A Universe from Nothing?

[Ben Dhyan]

No, it does NOT require the mind any more than it requires the mind to note spatial differences. Minds are irrelevant here. And, since I have no idea what it means to be 'tangible', I can't comment on whether space or time are tangible or not. Nor how such is relevant to being 'real'.

The mind does not note an actual tangible (perceptible by any of the 5 senses) reality called time, it notes tangible changes in the environment to which the human mind knows there is a cause, and gives the name time to it. If you reflect on it, the cause of the movement of aspects of the universe is not some entity called time, but merely universal physical causes such as belong to the laws of physics, electronics, etc.. It follows then that to measure the change (time), we use a calibrated physical or electronic change such as pendulums, electronic oscillations, etc.., none of which are being caused to change by some tangible entity called time, but by the aforementioned laws of physical nature as understood by science.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But it is by looking at the aspects of the forest that we learn about the entire ecosystem and the unity of the forest. So, again, I strongly disagree on this.

And, again, we have to consider the universe throughout time and space as a unit. And yes, that *is* a geometrical thing. You get so caught up in whether something is conceptual that you miss that the concepts refer to real things.

Any and all aspects of the universe are not independently real, they derive their apparent reality from the only reality, the one indivisible universe. Iow, they are apparent aspects of a whole. You may notice I often use the adjective apparent when talking about aspects, parts, etc., of the universe, this is because the human discriminating mind can not apprehend the whole, and thus sees things of the universe as independently real, forest and tree scenario. The reason I "get caught up in whether something is conceptual" is that I do not want to lose sight of the whole, and get lost in infinite differentiated aspects of reality created by the conceptualizing mind.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Funny then that math and science have helped us to understand so much about it. Your denials only show your limited perspective. You write on a computer designed using scientific principles. We could not be having this conversation except for a whole range of infrastructure designed to make such things possible and based on the use of scientific principles. Yet you deny that science allows us to understand anything.

Clearly, you are wrong in this.

I like science which deals with the apparent aspects of the one universe, but it is not the way to apprehend the whole, which is why I like proper religious practice which leads the way.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

so....toss it all in one pot a stir until boiling
rinse and repeat....

it should have been sufficient ....there is one universe (one Word)

That's right, one universe...one God.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Without time, you cannot possibly understand spacetime in physical cosmology.

Without time, you would not understand changes, movements, speed and acceleration.

Without time you would not understand General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

A large part of understanding the universe is to recognise that both space and time are real.


Actually you are seeing neither trees, nor the forest. What you are seeing mirage of pink elephant wearing red clown shoes.

You keep talking of "eternal universe" but presented no evidences to support your claim.

You want to polymath to accept your claim, but unless you provide the evidences (empirical) or present the mathematical proofs/equations (theoretical), your claim is just simply pseudoscience and wishful thinking.

Time is only a name given to change, I use the term time myself, but I don't mistake it as a cause of the change. Time is not an entity that causes the pendulum to swing or the quartz xtal to oscillate, it is the natural laws of physics.

I don't want Polymath to accept my claim, belief is not knowledge, understanding is what counts. If you do not understand what is being said to you, you will never understand,

 

[gnostic]

I don't want Polymath to accept my claim, belief is not knowledge, understanding is what counts. If you do not understand what is being said to you, you will never understand,

Your whole basis of argument or "claim" is actually nothing more than "belief".

I agree that "understanding" matters most with "knowledge", but such "knowledge" required verification.

And the only methodology of "verification" that will be accepted in science, is through observation:

1. repeatable tests or experiments
2. discoverable and verifiable evidences

It is these "observations" that we achieve methodology of acquiring knowledge, by being "objective".

Meaning - letting the evidences or test results to decide the conclusion...which is the opposite of letting your belief or faith, and your preconceptions to decide the conclusion.

The former (highlighted in green) allow for being "objective", limiting biases...
...while the later (in purple) is being "subjective" and have more chances of being biased.​

Well, guess what, ben q?

You are the one, who falls under the "later" category. You have made claims that the universe is "eternal", but you have presented zero evidence for your claim.

All you have presented to polymath, to back up your claim, is your rationality and reasoning for WHY you believe in your claim about the universe is "eternal". Rationality and reason alone are not evidences, they are just excuses, therefore can be subjected to bias.

You have not shown HOW it (universe) is eternal, and the only way to do that, is through evidences that are independent to your belief or preconception.

I have ask you several times to present evidences to back up your reasoning for believing in your claim about the universe...you have presented none.

Science are really based on observations, something that we can refute, test, detect, measure, or quantify.

Some parts of science, the ones we would call "theoretical science" are based on logic, numbers, equations, etc, what both scientists and mathematicians referred to as "proof", they are not evidences they are not testable.

You should know by now, that "proof" and "evidence", in science, are the same things, are not synonymous.

Theoretical science and mathematical proofs are subjected to "bias".

There are half-dozen of different versions of Superstring theory, each researcher (or each group of researchers, because some work in a "team") have their own set of equations and rationality for their version of Superstring theory.

It is the same with separate versions of multiverse models. There are number of theoretical physicists working on different versions of multiverse models. The maths (proofs) are there, Ben, but not the evidences.

Of course each person or group are vying to prove their version, so naturally they will all be "biased". But unless they are able to present a way to actually test their claims, it is not really a "scientific theory", they are essentially untestable hypotheses.

If you understood why science required to use scientific method and peer review, is to make sure you not only find errors, but also to weed out cheaters.

Maths and numbers are very useful, but theoretical scientists are humans, and they are working on stuff that awe-inspiring, beyond my understanding, but being an engineer, the real world don't always match up with the numbers or maths.

We still don't understand a lot of things about the universe...and I am guessing that will always be true, but you are stating and have been claiming that you are certain that the universe is eternal, but presented no evidences to back your belief or claim.

So are we take your words alone as fact?

Facts required evidences, Ben. You have none.

But that's not your only problem, Ben.

You cannot present empirical or verifiable evidences. That much we have established on. Your other problem is that you also have not presented any maths to back up your claim.

So you have no proof (theoretical) as well as no evidence (empirical).

So where does that leave your claim and belief?

It goes in pseudoscience trash can.​

Is what you have, is blind faith or religious concept?

Most probably.​

I know what you have is nothing more than blind faith, because you have said it yourself, way back in post 3064. You wrote:

Polymaths, the day that science can explain how even one iota of the substance of the universe can be removed from existence, or that some substance not before ever existing can be created and added to what already exists, is the day I will reconsider. for now, the evidence is overwhelming that it is impossible and so logic and reason persuade me to stand firm to the understanding that the universe is eternal, without beginning or end.

It seemed to me, that you have presented your case as being "fact", but a fact that have no "evidences". You say there are "overwhelming evidences", but the funny thing, ever since you wrote this, you have NOT PRESENTED one "iota of substance" in all succeeding replies to polymath.

You demand "evidences" from polymath, but nearly 100 posts later, you bring nothing to the table, yourself.

And any respectable and competent scientist don't talk that way.

A real (especially empirical) scientist would doubt everything, because he or she would question and challenge everything (every statement and every prediction), and he or she would test everything.

A real scientist accept what is "probable", not on what is "absolute". To a scientist, nothing is absolute.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That concept is illusory, as you say, of the human mind. On the other hand, times arrow is reality, it points from past to future, it has done since the start of the universe and will point in that direction to the end.

Apart from a disagreement that there was a start to the universe, and the agreement that concepts are, relative to that which they are meant to represent, somewhat illusory, the "arrow of time" is a fine example of a conceptual figure of speech to represent the changes taking place in the universe caused by the natural laws of nature, gravity, inertia, etc., not that an entity called time is causing the changes.

As I keep explaining, the universe is real in the sense it exists, and its existence is not an illusion in that it sometimes disappears, it exists without ceasing to exist, this persistence of existence to continuing existing is what makes reality real. The arrow of time you talk about is merely focusing attention on the changes taking place due to the natural working of the universe, cause and effect, effect then becoming cause, etc., in that order....one way arrow of change....it's a passive act to observe 'time'.

The creation of clocks, etc., to measure the rate of change, etc., are merely cause and effect oscillators that are a simulators for calibrated finite rates of change that can then be used as a universal standard against natural change.

 

[MysticPhD]

We can measure time intervals much, much smaller than what we can be aware of. Our consciousness of time isn't required.

Also, you use the words 'quantum time' in a very non-conventional way. This has nothing at all to do with quantum mechanics (at least, what you said doesn't).

No matter what size of time interval we measure, it is done by our "instantaneous" awareness that is NOT instantaneous. Penrose and Hameroff have suggested a possible explanation for the formation of it, but of course, we do not have any conclusive evidence. We do know that individual neural activity is NOT our awareness. It is a composite of possibly resonant neural activity that takes some quantum time to form. That unmeasured quantum time is reflected in the constancy of our measures of light "speed" and the Planck length. Minkowski's Constancy of the World Interval indirectly reveals this to us: I = SQRT[ S^2 - C^2(T2-T1)^2]. Note that the Spatial separation is a determined by the speed of Light times the Time separation, suggesting that the time interval is measured using the speed of light as the base of reference. This implies that our thoughts form at the speed of light. Think about it before you reject it out of a knee jerk reaction.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Your whole basis of argument or "claim" is actually nothing more than "belief".

I agree that "understanding" matters most with "knowledge", but such "knowledge" required verification.

And the only methodology of "verification" that will be accepted in science, is through observation:

1. repeatable tests or experiments
2. discoverable and verifiable evidences

It is these "observations" that we achieve methodology of acquiring knowledge, by being "objective".

Meaning - letting the evidences or test results to decide the conclusion...which is the opposite of letting your belief or faith, and your preconceptions to decide the conclusion.

The former (highlighted in green) allow for being "objective", limiting biases...
...while the later (in purple) is being "subjective" and have more chances of being biased.​

Well, guess what, ben q?

You are the one, who falls under the "later" category. You have made claims that the universe is "eternal", but you have presented zero evidence for your claim.

All you have presented to polymath, to back up your claim, is your rationality and reasoning for WHY you believe in your claim about the universe is "eternal". Rationality and reason alone are not evidences, they are just excuses, therefore can be subjected to bias.

You have not shown HOW it (universe) is eternal, and the only way to do that, is through evidences that are independent to your belief or preconception.

I have ask you several times to present evidences to back up your reasoning for believing in your claim about the universe...you have presented none.

Science are really based on observations, something that we can refute, test, detect, measure, or quantify.

Some parts of science, the ones we would call "theoretical science" are based on logic, numbers, equations, etc, what both scientists and mathematicians referred to as "proof", they are not evidences they are not testable.

You should know by now, that "proof" and "evidence", in science, are the same things, are not synonymous.

Theoretical science and mathematical proofs are subjected to "bias".

There are half-dozen of different versions of Superstring theory, each researcher (or each group of researchers, because some work in a "team") have their own set of equations and rationality for their version of Superstring theory.

It is the same with separate versions of multiverse models. There are number of theoretical physicists working on different versions of multiverse models. The maths (proofs) are there, Ben, but not the evidences.

Of course each person or group are vying to prove their version, so naturally they will all be "biased". But unless they are able to present a way to actually test their claims, it is not really a "scientific theory", they are essentially untestable hypotheses.

If you understood why science required to use scientific method and peer review, is to make sure you not only find errors, but also to weed out cheaters.

Maths and numbers are very useful, but theoretical scientists are humans, and they are working on stuff that awe-inspiring, beyond my understanding, but being an engineer, the real world don't always match up with the numbers or maths.

We still don't understand a lot of things about the universe...and I am guessing that will always be true, but you are stating and have been claiming that you are certain that the universe is eternal, but presented no evidences to back your belief or claim.

So are we take your words alone as fact?

Facts required evidences, Ben. You have none.

But that's not your only problem, Ben.

You cannot present empirical or verifiable evidences. That much we have established on. Your other problem is that you also have not presented any maths to back up your claim.

So you have no proof (theoretical) as well as no evidence (empirical).

So where does that leave your claim and belief?

It goes in pseudoscience trash can.​

Is what you have, is blind faith or religious concept?

Most probably.​

I know what you have is nothing more than blind faith, because you have said it yourself, way back in post 3064. You wrote:



It seemed to me, that you have presented your case as being "fact", but a fact that have no "evidences". You say there are "overwhelming evidences", but the funny thing, ever since you wrote this, you have NOT PRESENTED one "iota of substance" in all succeeding replies to polymath.

You demand "evidences" from polymath, but nearly 100 posts later, you bring nothing to the table, yourself.

And any respectable and competent scientist don't talk that way.

A real (especially empirical) scientist would doubt everything, because he or she would question and challenge everything (every statement and every prediction), and he or she would test everything.

A real scientist accept what is "probable", not on what is "absolute". To a scientist, nothing is absolute.

Wow, what a rant gnosis mate...why don't you write a book?

Thing is, all science has to offer wrt understanding the universe is conceptual models, and these models are not the universe, mere attempts to model it based on observations, experiments, etc.. You may have faith in one or another of these models, but at the end of the day, that's all you've got, faith in a conceptual model. Now I get it, that is what physical science does, and while I am interested generally in what they have to say, due to their not understanding that everything they observe of the universe is an aspect of the one universe, everything is connected, there is an underlying unity to the universe that they do not incorporate into the models. If you ignore that, you will never develop your own mind to apprehend the underlying unity of the one universe.

It is just so lazy to regurgitate the stuff learned in high school, college, uni, or self taught by studying the same source material, and not add significantly to humanity's collective ever evolving understanding of the universe by self discovery, introspective reflection on the nature of your own consciousness. For, if it has errors, most of its conclusions will also be found wanting.

 

[gnostic]

Thing is, all science has to offer wrt understanding the universe is conceptual models, and these models are not the universe, mere attempts to model it based on observations, experiments, etc.. You may have faith in one or another of these models, but at the end of the day, that's all you've got, faith in a conceptual model.

And you think blind faith in your religious belief is better?

At least with models that you are so dismissive about, provide for eventually that it could "probably" be right or "probably" be wrong, but through more OBJECTIVE mean of testing the models (except for those categorised as "theoretical science", which are untestable, eg no experiments or evidences, but theoretical science at least use proof, eg mathematical equations).

Religious concept of the universe, is based on purely on primitive superstitions, dubious belief in supreme beings that they labeled as "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" or "Spirit" (which they also under the "superstition" category.

You said there are "overwhelming evidences" out there for the universe being "eternal", then please, by all mean provide some of those evidences.

You are as dodgy as unscrupulous used-car salesman. If there are plenty of evidences as you say, Ben, as you implied with "overwhelming", then show them, please.

How many times must I ask you for those overwhelming evidences, before you either give them or admit that you have no evidences?

I would give you the benefits of doubt, but you have been repeatedly stated your personal belief as if they were facts.

Facts required evidences, as I said before, not your rationality, not your dubious exercise in logic, not your belief or opinion.

All you have presented since you have been arguing with polymath over finite vs infinite is providing him with apologetic excuses and fallacies (particularly circular reasoning and moving the goalpost). You want polymath to present, but you refused to put those "overwhelming" evidences on the table.

 

[Willamena]

Your whole basis of argument or "claim" is actually nothing more than "belief".

I agree that "understanding" matters most with "knowledge", but such "knowledge" required verification.

And the only methodology of "verification" that will be accepted in science, is through observation:

1. repeatable tests or experiments
2. discoverable and verifiable evidences

What does science have to do with understanding? A person can be ignorant of science and still understand things.

 

[Thief]

What does science have to do with understanding? A person can be ignorant of science and still understand things.

and you might agree?
there will no experiment concerning God and His creation
Spirit can't be discerned in a laboratory

and Man was turned to believing ...long before the methods of science came to be

 

[Willamena]

and you might agree?

Any sensible person might.

there will no experiment concerning God and His creation
Spirit can't be discerned in a laboratory

This is partly true. Idea can be discerned in a laboratory.

and Man was turned to believing ...long before the methods of science came to be

True.

 

[gnostic]

What does science have to do with understanding? A person can be ignorant of science and still understand things.

About the universe...? About finite and infinite universe...?

I think not, willamena.

It is science...as a tool...that help us understand WHAT it is and HOW it work. The knowledge is challenged and tested.

Belief in any superior being creating is nothing more than superstition.

And what is the basis of superstition?

It's a combination of fear and ignorance.

Second, I have never stated that the universe wasn't "eternal".

It might be probable or it might not be probable. We don't know.

We don't have enough evidences and data to show it is "eternal".

Ben q is stating there are overwhelming evidences for eternal or infinite universe, then why hasn't presented a single evidence.

He is yapping away how what he believe are facts.That's where might real issue I have with his argument.

Facts required evidences for verification. And ben q presented none, even though he made the wild claim that are "overwhelming" numbers of evidences.

Do you now understand what I am getting at?

He shouldn't make claims that he has evidences, when he really doesn't.

Sure, we don't always need science for understanding everything. But when it come to astronomy and physical cosmology, nothing about the universe is true, unless you have evidences to verify it to be true.

 

[Willamena]

About the universe...? About finite and infinite universe...?

Yes, about the universe, whether finite or infinite. The father who holds his son and understands love isn't a mystery.

I think not, willamena.

It is science...as a tool...that help us understand WHAT it is and HOW it work. The knowledge is challenged and tested.

Science is the modelling of the universe, yes. And with that we broaden understanding, yes. But there are a whole heap of topics that science doesn't deal with* that impact a normal life. Modelling the universe is not the be-all to end all.

*or doesn't get paid to deal with

Belief in any superior being creating is nothing more than superstition.

And what is the basis of superstition?

It's a combination of fear and ignorance.

Second, I have never stated that the universe wasn't "eternal".

It might be probable or it might not be probable. We don't know.

We don't have enough evidences and data to show it is "eternal".

Ben q is stating there are overwhelming evidences for eternal or infinite universe, then why hasn't presented a single evidence.

What is "eternal" is simply a matter of understanding "eternal." It's no more complicated than that. The universe cannot help but be eternal, because of the absurdity of a "beginning" that is something from nothing.

He is yapping away how what he believe are facts.That's where might real issue I have with his argument.

Facts required evidences for verification. And ben q presented none, even though he made the wild claim that are "overwhelming" numbers of evidences.

Do you now understand what I am getting at?

He shouldn't make claims that he has evidences, when he really doesn't.

Sure, we don't always need science for understanding everything. But when it come to astronomy and physical cosmology, nothing about the universe is true, unless you have evidences to verify it to be true.

With quantum wibblyness, how can there possibly be evidences to verify any part of the universe?

Facts are not what is evidencable for others, facts are only, and simply, what is the case (true). To make them into something more is to create... a god.

 

[gnostic]

It is just so lazy to regurgitate the stuff learned in high school, college, uni, or self taught by studying the same source material, and not add significantly to humanity's collective ever evolving understanding of the universe by self discovery, introspective reflection on the nature of your own consciousness. For, if it has errors, most of its conclusions will also be found wanting.

I think it is idiotic to think you would know more than the people who have worked or who have done the research in the fields.

Have you ever worked at any of observatories? Have you ever work at NASA or ESA or whatever the Russians called their own space agency?

I don't think anyone who rely on religions, their religious belief would know more than those who have the experiences.

I am not saying they don't make mistakes...but that's what finding evidences are for.

You on the other hand, is simply used your religious belief to dictate what is true or not true about the universe, and you expect other people to take you seriously.

You have offer no verifiable evidences to check on what you claim, and yet, you claimed you have overwhelming evidences to support your personal belief. That's not evidence, that just your opinion and conjecture.

If it wasn't for science, you wouldn't know that the universe was larger than what we could see with the naked eye. The ancient people thought the universe was only what they could see with their eyes.

Before Edwin Hubble, since Galileo, people thought the Milky Way was THE UNIVERSE. They thought Andromeda Galaxy was simply another nebula in the Milky Way. It was only the development of larger optical telescope - the Hooker Telescope, built by the 1919. Not only did Hubble discovered Andromeda Galaxy was a separate spiral galaxy, it was also more massive than the Milky Way, containing more stars than the Milky Way.

This led quickly to discoveries of even more galaxies in our universe.

A few years later (in 1922), Alexander Friedmann, a Russian astronomer and physicist, who was the first to theorise that the universe was expanding, 5 years before Georges Lemaitre independently published his own hypothesis (1927).

Two years after that publication, Hubble discovered the evidences for the universe expanding, by observing and measuring the redshift of galaxies.

You say not to rely on these scientists and their discoveries, but have you anything more concrete and alternative mean of discovering new?

All you have presented is your personal belief the universe, that's all. You have shown no evidences, but expect Polymath to show evidences. That's rich. It's bloody double standard. Especially when in your older reply, you have stated you have overwhelming evidences.

I am still waiting for you to present those abundant of evidences you have hidden in your sleeve or pocket.

Don't make claims of having evidences, if you don't have any.

 

[gnostic]

Science is the modelling of the universe, yes. And with that we broaden understanding, yes. But there are a whole heap of topics that science doesn't deal with* that impact a normal life. Modelling the universe is not the be-all to end all.

*or doesn't get paid to deal with

Sorry, Willamena, but aren't you forgetting that this thread is about the "universe"?

The topic's title is "A Universe from Nothing?"

You are in the wrong thread, if you want to talk about something other than the universe.

WAKE UP, WILLAMENA!!!!



Sorry, I just couldn't help myself. I don't know what time zone you live in, but what I posted was early morning, but you seemed be less awake than I am.

 

[Willamena]

Sorry, Willamena, but aren't you forgetting that this thread is about the "universe"?

The topic's title is "A Universe from Nothing?"

You are in the wrong thread, if you want to talk about something other than the universe.

WAKE UP, WILLAMENA!!!!



Sorry, I just couldn't help myself. I don't know what time zone you live in, but what I posted was early morning, but you seemed be less awake than I am.

I was talking about the universe.

Edit: Unless you want to get into the discussion that any part of the universe isn't the universe.

 

[gnostic]

I was talking about the universe.

Edit: Unless you want to get into the discussion that any part of the universe isn't the universe.

Ok. I thought you were hinting at something else.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And you think blind faith in your religious belief is better?

At least with models that you are so dismissive about, provide for eventually that it could "probably" be right or "probably" be wrong, but through more OBJECTIVE mean of testing the models (except for those categorised as "theoretical science", which are untestable, eg no experiments or evidences, but theoretical science at least use proof, eg mathematical equations).

Religious concept of the universe, is based on purely on primitive superstitions, dubious belief in supreme beings that they labeled as "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" or "Spirit" (which they also under the "superstition" category.

You said there are "overwhelming evidences" out there for the universe being "eternal", then please, by all mean provide some of those evidences.

You are as dodgy as unscrupulous used-car salesman. If there are plenty of evidences as you say, Ben, as you implied with "overwhelming", then show them, please.

How many times must I ask you for those overwhelming evidences, before you either give them or admit that you have no evidences?

I would give you the benefits of doubt, but you have been repeatedly stated your personal belief as if they were facts.

Facts required evidences, as I said before, not your rationality, not your dubious exercise in logic, not your belief or opinion.

All you have presented since you have been arguing with polymath over finite vs infinite is providing him with apologetic excuses and fallacies (particularly circular reasoning and moving the goalpost). You want polymath to present, but you refused to put those "overwhelming" evidences on the table.

Correct understanding is not faith, it is not belief, you may believe my understanding to be misunderstanding, and I understand and accept that.

As to facts, I have told you many times that universal existence is eternal because there is no known way it can have ever have come into existence from nothing, nor can it be made to cease existing. The manifested aspects may change, but the essential mass of the universe stays the same. This is a fact.

So don't just ignore my point and then claim again later in this or another thread that I don't provide you with the factual reason why the universe is eternal.