Swami Gulagulaananda said:
"That we cannot sense certain things due to a limitation of our body does not imply the absence of what we cannot sense"
I was watching some interesting videos on YouTube the other day, and I stumbled upon String Theory. Matter, as we know, is made up of tiny particles called atoms. Atoms are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. We learn about this in school And often, we hear about other sub-atomic particles like mesons, bosons etc. It turns out that protons and neutrons themselves are made up of quarks... And quarks are made up, according to String Theory, of extremely tiny particles called Strings.
From what I gathered, everything in eventually made up of tiny strings, and the different behavioural characteristics are due to varying frequencies of the strings. While this theory is still under development, it made me wonder if a string could be the same as the Brahman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman).
But let us not introduce religion into this. Continuing with his explanation, Brian Greene goes on to explain about higher dimensions, saying that they are working with 11 dimensions - 10 dimensions + time.
Now all of us understand up to three dimensions really well - a line exists in a single dimension, a triangle exists in a plane or two dimensions and a cube in three dimensions. Our world is in three dimensions. But they are talking about dimensions above this which we find impossible to visualise, primarily because of our inability to fit it with things that we see around. When we talk about something with three dimensions, I can understand it because our world is 3D. A 2D diagram on a page is easy to grasp too. But what is a 4D diagram?
A 2D triangle has each side made up of a line which is 1D. A cube is a 3D diagram which has each face made up of squares which are 2D. Therefore, should a 4D diagram have each face that should be made up of 3D diagrams? We cannot imagine it...
Our eyes have rods and cones to detect the intensity and colour of objects around us. The world looks vibrant with colours. But other animals such as dogs and bulls don’t perceive the world in the same way as we do. They lack certain the colour detecting capabilities that we take for granted. So the same object is seen differently by them - perhaps less vibrant and more dull and boring.
But remember, they are looking at the same objects as we are. The same objects are seen differently by them - less colourful. Butterflies on the other hand can sense light in the ultraviolet range of the spectrum which is completely invisible to us. This means that the butterfly sees a far more vibrant and iridescent world. The mantis shrimp is remarkable in that way - Compared to the three types of colour receptive cones of humans (five of certain butterflies), the eyes of the mantis shrimp carry 16 types of colour receptive cones. Meaning, it is seeing a different world than you and I.
What if things that we see and feel are not really what they are? What if, we are like the residents of Flatland who live in a two dimensional world? Or like the ant that traversed the mobius strip? What if there are things beyond this and that we are simply unable to perceive them due to some constraints? Are there creatures living in a different dimension like some characters from the Bartimaeus Trilogy? Are THEY “ghosts”? :P
That we cannot sense certain things due to a limitation of our body does not imply the absence of what we cannot sense
Watch Visualising Eleven Dimensions