On the comprehensibility of the incomprehensible

[Guest guest]

Namaste all

 

Recently there was a quote of Einstein on this list. Another quote is

relevant to this post. Actually this post is inspired by #35326 of

Neelakantan-ji on " A new theory of the Universe - or is it? " .

 

First I read the article referred to by Neelakantan-ji. Yes, it is to be

read by all of us who are interested in a scientific quest of the universe.

I recommend it strongly. It finally ends up with the as-yet-unanswered

question: How does a subjective experience arise from a physical or chemical

process? And the article raises new biocentric avenues of exploration.

 

The other quote of Einstein I was referring to above is this: " The most

incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible " .

Even Homer nods! Though I dare not quarrel with Einstein about the

comprehensibility of the universe, the question of that comprehensibility is

still to be debated, for we are still totally ignorant of the " Shape of the

Universe " . When Columbus discovered the new world, the world was totally

ignorant of the " Shape of the whole world " . They assumed it was something

like the surface of a sphere, but they had no proof until, in the 19th

century, all parts of the globe were correctly mapped.

 

But the comprehensibility of the universe is, as of the Earth then, still

open. The undecided point is about the curvature of space. On this result

is going to depend whether the universe is flat or curved. A recent

breakthrough in this direction has been made by a Russian mathematician,

Perelman, just at the beginning of this millenium - when he surprised the

world by solving a 100-year old conjecture of Poincare. This conjecture, in

layman's terms, asked the question:

 

Among all spaces in the mathematical universe of spaces of which our

familiar space is one, is there any one that is different from the

three-sphere (x squared plus y-squared plus z-squared plus w-squared = 1)

and that has the property that every path can be shrunk to a point?

 

The conjecture says there is no such. Throughout the last century hundreds

of great minds spent millions of hours on the problem without success.

Perelman proved this in 2002-2003 and by 2006 the proof was verified to be

correct and Perelman was awarded in 2006 the Fields Medal (which he refused

to accept - that is another story!). Those who are interested in a complete

account of all this research and of a fascinating 2500-year history of the

mathematics behind it, accessible to laymen (!) may see the wonderful book

by Donal O'Shea (Walker & Company, New York, 2007), titled " The Poincare

conjecture - In search of the Shape of the Universe " . It is a masterly

exposition and the beauty (for the layman!) is there is not a single

mathematical equation or expression in the main body (200 pages) of the

book. One can also read the one-page journalistic report in

 

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=62

 

Now for the shape of the universe! For this we have to map the whole

universe and examine whether every path can be shrunk to a point. This is

where it is still a receding horizon. We do not know yet whether it is a

flat universe or whether there are three-dimensional handles near black

holes or whether it is something different.

 

You may ask: What is the relevance of all this to advaita? The answer comes

from Ramana Maharishi: " I am telling you there is no snake; What you see is

only a rope. You are only debating the question: 'What kind of snake is

it? " !!!

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk