Is there a beginning for the Universe?

Trying to find the origin of the universe is an old ‘pastime’ for all ‘thinking’ humans whether they are saints, scientists, lovers or philosophers. How this world didbegin? Who created it? Where do we come from? Such questions haunted humanity for eons and after arriving at conclusions or finding answers, the real ‘suffering’ starts…J For all answers of any beginning will create the problem of ‘what is before the beginning?’ It will be easy to handle if we could understand this unquenched search as an ‘incurable disease’ of humanity. For there is only one cure for this, it is to understand that there is no beginning for the universe, it never was created, nor it will come to an end; it IS. For that reason, there is neither a beginning nor an end to it. But it is doubtful whether humans can ‘comprehend’ this; for ‘beginnings’ are an absolute ‘need’ for them. Every beginning and end in the universe actually resides in the ‘conceptual understanding’ of the universe by the human species. Universe just is and the inherent nature of the universe is change. To comprehend the never ending change, human beings need beginnings and ends. This is a crucial need for human beings, no doubt. But that doesn’t mean there are beginnings in the universe.

When we say this, it doesn’t mean the phenomena what we call ‘Big Bang’ didnot happen. Every astronomical observation proves the inevitability of such an incident. But when we call that as ‘the beginning’, that alone is being questioned here. ‘Before’ the big bang, it is assumed that the existing state was perfect equilibrium, where nothing can be distinguished, ‘the point’ of singularity. If such a state explodes it can only expand infinitely without any atoms, stars or galaxy being formed. As there are atoms, stars and galaxies around us, we can safely assume that it is not perfect equilibrium but there are inherent differences how subtle or incalculable they may be for us. So it is perfect ‘imbalance’ not equilibrium before the ‘beginning’. Why scientists consider this as beginning is only because all our measuring rods based on the concepts of time and space are nullified there. These two concepts become functional only when there are ‘two’, but singularity has no two poles. The familiar concepts of time and space will run out of business in such a state, so they call this as the beginning; that is all. We may face this problem of ‘non-availability’ of measuring rods once we reach into the infinitesimally small or big. We may never ‘practically understand’ this. But using mathematics we may be able to conjure up perfect models, like String Theory, but they will remain beyond all testifying practice, the hallmark of science.

Thus, when we say life began or originated, we should understand that they are only demarcating lines or points we make in the continuous process of change. It is necessitated by our ability to understand. We ‘measure to understand’. It is like breaking up a tree into logs, so that we can carry it. Or let us take another example. There never was a day began on Earth, it only rotates but we have Sundays and Mondays. We have Buddhist Era of 2559; Christian Era of 2016 and Muslim Era of 1437….they are needs of human beings but not the reality of the universe.

Universe is not something that happens in the flow of time. Time is a tool we use to understand the change in the universe. Just like space. For London or New York to start or end we need to put a sign board there. Otherwise it can never start or end. But as human beings, we need these sign posts otherwise it will be difficult to comprehend. The change from one point to another is what we call space. Space and time are measuring rods to understand ‘change’ or ‘transformation’. When we understand change internally we call it time and externally we call it space. The horizontal description of change is space and the vertical description of it is time. Or put in another way all sensory experience of change is space and time is the intuitive experience. All the animals have the ability to understand change through their senses hence it will be spatial. But to understand change through time, it seems, is specific to human beings. It looks like an ability we got through a recent evolutionary mutation.

In the course of human history we have developed many types of measuring rods like ‘ell, em, erg or fathom, gal, clove, chaldron, kelvin, palm, peck, stone or millihelen’ etc. They were very ‘real’ to those who developed it. When we developed more accurate measurements we discarded all the old ones. Yet in language they remain and used occasionally. But we need to understand this, in any measuring system the initial component has to be a ‘mutually’ agreed one. Once this is agreed upon, then it is very easy to measure anything. The unit of millimetre can only be assigned of its value through mutual agreement. There is no other basis to fix it. But once we agree on its value then we can ‘correctly’ or precisely measure decimetre, decametre, meter or kilometre.

All the old measurements can never achieve this type of correctness because the initial units depended on our hand or foot. One ‘foot’ will vary according to the length of each one’s feet. But then our needs were not that subtle, so 10 feet of rope with its slight difference can be accommodated in its use. But ‘precision’ is a need of industrial society where measurements needed to be precise.  But the point raised here is not of its precision but to show that all measurements are human made.

We could measure the distance between Paris and London with high precision now.  But, we need to understand that it is foolish to dig deep into the ground where we measured to find the measuring rod. It is not something hidden in the nature of matter but it is a conceptual tool we devised. Likewise, to understand the universe, to understand life, we developed many ‘conceptual’ measuring rods in the past,  like ‘god’, ‘soul’, ‘mind’ ‘energy’ or ‘life force’, which are in par with ell, em or erg, and not that precise at all. We will miss all these concepts if we cut open the body to find them, like the same way we missed the measuring rod by digging deep in the ground. This is not because they are the subtlest of the ‘subtle’ but because they are just ‘conceptual’ tools of erstwhile people. There is no ‘mind’ inside the body to have that age old dichotomy of mind-body duality nor is a ‘soul’ to leave the body when we die…J

2 thoughts on “Is there a beginning for the Universe?

Leave a Reply

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