, it exists none the less. Hence “an assumption by consciousness” is not correlated in any way to its temporal relation “to the objective existence of assumed premise”.

     
  2. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Atul, this is an excellent summary of issues. Knowledge advances through simplicity (Occam’s scissor). Cosciousness requires an entirely infructuous additional step that adds absolutely no value to any discussion.

    But most importantly, I argue that human knowledge must be USEFUL. All the Advaitic philosophers combined have produced ZILCH in terms of science or technology. Just floating in a “spiritual” world without looking about amounts to laziness and misuse of the human brain. Like taking opium. All religion suffers from the same issue. 

    A person who denies unnecessary leaps of faith (consciousness) as precursors of existence is forced to prove his point through research. In doing so he creates useful knowledge.

    This second argument is even more important than the first: the utilitarian argument for science. All the Popes in the world could not invent the atom or detect evolution. They were BLOCKERS of knowledge. 

    On both these grounds, therefore, we must reject the woolly and confused idea of any “consciousness” preceding the observed universe.

     
  3. ramesh

    //Mr Ramesh objection elsewhere in the comments, that since consciousness is the entity which assumed the existence of energy hence it follows that consciousness can not be derived from energy is plain wrong from logical point of view. Think about it this way, let there be an known planet in objectively real world, a set of people A know this fact and are conscious about it, some other set of people B do not know about it and are not conscious but they assume that no such planet exists. If you accept the objectively real nature of that planet, then it follows that set of people B are wrong and hence, their consciousness is not required for existence of the planet, it exists none the less. Hence “an assumption by consciousness” is not correlated in any way to its temporal relation “to the objective existence of assumed premise”.//

    I think, if Atul, agrees it is equivalent to the question: “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”

    Here my answer is ‘YES’ and science also answers it as YES. There is no disagreement whatsoever. However what you miss is the following.

    Before one can answer the above question THERE HAS to be an ASSUMPTION of tree, concept of falling, forest, sound and process of hearing which are all different aspects or forms of energy which is a RESULT of an INITIAL ASSUMPTION which happened long before such an event like one in question happens.

    Once the things are assumed science starts (as Sabhlok says) and answer has to be ‘yes’. Thus what you miss is the point that THIS all (an event in the question) is a result of the original and initial assumption of energy.

    Deriving consciousness from its assumption energy is fallacy (fallacy of presumption).

     
  4. ramesh

    The reason why you people get confused as to what I say is this:

    You say that energy is assumed. But fail to say WHO assumes it!

    Here we say that an agency/entity which assumes energy is consciousness. Here you people confuse that such a consciousness is an individual/personal which is not the correct concept.

    Just because one person via his consciousness assumes energy, energy do not come into existence. Therefore when I say that consciousness assumes energy I essentially say that consciousness which runs common to all life assumes the energy. So the uniformity of the energy across everything we test and provide in proof and evidence.

    If you cannot agree with the above why you do not you (or science) explain on behalf of WHOM you assume the energy? That may expose the fraud which is being committed unknowingly.

    Thus ours is not individualistic consciousness but the universal one. Talking of evidence/proof in this respect is absurd i.e. fallacy because it that which assumes energy, space for it (including the very tiny point which Sabhlok refers to in the original article) and time which all together make up an evidence or proof.

     
  5. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Ramesh, you are mixing up the FRAMING question with the REALITY question.

    There is absolutely no doubt that without consciousness/intelligence we can’t frame questions about this universe (or about a falling tree). Our words are ENTIRELY dependent on our consciousness/intelligence. There would be no CONCEPT of tree/energy etc. without us – as humans – asking/talking about these issues.

    But regardless of what you CALL these things – energy/trees/humans – they have existed and would have existed without humans.

    Reality is independent of whether you or I exist or anyone “calls” energy or gravity by a “name”. Without humans monkeys existed. Even if they don’t study quantum physics, the REALITY of quantum physics doesn’t change.

    So also, there is a theory (in fact many types of theories) about the origin of the universe, each comprising an injection of energy into a point. Whether this injection came from “God” or from another “multiverse” (or Buddha’s eternal universe) is immaterial. We don’t know and can’t know. We have to assume existence, through energy. The sum total of energy in the universe/multiverses is constant and can’t be created or destroyed (this is entirely different to the laws of thermodynamics, which is about the dissipation of heat through dispersion of concentrated energy into less concentrated forms).

    This energy can take different forms. The simplest is matter. The existence of matter LEADS to gravitation forces which, in turn, create space. The more complex version of energy is consciousness (through a random combination of matter over 14 billion years).

    You are harping on a complete chronological inversion of no consequence. You are essentially stating that consciousness CREATES energy. That’s a God theory in which there is some other consciousness which creates things. I’m saying that your theory doesn’t add ANY value to mankind. Whether there is God or not God can’t be proven, just as I can’t say whether the energy at the big bang came from God or from another multiverse – something that has eternally existed and will always exist.

    I’m saying that if we stick to the ‘energy’ (so called “material”) hypothesis, we are able to do a lot of good for ourselves as mankind. Your theory doesn’t add ANY value. Merely confounds everything (particularly yourself) and therefore leads to no progress of humanity.

    My test is simple: Does a theory lead to BENEFITS for mankind? And it is clear that a theory which does not assume consicousness leads to enormous benefits through innovation/ invention. It is BETTER to have a theory which benefits us, than a theory which wastes our time in mumbo-jumbo.

    Your are actually wasting not only our own time but my time. In this time I could have used my brain more productively (and you could have, too). So on sheer pratical grounds we should stop this debate. You can continue wasting your time, if you wish. But you could help me by not wasting my time!

     
  6. ramesh

    I do not wish you to waste time in meaningless debate at all.

    Just let me show how you put the words in my mouth and refuse to see what I actually say. Here goes just few of the examples.

    1. //Reality is independent of whether you or I exist//

    Reality starts once we assume what we call as energy and then its consequences like space, time (let us agree that space is outcome of energy, it makes my job still easier, I overlooked it!).

    There is no reality beyond the ASSUMED energy (matter), space and time. Therefore your asking me why the consciousness did not exist before 14 billion years ( the Time– related to space which is creation of energy) or in other universes (the Space– which is creation of energy) is the greatest FALLACY one can ever imagine!

    2. //You are essentially stating that consciousness CREATES energy.//

    Never! I say consciousness ASSUMES energy. There cannot be absolutely anything common with the assumed energy, space and time. These two (consciousness and energy) are totally DISJOINT. Former is the subject and later an object! In your science there is no subject only object for the sake of object, a meaningless concept!

    3.//My test is simple: Does a theory lead to BENEFITS for mankind?//

    Excellent! The essence is UTILITY! An assumption of energy and consequent space and time result in what you call as REALITY. Thus the only purpose of reality ( or of science) is ‘utility’ and nothing nothing else (like ultimate reality)! Science ends with Utility and are you aware that utility is a RELATIVE concept and hence USELESS to that extent? (Need defines the utility. Happiness defines need. And what is happiness? It is that which is AS IT IS! Can you define happiness? You can’t because it is unscientific, it cannot be expressed in formula or equation!)

    But this knowledge of the truth of reality leads to setting the direction of progress of science, society, politics and all that future and goal of the mankind nay of the entire life by defining the happiness, need and utility etc!

    In our model there is an AWARENESS of the assumptions made (never rejecting assumptions i.e. science) and in your model you become the part and parcel of the assumptions, get lost in it and FORGET that YOU made it (suffer from infinite regress)!

    Since it is we who assume energy (and so the space and time) and thus the reality, we never contradict the laws of science, JUST THAT we do not give it that much of importance because of relativity of utility concept!

    Thus our’s is the true and absolute FREEDOM aware of assumptions unlike your sort of slave freedom full of FALLACIES of which you refuse to come out!

    Wish you all the best!

     
  7. Atul

    Dear Mr Ramesh
    here is my last attempt to convince you that there are only two possible theories, Theory (1) or Theory (3), out of this only Theory (3) has so far managed to show empirical evidence, which we call as Science. Any possibility of Theory (2) being correct is shattered as soon as you accept objective reality of this world because it will degenerate into Theory (3). You are unable to see this connection unless you can come with an empirical evidence of something which is not based on energy.
    I will refute your most important points one by one.
    (a) Deriving consciousness from its assumption energy is fallacy
    It is not a fallacy. You accepted world is objectively real so then consider this scenario. A rock does not have consciousness, but still it is affected by the natural laws. So imagine a world where there are only rocks, laws of nature would work as it is, there will be nobody to assume anything about the word energy, time , space and consciousness. But the world will exist none the less and rock will be affected by it. If you say that no it won’t exist , then essentially you are saying that everything has consciousness even a rock. Then the next question will be if everything has consciousness, define it ? This will degenerate recursively into the question that energy also has consciousness. And finally will lead to the conclusion that all observable properties of this consciousness is exactly same as that of the energy. So ultimately it will become just a question of nomenclature. We are using two words for exact same thing I am using energy and you are calling it consciousness.
    (b) The tree example
    Even if nobody is there to hear the sound, the sound exists. So take the rock mentioned in point (a), can it be affected by that sound in some way? Yes it can be. Does rock has consciousness ? NO. Hence nobody is needed to assume existence of tree, seed, earth and ultimately big bang but sound still exist. Unless you assume rock has consciousness at which point it will just become a matter of nomenclature.
    (c) Important question about what came first consciousness or energy?
    If you assume consciousness came first, then it will be unprovable in an objective world where all you can observe is energy. So occam’s razor. Second possibility energy and consciousness came together. This will again be a degenerate case because since all you can observe is energy that means it is equivalent to saying consciousness and energy are the exact same thing. Not very useful then. Just a matter of language, you call it consciousness I call it energy. The third possibility is consciousness came after enegry, then it is possible that consciousness is a derivative of energy, some form of arrangement of energy. And this will also imply that energy can exist without consciousness. I proved this exact point in my first comment, but you did not understand it. I also proved that there can be no temporal correlation between “subject who assumes” vs “the object being assumed”. The object being assumed can be of past, present or future compared to subject’s own timeline. In our case you are claiming that consciousness is the subject then you are claiming that energy which is the object has a definitely temporal relation with the subject. What rule of logic allow you to conclude this? What is being assumed has no relation in spatio-temporal dimensions with the subject or agency who assumes. I can give very simple example to explain this, Your can assume that your grand father was born, does this mean you came before your grandfather ?
    The ultimate point with which I want to conclude this is a question as a food for thought to you.
    “You assume you have consciousness ?” Here the subject and object are the same thing. Now would you start a discussion on if consciousness came before consciousness ? or after ? or at the same time ?

     
  8. ramesh

    Dear Sabhlok I observed that the last comment is still under moderation. If the same is yet to be posted please replace the above one by the following one. It is edited for the better one.

    Thanks!

    ———–
    Thanks for your effort Dear Atul,

    1. //You accepted world is objectively real so then consider this scenario.//

    Where and how? Instead I said what we call as our ‘world’ is an assumption of energy with its attendant space and time. Thus what you refer to as objective world/universe is a basically an assumption made up of energy (matter), space and time. Here ME (the one who assumes) is subject and here object is an ASSUMPTION (the universe multiple and includes calculation that it came up 14 billion yeas ago). You failed to show how an assumption is an objective reality as per science!

    For me an object is one on which more than one subjects agree as to its identity either via a shared assumption or otherwise. So far only via a referred assumption. e.g. what I refer to as stone is also the same stone for you as well. Hence the objective nature of the universe and not otherwise. Thus the objective nature of the universe is not an absolute one independent of our SHARED/AGREED consciousness which assumes it.

    So your point (a) is out of misconception about what I say.

    2. /Even if nobody is there to hear the sound, the sound exists.// How? You failed to understand my explanation given in former comment which I repeat here: //Before one can answer the above question THERE HAS to be an ASSUMPTION of tree, concept of falling, forest, sound and process of hearing which are all different aspects or forms of energy which is a RESULT of an INITIAL ASSUMPTION which happened long before such an event like one in question happens.// So you missed my point despite of specific caution by my in this regard.

    3. //Does rock has consciousness ? NO// This question cannot be answered either as No or Yes. Only possible thing is that I can declare myself alone as conscious. I accept you as conscious (and vice versa and so among other lives) ONLY because we AGREE/SHARE as to the identity of the external universe (including what we call as our brain) as an OBJECTIVE reality. A stone is an AGREED object or external reality (just a part of the universe which is ASSUMED by way of energy, space and time) and cannot have an independent absolute objective nature. It is THIS aspect of AGREEMENT which I refer to as a SHARED or UNIVERSAL consciousness. This is how we see the universe through science.

    4. //If you assume consciousness came first,……..//

    This is how you make the fundamental blunder and so fate of your the rest of comment. Here consciousness is not an assumed one (This makes consciousness an object which is never the case). Instead the fact is that a consciousness is that WHICH makes an assumption of universe by way of ASSUMED energy (and its consequences space. time etc) and about which every life agrees. Little wonder how waste the rest of your comment is!

    ME and consciousness which assumes the things is one and the same thing. Matter (and so the space and time) which makes ‘ME’ (my physical nature) is an OBJECT because of COMMON/SHARED agreement on the the same!

    5. “You assume you have consciousness ?”

    Dear Atul, I do not assume that I have consciousness. Instead it is ME, the consciousness itself (without which there is no such a thing like ‘I’) which gives me my identity (to the physical built up) which supports the shared assumptions.

    What I assume as objective reality derives its INDEPENDENT nature because of AN AGREEMENT like yours and rest of the lives and is SO to that extent. This makes my consciousness an universal one and universe stands as an objective reality whether I am live or dead (physically)!

    ——————————————————–

    If you still think you got me right you need not respond. If you think there was error/confusion on your part as to what I say and if you are interested enough please go through my comments on this blog post and the other relevant one ONCE AGAIN. It may change your entire worldview for the better and truth. This may make yours views on mundane issues like politics, society an absolute one.

    Thanks a lot for your effort,once again Dear Atul!

     
  9. Atul

    –>”For me an object is one on which more than one subjects agree as to its identity either via a shared assumption or otherwise”.
    Exactly, this is the crux of the matter. You say “more than one subjects agree” which is wrong. The statement which I made is much more stronger than that, I said ‘world is objectively real’ which implies that world is objective for everything in this world not just for you and me but also for all things including a rock. If that is false then WORLD is not objective, it will become subjective, subject to the things which are agreeing on it. If you understand this small point all of my arguments above will make sense to you. If you do not agree with me then you are accepting only theory (1) which is completely subjective. In any case Theory (2) can not exist it is not sound.

     
  10. ramesh

    //The statement which I made is much more stronger than that, I said ‘world is objectively real’ which implies that world is objective for everything in this world not just for you and me but also for all things including a rock.//

    Did you again forget that rock (and including our every physical part except consciousness) is just an infinitesimal part of the energy (with its attendant space and time) which derives its existence from our (what I call as ‘shared or universal) consciousness?

    Did you ignore that there do not exist any objectivity of external reality beyond this shared assumption?

    If you could understand all this you would realize that my theory did not fall under any of your three types. It’s all three at the same time without any contradiction within them as under.

    Here it goes in your own words (with slight modifications):

    1) World is subjective and exists only in consciousness (Here consciousness is not an individual (as you understand) but a shared universal one. You cannot talk of consciousness on behalf of rock in principle)——Yes

    2) World is subjective, and exists only in consciousness (Here consciousness is not of an individual but shared universal one.)——-Yes. Hence the objective nature of the universe.

    3) World is objectively real but not independent of conscious observer. ( Here observer is not an individual one but the everyone who shares THE consciousness which assumes an energy. Here an individual differs physically not with respect to the consciousness which assumes the energy, otherwise no objective nature of the universe) —Yes

    Little wonder if you realize that all the above three statements are equivalent. You will realize your classification was based on fallacious and mistaken notion of what I say!

    Got how scientific my theory is, Atul?
    ———————————–

    I wonder despite repetitions even within the same comments you ignore and put the words in my mouth! You are arguing against what you understand and not what I say.

    Just let me confirm you got me still correct!

    Dear Atul, it has ultimate implications about policies in r/o social, political, economical and every aspect of human life and has been influencing the people’s lives for millennia. Ignoring it is delusional!

     
  11. ramesh

    Seems third option was left.

    3) World is objectively real independent of conscious observer (Scientific theory).

    -Yes.

    However,

    As already said an object (e.g. rock, or our physical body) derives its objectiveness not because of an assumption of energy by consciousness with respect to a Single person but because the assumption is SHARED by every one possessing the consciousness, hence its objectiveness. There is no objectiveness beyond this shared consciousness and its assumption.

     
  12. ramesh

    // The statement which I made is much more stronger than that, I said ‘world is objectively real’ which implies that world is objective for everything in this world not just for you and me but also for all things including a rock.//

    This is not a stronger statement. Instead it is full of fallacy where you think that rock has an objective existence and forget that it is just an infinitesimal part of the original assumption of ‘energy’.

    Apart from this you did not show how my statement ””For me an object is one on which more than one subjects agree as to its identity either via a shared assumption or otherwise” is wrong one except making a simple assertion.

     
  13. Atul

    Ok from all your comments I am pretty clear now that you have no idea what you are talking about. First of all theory (2) you have mentioned in the previous comments is not the theory (2) which I put in the first comments. Please read first comment again to grasp its meaning, I can see you are very slow in getting simple concepts, but still in order to refute them first please try to grasp it.
    You have wrong concept about following things
    (1) Subjectivity
    (2) Objectivity
    (3) Set Theory
    (4) Difference between The Assumption, The Assumed Object and The Agency who assumes.
    Please read about these basic things somewhere first. So that you can start to grasp the meaning of my comments. Your definition of subjectivity, objectivity and set theory is completely messed up. My arguments heavily rely on these concepts.
    Theory (1) and Theory (3) as stated by me are completely antagonist to each other, if you are claiming that your theory agrees with both of them then it follows that it is beyond ridiculous not even worth discussing. And if you claim that this is Vedanta (which I am damn sure it is not, you did not even grasp Vedanta itself) then Vedanta must be very ridiculous.

     
  14. ramesh

    Lol!

    Definitions of subjectivity, objectivity, set theory and all that you refer to are based on after an assumption of the energy is made. Since now we are dealing with the very assumption, definitions of what you refer to, now, have to be seen from the perspective earlier to that assumption and not the way you do!

    The process of an assumption is like a sort of dream where all those who assume agree upon. You are jumbling up the definitions made in such a dream (or in objective world out of assumption) with those before such assumption where no objectivity exists except an assuming agency.

    May be out of your scope! It is not that easy though most obvious!

    Thanks for all the sharing, anyway!

     
  15. ramesh

    Just came to mind a fine example often cited in Vedanta:

    There are different domains in day to day life which we agree upon as objective reality, e.g.: Waking; Dream and deep sleep. Assumptions made in the respective states are EQUALLY valid. Still Objectivity in one state is MEANINGLESS in the other state. A dog with trunk is not absurd in dream. And a dog of waking state can be absurd in a dream. These two sorts of dogs are absent in the deep sleep. Note: This is just an illustrative example.

    You forget we are discussing at this level and what you call as objectively real universe is just like one of the three states. Definitions you talk of are not absolute, we make them so!

    Of course, though not sure, how much of it you can get, I made an effort!

     
  16. A k Swain

    Everything that is happening in the universe and that happened before the big bang is simply guided with the unified theory( the theory which connects gravity,electromagnetism and nuclear forces.In my view consciousness can never step up in physical laws or domains.Consciousness by itself is a result of many physical theories.

     

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.