Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[Subduction Zone]

I understand the Universe could not expand on itself, big bang or no, who created the space for it to expand into. Right, please?

Regards

Why assume that there was a "who" involved?

 

[paarsurrey]

Why assume that there was a "who" involved?

Why assume that there is no who involved especially when G-d claims that He had created the Universe, and there is no other reasonable claimant? Right, please?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why assume that there is no who involved especially when G-d claims that He had created the Universe, and there is no other reasonable claimant? Right, please?

Regards

Who is making that assumption?

By the way, where did this "G-d" character ever make that claim and why give him or her any credence?

 

[gnostic]

I understand the Universe could not expand on itself, big bang or no, who created the space for it to expand into. Right, please?

Natural sciences and physical sciences don’t do WHO.

It is the questions as to WHAT & HOW (as well as WHERE, WHEN & WHY) that scientists attempt to seek answers or explanations.

If you want to answer the WHO questions, then try religions or theology or philosophies.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sorry about the caps, I typed it up thinking I could put it in lower case later, so dumb...lol.

In other words, existence of the universe?

YES

I'm not sure I see spacetime as being a 'concept'. As I am using it, spacetime is the inherent four dimensional geometry of existence.

PRACTICALLY ALL OF SCIENCE IS CONCEPTUAL INCLUDING THE FOUR DIMENSIONAL GEOMETRY OF EXISTENCE, THE REALITY THAT THESE SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS REPRESENT MAY BE REAL ASPECTS OF THE UNIVERSE THOUGH. I HAVE INTRODUCED THE CONCEPT OF NON-CONCEPTUAL MIND STATE IN MY LAST POST, NOW THAT STATE IS ONE WHERE THERE ARE NO THINKING PROCESSES GOING ON IN THE MIND. THIS STATE OF MIND 'SEES' A DIFFERENT REALITY TO THE ONE SEEN BY A MIND CONDITIONED BY CONCEPTS.

But the words 'beginning' and 'ending' only make sense if there is time. To say that something has no beginning or ending implies that time is infinite in duration.

TRUE, BEGINNINGS AND ENDINGS IMPLY FINITENESS AND THUS THERE EXISTS A DEFINITE PERIOD OF DURATION THAT CAN BE MEASURED BY SOME PROXY METHOD OF 'TIMING'. INFINITY THOUGH IS FOREVER INFINITY AND THUS CAN NOT BE TIMED (I MEAN HOW LONG IS A PERIOD THAT IS ONE HALF OF THE DURATION OF INFINITY?). HOWEVER WHAT YOU ARE PROBABLY THINKING ABOUT IS THE THE ABSTRACTION FROM INFINITY OF SOME FINITE PERIOD BY CONCEPTUALIZING A BEGINNING POINT AND AN ENDING POINT WITHIN THE INFINITE DURATION OF ETERNITY THAT NOW CAN BE SAID TO BE A PERIOD OF 'TIME'

Again, I see no connection between that and what you wrote. What 'paths' are you talking about?

WHAT 'PATHS' ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, I PRESUME YOU MEAN 'PARTS', NOT PATHS?.
'PARTS' OF THE UNIVERSE ARE THE DISTINCTIONS MADE BY THE CONCEPTUALIZING MIND OF THE DIFFERENTIATED ASPECTS OF THE ONE UNIVERSE NOTED BY HUMAN PERCEPTION, EG. SOLIDS, LIQUIDS, GASES, ETC., STARS, PLANETS, ETC., ETC..

So an infinite interval of time, by your definition, would be timeless? That seems like a strange use of the word.

THERE IS NO INFINITE INTERVAL OF TIME, THERE IS ETERNAL EXISTENCE, IE. EXISTENCE THAT PERSISTS IN EXISTING, IT NEVER STOPS EXISTING. OF COURSE I UNDERSTAND THAT THE PERCEPTION OF EXISTENCE PERSISTING IN EXISTING IS CALLED TIME BY THE CONCEPTUALIZING MIND, BUT IN REALITY THERE IS NOTHING HAPPENING EXCEPT A PROXY INSTRUMENT LIKE A PENDULUM IS COUNTED WHILE THE UNIVERSE CONTINUES TO EXIST AND THIS IS CALLED THE PASSING OF TIME.

Here I will strongly disagree. We have those concepts because they help us describe reality. They only work because they have reality.

CONCEPTS CERTAINLY ARE A REALITY, BUT ONLY IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE A CONCEPT, THEY ARE A CONCEPTUAL REALITY, WHEREAS THE REALITY THE CONCEPT IS MEANT TO REPRESENT IS ACTUALLY THE REAL DEAL.

I'm attempting to figure out your system, but it makes no sense to me. Possibly because of my training and the fact that we seem to be using some words very differently ('timeless' for example, 'eternal' for another).

When I say 'timeless', I don't mean simply not having a beginning or an end (which may happen even with time), but that there is no time dependence at all.

When I say 'the universe', I mean all of matter and energy throughout space and time. Time is *within* the universe, not something external to it.

The word 'eternal' tends to be ambiguous. It can imply that there is an infinite duration of time OR it can simply mean 'throughout all time'. In the second version, if time had a beginning, then 'eternity' did as well. If time has an end, then eternity does as well. The first version (involving an infinite time duration) may not be reality.

YES, YOUR MIND WORKS ALMOST TOTALLY WITH CONCEPTUAL REALITY, I THINK THAT IS TRUE FOR EVERYONE TO SOME EXTENT, BUT THOSE WHO PRACTICE NON-CONCEPTUAL MEDITATION APPREHEND REALITY DIRECTLY DURING THE 'TIME' THEIR MIND IS FREE FROM THOUGHT. I'M NOT IMPLYING THAT A MIND THAT ALMOST ALWAYS IS DEALING IN CONCEPTUAL REALITY IS IN ANYWAY WRONG, IT IS VERY NATURAL, JUST THAT THERE IS MORE TO AWARENESS OF REALITY THAN DEALING WITH IT ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY THROUGH CONCEPTUALIZATIONS.

 

[paarsurrey]

"Natural sciences and physical sciences don’t do WHO."

But the humans, a thinking creature, cannot ignore the "who" question. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Subduction Zone said: ↑
Why assume that there was a "who" involved?
paarsurrey said: ↑
Why assume that there is no who involved especially when G-d claims that He had created the Universe, and there is no other reasonable claimant? Right, please?

Who is making that assumption?

By the way, where did this "G-d" character ever make that claim and why give him or her any credence?

" why give him or her any credence?"

Why not, please?

Regards

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I understand the Universe could not expand on itself, big bang or no, who created the space for it to expand into. Right, please?

Regards

Perhaps Universe is just another word for G-d?

 

[Native]

Where do they do that? Where do scientists "just inserts all kinds of dark this and dark that"? Where is there thesis contradicted?

I´ve never said their thesis are contradicted. They all fits nicely together - after having added all kind of dark stuff and energies, which cannot be directly observed anywhere and subsequently are left to furthermore assumptions and no scientific explanations.

STILL they claim this to be "science"

 

[Native]

If one is going to play the dictionary game one should play it properly. Search for "scientific hypothesis".

"Scientific hypothesis, an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of phenomena observed in the natural world.

Define "natural world", please.

 

[paarsurrey]

Perhaps Universe is just another word for G-d?

But the Universe doesn't claim it. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Define "natural world", please.

The way G-d has set the Universe to work is called Nature. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But the Universe doesn't claim it. Right, please?

Regards

G-d is a name, what is the reality represented by the name G-d?

 

[Native]

It is nonsense to take a cosmological constant to be the explanation of a non constant expansive velocity.

No, actually, it is not. Without the CC, the equations do not allow for an accelerating expansion. They always predict a slowing expansion. With the CC, they give an accelerating expansion. So the CC is the cause of the accelerating expansion.

When reading more up on the concept of "Cosmological Constant" it is utterly flying away mindstuff all over the places. Here it all deals with underlining the assumptions of an expanding Universe. An idea which needs yet another inserted invention, called "energy density of space" which is closely associated to the concept of the fameous "dark energy".

There are NO descriptions of how such a CC has come to be. It´s just a theoretical concept which, as usual in cosmological science, is taken as concrete fact which can be used as "argumentative evidential facts" by the proponents of this idea.

You STILL don´t answer my clear and specific question.

I´ve several times asked for a causal dynamic explanation of a BB, and all I get is descriptive inserted and invented concepts which explains or confirms nothing else but the theory itself and no natural explanations or facts at all.

. But you need to understand the math to see what happens. Since you don't, you won't.

The dynamics is that the CC is, in essence, an energy density of the vacuum, which manifests as a pressure. That pressure produces the accelerating expansion because it overpowers the decelerating aspect of the gravity of normal matter.

The CC is not a dynamic explanation but simply an intellectual concept and even a concept which overpowers the "standing king of cosmos", called "gravitation". The assumptions goes everywhere and even against earlier assumptions.

Anyone can get everything to fit anything in all theories by adding simple ad hoc concepts at will.

Yes, I know. "This is the "scientific method" bla bla, but it never explains anything causally and dynamically in the real world regarding the (strange) BB idea.

 

[alsome]

and the thoughts of Moses persist.

 

[Native]

Natural sciences and physical sciences don’t do WHO.
It is the questions as to WHAT & HOW (as well as WHERE, WHEN & WHY) that scientists attempt to seek answers or explanations.
If you want to answer the WHO questions, then try religions or theology or philosophies.

It doesn´t matter to you looking for WHO answers in religion or theology as you cannot grasp the myths and it´s symbolism anyway - even when explained to you.

 

[Native]

The only time when I see circular arguments, are when religious people tried to mix religion with science, trying to justify their beliefs in their respective religions or spirituality.

How can you tell since you outright refuse myths to have any significance at all?

You often try to credit the so-called “Stories of Creation” being more accurate than modern astronomy, astrophysics and physical cosmology.

How can you tell since you outright refuse myths to have any significance at all and when you uncritically just take modern consensus dogmas as the one and only story?

For instance, you think the Egyptian god Amun-Ra is the light of the Milky Way.

No I don´t think - I know by working with analythics and logics. You should try it some day. I´ts very refreshing and liberating from all human dogmas.

But the amalgamation of two gods - Amun and Ra (Re = Sun) - into a single god didn’t occur until the New Kingdom Egypt and later.

But in the Old Kingdom period and Middle Kingdom period - about nearly 1500 years, they were 2 separate and distinct gods.

In the Old Kingdom pyramids (5th & 6th dynasties), the hieroglyphs Amun only mentioned twice, 1st time in Unas’ pyramid (Unas 206), mentioned with Amaunet:

The 2nd time (Pepi 521), it doesn’t really mention Amun, but Amun’s throne:

There are actually lot more mentions of Geb’s throne than the single instance to Amun’s throne.

There are lot more mentions of Atum in the Pyramid Texts - the creator god of Heliopolis, as well as him being the sun god of Heliopolis - and Atum is frequently mentioned with the Sun (Ra, Re), AND on 4 passages, as Ra-Atum or “Sun Atum” (depending on translations) -

Unas 148, 150; Pepi 447*; Merenre 336.
For examples, twice in Unas 146:

Five times in Unas 150 (note that I have only quoted the 1st instance of “Sun Atum” (or “Ra-Atum” in ), in Unas 150, because this recitation is a lot longer):

Note that the translations above, come from James Allan’s translation because his book is available in Kindle. The translation in Raymond O Faulkner’s book, used “Re” in place of the “Sun”, and therefore “Re-Atum” more frequently, where as Allen used “Sun Atum”.

My point is that Amun wasn’t that important in Heliopolis, therefore in the pyramids of Saqqara, he is only mentioned once with Amaunet in the Pyramid Texts.

There are no mentions of Amun-Ra or Ra-Amun in the Old Kingdom texts (eg Pyramid Texts), and not even in Middle Kingdom Coffin Texts.

I´m not discussing history but comparative mythology. You know the topic which spans over eons of cultural periods all over the world and long long before its literal histories!?

I could elaborate more on Atum and Ra, but I´ve given up explaining something mythical to you.

 

[paarsurrey]

G-d is a name, what is the reality represented by the name G-d?

It is His attributes manifest in the nature. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It is His attributes manifest in the nature. Right, please?

Regards

Yes, universal manifested nature is represented by the term G-d. However the term Universe also represents universal manifested nature. All I'm pointing out is that reality is always on the other side of the concept, be aware of the possible obscuration of the fullness of reality through mistaking the narrow filters of both secular and religious tradition's conceptualized understanding of reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Subduction Zone said: ↑
Why assume that there was a "who" involved?
paarsurrey said: ↑
Why assume that there is no who involved especially when G-d claims that He had created the Universe, and there is no other reasonable claimant? Right, please?


" why give him or her any credence?"

Why not, please?

Regards

There does not appear to be any evidence for a "who". Therefore proposing one is unwarranted