A Scientific Theory of Destiny

Subhendu Das

Volume 13 Issue 8

Global Journal of Science Frontier Researc

Destiny is the most complicated subject in our world and cannot be comprehended without taking a global view in both space and time. Therefore this paper takes a multi disciplinary approach using mathematics, physics, engineering, economics, and philosophy. The paper has two major related objectives (A) Provide a theory for the existence of destiny and (B) Explain away the counter logic. For part A we take the following approaches. (a1) The idea of destiny is well recognized by Newtonian physics. In our universe everything happens because of simultaneous interactions of everything. Thus destiny is not an individual concept. It is not my destiny or your destiny, it is our destiny. (a2) From this global concept of our destiny, we derive how the destiny plays out locally for an individual; how humans are really part of nature, work in cooperation with nature, and according to its dictates. In particular we show that our first reaction to every natural event is planned. (a3) Reincarnation theory of soul is an integral part of destiny theory. We prove giving real life examples, that reincarnation is a law of nature, and we are all reincarnated souls. Thus destiny is not only global in space; it is also global in time, covering all past lives. For part B we cover several important opposing views. (b1) The uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics says nothing can be certain, and therefore destiny cannot be true. We point out that the core idea behind Heisenberg’s original mathematical proof is based on Fourier Transform theory. Fourier Transform uses infinity, which as we show is not meaningful in nature. Replacing infinity by any finite number changes the uncertainty to certainty, just like the Newtonian physics. (b2) Destiny is not in the mainstream, therefore it must be wrong. We show that it is the opposite. All Mathematical and physical theories have assumptions that are invalid in nature and therefore they cannot describe nature. These theories are not approximat