A Universe from Nothing?

[ChristineM]

I never said it wasn't. I said that, in your example of '10 metres', it is one of the dimensions of height, width, or depth, but that '10 metres' does not exist inherently to space. It exists inherently to the measuring device which yields the value: '10 metres'.

Don't talk nonsense, go look up the definition of space and stop wasting my time

 

[Darkstorn]

Yes, 'relative' to the measuring device. There is nothing existing in 'space' that includes dimensions we call 'height, depth, or width', because space itself has no reference point from which to determine the existence of such dimensions. They exist only as conceptual models, relative to some arbitrary reference point.

Do you see what you just did? You jumped from: 'model; concept, and description of space', to saying exactly what ChristineM is saying: 'dimensions are that space'. In the same breath, you just stated that space is a model and a concept, both descriptions of space, and then jumped to saying that dimensions make up space. That is illogical. You cannot have it both ways. Dimensions cannot be both a concept/model about space, and inherent to space at the same time. But you probably fail to see the illogic of your position, even though I have brought it out into the light for all to see. Put simply, you're not thinking properly.

Spacetime - Wikipedia

And:

Space - Wikipedia

It's ALL there. Trust me.

But you probably fail to see the illogic of your position, even though I have brought it out into the light for all to see.

You seem awfully sure of your position. However, from the looks of it, the reality of the situation is that you simply have no idea what space actually is.

Dimensions are also a concept and a "model" in case you weren't aware.

/E: You seem to be claiming that i'm illogical, but for some reason, are unable to actually show it in practice. Until you can, your claim is empty and without merit.

"In the same breath, you just stated that space is a model and a concept, both descriptions of space, and then jumped to saying that dimensions make up space. That is illogical. "

Neither of those things contradict each other. So you have failed to show how it's illogical within the statement. You merely make the claim. That is a logical fallacy.

I also never said "descriptions of space" but "attempt to describe reality." Space is an attempt to describe reality. So you are also suffering from a bad case of putting words into peoples' mouths and then inventing an argument based on those imagined words.

 

[godnotgod]

Don't talk nonsense, go look up the definition of space and stop wasting my time

You said: "space is those dimensions", so you have already defined it. How is space 'those dimensions' when ultimately, there is no up, down, left or right. All directions are no direction and every direction at the same time.

 

[godnotgod]

It's ALL there. Trust me.

Trust you? Surely you jest!

You seem awfully sure of your position. However, from the looks of it, the reality of the situation is that you simply have no idea what space actually is.

The reality of the situation is that space does not actually exist, as the case is with time and causation. It's just a concept, remember?

Dimensions are also a concept and a "model" in case you weren't aware.

/E: You seem to be claiming that i'm illogical, but for some reason, are unable to actually show it in practice. Until you can, your claim is empty and without merit.

"In the same breath, you just stated that space is a model and a concept, both descriptions of space, and then jumped to saying that dimensions make up space. That is illogical. "

Neither of those things contradict each other. So you have failed to show how it's illogical within the statement. You merely make the claim. That is a logical fallacy.

...from your Wiki link:

"[Kant] came to the conclusion that space and time are not discovered by humans to be objective features of the world, but imposed by us as part of a framework for organizing experience."

Space - Wikipedia

Experience: something that happens to us where consciousness is involved, without which no experience is possible. In terms of what Kant is saying, it is via consciousness that we impose such experiential frameworks.

I also never said "descriptions of space" but "attempt to describe reality." Space is an attempt to describe reality. So you are also suffering from a bad case of putting words into peoples' mouths and then inventing an argument based on those imagined words.

correction: 'description of reality' is the same as 'attempt to describe reality': what I meant, point being that it is a mental description, but not the reality we actually experience, before any attempt is made to define it. What we are actually experiencing is not 'space', but consciousness.

 

[gnostic]

When I refer to living in the present moment, I am not talking about existence in terms of years, nor birth, nor death; I am talking about Being, which is Unborn, Uncaused, and Unconditioned, and therefore deathless. This Being, and not your fictional existence in Time and Space, is who you really are. When Being awakens, you will find yourself living in the Eternity that has always existed as this Present Moment. That you have a body that is born and dies is inconsequential. Your awakened consciousness is unborn and never dies, because it does not exist in Time or Space, and has no history nor memory. Then you will be Deathless, and experience real life, and not just an imitation of life.

Sorry, but I am finding everything said here as wonderfully new agey, but also wishful thinking.

Consciousness, whether it be "awakened" as you said, or not, don't exist for eternity, nor do either exist outside of the living physical brain. Once death occurred, the brain ceased to function, consciousness shut down.

To me, it is your "Being" or "Consciousness", to be fictionalised. Neither are eternal, nor can it survive beyond death.

 

[godnotgod]

Sorry, but I am finding everything said here as wonderfully new agey, but also wishful thinking.

Consciousness, whether it be "awakened" as you said, or not, don't exist for eternity, nor do either exist outside of the living physical brain. Once death occurred, the brain ceased to function, consciousness shut down.

To me, it is your "Being" or "Consciousness", to be fictionalised. Neither are eternal, nor can it survive beyond death.

If you think consciousness is an emergent property of the brain which amounts to so many electro-chemical reactions, then yes, you are correct: it does not survive beyond physical death.

But the experience of spiritual awakening is the realization that consciousness is non-local; that it has always been the case; that is has never come into being, and because of that, will it never cease to be; that it is, unlike the mind, unconditioned and free of all taint; that it is like the vast sea that the fish is born into, and not just so much mental thought that emerges from the limited mind/brain. It is the vast sea that you are born into when you undergo this unfolding; this awakening to what is. It is the dissolution of the illusory self that thinks it contains consciousness, when it is consciousness that contains and permeates everything. It is the realization that the universe is not dead, unconscious matter, but living, conscious, intelligent, and vibrant energy at all scales of existence.

Contrary to what you think and have been taught by your sterile black and white science, consciousness is not created by the brain; the brain is the product of consciousness. The brain is how consciousness automates the functions of the body, so it can focus on what is up front in the immediate here and now. If consciousness had to pa attention to beating the heart, breathing the breath, flowing the blood, digesting nutrients, etc, at every single moment, we would not be able to enjoy an existence beyond mere survival. In fact, we may not even be able to survive if our attention were constantly diverted from things in the immediate present, such as a tiger lurking in the bush. So consciousness hard-wires the brain for certain autonomic and repetitive functions. We now know, for example, that long term meditators actually grow thicker cerebral cortexes than non-meditators, a sign that higher consciousness is re-arranging the brain in ways that the ordinary man knows nothing about.

If you think consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, then show me how non-material consciousness is created by the material brain. At which point does this occur? No one has come up with a satisfactory answer to date, not even close.

Your consciousness is not your consciousness, but is the consciousness of The Universe. You don't think so, because you cling to "I", and "I" thinks it is the doer of everything, when the reality is that "I" is a total illusion.

 

[ChristineM]

You said: "space is those dimensions", so you have already defined it. How is space 'those dimensions' when ultimately, there is no up, down, left or right. All directions are no direction and every direction at the same time.

Up, down, left or right are irrelevant to length, width and heigh.

 

[godnotgod]

Up, down, left or right are irrelevant to length, width and heigh.

I can climb up to a height of x feet; extend my arms out to a width of x feet to the left and x feet to the right; and travel forward to a depth of x feet.

re: 'space is those dimensions':

What is 'space' prior to your defining it in terms of dimension?

 

[gnostic]

If you think consciousness is an emergent property of the brain which amounts to so many electro-chemical reactions, then yes, you are correct: it does not survive beyond physical death.

But the experience of spiritual awakening is the realization that consciousness is non-local; that it has always been the case; that is has never come into being, and because of that, will it never cease to be; that it is, unlike the mind, unconditioned and free of all taint; that it is like the vast sea that the fish is born into, and not just so much mental thought that emerges from the limited mind/brain. It is the vast sea that you are born into when you undergo this unfolding; this awakening to what is. It is the dissolution of the illusory self that thinks it contains consciousness, when it is consciousness that contains and permeates everything. It is the realization that the universe is not dead, unconscious matter, but living, conscious, intelligent, and vibrant energy at all scales of existence.

Contrary to what you think and have been taught by your sterile black and white science, consciousness is not created by the brain; the brain is the product of consciousness. The brain is how consciousness automates the functions of the body, so it can focus on what is up front in the immediate here and now. If consciousness had to pa attention to beating the heart, breathing the breath, flowing the blood, digesting nutrients, etc, at every single moment, we would not be able to enjoy an existence beyond mere survival. In fact, we may not even be able to survive if our attention were constantly diverted from things in the immediate present, such as a tiger lurking in the bush. So consciousness hard-wires the brain for certain autonomic and repetitive functions. We now know, for example, that long term meditators actually grow thicker cerebral cortexes than non-meditators, a sign that higher consciousness is re-arranging the brain in ways that the ordinary man knows nothing about.

If you think consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, then show me how non-material consciousness is created by the material brain. At which point does this occur? No one has come up with a satisfactory answer to date, not even close.

Your consciousness is not your consciousness, but is the consciousness of The Universe. You don't think so, because you cling to "I", and "I" thinks it is the doer of everything, when the reality is that "I" is a total illusion.

Dream on. I'll leave you to your delusion.

 

[`mud]

Ahhhhh...`dimensions`....those entities that extend beyond life,
the non-cognizant beginning of the after-life,
the Nirvana of the continuing, non-visible, exitance.

 

[ChristineM]

I can climb up to a height of x feet; extend my arms out x feet to the left and x feet to the right; and travel forward to a depth of x feet.

re: 'space is those dimensions':

What is 'space' prior to your defining it in terms of dimension?

Read the definition and stop making a fool of yourself

 

[godnotgod]

Read the definition and stop making a fool of yourself

Oh, I don't mind at all.

Space

Space is the boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events have relative position and direction. Physical space is often conceived in three linear dimensions, although modern physicists usually consider it, with time, to be part of a boundless four-dimensional continuum known as spacetime. The concept of space is considered to be of fundamental importance to an understanding of the physical universe. However, disagreement continues between philosophers over whether it is itself an entity, a relationship between entities, or part of a conceptual framework.
Space - Wikipedia

So can you tell me: what is 'space' prior to the mind's defining it?

 

[godnotgod]

Dream on. I'll leave you to your delusion.

Can you tell me: where does 'your' consciousness leave off and the outside world begin?

 

[ChristineM]

Oh, I don't mind at all.

Space

Space is the boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events have relative position and direction. Physical space is often conceived in three linear dimensions, although modern physicists usually consider it, with time, to be part of a boundless four-dimensional continuum known as spacetime. The concept of space is considered to be of fundamental importance to an understanding of the physical universe. However, disagreement continues between philosophers over whether it is itself an entity, a relationship between entities, or part of a conceptual framework.
Space - Wikipedia

So can you tell me: what is 'space' prior to the mind's defining it?

From your copy and paste

Space is the boundless three-dimensional extent ...

End of story, thanks for being so honest.

Ok... space was space

 

[godnotgod]

From your copy and paste

Space is the boundless three-dimensional extent ...

End of story, thanks for being so honest.

Ok... space was space

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...what a joke!

"grampa monk, what color is that tree?"
"why, it's the color that it is, my dear"

 

[ChristineM]

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...what a joke!

"grampa monk, what color is that tree?"
"why, it's the color that it is, my dear"

So funny when your days of ranting and denial is shown to be nonsense. Even funnier when you are too embarrassed to admit your childish bs

 

[godnotgod]

So funny when your days of ranting and denial is shown to be nonsense. Even funnier when you are too embarrassed to admit your childish bs

ahem.....seriously, now:

(godnotgod splashes cold water in his face....)

Would you like to attempt an answer to:

What is "space" prior to the mind's attempt to define it?

hint: the answer is NOT "the dimensions of length, width, and height."

 

[Darkstorn]

hint: the answer is NOT "the dimensions of length, width, and height."

There is no such thing as "space" without the three dimensions. The term literally refers to it: "three-dimensional extent."

It is not currently known whether space is an inherent quality of the universe, or of reality, or merely our attempt to describe it. But current consensus points to this: Space is an explanation for the universe. It's not the universe itself.

I think you're literally trying to argue that you have direct experience of "space," and that we must count your experience valid and NOT delusional. Fine. You're enlightened. Whatever.

The point is, you don't know that there's space beyond the dimensions of length, width and height. You claim that you do. But you haven't been able to show us with any reasonable ability that this is ACTUALLY the case: That you actually know what you're talking about.

I think there's a huge problem here:

"ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...what a joke!"

Is the level of argument you can muster. That is it. You are the pettiest enlightened being i've ever witnessed. Either you are enlightened and it's only meant for egotistical fools, or then you are not and are merely thinking too highly of yourself. In either case, i'm better off ignoring your existence. I don't think your arguments are convincing even if there was no one arguing with you.

/E: I think it's worth noting that you keep asking "What is "space" prior to the mind's attempt to define it? " and not actually being able to say anything about it except new-age hippy stuff confused with Buddhism. I'll tell you now: No Buddhist would ever go against the findings of verified science. But new age hippies would have no problems with that.

I'll one up you: "What is *anything* prior to the mind's attempt to define it?"

Hint: The answer most definitely is not "universal consciousness" unless you can somehow verify it beyond the level of wishful thinking.

And if others have to use science to come up with their answers, then the same should be required of you. Your new-age rants are definitely not scientific. A lot of it hinges on faith, assumption, circular reasoning and personal stakes. Not actually translatable universal arguments. Just very subjective assessments of reality, and mistaken for the ultimate answer.

 

[godnotgod]

There is no such thing as "space" without the three dimensions. The term literally refers to it: "three-dimensional extent."

It is not currently known whether space is an inherent quality of the universe, or of reality, or merely our attempt to describe it. But current consensus points to this: Space is an explanation for the universe. It's not the universe itself.

I think you're literally trying to argue that you have direct experience of "space," and that we must count your experience valid and NOT delusional. Fine. You're enlightened. Whatever.

The point is, you don't know that there's space beyond the dimensions of length, width and height. You claim that you do. But you haven't been able to show us with any reasonable ability that this is ACTUALLY the case: That you actually know what you're talking about.

I think there's a huge problem here:

"ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...what a joke!"

Is the level of argument you can muster. That is it. You are the pettiest enlightened being i've ever witnessed. Either you are enlightened and it's only meant for egotistical fools, or then you are not and are merely thinking too highly of yourself. In either case, i'm better off ignoring your existence. I don't think your arguments are convincing even if there was no one arguing with you.

/E: I think it's worth noting that you keep asking "What is "space" prior to the mind's attempt to define it? " and not actually being able to say anything about it except new-age hippy stuff confused with Buddhism. I'll tell you now: No Buddhist would ever go against the findings of verified science. But new age hippies would have no problems with that.

I'll one up you: "What is *anything* prior to the mind's attempt to define it?"

Hint: The answer most definitely is not "universal consciousness" unless you can somehow verify it beyond the level of wishful thinking.

And if others have to use science to come up with their answers, then the same should be required of you. Your new-age rants are definitely not scientific. A lot of it hinges on faith, assumption, circular reasoning and personal stakes. Not actually translatable universal arguments. Just very subjective assessments of reality, and mistaken for the ultimate answer.

I have no idea what you're talking about...I never made any claim to enlightenment. I am just asking a simple question.

Obviously science applies a definition to 'something' already existent and detectable it calls 'space', whether it be actual or conceptual.

Actually, much of Buddhist, especially Zen thought, is based upon what is prior to the mind conceptualizing what is.* It's not that Buddhism is against the findings of science; it's that the insight that Buddhism provides is beyond science. Science is about description and prediction; Buddhism is about the nature of things. It has no conflict with science.

Who says everyone is required to use science for their answers? Science?

We detect a vacancy around us that is between physical objects. Science calls it 'dimensions of height, width, and depth'. That describes it in terms of measurement. Prior to that, it has no such measurement. Therefore measurement is superimposed over what we call 'space'. Before any description is assigned to it, what is it perse? You're trying to tell me that the description is actually that which is being described. If you mean that as purely conceptual, then OK. But in reality, we experience something we call 'space', as we think of ourselves as moving within it all the time.

*One example of this is:

SHUZAN held up his staff and waved it before his monks.

"If you call this a staff," he said, "you deny its eternal life. If you do not call this a staff, you deny its present fact. Tell me just what do you propose to call it?"

 

[ChristineM]

ahem.....seriously, now:

(godnotgod splashes cold water in his face....)

Would you like to attempt an answer to:

What is "space" prior to the mind's attempt to define it?

hint: the answer is NOT "the dimensions of length, width, and height."

Space was space, the rise of humanity has not altered it in any way