A Universe from Nothing?

[godnotgod]

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/

Scientific facts cannot prove/disprove the authenticity of the spiritual experience, and how it sees Reality.

That the Ultimate Reality is Nothingness is seen via the spiritual experience, and not by science. It is the spiritual experience that says such particles are not real, that this material world is maya. The only reason I bring science up is because it has now found out that the mass of the atom is virtual mass, an observation which points to the a mystical understanding of what is called 'material' reality. So my primary point of departure is not science, but the mystical experience, which begins with unity already the case, while science begins via dissection and reductionism, which yields data and facts, but not what the nature of the Reality it is trying to investigate actually is. In fact, science really doesn't know what the nature of many of the things it claims knowledge about actually are. It doesn't need to know; all it needs to do is measure, weigh, document, and predict. That is all science actually is.

 

[RationalSkeptic]

I'm not sure if I can post a poll on here but who here believes that the universe originated from nothing? As some of the major scientific theories from the 20th century claimed or was there an originator of some sort? Doesn't have to be God necessarily in your opinion. Who believes the universe has no beginning? I'm just curious as to what you guys believe with regard to this topic and what the basis of your belief would be?

I do not believe that the universe came from nothing.

I believe that the universe exists in every point in time.

 

[godnotgod]

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.

Your truly idiotic assessments continue to be superficial and laughable. I need some comic relief. 'converted to Chopra'. what a joke.

 

[godnotgod]

I do not believe that the universe came from nothing.

I believe that the universe exists in every point in time.

'exists' as what? maybe it is not a thing that exists, but a dream. When you dream, your dream-world is real to you, is it not?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Scientific facts cannot prove/disprove the authenticity of the spiritual experience, and how it sees Reality.

Now we are getting somewhere. It is a purely subjective experience which occurs in the mind, a radical shift in perception, nothing to do with the universe "out there". So will you now drop all the pseudo-science?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I need some comic relief. 'converted to Chopra'. what a joke.

I reckon that's exactly what happened. The problem you then had is trying to combine Zen with Chopra, the approaches are of course diametrically opposed and you have been in a muddle ever since.

 

[idav]

Scientific facts cannot prove/disprove the authenticity of the spiritual experience, and how it sees Reality.

The only reason I bring science up is because it has now found out that the mass of the atom is virtual mass, an observation which points to the a mystical understanding of what is called 'material' reality.

These two points are contradictory.

Nevertheless the article I pointed to shows your understanding of "virtual" mass is unfounded.

 

[YmirGF]

These two points are contradictory.

Nevertheless the article I pointed to shows your understanding of "virtual" mass is unfounded.

On the bright side at least his understanding of "virtual" mass is consistent with his knowledge of other subjects.

 

[godnotgod]

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.

As usual, you are just plain wrong. If I read Chopra or Watts, I review everything myself to see if it is rings true. I am the final arbiter of that , not Chopra or anyone else. As the Buddha himself advised: 'Place no head above your own'. So you'll excuse me if I won't listen to someone like you, who seems to think that his many years of practice actually amounts to something. I find Chopra far more compelling than your simpleton-buddhish approach.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I find Chopra far more compelling than your simpleton-buddhish approach.

One charlatan following another. And spare me the fake Buddha quotes off the side of your cornflakes packet.

 

[godnotgod]

These two points are contradictory.

Nevertheless the article I pointed to shows your understanding of "virtual" mass is unfounded.

I understand virtual mass to be mass that acts as if it is real mass, but is not, in fact, real mass.

I don't see any contradiction.

 

[godnotgod]

One charlatan following another.

So now you follow Chopra, do you? Good. Maybe you will unlearn something.

 

[idav]

So my primary point of departure is not science, but the mystical experience, which begins with unity already the case, while science begins via dissection and reductionism, which yields data and facts, but not what the nature of the Reality it is trying to investigate actually is. In fact, science really doesn't know what the nature of many of the things it claims knowledge about actually are. It doesn't need to know; all it needs to do is measure, weigh, document, and predict. That is all science actually is.

In fact science is providing tons of information about the true nature of reality which is why we keep resorting to QM and such. We may not yet have the answers as to how but many scenarios have been eliminated, not all interpretations are equally valid. Same goes for many variations of string theories, not that string theory is nonsense just some versions are becoming discredited.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Nevertheless the article I pointed to shows your understanding of "virtual" mass is unfounded.

Trust me, it's all smoke and mirrors, pure pseudo-science, Chopra-inspired nonsense. The science of the sub-atomic world is entirely irrelevant to the present discussion anyway.

 

[idav]

I understand virtual mass to be mass that acts as if it is real mass, but is not, in fact, real mass.

I don't see any contradiction.

If you read the article it explains that conservation of energy doesn't allow any "virtual" particle to be nothing, it is always something, becomes different types of particles actually.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So now you follow Chopra, do you? Good. Maybe you will unlearn something.

No, you and your master Chopra are both charlatans. Both sellers of snake-oil. Both using smoke and mirrors and deception.

 

[idav]

Trust me, it's all smoke and mirrors, pure pseudo-science, Chopra-inspired nonsense. The science of the sub-atomic world is entirely irrelevant to the present discussion anyway.

The claim of something from nothing is part of the thread which is how it was resurrected. One of godNotgods main premises is that virtual particles are not real to substantiate everything coming from nothing.

 

[godnotgod]

On the bright side at least his understanding of "virtual" mass is consistent with his knowledge of other subjects.

But it is not 'my' understanding:

"The Higgs field creates mass out of the quantum vacuum too, in the form of virtual Higgs bosons. So if the LHC confirms that the Higgs exists, [which it now has] it will mean all reality is virtual."

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations/

You want to paint a picture of me as some wierdo on crack out there in la la land so you can set up a straw dog, don'cha? Not gonna happen. You can't attack The Indestructible Sunyata. There's Nothing there to attack.

 

[godnotgod]

No, you and your master Chopra are both charlatans. Both sellers of snake-oil. Both using smoke and mirrors and deception.

So how long have you been secretly studying with Deepak Chopra?

 

[godnotgod]

The claim of something from nothing is part of the thread which is how it was resurrected. One of godNotgods main premises is that virtual particles are not real to substantiate everything coming from nothing.

but only a very small part, as in 'tidbit'