Creative Thinking: Two mind-blowing ideas
More than once have I said that I love Einstein. What I mainly love about him is his attitude. He is often quoted saying that he wanted to fully understand how the universe works. From this, I imagine that — after having reflected at length on the subject — he had up with his intuitions by starting from the idea that “there is” a Creator. He wished to understand how the laws behind creation work and endeavored to discover them. I am therefore surprised that so many scientists, especially cosmologists, strive to demonstrate that all that is going on in the Universe can be explained by mathematical laws and relationships alone.
I don’t deny that science (mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc.) rules the functioning of our world. Thinkers, since “our” time began, have been engaged in the search for a scientific explanation to our existence and to the existence of the world that surrounds us, including stars, galaxies and so on. Several of them reached some possibly debatable but intriguing conclusions.
Interestingly enough, some philosophers advanced the hypothesis that, in actuality, we are all illusions (a sort of phantom appearances). A few scientists are proposing the idea that we are all simulations (assumptions of appearance). Fantasy of the mind (whose mind?) or computer design (who is the programmer?)? I do not discard any possibility because, as we do not actually know, we cannot state and declare anything for sure from a scientific point of view.
Could we be part of a larger Universe, could smaller Universes exist of which we have no idea? If God’s Creation is infinite, it should also be possible for us to see and know “now,” with our senses and with our means, if our world is only one part of the whole. Don’t forget that what you consider “normal” nowadays, things such as the automobiles, radio, TV, electricity — not to speak of spaceships, missiles and computer technology — would have been either impossible, or a product of sorcery in the past. Therefore, who feels that he (or she) can discard “a priori” any hypothesis, no matter how improbable it might sound?
I have only a vague idea of what the theory of “relativity” is. It has been one of Einstein’s big intuitions and it is about the indissoluble connection between space and time. Einstein said (mind you, such idea has been tested and proven, although only at a sub-atomic level so far) that time moves at the same speed for two people (A and B), even if they are far away from each other, but only provided they both keep still. If A begins moving, though, his clock proceeds more slowly. But this is not all. If, while moving, A also changes direction (space), his time moves in a different way.
If A moves away from B, his time shifts backwards! So, while B is sitting in his living room now, A will be finding himself moving into B’s past (yesterday or hundreds of years ago!). On the other hand, if A moves toward B, his time shifts in the opposite direction (forward). So it will materialize in B’s future (tomorrow or many years from now, depending on the magnitude of the shift in space). Isn’t this a fascinating idea? Doesn’t it actually open wider and wider horizons? Doesn’t it make the possibility of a “Time Machine” real?
This may also mean that past, present and future ... they are all taking place contemporarily, if they are considered from different perspectives and depending on movements through space. I am going to leave it at that. Take your time to reflect on such a fact (if you are interested). If you are a scientist, it’s no big deal for you. If you are a layperson like me, I believe you might need some time to process it. But it will be worth it. This kind of reflections is what broadens our minds.
E-mail: [email protected]
Blog: recreateyourlifetoday.blogspot.com
