Optagon Publications
  THE DISCOVERER, Vol 1, Issue 1
 

THE DISCOVERER

An Online Journal of the Institute of Higher Reasoning

Vol. 1, Issue 1

Website: http://instituteofhigherreasoning.page.tl/

 

 

PART 1: INTERVIEW WITH PHYSICS-PHILOSOPHER NADEEM HAQUE ON A NEW UNDERSTANDING OF DEEP REALITY

 

Optagon: In this interview, I’d like to discuss the nature of the universe; how is it actually comprised and how did it actually evolve. In your book, published by Optagon,  From Microbits to Everything: A New Unified View of Physics and Cosmology, Volume 1: The Cosmological Implications, you claim, with Muhammad Muslim, to have unified physics and this throws these questions into a new light. Your claim is bold, but if it’s true, it’s revolutionary and is bound to change our view on existence, the mind and life.

 

Nadeem: Yes, this is indeed a most complex subject, but I’ll attempt to explain the essence of our concepts in this brief interview. It all began in 1996, when my colleague, M. Muslim spoke to me about Einstein’s theories, saying that there were problems with it and that it didn’t make sense. I agreed with him, as I had some research into this topic. He then told me that he had an idea for unifying physics. You see in physics you have quantum mechanics and general relativity. Quantum mechanics deals with the submicroscopic, whereas general and relativity deal with the macrocosmic, or the universe at large. Muslim’s proposed solution was very simple, yet at the same time most profound. Everything he said is made of one particle, which he termed the microbit; that means that all forces and structures, all matter and so called energy is just a grouping of these microbits in absolute space. He also explained the unique nature of the photon. My role in all this re-evaluation of the origins and structure of the universe, was to technically explain how all the forces are united based on this concept of the microbit in absolute space, primary of which was gravity, the great stumbling block for unification, and for which I have found a surprising solution.

 

Optagon: What proof is there for such an assertion of your scheme for unification? Isn’t it just an idea or a theory or mere speculation?

 

Nadeem: No. I would say that this analysis leaves no option but only certainty – there is no wiggle room. Like there is no wiggle room for 1+1=2, though at a higher level of thinking, deeper and with more connectivities.

 

Optagon: But how are the forces explained?

 

Nadeem: Your readers, if they are to really understand this will have to read our book, for it is very technical, though understandable; in other words, some effort will be required! But let me just introduce some key points: First of all, let’s look at the ‘microbit model’ and compare it to conventional particle physics. In ‘conventional particle physics’ you have, for example, the hydrogen atom which consists of a a proton; this is in turn made up of ‘quarks’. Three quarks make up each proton. The quarks, are in turn, held together by ‘gluons’. What Muslim and I are saying is that the quarks are in turn comprised of smaller particles; and those smaller particles in turn are comprised of yet smaller particles and so on. But this does not go on forever – it comes to and end. You need a base for starting out, otherwise it would go on forever and the universe would not have ‘started’.

 

Optagon: So what of the Big Bang? Did it happen?

 

Nadeem: This is where we agree, but we go further and say that the Big Bang is no longer a theory but a fact; these microbits were the first particles to emerge when the Big Bang ‘lump’ exploded. So in our book we explain how all the forces arose. There are three forces: the gravitational, the strong and the electro-weak. In our book, we explain these using microbits. What makes an apple pie at its base, also makes up the gravitational force, though an apple pie I’ll have to admit is much tastier than gravity! Gravity has nothing to do with the bending of space. These ideas are completely incorrect. You cannot bend space because space is not an object to be bent! And we show in detail how and why Special Relativity and General Relativity are incorrect and also give the wrong explanation for certain experiments that can be explained by regular cause and effect. Indeed, we show how and why nothing contradicts the commonsense notion of cause and effect – not even quantum mechanics! Suffice it to say here that there are conceptual, sociological, institutional, financial, political and historical reasons how and why the entire physics community and laypersons for about 100 years have been misled. This microbit idea helps to unite both the forces and physics itself. What is more, in a later discussion I can discuss with you how biology is then integrated into this physics so that you have one system. This universe is real on our level so you expect to see causation and not a violation of causation and illogicalities like ‘we can never catch up to a light beam’, or that ‘space’ is curved’ or that multiple dimensions exist, etc. Some of these ideas are good only for science fiction stories but not for reality. Unfortunately, most scientists and engineers who have been trained in the conventional systems have not realized the fallacies of many of these notions. That’s because, day in day out we are bombarded with a lot of wrong concepts at school, universities and the media: from cradle to grave. It’s high time to break out and sort the wheat from the chaff. Don’t accept anything that does not make sense, question the foundations of things. Perhaps they are right, perhaps not – but question things and see if there are any internal and external contradictions.

 

Optagon: But science works – how could they be that wrong – we’ve got technology that works based on science. Right?

 

Nadeem: A lot of the practical science of statics and dynamics, let’s say 99% of it, is based on Newtonian physics which is perfectly valid for calculational purposes; then for electricity, the AC circuit and the Radio was invented by Nikola Telsa (and he has over 300 patents, by the way!). Tesla himself did not believe in relativity as espoused by Einstein; he thought and said it was bunk; he referred to Einstein's ideas on curved space as "idle speculations and false conceptions" – we don’t have his full view because this is now classified material in lock and key with the US government – but he did not believe in irrational concepts. Secondly, sometimes we know how a contraption or process works but may lag behind as to why it works; we haven’t figured out causality properly but can make use of the end product, even if arrived at by tinkering. Lastly, many phenomena have different explanations. Why, for example, is the speed of light independent of its source – is it just so, and ought we to only describe it mathematically? What is the mechanism behind that – it is the real cause and mechanism of such things that we discuss in our book and that is an integral part of microbits.

 

Optagon: So Einstein was wrong?

 

Nadeem: It must remembered there is the Einstein for public consumption and profit earning some groups  millions of dollars a year and there is the real Einstein and the problems plaguing his mostly, in any case, plagiarized scheme, which are too numerous to discuss in this interview, in both foundations and details. The fact is: There is the popular aspect and the reality concerning Einstein; these are two quite different things. I would refer your readers to get hold of or purchase a book called: “The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers” as an excellent source of sorting out the apples from the oranges, so to speak.

 

Optagon: Thank you Nadeem, for this intriguing discussion! We hope to discuss the issue of God, time, and what is consciousness in another interview.

 

Nadeem: It’s been my pleasure to discuss this matter and energy with you! I’d just like to add that I have recently updated the book and it is available in pdf from the Optagon website (http://optagon.page.tl/PDF-of-Microbits-Volume-1.htm).

 

 

PART 2: INTERVIEW WITH IHR's NADEEM HAQUE AND ZESHAN SHAHBAZ ON GOD, CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE UNIVERSE

 

Optagon: So Nadeem, and thank you Zeshan for participating in this part of the interview: to continue with where we left off last time. Following your publication of From Microbits to Everything: Volume 1, you and M. Muslim, along with Zeshan's contribution, published Volume 2, subtitled Universe of the Imaginator. Can you please tell us more about this book?

 

Nadeem: For sure. In Volume 1, we had proved that everything is made of one type of particle. We called this the microbit particle. Another name for it is the O-particle (the origin particle). This operates in absolute space. But in Volume 2 we question what that space is?

 

Optagon: What is it?

 

Nadeem: Well, first of all, we tackle the issue of whether God exists or not and we develop several new proofs for God’s existence, namely, the Relatiologic and the Teleogenic proof. We clearly show how and why God is transcendent of this universe and that this universe is not a product of chance processes, or of matter existing all along. We prove the invalidity of such ideas using what we call STOP analysis. STOP analysis is not entirely new and some Muslims (very few of them) have discussed it but we lay deeper foundations for it and then apply them to debunk several claims that the universe came from chance, or has existed since eternity.

 

Optagon: Can you explain this analysis?

 

Nadeem: The basic argument is very simple: If you lived an infinite distance away then would you be here right now?

 

Optagon: No.

 

Nadeem: Therefore you must live a finite distance away; there is a STOP at a finite distance. Similarly, we can apply this to many claims which seek to avoid the existence of One God, such as the cyclical universe, or why the Big Bang occurred. In our book we discuss the implications if the universe has always existed. Such as, how would it account for change – in a step by step procedure. M. Muslim shows in a chapter that there must be a transcendent mind. As far as the teleogenic proof goes, it combines the teleological argument with the Big Bang evidence seamlessly, and shows also why Hume’s rebuttal to inferences of God’s existence by analogy is faulty. But one needs to go through all the arguments presented in the book to gain a fuller understanding.

 

Optagon: But you also tackle the taboo subject of WHERE is God!

 

Nadeem: I don’t think that it’s a taboo subject and we do answer it. First of all, after proving that there is a transcendent and unique personal God that is not part of the universe, we show that this God is the Absolute and Real. He, God, is not part of some bigger space, for that would mean that He is dependent on that space. We are driven inexorably, by logic, to conclude that there is nothing outside God and that He is the very plane of existence (as my colleague Zeshan Shahbaz likes to say) or ground of all being, and that we are His creation, in the sense of imagination. In other words, God brings about particles (the microbits) by His command and Sustains them and makes them interact according to His rules. Some Muslims cannot seem to, or do not want to, understand this point. They think that what I am saying is that if God is objectless space (albeit THE Consciousness) then He is analogous to a computer storage device, or a piece of paper upon which information is stored. If that is the case, they say that because there are no analogies to God, I am violating the chapter of the Quran, The Purity (Al-Ikhlas), which states that God is incomparable. But, obviously, this thinking is incorrect: a piece of paper is finite, is made of particles and is a material; same with a computer. So God cannot be comparable to these. That which is Infinite, Boundless, Infinitely Conscious, Self-Creative, cannot be compared to finite man-made, unconscious storage devices etc. There are other objections I deal with at length in this book and another upcoming work.


Zeshan: To further qualify this, the arguments for 'God's existence' and 'what is God' is summed up as follows, and note that the universe is simply the totality of object contents in or on the plane of space:

Something moves the moving thing.

The universe is moving.

Therefore, something is moving the universe.


The mover precedes the moving thing.

The objectless plane precedes the moving thing (i.e. universe).

Therefore, the objectless plane is moving the universe.


And note, logically, 'the objectless space/plane/realm' is indivisible (therefore One), limitless (no matter how many things exist on this realm it doesn't subtract or take anything away from it), eternal (i.e. timeless, the objectless realm has no beginning point or end point).

And thus, it is logically concluded that for any thing to 'be' (effect) is preceded by its cause (law of case and effect). And we know that the objectless plane, logically, precedes every single thing (matter, energy, etc.). And if the objectless plane (which is itself, logically, limitless, immovable, eternal, indivisible, incomparable) precedes existence of all things and any thing, then it follows that it is the first cause of all things, and if it is the first cause of all things then it infers it is a highly intelligent and conscious causal agent as it has caused intelligible, creative and conscious things and/or beings to 'be'.

Optagon: I never looked at it that way. Well if, by way of deduction, God is objectless space then isn't it implied that God is nothing?

Zeshan: No, not at all. Firstly, the 'objectless space/plane/realm' is, after all, something as all objects depend on it. And not only that it is indeed something, it is the very ground or plane of every single thing!

'Nothing' is simply an absence of things on the objectless plane. Practically, there is no such thing as 'absolute nothingness' or absolute zero!

 

Optagon: What about our souls and consciousness?

 

Nadeem: Our consciousness is a fractionalized construct as a will or command by God who sustains it. In this sense it is from His Spirit (ruh) or command. We then ‘reside’, as it were, in these microbitic bodies.

Zeshan: To add to this, the concept of 'our consciousness' follows from the sound logical argument for the Prime Mover, which is The Conscious God, and, what it is, which is the Very Object-less Plane of existence which I just described in this interview. My video, which can be located at the Optagon site (
http://optagon.page.tl/Video-d--God-%26-Consciousness-Vol-1.htm), also provides a systematic demonstration of this.


Now the following question arises: How are certain material or microbitic bodies conscious? Well, I constructed a diagram that will help illustrate this (see below to view the diagram). The Eternal Consciousness, in other words, God or the Prime Mover, 'wills' certainly created or designed bodies to access Its Consciousness. The consciousness that has been made accessible by the Eternal (God) is denoted by "Accessible Consciousness" on the diagram. The 'accessed' consciousness by the individual body translates into the Self or the ability of our self-awareness in connection to the body. This entire logical system demonstrates that there is a law operating that only certainly fashioned bodies or bodies in a certain state are able to become 'receivers' of the 'accessible consciousness'. A dead body (such as failure of one or more of the body's vital organs that causes death) is one that no longer has the ability to receive or access the
'accessible consciousness'.





Optagon: Nadeem, what else is discussed in the book?

 

Nadeem: The physics of the continuation of the life hereafter.

 

Optagon: So you challenge many ideas?

 

Nadeem: We’re just trying to find the truth and don’t consider anything taboo – indeed, one is free as a human being to question and seek the truth, to use reason and evidence to the utmost. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise just to preserve some cherished beliefs or because it doesn’t make someone feel comfortable; that’s not the measure of truth.

 

Optagon: Well gentlemen, thank you for taking the time to introduce some ideas, contentious though they are!

 

Nadeem: Yes, we can gain an understanding through rational and amicable dialogue, and if I’m wrong then you can disprove me – but show me the evidence if what you say is true, as it says in the Quran!



 
  Today, there have been 3 visitors (44 hits) on this page!  
 
=> Do you also want a homepage for free? Then click here! <=