A Universe from Nothing?

[Rick O'Shez]

I showed two examples of our ability to observe quantum states which mystical interpretations think is impossible to observe.

Honestly, I wouldn't waste any time on Chopra-style pseudo-science.

 

[godnotgod]

I exposed your pseudo-science on time earlier in the thread and yet you still persist with this nonsense. Can't you see the man is a charlatan? How can you be so gullible?

And what about the clock experiment, I'm still waiting for your report on how that went.

Show me one example of his charlatan antics.

I'm not going to indulge in silly ill-concieved experiments the premises of which are faulty.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I'm not going to indulge in silly ill-concieved experiments the premises of which are faulty.

I knew it! You won't do the experiment because it would prove me right and you wrong. Talk about burying your head in the sand ( or retreating down your rabbit hole ).

The nice thing about this simple experiment is that anyone can do it at home and prove it for themselves.

 

[godnotgod]

So now you're a fake Zennist pretending to be a Hindu. How do keep all these charades going?

You, who claim to hate labels, are somehow surgically attached to them. Why is it that you don't understand how to separate Reality from the doctrine which generated the labels to describe it? 'The Absolute' is not necessarily Hindu in character. Ultimate Reality is not necessarily Zen in character.

 

[godnotgod]

I knew it! You won't do the experiment because it would prove me right and you wrong. Talk about burying your head in the sand ( or retreating down your rabbit hole ).

The nice thing about this simple experiment is that anyone can do it at home and prove it for themselves.

You're full of it.

 

[idav]

The assumption is that The Universe is a material affair; a 'something'. But Quantum Mechanics now points to the fact that all of the mass of the atom is virtual mass, continually created via fluctuations in the Unified Field, sort of like the images on your computer screen are recreated many times a second, called 'refresh rate'. There is no such 'matter'. We are dealing with appearances, but those of a higher order. The Universe we envision as 'real' has hardness, solidity, texture, sound, etc. IOW, a universe accessible via perception. It is this Unified Field that is Pure Abstract Intelligence, out of which Everything comes; essentially Everything comes out of Nothing. This idea solves the problem of the origin of the original material out of which the Universe emerged, since there is no such material to be concerned about. The only true Reality is Pure Consciousness. The Big Bang was (and still is) an event in Consciousness. This also suggests that brains are created by Consciousness, and not the other way around. Consciousness is Pure Nothingness.

This is what you used to resurrect this thread. Do you have any evidence to back any of this up? Particularly the part where you say "essentially Everything comes out of Nothing". There are no facts here pure proselytizing of opinion.

 

[godnotgod]

I showed two examples of our ability to observe quantum states which mystical interpretations think is impossible to observe.

draws a blank...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You, who claim to hate labels, are somehow surgically attached to them. Why is it that you don't understand how to separate Reality from the doctrine which generated the labels to describe it? 'The Absolute' is not necessarily Hindu in character. Ultimate Reality is not necessarily Zen in character. [/COLOR]

Here we go again. "Reality", "The Absolute", "Ultimate Reality". Meaningless word salad, jargon buzz-words, worthless drivel. You should flush them down the toilet.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There are no facts here pure proselytizing of opinion.

That is always how it is.

 

[godnotgod]

This is what you used to resurrect this thread. Do you have any evidence to back any of this up? Particularly the part where you say "essentially Everything comes out of Nothing". There are no facts here pure proselytizing of opinion.

Do you recall that I have stated many times that the spiritual experience cannot be verified via rational means? Let us square with that fact first of all, OK?

 

[godnotgod]

Here we go again. "Reality", "The Absolute", "Ultimate Reality". Meaningless word salad, jargon buzz-words, worthless drivel. You should flush them down the toilet.

It's the stagnant backwater teachings of Hinayana that need to be triple flushed.

Whoooosh!

Ah, now I have a nice clear view of the lovely Moon.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Do you recall that I have stated many times that the spiritual experience cannot be verified via rational means? Let us square with that fact first of all, OK?

That isn't an excuse to preach irrational pseudo-science.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It's the stagnant backwater teachings of Hinayana that need to be triple flushed.

You are clueless, there are no "Hinayana" schools. You are clearly a fake Zennist and know nothing about Buddhism, so stop pretending. You might do better as a fake Hindu, your beliefs are much more in that direction. Perhaps Advaita Vedanta would suit you. I think it would be good for you to practice with a proper school of some sort, you have obviously lost all direction.

 

[godnotgod]

That isn't an excuse to preach irrational pseudo-science.

The concern is not with science, but with non-rational nature.

 

[godnotgod]

You are clueless, there are no "Hinayana" schools. You are clearly a fake Zennist and know nothing about Buddhism, so stop pretending. You might do better as a fake Hindu, your beliefs are much more in that direction. Perhaps Advaita Vedanta would suit you. I think it would be good for you to practice with a proper school of some sort, you have obviously lost all direction.

Theravada.....Flush-ee-pooh! bye bye ....there it goes, far out to sea.....

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The concern is not with science, but with non-rational nature.

Well stop using pseudo-science then.

 

[idav]

Do you recall that I have stated many times that the spiritual experience cannot be verified via rational means? Let us square with that fact first of all, OK?

Then why claim to use objective observation via science? You claimed some science, where are the facts? You claim particles pop out of nothingness, feel free to show the science that says this. Nothing in science says they are not real.

Here is some evidence.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/

 

[godnotgod]

Well stop using pseudo-science then.

I never have. What 's your problem?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Theravada.....Flush-ee-pooh! bye bye ....there it goes, far out to sea.....

How ironic, a fake Buddhist being sectarian. So you did what, a few years going to a Zen place, then converted to Chopra. You really are clueless.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I never have. What 's your problem?

You preach pseudo-science on these threads all the time, don't lie. Most recently on the time question. You learned the pseudo-science thing from your master, Chopra.

It's all just smoke and mirrors from a seller of snake-oil.