God Exists

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Shri Subbudu,

Let us not try to interpret what the puranas said. It is beyond the scope of the discussion. Time as a cycle is only with reference to the physical world which seems to be coming and going. But the reality of brahman perceives no time. This concept of brahman and time as a cycle to describe the continuous creation and destruction of the physical worlds, to my knowledge existed in the earliest Hindu texts. We are not trying to interpret it in any other way.

 

[subbudu1]

Actually, without an observer, an event never occurs. .

With due respects this is your take on quantum mechanis. Nobody questions the wave function collapse. But what you say is not a part of quantum mechanics. If this had been an established fact, then there would be no debate of a conscious presence at the beginning of creation and creation which is an event could never have taken place without this observer

 

[sravna]

If time had a beginning and in a sense created, how could it be existing on its own?

 

[subbudu1]

Dear Shri Subbudu,

Let us not try to interpret what the puranas said. It is beyond the scope of the discussion. Time as a cycle is only with reference to the physical world which seems to be coming and going. But the reality of brahman perceives no time. This concept of brahman and time as a cycle to describe the continuous creation and destruction of the physical worlds, to my knowledge existed in the earliest Hindu texts. We are not trying to interpret it in any other way.

I am not interpreting puranas as they have been interpreted and put in lines of white and black long before me.
Time if it is infinite, there is no need to postulate a situation where,we are unable to identify the material cause for something . You have in your own words time and again mentioned that time has a beginning in the same words. This as I have said contradicts hinduism. We are free to talk on time with a beginning if you step outside the boundaries of defined hinduism and that puranas are not accurate in such a description. Thanks

 

[subbudu1]

If time had a beginning and in a sense created, how could it be existing on its own?

Because you and I are not needed for events to happen!

 

[C RAVI]

There is no such thing as absolute time. There are only Clocks and they record events using their own set of rules.

And that is man made to get ourself synch. with this illusionary world..

 

[sravna]

Because you and I are not needed for events to happen!

You missed the point. Something created cannot be on ts own.

 

[DrBarani]

With due respects this is your take on quantum mechanis. Nobody questions the wave function collapse. But what you say is not a part of quantum mechanics. If this had been an established fact, then there would be no debate of a conscious presence at the beginning of creation and creation which is an event could never have taken place without this observer

I disagree. What I say IS part of Quantum Mechanics. I asked you to read up on Schrodinger's Cat. It was the most famous debate between QM proponents (Dirac, Heisenberg, Schrodinger) and Classical Physicists (Einstein). Only Observers define events. Events do not occur in the absence of any observer or observing probe. Einstein claimed "God doesn't place dice" and therefore, it isn't a matter of uncertainty whether some event occurs or not. Quantum Mechanics proved otherwise. Famous experiments exist, including electron tunneling, that is not normally allowed in classical physics.

 

[DrBarani]

Because you and I are not needed for events to happen!

An observer (or any recording device) IS Necessary for an event to occur! Without being an observable an event cannot be defined. The observer doesn't have to be a human being.

 

[sravna]

I am not interpreting puranas as they have been interpreted and put in lines of white and black long before me.
Time if it is infinite, there is no need to postulate a situation where,we are unable to identify the material cause for something . You have in your own words time and again mentioned that time has a beginning in the same words. This as I have said contradicts hinduism. We are free to talk on time with a beginning if you step outside the boundaries of defined hinduism and that puranas are not accurate in such a description. Thanks

Time begins but it also ends with the end of universe. It starts again when a universe is again created. As I said let us not start a discussion on what should be the interpretion of time when Vishnu is asleep and so on. Let's stick to logic now. You wanted to talk logic when I talked of scriptures and now you want to discuss the puranas and not logic!

 

[subbudu1]

You missed the point. Something created cannot be on ts own.

We can be reasonably certain that time was not created since it was present even before the world was created as per our puranas. This argumentative gets repetitive because you have missed a number of things
1. There is no premise to bring in the concept of god when we look for causality of material world unless and until it is proven that very reason matter behaves as it behaves, is because of god. This is the argument that needs to be proven. Since science has not discovered the complete mystery of matter, you or I can bring forward no proof on that score. Hence you take recourse to indirect arguments which prove nothing.
2. Theoretically , if we assume that in the spiritual plane , time holds no significance, then we can develop some concept about the world. May be that concept can develop in a way which cannot be contradicted by science, as we know it today. But the Big Big miss is that you have failed to realize that this is an assumption you have made not proven it from something.
3. Time is it infinite or is it finite. Let us take the presence of a conscious individual before world was created. If we were to assume that, then it is self evident that as a conscious aware individual he has become witness to events within his own consciousness. It is this line of argument that puranas take and say that time is infinite. But from a science point of view it all boils down to whether there was a first material event or not.

In effect there is no need to look for a creator in science, unless and until it is proven that matter cannot even exist today without the presence of god. Dr Barani has grasped that point and says that no event can take place without an observer. But with all the best of luck, all I can say it is unproven from a scientific perspective.

 

[DrBarani]

Dr Barani has grasped that point and says that no event can take place without an observer. But with all the best of luck, all I can say it is unproven from a scientific perspective.

kindly allow me to elaborate the point. An "event" as what we perceive as occuring "in a time span" isn't the same as origin of universe. That is a singularity in science. Singularities are handled entirely differently.

All I can say is, Universe, its creation/origin, evolution, destiny, are trivial examples to use, to prove or disprove God. I am on the same side as Hawking when he says "God is not required to create Universe". But I am not on the same side if that is misinterpreted as "God doesn't exist" or "God DIDN'T create Universe". All he meant was, we already know sufficient laws of physics that can nearly explain how Universe originated. He wasn't challenging the concept of God.

IMHO, to debate God, God's powers, manifestation etc one must use time-independent arguments. This is rather difficult. We are all conditioned to argue anything in a time axis. Remove time axis and we can't utter one word. Sad.

 

[subbudu1]

I disagree. What I say IS part of Quantum Mechanics. I asked you to read up on Schrodinger's Cat. It was the most famous debate between QM proponents (Dirac, Heisenberg, Schrodinger) and Classical Physicists (Einstein). Only Observers define events. Events do not occur in the absence of any observer or observing probe. Einstein claimed "God doesn't place dice" and therefore, it isn't a matter of uncertainty whether some event occurs or not. Quantum Mechanics proved otherwise. Famous experiments exist, including electron tunneling, that is not normally allowed in classical physics.

Events do not occur in the absence of any observer or observing probe

If this were such a proven statement then what is there that is waiting for quantum physicists to openly propound the theory of God. With due respects I would like to known the exact principle behind the discovery that events cannot occur without an observer unless it is that somehow there is a difference in the understanding the word "Event"

With due regards to your Schrodinger's cat I think this should suffice
Schrödinger's cat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Our intuition says that no observer can be in a mixture of states—yet the cat, it seems from the thought experiment, can be such a mixture. Is the cat required to be an observer, or does its existence in a single well-defined classical state require another external observer? Each alternative seemed absurd to Albert Einstein, who was impressed by the ability of the thought experiment to highlight these issues. In a letter to Schrödinger dated 1950, he wrote:

You are the only contemporary physicist, besides Laue, who sees that one cannot get around the assumption of reality, if only one is honest. Most of them simply do not see what sort of risky game they are playing with reality—reality as something independent of what is experimentally established. Their interpretation is, however, refuted most elegantly by your system of radioactive atom + amplifier + charge of gunpowder + cat in a box, in which the psi-function of the system contains both the cat alive and blown to bits. Nobody really doubts that the presence or absence of the cat is something independent of the act of observation.[SUP][4][/SUP]

​

 

[DrBarani]

If this were such a proven statement then what is there that is waiting for quantum physicists to openly propound the theory of God. With due respects I would like to known the exact principle behind the discovery that events cannot occur without an observer unless it is that somehow there is a difference in the understanding the word "Event"

With due regards to your Schrodinger's cat I think this should suffice
Schrödinger's cat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, I am glad you picked Einstein's role in Schrodinger's Cat. But you ought to continue that storyline until you see how that apparent paradox was resolved. And it wasn't resolved on the side of Einstein.

Events, observation etc occur INSIDE an observable Universe. In a nonobservable Universe how events happen are only existence of wave functions, no wave function collapse can take place. It will be a continuum of waves, but no quantization of wave functions to define any event.

Is an external observer needed to define Big Bang as an event? Remember, observer doesn't participate in the event. Therefore, even if one assumes an observer existed for Big Bang, it wasn't God. If God created Universe, he is part of the Universe. It is one coupled system - God and Universe. They are not separable.

 

[sravna]

........Hence you take recourse to indirect arguments which prove nothing.

Instead of making such vague statements point out the specific flaws in the argument

3. Time is it infinite or is it finite. Let us take the presence of a conscious individual before world was created. If we were to assume that, then it is self evident that as a conscious aware individual he has become witness to events within his own consciousness. It is this line of argument that puranas take and say that time is infinite. But from a science point of view it all boils down to whether there was a first material event or not.

I would like to make just one point since I feel this is a digression. Spiritual experience and the experience when in physical world are two different things. The spiritual experience is a unified experience and hence no perception of event after event and hence timeless. The farthest from the truth is, it is happening in a time that is infinite.

 

[Nara]

... You just dismiss all of my arguments as just assertions. Are you so fond of the word assertion ?

sravna, my retort to this would be, are you fond of making only assertions .

I think I have shown very clearly why I think your arguments are only assertions in my post #477. To say that there is a god is itself only a proposition, needing convincing evidence. Instead of providing that evidence, you are doubling down with another assertion that this God is a spiritual being existing outside time and space.

The only reason you say this, it seems to me, is so that you can argue that only matter in time and space need a creator and this God does not since it does not exist in the realm of time and space. This is convenience argument, reshaping the head so that the hat will fit.

I have made my position very clear from the beginning and very often. The question raised in the title of this thread cannot be answered either in the affirmative or the negative, conclusively.

Between the two positions, those who take the affirmative side has the onus to prove as they are the ones who make this proposition. Until it is proved, the rational position to take is that of an agnostic. The reason only an agnostic position is rational is not because there is a reasonable possibility that a creator God exists, but proving he does not exist requires disproving that even the remote possibility he may exist, which is an impossible task.

If one takes this predicament of the impossibility of conclusively proving a negative as irrefutable evidence of existence of god, then go ahead, but I for one prefer to return to and stay in the natural state of godlessness that we all are born into, until Rama, Krishna, Shiva, or Jesus is poured into us, starting with ஒம்மாச்சி கண்ணக் குத்துவார்.

Argument 1
Premise 1: We are at Present
Premise 2: We reached the present time from the past
Conclusion: Time should have a beginning

Argument 2:
Premise: Time has a beginning (from argument 1)
Conclusion: The theory that universe has been existing forever and therefore needs no cause is false.

Argument 3:
Premise: Anything needs to exist to create something
Conclusion: Self creation is not possible

Argument 4:
Premise 1: Universe did not create itself or spontaneously appear (from argument 3)
Premise 2: Universe did not exist forever (from argument 2)
Conclusion: Universe was created by something.

Sravna, from a purely logical and rational POV, the first two arguments are only conjectures. In so far as nobody can even form a reasonable hypothesis about what was there before Big Bang, your claim time should have a beginning, the first conclusion, is not really unassailable fact. Since the rest of your arguments are developed with this first conclusion, the rest also falls.

Particularly, the conclusion of argument #3 does not automatically follow even if the conclusions of the previous two arguments are shown to be irrefutable facts. If the universe manifested at some time zero point, does it really mean it was created by a purposeful entity? When it is possible for the Big Bang to have occurred without God, the principle of Occam's razor demands you not assume anything more unless you can provide convincing evidence. So the premises of your argument 4 are just, the word is coming, brace yourself, assertions.

Argument 5:
Premise 1: Time and space came into being when universe was created
Premise 2: Universe was created by something (from argument 4)
Conclusion: There is a timeless entity

. So obvious, why am I not seeing it, I must be obstinate, like Ravi says below.

Well presented Shri Srvana..
[...]
Basically "You can make a person understand who wants to know. But you can't make a person understand who has determined, not to know".

Ravi, you probably know what truth is and therefore are confident that the other side is wrong and determined to not to know. I can't speak for all who have argued with you, but as far as I am concerned, I can assure you that the position I am presenting is not one based on a determination not to know the "truth" that you are so confident that you know and are presenting.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Sravna, from a purely logical and rational POV, the first two arguments are only conjectures. In so far as nobody can even form a reasonable hypothesis about what was there before Big Bang, your claim time should have a beginning, the first conclusion, is not really unassailable fact. Since the rest of your arguments are developed with this first conclusion, the rest also falls.

Ok, if the conclusion is not obvious , I will give an explanation:

Consider that time was existent for ever. We know time has moved on because we are existing. If time had no beginning from where did it begin to move? We can always push it further and further back so that our present never happens. In other words infinite time is static and makes no sense.

 

[renuka]

I think you are confused. This is the relative experience of change of events. That is all. We are two different observers and our experience is different. The events happen whenever and wherever they need to happen. Our perception is the perception of time, it is not time itself. I look out at the seashore from my window. I then wear a colored glass and get a different effect. The place I look at has not changed only I have changed my observation means. Time , just like an object exists on its own. It is perceived by you and me. Does not mean time, and places are just perceptions. This confusion has arisen due to over-reading of advaita. I am not sure if even Adi-Shankara made such comments about time.

Ok Subuddu,

May be you were not convinced with what I wrote.But anyway what I am typing below is not my words but from Sadddarsana by Ramana Maharishi with commentary by Swami Tejomayananda.

There is no experience of time without events.So time is defined as an interval between events.The interval being eventless is timeless.Therefore the essense of time is timeless.

 

[tks]

This is supported by latest view of Time by scientific community

Ok Subuddu,

May be you were not convinced with what I wrote.But anyway what I am typing below is not my words but from Sadddarsana by Ramana Maharishi with commentary by Swami Tejomayananda.

There is no experience of time without events.So time is defined as an interval between events.The interval being eventless is timeless.Therefore the essense of time is timeless.

The above view is supported by the the latest view of time. Please read the Scientific American article referenced in this post

 

[DrBarani]

There is no experience of time without events.So time is defined as an interval between events.The interval being eventless is timeless.Therefore the essense of time is timeless.

Yes, objects can exist without events. Pendulum can exist without oscillating. Universe can exist without events and we call that Brahman... (or something like that!).

Timeless 'intervals' cannot be measured or defined. To measure an 'interval' one needs another finer clock to map that interval between two events. For example, Sunrise and Sunset are two events that occur, according to my wall clock when its hour handle moves by a full circle. Hence, clocks are always interlinked and this interdependent system defines a time. Very abstract and relative!

 

[nachi naga]

time itself is human construct,who are by nature divine.vedas declare that there is neither a sun rise nor a sunset.that being said,the very parameter of time is dissolved with no celestial object as standard of comparison with earth based beings.

 

[subbudu1]

Yes, I am glad you picked Einstein's role in Schrodinger's Cat. But you ought to continue that storyline until you see how that apparent paradox was resolved. And it wasn't resolved on the side of Einstein.

Events, observation etc occur INSIDE an observable Universe. In a nonobservable Universe how events happen are only existence of wave functions, no wave function collapse can take place. It will be a continuum of waves, but no quantization of wave functions to define any event.

Is an external observer needed to define Big Bang as an event? Remember, observer doesn't participate in the event. Therefore, even if one assumes an observer existed for Big Bang, it wasn't God. If God created Universe, he is part of the Universe. It is one coupled system - God and Universe. They are not separable.

I am glad we are discussing this instead of trying to prove god by looking for a primordial cause some billions of years ago , instead of here and now. If we cannot prove god at this moment, we cannot prove him billions of years ago. Your hit on the quantum theory is appropriate, it here where consciousness as is coming in to the domain of scientific arguments.
Infact honestly I allow the possibility of consciousness. But where I differ is that there is no convincing proof of consciousness.

This is where I think you are spot on, and as I can surmise well thought. Let me applaud you for that. Let me explain


Nothing is black and white and the role of conscious observer in the determination of a particle nature has not been proven. My post below will substantiate my claim

We must remember here that there is a big mistake made in highlighting interpretations of an experiment as accepted facts. Scientists are still discussing on different interpretations of this experiment. Einstein was totally opposed to any ideas on probability .It is here that he was proven wrong. Infact his proposition on the incompleteness of the quantom theory in the narrow sense is what is highly contested.

Let me quote from this paper
http://www.phys.tue.nl/ktn/Wim/NeoCopFOP3.pdf

Einstein’s
requirement of objectivity of the quantum mechanical description might be justified
if quantum mechanics were ‘complete in a wider sense’.

However, Einstein’s requirement of ‘objectivity’ is not related to the issue of
‘completeness in a wider sense’. Indeed, his quarrel with Bohr was about ‘completeness
in a restricted sense’. It was unacceptable to Einstein that properties of a world,
existing independently of the observer, would depend on its being observed.

The author here takes the approach of neocopenhagent interpretation. This model avoid discussions on consciousness.
http://www.phys.tue.nl/ktn/Wim/CopneoCop.pdf

It is very well possible that a quantum mechanical measurement
yields evidence of a previously existing ‘element of physical reality’ that
cannot be described by quantum mechanics, however, but has to be described by
a subquantum theory. Thus, prior to a position measurement a particle may have
a position, which, however, is not described by the quantum mechanical position
observable

http://www.phys.tue.nl/ktn/Wim/CopneoCop.pdf

Classical mechanics is generally presented as representing knowledge about an objective
reality, i.e., a reality as it is independently of being observed by human observers,
and, in particular, not being interfered with by their measuring instruments. The
impossibility of an interpretation of quantum mechanics as an objective description
of reality was a main reason for Einstein to disqualify quantum mechanics as not
being an adequate physical theory.

http://www.phys.tue.nl/ktn/Wim/CopneoCop.pdf

It should nevertheless be stressed here that the discussion between
Bohr and Einstein was not over the question of verifiability, but over the question
of whether it is possible to obtain knowledge about a microscopic object without
in any way interacting with it [3], i.e. whether quantum mechanics can yield an
objective description (Einstein), or whether we should content ourselves with a contextual
one (Bohr). Only after many years we have gradually become convinced
(e.g., by the Kochen-Specker [4] and the Bell [5] theorems) that it is impossible to
attribute sharp values to quantum mechanical observables as objective properties
possessed by a microscopic object independently of any measurement. Bohr’s contextualism,
to the effect that quantum mechanical observables are well-defined only
within the context of a measurement serving to measure that very observable, can
be seen as an indication that physical theories do not have the absolute property
of being either universally true or universally false, but that they are applicable on
a certain domain of experimentation, for quantum mechanics its domain of validity
being co-determined by the measurement arrangement.

http://www.phys.tue.nl/ktn/Wim/CopneoCop.pdf

Contrary to the Copenhagen idea that the wave function yields a complete description
of an individual object, it seems nowadays to be generally recognized that
the wave function does rather describe an ensemble. This insight has been gained by
careful analysis of interference experiments at low incident particle rates in which
impacts of individual particles can be registered. From these experiments it can be
inferred that what is described by the wave function (i.e. the interference pattern)
is not generated by an individual particle but by an ensemble of such particles.
The Copenhagen idea that the wave function would be a complete description of an
individual object does seem to be obsolete by now.

We cannot overlook that there are many interpretations to the quantum theory

http://www.phys.tue.nl/ktn/Wim/CopneoCop.pdf

Even 80 years after its conception it is impossible to
say that there exists a unique and internally consistent interpretation by that name.
On the contrary, this interpretation has been characterized (Feyerabend [1]) as “not
a single idea but a mixed bag of interesting conjectures, dogmatic declarations, and
philosophical absurdities.”

http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-311/aflb311m387.pdf
Is there a need for a conscious observer refer to this -

Our results are consistent with the idea that a
measurement from the Geiger counter is sufficient to collapse the quantum
state, most likely because the counter involves amplification processes that
are irreversible [13]. Conscious perception of the outcome of a quantum
measurement is not a prerequisite for the collapse of a quantum wavefunction.

Then again this paper( http://web.williams.edu/philosophy/fourth_layer/faculty_pages/jcruz/sonenthalthesis.pdf ) discusses the various interpretations possible in this context
You may be aware that there are other theories including the causal theory which proposes that the subject to be observed was always determinate but there is just an impression gained by the observer who does the measurement , that there is a collapse of a wave function.

There is yet another theory, which I like discussed in this paper which proposes that there is no real collapse of the wave function only the observer becomes a part of it and is not aware of the other states.

The last paper is worth a read.

 

[subbudu1]

Ok Subuddu,

May be you were not convinced with what I wrote.But anyway what I am typing below is not my words but from Sadddarsana by Ramana Maharishi with commentary by Swami Tejomayananda.

There is no experience of time without events.So time is defined as an interval between events.The interval being eventless is timeless.Therefore the essense of time is timeless.

With due respects to all the noted persons you have quoted and respecting the fact they could have experienced supernatural states in life, and Ramana Maharishi was anything but a fraud, I would like to say that one should not sell oneself to the teaching of someone without adequate questioning. What is uneventful to you is still eventful to me. Is that not possible? In that case even though Ramana Maharishi might experience timelessness, his body would continue to age , and his devotees would also see time elapse.So eventually time has elapse regardless of his state. I would like to know why it is said that Vishnu is asleep for some many years after world is destroyed. Is life around him so very eventful.

We must sincerely acknowledge that even great men suffer from difference in interpretations with each other. One example is Dayananda Saraswati and advaitin , he has recently in some interview said that Ramana Maharishi was a very ordinary man with some experiences just like millions of Indians. I dont care for that view, but we must understand that there is a definite contradiction in experiences of many of our sages and this is largely a case of interpretations and that truth is much deeper than what even great men think.

 

[DrBarani]

I am glad we are discussing this instead of trying to prove god by looking for a primordial cause some billions of years ago , instead of here and now. If we cannot prove god at this moment, we cannot prove him billions of years ago. Your hit on the quantum theory is appropriate, it here where consciousness as is coming in to the domain of scientific arguments.
Infact honestly I allow the possibility of consciousness. But where I differ is that there is no convincing proof of consciousness.

This is where I think you are spot on, and as I can surmise well thought. Let me applaud you for that. Let me explain


Nothing is black and white and the role of conscious observer in the determination of a particle nature has not been proven. My post below will substantiate my claim

We must remember here that there is a big mistake made in highlighting interpretations of an experiment as accepted facts. Scientists are still discussing on different interpretations of this experiment. Einstein was totally opposed to any ideas on probability .It is here that he was proven wrong. Infact his proposition on the incompleteness of the quantom theory in the narrow sense is what is highly contested.

Let me quote from this paper
http://www.phys.tue.nl/ktn/Wim/NeoCopFOP3.pdf


The author here takes the approach of neocopenhagent interpretation. This model avoid discussions on consciousness.
http://www.phys.tue.nl/ktn/Wim/CopneoCop.pdf


http://www.phys.tue.nl/ktn/Wim/CopneoCop.pdf


http://www.phys.tue.nl/ktn/Wim/CopneoCop.pdf


http://www.phys.tue.nl/ktn/Wim/CopneoCop.pdf


We cannot overlook that there are many interpretations to the quantum theory

http://www.phys.tue.nl/ktn/Wim/CopneoCop.pdf


http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-311/aflb311m387.pdf
Is there a need for a conscious observer refer to this -

Then again this paper( http://web.williams.edu/philosophy/fourth_layer/faculty_pages/jcruz/sonenthalthesis.pdf ) discusses the various interpretations possible in this context
You may be aware that there are other theories including the causal theory which proposes that the subject to be observed was always determinate but there is just an impression gained by the observer who does the measurement , that there is a collapse of a wave function.

There is yet another theory, which I like discussed in this paper which proposes that there is no real collapse of the wave function only the observer becomes a part of it and is not aware of the other states.

The last paper is worth a read.

Thanks, I will read these papers over the coming weeks. I concede that I am not an expert in quantum mechanics, but that is my limitation, not the drawback of the field.

It will be rather difficult to go to a professional in that field and tell him that there are varying opinions about quantum mechanics. It is a difficult subject, not intuitive like classical fields. Hence, many people have difficulty accepting it. It is the same problem with multilevel logic states vs binary logic.

It is perfectly possibly to describe the pre-big bang Universe as a static wave function and the bigbang (with subsequent expansion) as a collapse of the wavefunction. The question still remains how a wavefunction got pushed over into a collapse. Where did this perturbation come from. I leave it as an open ended question.

 

[renuka]

Some points from Isa Upanishad.It explains on the concept of being Achala yet faster than anything.

Brahman is one without a second.It never moves yet it goes faster than the mind.
It is always ahead; the sense organs can never catch up with it.It is still,yet it defeats all in a race.