A Universe from Nothing?

[ChristineM]

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?"

Wiki? Wow, pardon the mirth interlude...

...

And the very first line highlighted dimensions, you were embarrassed and now you start all over again hoping for a different answering.

Not happening..

 

[ChristineM]

The reference was not to the Buddha's experience, but to Zen, which came about after Buddhism. Anyway, the point is that the spiritual experience is not about belief in the supernatural, but to simply be here now, without forming any idea in mind about what you see, which leads me to the question I have been asking all along:

'Before the formation of ideas of dimensions and the like, what is space?'

I'm not interested in getting into heaven as I never left it in the first place, or more accurately, it's never not been inside of me.

Zen is a branch of Buddhism is it not?

Whatever you voices are telling you is good for you

 

[ChristineM]

Haha..I said it was a religious practice to realize transcendence, and you say no it is not a religious practice, religion must be involved...

There is no absolute nothing in QM, the QV zpe is omnipresent.

Nope, religion need not be a factor. Here is a philosophy page describing different means of transcendence

The Varieties of Transcendent Experience

Please read it and learn

 

[DavidFirth]

Nope, religion need not be a factor. Here is a philosophy page describing different means of transcendence

The Varieties of Transcendent Experience

Please read it and learn

I am fond of this extract from that link:

"Even among leading atheists, one sees a variety of these positions, from those like Richard Dawkins who dismiss all talk of transcendence as so much woo-woo, to those like Christopher Hitchens, who asserted that “there is something beyond the material, or not entirely consistent with it, what you could call the Numinous, the Transcendent, or at its best the Ecstatic…Without this we really would merely be primates.”

 

[ChristineM]

I am fond of this extract from that link:

"Even among leading atheists, one sees a variety of these positions, from those like Richard Dawkins who dismiss all talk of transcendence as so much woo-woo, to those like Christopher Hitchens, who asserted that “there is something beyond the material, or not entirely consistent with it, what you could call the Numinous, the Transcendent, or at its best the Ecstatic…Without this we really would merely be primates.”

An interesting extract when you consider that we are primate's.

 

[ChristineM]

Just for craps and giggles, check this out

But, but, but...

That's not any definition of atheism.

That's just a meme made by creationist who don't know anything about the development of the universe. But do have a whole museum dedicated to their leader riding on a dinosaur.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nope, religion need not be a factor. Here is a philosophy page describing different means of transcendence

The Varieties of Transcendent Experience

Please read it and learn

Haha.....you are so disingenuous, how do you live with yourself? I merely stated that there is no belief involved in stilling the mind, it is a religious practice. #4255 You replied by saying no, stilling the mind was not a religious practice, just a practice. #4259 This poster has practiced religious meditation and realized a still mind, get over it,

 

[gnostic]

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?

Maths can only represent reality, usually as models or equations, or both. Maths rely more on proving the maths, eg solving the mathematical equations, hence a mathematical solution is "proof".

Science, on the other hand, is even more objective, because it rely on repeated testing the reality, which will either objectively be shown (A) to be "true", therefore it has been "verified" or (B) to be "false", therefore it has been "refuted".

Conclusion are based on the tally of test results. The more tests shown to have positive results, then the more probable it is. But if the results have more negatives than positives, then it is less probable or even be improbable.

The whole idea of formulating a hypothesis (eg explanation) based on preliminary observation, making predictions, testing the predictions, analysing the data, (eg tests results), and conclusion, are steps known as scientific method.

Science rely more on probability and observation (eg tests, experiments or evidences) than on mathematical proofs (eg equations or logic models).

Observation is about observing, detecting, measuring and testing.

Science do have some maths, eg equations and formulas, but it required testing the premise or finding verifiable evidences, to determine if it is true or false.

If any statement or premise of the hypothesis or theory, is "untestable", then it is not falsifiable, and therefore not scientific.

Real science involved with falsification and scientific method.

 

[gnostic]

Haha.....you are so disingenuous, how do you live with yourself? I merely stated that there is no belief involved in stilling the mind, it is a religious practice. #4255 You replied by saying no, stilling the mind was not a religious practice, just a practice. #4259 This poster has practiced religious meditation and realized a still mind, get over it,

What you don't seem to be getting is this "stilling the mind" is based on a person's say so that his or her mind has been "still".

How do anyone objectively verify any mind has been stilled?

How do we know that transcendence is not merely a person's hallucinating imagination or worse, delusion?

This why I don't think stilling a mind any more true than faith-based belief.

 

[godnotgod]

Wiki? Wow, pardon the mirth interlude...

...

And the very first line highlighted dimensions, you were embarrassed and now you start all over again hoping for a different answering.

Not happening..

You are misunderstanding. I realize that is the scientific definition of space, which also includes the word 'concept', but that does not mean I was posting it because I agree with that definition. No. I do not agree that the dimensions of height, width, and depth are what space is at all. As I said, those dimensions are concepts superimposed over what we physically perceive as 'space'. They are not intrinsic to space, as you (and science) claim.

Where does your consciousness end and 'space' begin?

 

[godnotgod]

Zen is a branch of Buddhism is it not?

Whatever you voices are telling you is good for you

What voices?

Zen is the mystical branch of Buddhism, and is considered by some to be a religion, not by others.

 

[gnostic]

Where does your consciousness end and 'space' begin?

Consciousness ends with a living physical brain. It doesn't exist outside of it. So when the body die, the brain also die with it, and consciousness ends.

The universe has no consciousness.

To me, linking consciousness with the universe or cosmo, is merely anthropomorphising the universe.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What you don't seem to be getting is this "stilling the mind" is based on a person's say so that his or her mind has been "still".

How do anyone objectively verify any mind has been stilled?

How do we know that transcendence is not merely a person's hallucinating imagination or worse, delusion?

This why I don't think stilling a mind any more true than faith-based belief.

Ok, so you believe that all souls, living and dead, of all religious traditions, past and present, who have realized a still mind were hallucinating, deluded, or some such. That's the sort of belief that is to be expected from the profane, young souls.

 

[DavidFirth]

An interesting extract when you consider that we are primate's.

Of course I disagree that we are related to apes and monkeys. He meant that without the Numinous we are primates, not that we are primates.

 

[DavidFirth]

But, but, but...

That's not any definition of atheism.

That's just a meme made by creationist who don't know anything about the development of the universe. But do have a whole museum dedicated to their leader riding on a dinosaur.

Actually, it was created to be humorous and posted as a joke. How does it feel to have somebody make fun of atheism?

 

[gnostic]

Ok, so you believe that all souls, living and dead, of all religious traditions, past and present, who have realized a still mind were hallucinating, deluded, or some such. That's the sort of belief that is to be expected from the profane, young souls.

There are no evidences for the existence of souls or spirits.

You keep telling me that I don't know because I don't believe, which is true, because I required more than mere words and more than leap of faith.

The only I can believe is when I know I have conclusive and verifiable evidences that it is true.

And I cannot verify anything you say or what you belief. If I was simply to take your word for it, then that merely faith.

The only "profane" I see, is accepting anything without evidences.

/E

Belief and faith are as subjective as personal opinion, they are not fact.

You personal experiences are something that I cannot verify, so such an experience is also subjective.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There are no evidences for the existence of souls or spirits.

You keep telling me that I don't know because I don't believe, which is true, because I required more than mere words and more than leap of faith.

The only I can believe is when I know I have conclusive and verifiable evidences that it is true.

And I cannot verify anything you say or what you belief. If I was simply to take your word for it, then that merely faith.

The only "profane" I see, is accepting anything without evidences.

/E

Belief and faith are as subjective as personal opinion, they are not fact.

You personal experiences are something that I cannot verify, so such an experience is also subjective.

That's the irony, young souls are not aware they are souls, they think their sense of self comes from the physical matter...older souls know what they are..

 

[godnotgod]

Maths can only represent reality, usually as models or equations, or both. Maths rely more on proving the maths, eg solving the mathematical equations, hence a mathematical solution is "proof".

The initial claim was that math describes reality. I agree that it can provide a model of how things work, but disagree that it can tell us what the nature of reality is. IOW, it cannot tell us what The Universe actually IS. And sometimes, the equations make no sense at all, as in this: (you can ignore the 'science vs. god' allusion):

 

[godnotgod]

Consciousness ends with a living physical brain. It doesn't exist outside of it. So when the body die, the brain also die with it, and consciousness ends.

The universe has no consciousness.

To me, linking consciousness with the universe or cosmo, is merely anthropomorphising the universe.

Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits, emotions, and intentions to non-human entities. Consciousness is not a trait, emotion or intention.

You misunderstood my question: 'Where does consciousness end and space begin?'. I did not mean when does it cease to be, but where is the dividing line between consciousness and the external world?

How can non-material consciousness be contained in a material brain?

 

[gnostic]

That's the irony, young souls are not aware they are souls, they think their sense of self comes from the physical matter...older souls know what they are..

The only evidences that the souls exist, come from literary evidences, but such literature can be false or invented, like fiction, myth, allegory, etc.

And I have read many ancient religious literature and what they say about spirits and souls, are all mythological; in another word, myths based on superstitions.

Just because religions and religious belief and traditions have a very long history, and they have been followed billions of people all the way to the earliest man, but popular belief don't mean facts.

To give you an example of popular belief that was later proven to be false.

For millennia, the majority of people believe that the Earth was fixed, and that the sun, planets and stars moved about the sky, which indicated that they believed in geocentric system.

This is because of our perspective at ground-level, give us the impression that the sun is moving across the sky.

Only very few people in ancient times, accepted that the Earth (as well as other observable planets) is actually orbiting around the sun, and that the Earth is rotating on its axis, which give us night and day, depending on which surface of the earth is facing the sun. This is known as the heliocentric system.

The heliocentric model was first explained by Aristarchus of Samos, a 3rd century BCE astronomer. Although Aristarchus' work is lost, the famous (also 3rd century BCE) Greek-Sicilian inventor from Syracuse, Archimedes, and another astronomer from 2nd century BCE Syria, Seleucus from Seleucia have written about Aristarchus' heliocentric model.

A couple of Hindus astronomers and even a Muslim astronomer (Najm al-Dīn al-Qazwīnī al-Kātibī, died in 1277) have speculated on the heliocentric model.

With al-Kātibī, he made have postulated on heliocentric model, but such was the popularity of geocentric model, that he would retract his own heliocentric hypothesis.

It was until Nicolaus Copernicus brought heliocentric model in forefront, that would later be proven by Galileo Galilei and Johannes Kepler with their telescopes.

The geocentric model may have been popular, but factually it was wrong.

Popular in beliefs, don't mean these religious beliefs are facts.