A Universe from Nothing?

[gnostic]

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.

That's why in my reply, I had distinguished mathematics from science.

A mathematical model doesn't mean it is correct or real, only science, using scientific method can determine what is fact and what is fiction.

Did you even bother to read the rest of my reply, that science rely on real-life tests or evidences?

That's what make science objective; mathematics rely on human logic with numbers and equations (hence proofs), but what if that proof don't match up with the real world?

 

[gnostic]

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

Just as non-material memories, dreams, idle thoughts and thinking (including logic and reasoning) are all contained in the brains.

The brain controlled everything, both voluntary and involuntary activities. And they also control the consciousness, thinking and emotion.

Consciousness don't exist outside of the brain.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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 by Aristarchus of Samos, a 3rd century BCE astronomer 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.

Haha...what has a belief in a human being devoid of soul got to do with a long rambling discourse on the heliocentric model of the solar system which was explained by Aristarchus of Samos, and a couple of Hindus astronomers and even a Muslim astronomer, and by Aristarchus of Samos, and by Nicolaus Copernicus, and by Galileo Galilei and by Johannes Kepler?

You could be succinct and just say I believe that souls do not exist, whatever the meaning of the concept. That's why I keep telling you gnostic, try and be relevant, long off topic rambling is not the way educated English souls normally communicate, perhaps it a cultural standard for Chinese?

Btw, what is the meaning of the concept of soul to you?

 

[Thief]

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.

the motion is real
space is real enough
the relationship is described as a quotient......time

time is not real
it is only a factor of an equation....on the chalkboard

 

[godnotgod]

That's why in my reply, I had distinguished mathematics from science.

A mathematical model doesn't mean it is correct or real, only science, using scientific method can determine what is fact and what is fiction.

Did you even bother to read the rest of my reply, that science rely on real-life tests or evidences?

That's what make science objective; mathematics rely on human logic with numbers and equations (hence proofs), but what if that proof don't match up with the real world?

I did read the rest of your reply which focused on science, but the original claim to which I responded was that math represents reality. idav then added science as a qualifyer. But I am telling you both that even math with science cannot tell us what the nature of The Universe actually IS. All they can do is to provide information in the form of data and facts which tell us about its behavior and characteristics as a means of making predictions, as when, for example, we launch a manned spacecraft and wish to land it on a particular planet in a particular spot at a particular time in order to perform particular experiments as a means of extracting facts and data about that planet. But if I want to know what The Universe actually IS, math and science fall short. I need another kind of knowledge in order to determine the answer to that question, simply because the nature of things is beyond the scope of the rational mind. Now, you see, once I understand the nature of things, my scientific facts and data will make complete sense. Until then, my facts and data are completely useless as far as understanding, but only useful in the utilitarian sense. I can then use facts and data to create technologies I consider beneficial or desirable in some sense.

 

[godnotgod]

Consciousness don't exist outside of the brain.

Then how is it that the brain is capable of non-local communication with other brains, as demonstrated by the scientific experiment discussed in this video:

 

[gnostic]

Haha...what has a belief in a human being devoid of soul got to do with a long rambling discourse on the heliocentric model of the solar system which was explained by Aristarchus of Samos, and a couple of Hindus astronomers and even a Muslim astronomer, and by Aristarchus of Samos, and by Nicolaus Copernicus, and by Galileo Galilei and by Johannes Kepler?

You could be succinct and just say I believe that souls do not exist, whatever the meaning of the concept. That's why I keep telling you gnostic, try and be relevant, long off topic rambling is not the way educated English souls normally communicate, perhaps it a cultural standard for Chinese?

Btw, what is the meaning of the concept of soul to you?

The short of it, that the popular religious beliefs, no matter what sort of religions, are based on superstition and myths, including that of the Cosmic Consciousness and this transcendence of consciousness.

My example of geocentric vs heliocentric models just mean that what is popular is not necessarily true.

You have not presented a single piece of evidence that your consciousness transcend the physical body, nor have you proven the universe has consciousness.

 

[gnostic]

Then how is it that the brain is capable of non-local communication with other brains, as demonstrated by the scientific experiment discussed in this video:

I have seen this stupid video before and it was a waste of 10 minutes of my life that I won't get back, because he has proven nothing about non-locality. It was all just talk and presented no evidences non-locality.

It is that what you call "evidence"? His testimony, and his supposed testimonies of some tests have taken place?

You have just killed your argument, by bringing this video back to life...again.

 

[gnostic]

I did read the rest of your reply which focused on science, but the original claim to which I responded was that math represents reality. idav then added science as a qualifyer. But I am telling you both that even math with science cannot tell us what the nature of The Universe actually IS. All they can do is to provide information in the form of data and facts which tell us about its behavior and characteristics as a means of making predictions, as when, for example, we launch a manned spacecraft and wish to land it on a particular planet in a particular spot at a particular time in order to perform particular experiments as a means of extracting facts and data about that planet. But if I want to know what The Universe actually IS, math and science fall short. I need another kind of knowledge in order to determine the answer to that question, simply because the nature of things is beyond the scope of the rational mind. Now, you see, once I understand the nature of things, my scientific facts and data will make complete sense. Until then, my facts and data are completely useless as far as understanding, but only useful in the utilitarian sense. I can then use facts and data to create technologies I consider beneficial or desirable in some sense.

But science and maths have given us far more information about the universe than all the religions combined.

Religions explain nothing about nature in our little world. And explain even less than science about the universe.

Please, show me where any one religion explain (in their scriptures or teachings):

(A) WHAT the Sun is?
(B) HOW does the Sun work?​

Religion falls far shorter than science.

What you don't seem to bloody understand is that science, like cosmology is an on-going investigation.

When Galileo, Kepler and Newton were involved in astronomy, they thought the galaxy, the Milky Way was all of the universe, in its entirety. They thought the Andromeda Galaxy was a nebula, not a galaxy even more larger than the Milky Way.

It wasn't until several centuries after Galileo, in 1919, that Edwin Hubble discovered using the largest optical telescope in the world (at that time, of course) that were many more galaxies out there, some even more distant than the Andromeda Galaxy, that they realise the Universe was far larger than the Milky Way.

Less than 10 years later, Alexander Friedmann (in 1922) and Georges Lemaitre (in 1927) came up with idea of the expanding universe model, later known as the Big Bang. And it would take another 37 years before they discovered the CMBR, which verified the Big Bang model to be more probable than other cosmologies.

Does the Big Bang model answer everything about the universe's origin? No. As I stated science is work in progress.

You don't understand science, if you think science must have ALL THE ANSWERS. It doesn't, but it does explain far better than your religion...whether that religion be Zen or Gnosticism.

 

[gnostic]

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):

I was a former civil engineer, but now a computer programmer. So I don't understand much of the equations of theoretical astrophysics. They are well above my level of mathematics.

What I preferred are detectable and measurable data from telescopes, space probes, etc. These are evidences, not the mathematical proofs.

That's why I distinguish mathematical proofs from empirical evidences. They are not the same things.

I don't deny that maths can be very useful, but I preferred some more tangible, like evidences, something that I detect, measure or test.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The short of it, that the popular religious beliefs, no matter what sort of religions, are based on superstition and myths, including that of the Cosmic Consciousness and this transcendence of consciousness.

My example of geocentric vs heliocentric models just mean that what is popular is not necessarily true.

You have not presented a single piece of evidence that your consciousness transcend the physical body, nor have you proven the universe has consciousness.

And because some things that are popular are not necessarily true, you imply that some things that are popular are possibly true and so souls may be one of them. And you did not answer my question, what is the meaning of the concept of soul to you?

 

[gnostic]

And because some things that are popular are not necessarily true, you imply that some things that are popular are possibly true and so souls may be one of them.

And you keep forgetting, that I don't accept any claim to be true, unless there are empirical and verifiable evidences to support such claim, popular or not.

Have anyone, past or present, presented conclusive evidences for the existence of a soul?

I want reliable and scientific source, and not some hack job of videos, like godnotgod's non-locality video that he keeps posting up.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And you keep forgetting, that I don't accept any claim to be true, unless there are empirical and verifiable evidences to support such claim, popular or not.

Have anyone, past or present, presented conclusive evidences for the existence of a soul?

I want reliable and scientific source, and not some hack job of videos, like godnotgod's non-locality video that he keeps posting up.

So what is going on, you keep ignoring my question.... what is the meaning of the concept of soul to you?

 

[idav]

time is not real
it is only a factor of an equation....on the chalkboard

Thats viewing time as simply a measurement on a clock, it is much more than that. Time is normally viewed as a fourth dimension.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Thats viewing time as simply a measurement on a clock, it is much more than that. Time is normally viewed as a fourth dimension.

Can time be measured and how?

 

[idav]

Can time be measured and how?

Measured relative to an objects mass or speed.

These researchers tested how clocks slow down when moving faster.
Time dilation measured at 40 percent of the speed of light—in the lab

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Measured relative to an objects mass or speed.

These researchers tested how clocks slow down when moving faster.
Time dilation measured at 40 percent of the speed of light—in the lab

But mass and speed measurements are not a time measurement. How is pure time measured if you believe it can be?

I understand clocks slowdown when moving faster, but that's not my question.

 

[idav]

But mass and speed measurements are not a time measurement. How is pure time measured if you believe it can be?

I understand clocks slowdown when moving faster, but that's not my question.

That is a time measurement. When we measure gravity we are measuring the amount of space-time influencing an object. Like measuring a wind by how much force it exudes on an object.

 

[gnostic]

And you did not answer my question, what is the meaning of the concept of soul to you?

I don't believe in the soul, unless the soul is merely a metaphor for one's life, consciousness, thoughts, emotion, desire, etc. but I don't think that what most people have in their minds when they think of souls.

But soul as in the spirit, as taught by religion, I know of many types, from different ancient literature that I have read. I simply just don't follow any.

There I the most obvious one, that the soul is a spirit that Christians believe, will be judged after death, and depending on judgment, will either go to heaven or hell.

With Judaism, but I don't know if this is true for all Jews, but the soul is simply a life-giving force, eg breath of life, that make people alive. Once a person died, the soul returned to God. The soul has no individuality, has no memory, no emotion, no personality, and therefore cannot be judged, and don't go Heaven or Hell. So if I died, I don't go to heaven or hell, because the soul is not "me".

According to the Egyptians (sources: Pyramid Text, Coffin Text, but more from the New Kingdom Book of the Dead), the soul is "ba", normally depicted in paintings as either a heart or a little copy of a person, that Anubis can weigh on a scale, against the Feather of Ma'at. If a person ba (soul) is lighter than the Feather or balanced the scale, he will go to the Field of Reeds, but if it is heavier than the Feather, than the ba will be eaten by Ammut, the Devourer of the Dead, a creature or goddess that is part crocodile, part lion and part hippopotamus.

There is older religion in Egypt (Old Kingdom, from 3rd to 5th dynasties), where only the ruler or pharaoh can reach the afterlife, which is on the solar boat of the sun god Re. If the king is worthy, Horus and Seth will assist the king to climb the pyramid, like a stairway or ladder, climb onboard Re's barque, and sailed the sky as one of Re's crew members.

The Greeks, especially those presented by Homer and Hesiod, the soul are judged by 3 judges, or by Hades or His consort Persephone, to determine who goes to Elysian Field, who goes to Erebus, or worse to Tartarus.

A different Greek religion, known as the Orphic Mystery, believe that each person has a soul, with dual-side - good and evil. The soul will undergo through 3 lives, so reincarnated twice. Upon the 3rd death, Persephone will judge his soul, whether it go to Elysium or to Tartarus.

In China, the Taoism teach the Way, in rather more complex. There is afterlife and there is a Taoist version of hell, but there is also possibility of achieving immortality. There is also a possibility of ceasing to exist altogether, when the soul die a second death.

Hinduism and Buddhism (and other dharma religions) believed in reincarnation, except in Buddhism, it teach that a person can end the endless cycle of rebirths.

So asking me about what concept of soul that I believe in, is a useless question, since I don't accept its existence, and considered all religions about souls or spirits to be mythological.

So the question is why would you even bother to ask me this question?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Hinduism and Buddhism (and other dharma religions) believed in reincarnation, except in Buddhism, it teach that a person can end the endless cycle of rebirths.

Hinduism teaches the end to samsara, too.