A Universe from Nothing?

[YmirGF]

Namaste is the divine nature within each of us, but many are not aware of it, even though it is always aware, always present.

Yeah, I know. Been there, done that. Vaporized the divinity angle. Divinity itself is, after all, a relative term. My own opinion is that it is only seen as divinity from a perspective of naivety. Much like the mistaken assumptions newbies make about the oneness experience pretending that it is a universal constant and changeless....

 

[LuisDantas]

But maybe it's a cyclical event.

Who knows? I'm fairly certain that I have no business demanding a certificate of due origination from existence.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

How do you define prajna?

Look it up, it's a well-known Buddhist term. Basically it's clear knowing, wisdom, insight. In a word, clarity.

I cannot look up your new-age jargon terms anywhere, so please define them now.

Please provide succinct plain-English descriptions for:
"ever-present Self"
"universal consciousness"
"cosmic consciousness"

By the way, do you agree with the Buddhist teaching that all is sunyata? I assume not, given your pseudo-Hindu beliefs, but I would be interested to know.

 

[YmirGF]

Weird thing, this question of whether there is an "universe from nothing".

Are we so vain as to presume that the universe we exist in has to have had an origin?

Or that we are in any position to say with authority what occurs/occurred.

 

[LuisDantas]

Or that we are in any position to say with authority what occurs/occurred.

Sounds so sensible once we think of that, doesn't it?

I don't even know where I put the coat I used last year. Yet existence somehow owes me an explanation for its being?

When did I become so cosmically significant again?

 

[YmirGF]

Sounds so sensible once we think of that, doesn't it?

I don't even know where I put the coat I used last year. Yet existence somehow owes me an explanation for its being?

When did I become so cosmically significant again?

I know, it's like when I was describing looking into a starry sky to @Rick O'Shez . One moment I was looking at it normally, then it hit me that each point of light came from it own time, millions of years apart... and then my vision actually morphed into a 3D image, like when looking though 3D glasses. I felt SO small.... so very, small, in contrast.

 

[YmirGF]

Please provide succinct plain-English descriptions for:

I know this was not addressed to me, but I simply can't help but respond. Bliss is such a peculiar thing and how it affects ones thinking, LOL. (And no, it never stops.)

"ever-present Self"

"Hi there!"

"universal consciousness"

"We wish you a fond good evening."

"cosmic consciousness"

"Bow, mortal!"

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Probably the only definitions we'll ever get here.

 

[gnostic]

But maybe it's a cyclical event.

We don't know that.

As it stands right now, this (cyclical model) is hypothetical and speculative, only.

We can only observe this observable universe. Anything before the observable universe is pure speculation.

Cosmologies dealing with cyclical model (also known as oscillating model or the Big Bounce), the various versions of the multiverse model, the eternal universe, static model, universe from nothing are either theoretical physics or debunked hypotheses (eg static model) or wishful la-la fantasies (Genesis 6-day creation, any creator deity, Intelligent Designer, aliens, Brahma, Pure or Cosmic Consciousness).

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Genesis 6-day creation, any creator deity, Intelligent Designer, aliens, Brahma, Pure or Cosmic Consciousness

The only one I find remotely credible here is aliens.

 

[godnotgod]

Who knows? I'm fairly certain that I have no business demanding a certificate of due origination from existence.

A linear model is certainly an assumption on the part of many, and a cyclical one does not really have a beginning as such, but more like a cycle of on/off phases. And we do have some evidence of it, as proposed by Sir Roger Penrose, as leftover background cosmic microwave radiation suggests:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article...ims-to-have-glimpsed-universe-before-big-bang

A cyclical model is also a Buddhistic and a Hindu view.

 

[gnostic]

A linear model is certainly an assumption on the part of many, and a cyclical one does not really have a beginning as such, but more like a cycle of on/off phases. And we do have some evidence of it, as proposed by Sir Roger Penrose, as leftover background cosmic microwave radiation suggests:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article...ims-to-have-glimpsed-universe-before-big-bang

A cyclical model is also a Buddhistic and a Hindu view.

The Hindu also believe in the ridiculous myth of Meru or Mount Sumeru, so why would I think that Hinduism have more credibility with cyclical model?

And the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) is the observable of the earliest light of the early universe, which give no indication to the universe being "cyclical".

As to what Penrose have stated, it is still theoretical and speculative, and nothing he had stated stated about an even earlier universe is verifiable or testable.

You must understand that theoretical astrophysics, only present one of many possibilities, they don't necessarily indicate what theoretical astrophysicists say are true in reality, whether it comes from Penrose or Hawking.

They (theoretical astrophysics and cosmology) are never true, until they can verify them.

 

[godnotgod]

Look it up, it's a well-known Buddhist term. Basically it's clear knowing, wisdom, insight. In a word, clarity.

The Hindu also believe in the ridiculous myth of Meru or Mount Sumeru, so why would I think that Hinduism have more credibility with cyclical model?

And the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) is the observable of the earliest light of the early universe, which give no indication to the universe being "cyclical".

As to what Penrose have stated, it is still theoretical and speculative, and nothing he had stated stated about an even earlier universe is verifiable or testable.

You must understand that theoretical astrophysics, only present one of many possibilities, they don't necessarily indicate what theoretical astrophysicists say are true in reality, whether it comes from Penrose or Hawking.

They (theoretical astrophysics and cosmology) are never true, until they can verify them.

All I am saying is that there is evidence of a cyclical universe. That coming from a Nobel Prize winning physicist should be paid attention to.

 

[godnotgod]

I know, it's like when I was describing looking into a starry sky to @Rick O'Shez . One moment I was looking at it normally, then it hit me that each point of light came from it own time, millions of years apart... and then my vision actually morphed into a 3D image, like when looking though 3D glasses. I felt SO small.... so very, small, in contrast.

"Why, it's just l'il ol' me down heah..yuk!"

 

[LuisDantas]

I still wonder why people expect to ever have any idea of whether there was an origin to existence, myself.

 

[gnostic]

All I am saying is that there is evidence of a cyclical universe. That coming from a Nobel Prize winning physicist should be paid attention to.

No, there are no evidences for cyclical universe. CMBR is not evidence for cyclical model. For there to be a cyclical universe, you would have to present verifiable evidences of universe of even much earlier time than CMBR and before that of the current estimate of the universe age - 13.7 billion years ago.

According to science, this CMBR is dated to the Recombination epoch - about 377,000 years after the initial of expansion of the universe, the universe we know of it now.

The CMBR is only evidence for the current known universe, which scientists called - the OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE.

Penrose has only presented his thought on "WHAT COULD POSSIBLY BE" (which is another words for "WHAT IF"), not "WHAT IS".

A "WHAT IF" is not the same as "WHAT IS".

Penrose won many prizes, and I am not denying that he deserve these awards, but he didn't win any for his conjectures (2010) on CMBR about cyclical universe model. Most of his awards predated his conjectures in 2010. You should know the fact before you replied.

 

[YmirGF]

"Why, it's just l'il ol' me down heah..yuk!"

Quite the contrary, Master. As usual you missed the mark because you just can't help yourself. There was no sense of "Yuk or pity or belittlement". It was a profound awe that practically made me fall over. It was seeing the universe and appreciating, first hand, just how gigantic, how gargantuan, it truly is for a few fleeting moments. There was utter clarity in this crystal clear experience. Yes, I felt tiny, but hardly insignificant. It was amazing to have the capacity to see it in a way I'd never seen before.

Trust you to denigrate something you have never experienced and so haven't the slightest idea. One would think that someone who was so incredibly aware would be slightly more perceptive.

 

[YmirGF]

No, there are no evidences for cyclical universe. CMBR is not evidence for cyclical model. For there to be a cyclical universe, you would have to present verifiable evidences of universe of even much earlier time than CMBR and before that of the current estimate of the universe age - 13.7 billion years ago.

According to science, this CMBR is dated to the Recombination epoch - about 377,000 years after the initial of expansion of the universe we know of now.

The CMBR is only evidence for the current known universe, which scientists called - the OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE.

Penrose has only presented his thought on "WHAT COULD POSSIBLY BE" (which is another words for "WHAT IF"), not "WHAT IS".

A "WHAT IF" is not the same as "WHAT IS".

Penrose won many prizes, and I am not denying that he deserve these awards, but he didn't win any for his conjectures (2010) on CMBR about cyclical universe model. Most of his awards predated his conjectures in 2010. You should know the fact before you replied.

Sing it, Storyteller! Just remember that facts have little weight here in WahooLand.

 

[gnostic]

Sing it, Storyteller! Just remember that facts have little weight here in WahooLand.

I personally preferred the Schulz's world.

http://giphy.com/search/snoopy​

 

[Thief]

It's still in Time.

nope...sorry
the linear movment is real enough
and I believe God is moving with us
the past is done and the future can still be unpredictable

in the overall picture pending....God might have a better perspective
on the more personal level.....He sits back to see what might stand from the dust