A Universe from Nothing?

[idav]

I posted the Wiki definition of space only as reference, but especially to highlight the fact that such a definition is a concept and a mathematical utility that works as a scientific tool. It does not tell us the nature of space. The dimensions you are referring to are specifically those of height, width, and depth, all measurements, which do not exist perse prior to space being measured. All of these dimensions must have a point A and a point B to be what they are. Such points of reference are arbitrary or have as a reference some other spatial object. IOW, they are not absolute, but relative values, both to each other, and to some other reference point, which also is relative. Ultimately, there is nothing in space itself that has any reference points. Even when applied, height, depth and width are only a skeletal framework, whereas space itself goes off in all directions from any single point. But the point is that, since there are no existing reference points in space, the dimensions of height, width, and depth are not inherent characteristics of space but are superimposed over dimensionless space by the human mind.

You are confusing the description of space with the nature of space.

If you wish to bow out, so be it, and thanks for the discussion, but my question remains:

"What is space prior to the mind's conception of height, depth, and width as being space itself?"

You say things so matter of fact though is mainly opinion. Math is a tool for describing reality and points exist in infinite beyond what the mind can even fathom. What do you suppose is being measured, nothing?

 

[godnotgod]

Math is a tool for describing reality and points exist in infinite beyond what the mind can even fathom. What do you suppose is being measured, nothing?

Can you tell me exactly how those 'points in infinity' are located?

Are you saying that math is telling us what the true nature of reality actually is, and if that is the case, can you show how this is so? Or are you just saying that math can only provide a description of reality, such as characteristics, behavior, etc, for the purposes of prediction?

Do clocks actually measure something real called Time, or do we mistake the tick of the clock for something called 'Time'?

 

[idav]

Can you tell me exactly how those 'points in infinity' are located?

Are you saying that math is telling us what the true nature of reality actually is, and if that is the case, can you show how this is so? Or are you just saying that math can only provide a description of reality, such as characteristics, behavior, etc, for the purposes of prediction?

Do clocks actually measure something real called Time, or do we mistake the tick of the clock for something called 'Time'?

It's a point that has stretched and can be divided into infinite amount of points.

Math is just a tool; it needs science.

No clocks don't really measure what time really is. I would describe time more as a force.

 

[gnostic]

Science uses the conceptual mind, non-dual still mind is non-conceptual, simple as that and you still don't get it.

Actually, this "non-dual still mind" is conceptual, because believing what you believe still required the mind to believe what you have is real.

The belief that your consciousness transcends beyond the physical, beyond the body and mind, still required heavy dose of blind faith, and therefore still pretty much conceptual.

You are simply bandying words, playing with what you think is conceptual and what isn't conceptual, is actually absurd.

 

[godnotgod]

It's a point that has stretched and can be divided into infinite amount of points.

Math is just a tool; it needs science.

No clocks don't really measure what time really is. I would describe time more as a force.

I did not ask if the point can be multiplied or stretched, but how it is initially located in space?

You stated that math can describe reality. How is that so, and does it now need science to do so?

So clocks do not tell us about Time. So can Time be measured, and with what tools?

 

[idav]

I did not ask if the point can be multiplied or stretched, but how it is initially located in space?

You stated that math can describe reality. How is that so, and does it now need science to do so?

So clocks do not tell us about Time. So can Time be measured, and with what tools?

There is now where, the Big Bang happened here and there and everywhere.

Sure math needs science, it is not infallible, like you said it's a tool, we use tools for specific uses.

Science experiments to measure spacetime are based on measuring force of gravity and or changes in speed which can tell how much of a force time has upon us.
Time dilation - Wikipedia

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Is this QV zp energy in space?

Yes...Vacuum energy - Wikipedia

Here is an interesting patent that indicates the potential to extract electrical energy from the zpe... System for converting electromagnetic radiation energy to electrical energy

"Because it exists in a vacuum, zero point radiation is homogeneous and isotropic as well as ubiquitous. In addition, since zero point radiation is also invariant with respect to Lorentz transformation, the zero point radiation spectrum has the characteristic that the intensity of the radiation at any frequency is proportional to the cube of that frequency. Consequently, the intensity of the radiation increases without limit as the frequency increases resulting in an infinite energy density for the radiation spectrum. With the introduction of the zero point radiation into the classical electron theory, a vacuum at a temperature of absolute zero is no longer considered empty of all electromagnetic fields. Instead, the vacuum is now considered as filled with randomly fluctuating fields having the zero point radiation spectrum. The special characteristics of the zero point radiation which are that it has a virtually infinite energy density and that it is ubiquitous (even present in outer space) make it very desirable as an energy source."

And another patent here... http://www.calphysics.org/Patent7379286.pdf

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Actually, this "non-dual still mind" is conceptual, because believing what you believe still required the mind to believe what you have is real.

The belief that your consciousness transcends beyond the physical, beyond the body and mind, still required heavy dose of blind faith, and therefore still pretty much conceptual.

You are simply bandying words, playing with what you think is conceptual and what isn't conceptual, is actually absurd.

As has been explained to you on numerous occasions, the real is on the other side of the concept of the real. The reality on the other side of the concept of non-duality can be realized through appropriate religious practice of still mind meditation. Some have already realized the transcendent state of mind beyond the concept of it. You obviously have not, and never will unless you learn to take the appropriate religious practice seriously. Those who have realized non-duality, use conceptual language only as an expedient to share the understanding of the way to realize also when asked, but as the saying goes....you can lead a horse to water but you can not make it drink...

 

[godnotgod]

.... the real is on the other side of the concept of the real. The reality on the other side of the concept of non-duality can be realized through appropriate religious practice of still mind meditation. Some have already realized the transcendent state of mind beyond the concept of it.

Is 'still mind' the same thing in Zen practice known as 'no-mind', as 'mind' itself is really a self-created principle.

 

[godnotgod]

There is now where, the Big Bang happened here and there and everywhere.

Sure math needs science, it is not infallible, like you said it's a tool, we use tools for specific uses.

Science experiments to measure spacetime are based on measuring force of gravity and or changes in speed which can tell how much of a force time has upon us.
Time dilation - Wikipedia

I don't think that is correct.

So math does NOT describe reality then, a claim you had initially made.

There was no 'where' at the moment of the BB, because, at least according to theory, space did not yet exist.

You had initially stated that:

"Math is a tool for describing reality and points exist in infinity"

I then asked: "How are these points located?", to which you have yet to provide an answer.

 

[godnotgod]

.... the real is on the other side of the concept of the real. The reality on the other side of the concept of non-duality can be realized through appropriate religious practice of still mind meditation.

The Other Side
One day a young Buddhist on his journey home came to the banks of a wide river. Staring hopelessly at the great obstacle in front of him, he pondered for hours on just how to cross such a wide barrier.

Just as he was about to give up his pursuit to continue his journey he saw a great teacher on the other side of the river. The young Buddhist yells over to the teacher, “Oh wise one, can you tell me how to get to the other side of this river”?

The teacher ponders for a moment looks up and down the river and yells back, “My son, you are on the other side”.

10 Short Zen Stories

It is true: Samsara and Nirvana are not different.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Is 'still mind' the same thing in Zen practice known as 'no-mind', as 'mind' itself is really a self-created principle.

Yes, when the brain mind is still and free from thought, there is no 'I' arising to judge and create duality, non-dual awareness is then present.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The Other Side
One day a young Buddhist on his journey home came to the banks of a wide river. Staring hopelessly at the great obstacle in front of him, he pondered for hours on just how to cross such a wide barrier.

Just as he was about to give up his pursuit to continue his journey he saw a great teacher on the other side of the river. The young Buddhist yells over to the teacher, “Oh wise one, can you tell me how to get to the other side of this river”?

The teacher ponders for a moment looks up and down the river and yells back, “My son, you are on the other side”.

10 Short Zen Stories

It is true: Samsara and Nirvana are not different.

Some sayings to ponder...

While the Tathagata, in his teaching, constantly makes use of conceptions and ideas about them, disciples should keep in mind the unreality of all such conceptions and ideas. They should recall that the Tathagata, in making use of them in explaining the Dharma always uses them in the semblance of a raft that is of use only to cross a river. As the raft is of no further use after the river is crossed, it should be discarded. So these arbitrary conceptions of things and about things should be wholly given up as one attains enlightenment. -Buddha ...

In essence things are not two but one. ...All duality is falsely imagined. —Lankavatara Sutra (Buddhist)

The fundamental idea of Buddhism is to pass beyond the world of opposites, a world built up by intellectual distinctions and emotional defilements. - D.T. Suzuki...

No matter what a deluded man may think he is perceiving, he is really seeing Brahman and nothing else but Brahman. ...This universe, which is superimposed upon Brahman, is nothing but a name. —Shankara (Hindu)

If we will see things truly, they are strangers to goodness, truth and everything that tolerates any distinction. They are intimates of the One that is bare of any kind of multiplicity and distinction. —Meister Eckhart (Christian)

That Oneness is on the other side of descriptions and states. Nothing but duality enters speech's playing-field. —Rumi (Muslim)

He is the Eternal among things that pass away, pure Consciousness of conscious beings. —Upanishads (Hindu)

All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but the One Mind, besides which nothing exists. —Huang Po (Buddhist)

The light by which the soul is illumined, in order that it may see and truly understand everything...is God himself. —St. Augustine (Christian)

He is the spirit of the cosmos, its hearing, its sight, and its hand. Through Him the cosmos hears, through Him it sees, through Him it speaks, through Him it grasps, through Him it runs. —Ibn 'Arabi (Muslim)

Mind comes from this sublime and completely unified source above; it is divided only as it enters into the universe of distinctions. —Menahem Nahum (Jewish)

It is by descending into the depths of his own self that man wanders through all the dimensions of the world; in his own self he lifts the barriers which separate one sphere from the other; in his own self, finally, he transcends the limits of natural existence and at the end of his way, without, as it were, a single step beyond himself, he discovers that God is 'all in all' and there is 'nothing but Him'. —Gershom Scholem (Jewish)

When a man knows God, he is free: his sorrows have an end, and birth and death are no more. —Upanishads (Hindu)

What is suffering? What is death? In reality, they do not have any existence. They appear within the framework of the manifestations produced by the mind wrapped up in an illusion. ...In the emptiness of mind, there is no death. No one dies. There is no suffering and no fear. —Bokar Rinpoche (Buddhist)

When the false apprehension is negated...from the heart of the enlightened ones, then "death shall be swallowed up forever and God will erase tears from every face."—Abraham Abulafia (Jewish)

I have been delivered from this ego and self-will—alive or dead, what an affliction! But alive or dead, I have no homeland other than God's Bounty. —Rumi (Muslim)

Those who practice know whether realization is attained or not, just as those who drink water know whether it is hot or cold. —Dogen (Buddhist)

 

[godnotgod]

You mistake your understanding of reality as reality rather than an attempt to understand reality.

My understanding is not based upon a mental construct about what I see; it is based upon what I see and directly experience. In terms of the topic, I directly experience what space is, because I am integrated with space. It is part of who and what I am.

I don't need an explanation for any of your claims beyond the following: To know whether or not you have the ability to explain them or not.

The true nature of Reality cannot ever be explained in rational terms, which is why science will never, ever be able to do so. The assumption science operates upon is that, at some point of critical mass, enough knowledge will have been accumulated leading to an 'Ah, HA!' moment where everything will just 'make sense' in rational terms. Pure folly.

I'm actually going to posit that the default stance for understanding is that you cannot possibly know the true nature of things. At best you can come to a high approximation. You have no direct experience. Everything is through your imperfect sensory faculties.

The direct experience is an inner one NOT via sensory faculties. It involves a transformation of consciousness that you have yet to experience, in which what you thought to be the case via the rational mind is not actually the case. Quantum Physics is the closest to that experience that science has come to as it has overturned the applecart of Newtonian Physics, and in many cases, that of the materialist paradigm.

I just think it's highly egotistical for you to make the claim that you do see the true nature of things. Here's my stance: Even if i did think i had the true answers to things, i would understand that it'd be wrong and not helpful at all to make claims that i either could see the true nature of things, or that it would even be possible. Because i cannot show it to you or anyone else beyond any reasonable doubt.

And neither can you. And you haven't.

You're just not paying close attention to what I and ben have been saying, especially about the fact that the experience is transcendent of all personal views. IOW, the view that emerges is not MY personal view or ben's; it is a view transcendent of self and ego altogether, so cannot be an egotistical statement. I fail to see why you cannot understand that the true nature of things is realizable. Why is it such a big deal to you?

The "correct" way in my view, would be to show people the WAY to reach such understanding by their own. You haven't been able to do this at all. You're not even trying.

The correct way is to point to their own inner experience, and I do not mean that of the thinking mind. That is what I have been doing. I have consistently said to 'go see for yourself', just as the other prisoners in Plato's Cave would need to do in order to realize that the escaped prisoner was telling the truth about a Sun outside the Cave. All he can do is to 'point to the Moon', so to speak. Until the others go topside to see for themselves, there will be no convincing.

So you proclaim. You didn't show how knowledge is an obstacle for "seeing what is."

Because factual knowledge is based upon dead facts and data and can only create a view of the world as a collection of dead unconscious 'things'. It's in the way of having a clear, unobstructed view; one that is uncolored and unconditioned.

You're still talking like a priest. Saying how things are. How do you know? How did you arrive to the conclusion that your experience isn't merely an illusion fed by your ego?

Partly because it is transcendent of ego. Do you think we are so stupid and ignorant that we don't know the machinations of the ego when we see them, having perhaps spent years struggling with it to finally overcome it's pitfalls? Don't worry. We know every dirty trick in the book the ego is capable of. But we've got it covered, because we know it to be an illusion, and that because the inner vision has been sufficiently developed and sharpened to see it for what it is.

You didn't. You just chose to accept the things fed through your conceptualizing mind and sensory faculties. It was your conceptualizing mind telling you that your mind has stopped conceptualizing. And it has trapped you through your own biases.

There's nothing going on when the mind ceases to conceptualize, other than just seeing things as they are. This kind of view is uncontaminated by thought. I am not claiming this is how my consciousness is 24/7. It has been estimated that perhaps 5% of the population has achieved this state, called Cosmic Consciousness. I think maybe even less. But via practice over some length of time, eventually one is able to go longer and longer periods without thought. This is called living in the Fourth Room, the room of Self-Transcendence, or Self-Remembering; that of The Observer. The instruction is to go into the Fourth Room as often as one can, and stay there for as long as one can.

You have stated those things. But you haven't shown how it's true. At least we tried to show how the other position might be true. You simply make statements that we should believe.

Again, I am not the one making the claim that space is the dimensions of height, width, and depth. The default is that it is not. So until this can be proven beyond being a concept, I operate on the premise that space is just empty of such add-ons.

This doesn't question it very effectively though as has been demonstrated. It's merely asking the question: "What is anything before we think about it?"[/QUOTE]

Right. What is the nature of Reality before the mind attempts to create concepts about it? Isn't it obvious that to know this is far more desirable than merely forming concepts and models about what is real?

So you proclaim. But you haven't shown this to be true in any way except perhaps through copious amounts of wishful thinking.

I say they can understand it to a large degree eventually. Definitely larger degree than Mr. Subjective Internet Person.

I've already explained several times why that is not possible.

That's all anyone could ever hope for. Even you.

It is because of this problem with science that many seek higher ground, and find it. Science still remains part of their view, but it is now enhanced by the transformation of consciousness which they have experienced. They now see the findings of science in the context of Reality, rather than the other way around.

I don't actually see you providing a better alternative at all.

The alternative I have posited is to see that The Universe is none other than Pure Abstract Intelligence. Is that not far more compelling than the dead materialist world that science offers.?

 

[godnotgod]

Those who practice know whether realization is attained or not, just as those who drink water know whether it is hot or cold. —Dogen (Buddhist)

Darkstorn, here is the answer to your question.

 

[Thief]

There is now where, the Big Bang happened here and there and everywhere.

Sure math needs science, it is not infallible, like you said it's a tool, we use tools for specific uses.

Science experiments to measure spacetime are based on measuring force of gravity and or changes in speed which can tell how much of a force time has upon us.
Time dilation - Wikipedia

but time is not a force or a substance

let's see if you can demonstrate.....

 

[DavidFirth]

Just for craps and giggles, check this out

 

[godnotgod]

Just for craps and giggles, check this out

Funny! I might add that an atheist, from a Hindu's POV, is God pretending he doesn't exist, while a Christian is God pretending he is someone else.

 

[DavidFirth]

Funny! I might add that an atheist, from a Hindu's POV, is God pretending he doesn't exist, while a Christian is God pretending he is someone else.

Not as funny.

 

[idav]

but time is not a force or a substance

let's see if you can demonstrate.....

They demonstrated the experiments in space, indeed time is like a force, the more we escape the force the more we become immortal. That's just how physics works Eisntien has been correct about gravity and time dilation.