The Nature of Reality

Hello everyone,

            After a lot of withholding, ambivalence, and hope to be able to do without, here I am to start this blog on the refreshing topic (you guessed it right)—envisioning the ultimate landscape, not just philosophically, but in the window of science.

            Here I will be writing regularly on subjects that directly either point to the ultimate flow of space-time or help us understand “our” positioning in the vast (if it is) landscape of cosmos. Until the proper flow gears up, please take time to visit the website “magnifieduniverse” to get a general idea of this effort, and please feel free to drop me a comment or two.

            Initiating a blog is a daring act, especially for a person like me, who until now has only procrastinated to start one, not tested the waters, and importantly dazzled by the fully equipped, creative and fancy blogs, already flaring on the topics of our quest to understand the ultimate nature. Here I am talking mostly about the efforts made on scientific fronts (at least that’s what I am currently familiar with).

            The theme of this site is substantially different. For here we take sturdy inputs from all fields, be it classical physics, quantum mechanics, theoretical models, conceptual layouts, mathematical formulations, the role of our own perceptivities, or philosophical notions, as far as they provide a justly guidance in seeing a full order.

            For now, a few posts below will massage our imaginations.

Thanks and I look forward to our discussions.


The Whole of it in One Single Sweep

“Many researchers believe that physics will not be complete until it can explain not just the behavior of space and time, but where these entities come from”

             is a gripping thought at the start of an article on space-time appeared in the Nature magazine last year. I fully enjoyed the article, which indeed conveyed in fine detail the overall progress made in physics in our quest to envision the absolute nature. While brilliant theories (some of them I hope to discuss later on) address sharp ways to see the structure and flow of space-time, figuring out an origin would be an entirely different undertaking, and perhaps the most difficult one.

                In a broad sense, the current state of physics knowledge point to an infinitely curved space-time where matter was infinitely condensed (about a billionth the size of a subatomic particle)—referred to as “gravitational singularity”—to be a beginning point from which the universe expanded. The obvious question ensues. Where from this surpassingly dense material emerge? Whereas, overall, we have a crisp picture of how matter evolved through the physical forces into the enormously expanded universe we see today (the depiction included below), tracing it back our interpretive theories only culminate into this very “point.”


                    Can the information be interpreted in such a way that there aren’t major lacunae left behind, and we can see a rational picture?

Are We Able to Picture It?

               Equally potent in the physical models of the universe is the question of the emergence of consciousness—at what point and how? Surely the programming of how perceptivities emerge is a part of space-time evolution. We aren’t here independent of the universe. We have evolved from within the universal structure. The question of consciousness seems to be biological, but it isn’t just about the functionality of brain. It brings forth the most hidden of all curiosity: Who are we?

And whatever that is, it should be the element in not only the unfolding of the universe but also the prodigious expansion that we are observing in the universe today.


                One of the major obstacles that currently looms is of bringing all the forces into a single theoretical framework. Universe works as a single entity. And there is a fair deal of advancements seen, but mostly they come with clear pitfalls hovering in the plot.

                   How is it possible to construct an all encompassing scheme without accounting every element that reside in the universe—at least the ones we are certain about? And this includes dots of “perception” in the same whole-hog tapestry. May be it is OK to not include the unfurling of “consciousness,” but at least we should be able to pin down its definition first, so that we know where it positions in the all encompassing arena.

The Mathematical Truth

                Mathematics portraying reality isn’t a new insight. We have been sensing it ever since the preliminary structure of mathematics, and their formulations, appeared. Over time, as the language of mathematics evolved, the understanding that mathematics reflects the reality of universe immensely sharpened. From its practical utilities to its guidance in formulating the reality of space-time, the representations of mathematics seem to pitch the most accurate information about our universe, many of which we hadn’t have known if we hadn’t accustomed ourselves with the mathematical tone. That is why the prevailing notion: “Mathematics is a language that is discovered rather than invented.”

                The idea of mathematics depicting truth doesn’t point to the counts appearing in everyday life and universal organization, or numerology. It plainly says this: The way mathematics arranges is identical to the way universe structures. This holds true, whether we talk of simple arithmetical depictions or complex algebraic formulations—the ones by which we have learned some of the hidden meanings of the universe.

We can start out with messages at a very basic level:

The square and cube of a number imitate the 2-dimensionality and 3-dimensionality of the real world. The example of 3:


                Want to know how universe arranges itself in even higher dimensions—that current findings and theoretical models are pointing to—ask mathematics:


is one example.


Perceiving the Universe


               Quantum physicists, cosmologists and mathematicians remain bewildered not because of the lack of consistency in the behavior of universe but because of the enigma the same universe poses when it is interpreted in reference to the way we “perceive.” The colossal cosmic magnitude that strikes the eye might in reality be fully folded and jam-packed makeup—a case more in alignment with modern findings and ratiocinations.

               The matter and the forces, of which the “senses” are part of, sweep every corner of the cosmic landscape. Our senses do point to the true nature of the universe as it being gargantuan and expanded as far as we are looking at the reality, otherwise size—immense or minuscule—isn’t an issue. We probably are magnifying the universe, thus the blog and site name- “Magnifieduniverse.”