A Universe from Nothing?

[Ben Dhyan]

So what does that mean? What is the "underlying unity", and what is the "apparent all"? When providing answers, please distinguish clearly between scientific ideas, religious beliefs, and personal experience.

You have asked about underlying unity before...and you were given my answer....the 'all' implies plurality when in fact there is a unity...hence it is an 'apparent all'. Science, religion, subjective experience, etc., are distinctions of the dualistic human mind...not of the silent mind...

 

[idav]

Ok. Can you explain dark energy and/or dark matter and how this cosmology is supposed to work in a closed system? Is the universe always a closed system? How can it be closed if the universe is expanding or what do you mean by closed system?

Dark energy is part of what is supposed to account for the universe being a total positive and negative energy equivalent to practically zero. A closed system meaning that energy is not coming from outside the universe, like from a god or some other source. Energy could have come from outside and then the universe became a closed system. So the two scenarios would be, energy came from the outside and then it became a closed system, or the energy always existed and has always been a closed system.

The creation scientists theorize that the universe is bounded and has a center which is in close proximity to our Milky Way galaxy, cosmic center (our solar system to a region smaller than our galaxy), or Earth is approximately the center (geocentric, but this theory is being discredited by many creation scientists). There are white papers and peer-review papers written on the bounded universe and our galaxy being the center. It's a large approximation, but compared to the universe it is pretty good. The boundary or edge explains the white hole cosmology which states the universe would only be a few thousand years old by a clock on Earth, but by a clock at the edge of the universe it would be billions of years old. The key to this model is the idea that time was much slower on Earth than distant parts of the universe, on day 5 of the creation. There is no dark energy or dark matter. Otherwise, it relies on presuppositions or starting assumptions from the Big Bang Theory so there is some overlap. Many think God is outside our universe if He created it, but there are three meanings to heaven -- place for God and the angels, interstellar space and earth's atmosphere. The place for God and the angels is timeless, spaceless and immaterial so it is assumed to be outside our universe or in another plane or another dimension (5th dimension?) from our reality. Whether it is within or without our universe is not known, i.e. it's location is not known, but the angels and saints have the ability to move from heaven (timeless, spaceless and immaterial) to time, space and material world and back.

The universe is not static and grows in an unbounded matter as far as science can tell. I haven't seen bounded used in that manner. There actually is no center of the universe, the big bang event happened at every point in space, space "stretched" in a manner that makes everywhere the "center". Everything is still all connected and as far as a way for me to visually understand, a/the center can be reached within everything at the quantum level, which causes the "spooky actions at a distance" affect. As such with the "timeless spaceless immaterial" thing you mentioned, there is no reason to travel outside the known universe to get there. That is already within everything and possible according to quantum physics and theories of general and special relativity.

 

[muhammad_isa]

...
As such with the "timeless spaceless immaterial" thing you mentioned, there is no reason to travel outside the known universe to get there. That is already within everything and possible according to quantum physics and theories of general and special relativity.

It's not really a matter of 'travel' is it?
I agree that relativity implies that 'time' is more complex than on first inspection..
It shows that it's possible for 'an observer' to be aware of our future, as time is relative to the observer.
Is it possible for a particle to travel faster than the speed of light? The answer is complex also, as defining time and/or space as absolute, linear entities is an assumption that we need to make to define speed in the first place

..this leads to the limit, where Almighty God is not subject to time and space, not being part of physical reality, which is consistent with Him knowing mankind's destiny

 

[james bond]

Dark energy is part of what is supposed to account for the universe being a total positive and negative energy equivalent to practically zero. A closed system meaning that energy is not coming from outside the universe, like from a god or some other source. Energy could have come from outside and then the universe became a closed system. So the two scenarios would be, energy came from the outside and then it became a closed system, or the energy always existed and has always been a closed system.

The universe is not static and grows in an unbounded matter as far as science can tell. I haven't seen bounded used in that manner. There actually is no center of the universe, the big bang event happened at every point in space, space "stretched" in a manner that makes everywhere the "center". Everything is still all connected and as far as a way for me to visually understand, a/the center can be reached within everything at the quantum level, which causes the "spooky actions at a distance" affect. As such with the "timeless spaceless immaterial" thing you mentioned, there is no reason to travel outside the known universe to get there. That is already within everything and possible according to quantum physics and theories of general and special relativity.

So here's the question I always get. Where is the evidence for believing in paragraph 1?

The grows in an unbounded manner is being challenged by a bounded universe. I think the concept of bounded universe was proposed before the BBT, but studied more in detail after BBT. I read the peer-review paper at one time, but will have to look for it to see if I still have the link. Here are some white papers -- https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508367 (download on the top right). I think we agree that the universe is isotropic (Copernican Principle).

As for the quantum level, the thinking AFAIK or read is that these few of these particles could go into another dimension since they seem to disappear. We can only see them in collision patterns to prove their existence and few seem to disappear, i.e. here one millisecond and gone the next. The theory is they went to another dimension such as gravity (I think the graviton has been disproved). Actually, I'm not sure if there are other particles that disappear.

 

[idav]

Here are some white papers -- https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508367 (download on the top right). I think we agree that the universe is isotropic (Copernican Principle).

Thats really interesting how it says the bounded and unbounded become indistinguishable. Appreciate the reference.

 

[godnotgod]

...conceptualisation is only the last stage of the perceptual process.

That is the problem with perceptual reality. Concepts are the result of ascertaining the nature of things via the 5 senses or extensions thereof. Perceptual reality is not the apprehension of Reality as it actually is. The senses are limited and ultimately faulty, as are Reason, Logic, and Analysis. Only via direct apprehension of Reality beyond the senses can one come into direct contact with the true nature of things. This is not factual knowledge, but knowing itself, otherwise known as Ultimate Reality.

With certain states of mind you can have feelings of oneness, spaciousness, timelessness, whatever. But so what? These subjective states say nothing about the objective nature of the cosmos.

There is no such 'objective nature' to the cosmos. The duality of observer and observed is a contrived prop, set up by the rational mind in an attempt to make reality 'understandable'. In reality, the observer is completely at one with the cosmos at all times, so the duality of observer/observed is an illusion. When this false duality is dissolved, there comes a 'merging of the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation into a single Reality'.

Since you still refer to your experiences as subjective, as those of 'self', and the cosmos as objective (ie 'other'), you then still cling to the notion of yourself as the 'experiencer of the experience', where no such experiencer is apparent. You still dwell in duality, in the notion of 'subjective and objective'; 'this and that'; 'self and other', etc. There is no separate 'you' having an experience of 'oneness', a description that is self-contradictory. There is no such thing as 'you' over here having a subjective experience and the 'objective' cosmos 'over there'. There is only the cosmos experiencing itself as you, 'you' being a total activity of the cosmos, in the same way that a wave is a total activity of the ocean.

 

[gnostic]

That is the problem with perceptual reality. Concepts are the result of ascertaining the nature of things via the 5 senses or extensions thereof. Perceptual reality is not the apprehension of Reality as it actually is. The senses are limited and ultimately faulty, as are Reason, Logic, and Analysis. Only via direct apprehension of Reality beyond the senses can one come into direct contact with the true nature of things. This is not factual knowledge, but knowing itself, otherwise known as Ultimate Reality.

It is funny how you can say that perceptual sense and perceptual reality cannot be trusted, and yet you want people to trust your philosophical claptrap on transcendent reality.

There are no such thing as "ultimate reality" or "absolute reality", because the whole transcendence and pure consciousness are nothing more than delusion. These are nothing more than illusions.

Why should anyone trust what you have to say about "ultimate reality", which you have no evidences to support your empty claims?

 

[ArtieE]

There is no such 'objective nature' to the cosmos. The duality of observer and observed is a contrived prop, set up by the rational mind in an attempt to make reality 'understandable'. In reality, the observer is completely at one with the cosmos at all times, so the duality of observer/observed is an illusion. When this false duality is dissolved, there comes a 'merging of the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation into a single Reality'.

In reality there are lots of atoms and molecules. When some of those atoms and molecules are arranged in certain configurations their interactions produce an observer. When those atoms and molecules go their separate ways it's the end of the observer.

There is only the cosmos experiencing itself as you, 'you' being a total activity of the cosmos, in the same way that a wave is a total activity of the ocean.

If the wave contained atoms and molecules that interacted in such a way so as to make the wave "conscious" the wave could say "I am a wave and part of an ocean" but as soon as the wave splashed onto the shore and those atoms and molecules separated no more conscious wave just an ocean including those scattered atoms and molecules that was previously a "conscious" wave.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It is funny how you can say that perceptual sense and perceptual reality cannot be trusted, and yet you want people to trust your philosophical claptrap on transcendent reality.

The irony is painful.

 

[godnotgod]

It is funny how you can say that perceptual sense and perceptual reality cannot be trusted, and yet you want people to trust your philosophical claptrap on transcendent reality.

There are no such thing as "ultimate reality" or "absolute reality", because the whole transcendence and pure consciousness are nothing more than delusion. These are nothing more than illusions.

Why should anyone trust what you have to say about "ultimate reality", which you have no evidences to support your empty claims?

How can perceptual reality be trusted?

For one thing, science, which relies on perception and the extensions of perception, continues to change many of its theories over the years as new information becomes available, especially today with the emergence of Quantum Physics and how it has overturned the applecart of Newtonian physics. It is like being in a darkened room, and the door is opened slowly to reveal vague shapes and colors at first which appear as one thing, but then change as the door is opened further and more light is allowed in. But even in the full light of Reason, we can only determine the behavior of phenomena and make predictions about it, but we can never actually say what we are looking at. IOW, science, via perceptual reality, cannot tell us the true nature of things.

Perceptual reality is a limited view, designed for man to operate within certain parameters so he can navigate around in his environment. Beyond that, he is pretty much lost. Another kind of knowledge is necessary to see into the nature of Reality.

We use a collection of perceptual tools; a bat uses another, while a honeybee still another. Each one creates a different reality for that particular organism. So where is 'reality'? It is purely conditional when perceptual reality is the case.

 

[godnotgod]

In reality there are lots of atoms and molecules. When some of those atoms and molecules are arranged in certain configurations their interactions produce an observer. When those atoms and molecules go their separate ways it's the end of the observer.If the wave contained atoms and molecules that interacted in such a way so as to make the wave "conscious" the wave could say "I am a wave and part of an ocean" but as soon as the wave splashed onto the shore and those atoms and molecules separated no more conscious wave just an ocean including those scattered atoms and molecules that was previously a "conscious" wave.

There is no such 'wave' that is a 'part' of the ocean. Wave and ocean are totally contiguous at all times. Were the wave able to conceive of itself as 'I', it would be in a deluded state, in exactly the same way we are deluded when we think that there is a separate observer of the observation.

Atoms and molecules do not produce any such 'observer'. There is only observation, without an observer, just as there is only whirling water without a 'whirlpool'. That such a 'whirlpool' exists that is an agent which whirls water is a delusion of the mind. That there is an experiencer of the experience is also a delusion. What we call 'I' is the experience itself. What you call 'wave' is the ocean itself. Wave and I are both activities of the entire Universe.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

..the wave could say "I am a wave and part of an ocean" but as soon as the wave splashed onto the shore and those atoms and molecules separated no more conscious wave just an ocean including those scattered atoms and molecules that was previously a "conscious" wave.

The sea-wave analogy is much abused, particularly by new-agers. It is mostly BS.

 

[ArtieE]

We use a collection of perceptual tools; a bat uses another, while a honeybee still another. Each one creates a different reality for that particular organism. So where is 'reality'? It is purely conditional when perceptual reality is the case.

Of course they don't "create a different reality". They just perceive different aspects of the same reality. One person may see a ball as red another who is color blind might see it as grey. They both see the same real ball with the same properties.

 

[ArtieE]

There is no such 'wave' that is a 'part' of the ocean.

The wave is just some of the atoms and molecules of the ocean behaving in a certain way. Like I am some of the atoms and molecules in the universe interacting in such a way that the collection is conscious and has a sense of self.

 

[james bond]

Of course they don't "create a different reality". They just perceive different aspects of the same reality. One person may see a ball as red another who is color blind might see it as grey. They both see the same real ball with the same properties.

Are you basing this on logic or something we can experiment on? One of the debates in Christianity is the color of Christ's robe is purple. It's purple, similar to that of crimson. Not like the purple we think of today.

 

[ArtieE]

Are you basing this on logic or something we can experiment on?

Sure you can experiment. You can just let a person look at a red ball and then let a color blind person look at the same ball and see if that changes the "reality" of the ball in any way.

One of the debates in Christianity is the color of Christ's robe is purple. It's purple, similar to that of crimson. Not like the purple we think of today.

Get hold of a piece of it and contact somebody with the right equipment and he can tell you which electromagnetic frequency it reflects and what that corresponds to in color.

 

[godnotgod]

Of course they don't "create a different reality". They just perceive different aspects of the same reality. One person may see a ball as red another who is color blind might see it as grey. They both see the same real ball with the same properties.

However, because of perceptual reality, no one sees the real ball as it actually is. It is like a dream. In a dream, what you see and experience is real on that level. But upon awakening, you immediately see that your dream was an illusion of the mind.

The perception of reality is reality to the observer as he perceives it. Only by going beyond perception can the observer see Reality as it actually is.

 

[godnotgod]

The wave is just some of the atoms and molecules of the ocean behaving in a certain way. Like I am some of the atoms and molecules in the universe interacting in such a way that the collection is conscious and has a sense of self.

No. The wave is energy moving the atoms and molecules to create temporal form. We then confuse form with things.

The sense of a self is a false one. There is in reality no such self. There is only the experience itself, but it is not the experience of self; it is the experience of the Universe, just as the wave is the experience of the ocean. The wave and the self have no self-nature. They both are empty. The collection of atoms and molecules you call self are only the experience in this present moment. We freeze reality to call the experience 'I', but no such entity is apparent. Can you tell me where this 'I' exists, and who or what is it that it determining that?

 

[ArtieE]

However, because of perceptual reality, no one sees the real ball as it actually is.

So what? The ball is what it is anyway. It doesn't change.

It is like a dream. In a dream, what you see and experience is real on that level. But upon awakening, you immediately see that your dream was an illusion of the mind.

Except of course that the real ball isn't "an illusion of the mind" per definition.

The perception of reality is reality to the observer as he perceives it. Only by going beyond perception can the observer see Reality as it actually is.

So what!? Reality is what it is and doesn't change depending on our perceptions. All we can do is use objective science to discover more aspects of reality.

 

[ArtieE]

The sense of a self is a false one. There is in reality no such self. There is only the experience itself, but it is not the experience of self; it is the experience of the Universe, just as the wave is the experience of the ocean.

The ocean isn't conscious and doesn't "experience" anything. Neither does the wave.

The wave and the self have no self-nature. They both are empty. The collection of atoms and molecules you call self are only the experience in this present moment. We freeze reality to call the experience 'I', but no such entity is apparent. Can you tell me where this 'I' exists, and who or what is it that it determining that?

It exists temporarily as a product of the interactions between the atoms and molecules in this body. Soon it will seize to exist when the interactions that produces the I stops.