Is the cosmos "fine-tuned"?

[Ben Dhyan]

Read what you link so you do not present yourself as a fool in public.

Your own source You also validated my statement that other people, like yourself, take the theory beyond it's scope.

That is rich.....of course I read it....it was a direct copy and paste quote from the Wiki link....the same article that you copy and pasted from. As I said.....if you think that it an error that Wiki says Georges Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe....then try and get it edited. Don't throw a petulant tizzy here just because someone posts a verbatim excerpt, ironically from the same article you did, of which you do not approve of and go into abuse mode contrary the forum rules....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You talked about duality, dualism and nondualism without identifying the basis of each. Do you expect people to read your mind or just accept you assertion as present? Substantiate your points without begging the question. At least provide some basic arguments...

I conveyed my position on duality, and non-duality, as clearly as I could....they were not presented as basic arguments....but as the way I understand the bigger Cosmic picture. I don't expect you or anyone else to read my mind, for apart from my own explanation, the doctrines concerning non-duality and duality are everywhere to be found for those who are interested. I explained in an earlier post that prerequisite serious religious learning, and/or a highly developed intuition is required, to understand....but if you don't have this prerequisite background, no worries....there can be no argument if you don't understand what is being said to you...

 

[shawn001]

We can't. At our stage of science and religion they are pretty much separate wisdom traditions. Science can rigorously know things but can not get at the ultimate questions that concern humans. Religion addresses the ultimate questions but those things can not be known with the same rigorousness of science.

For example, I of course accept everything science has proven, but I also believe the masters/sages of the east (India) have delved deeper into the ultimate questions than any other of man's wisdom traditions. However they claim direct mystical insight into nature which can't be studied objectively by science. Could they be wrong?....Yes. But for multiple reasons I believe they have the best understanding out there and from my study of paranormal phenomena I am strongly convinced there are dramatically important things not understood by science; in my judgment the Advaita masters understandings best fit the facts.

"Science can rigorously know things but can not get at the ultimate questions that concern humans."

science has and is certainly addressing those issues.

"insight into nature which can't be studied objectively by science."

That is what science does study nature, as for mystical insight, that is because it can study the supernatural. So if the "mystical insight has a natural origin it can study it.

 

[shawn001]

Its more like this

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Its more like this

In the case of BB theory...the miracle is the first step...

 

[shawn001]

In the case of BB theory...the miracle is the first step...

However it happened, its amazing and its amazing we were able to get a detailed picture of the BB, before stars or galaxies existed at all. Major discovery.

As well as Planck time and length is hard to wrap your head around.

"The size of the Planck length can be visualized as follows: if a particle or dot about 0.1mm in size (which is at or near the smallest the unaided human eye can see) were magnified in size to be as large as theobservable universe, then inside that universe-sized "dot", the Planck length would be roughly the size of an actual 0.1mm dot. In other words, a 0.1mm dot is halfway between the Planck length and the size of the observable universe on a logarithmic scale."

Planck length - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is seven years old and since then we have gotten back Planck satellite data, but were still at the problem of combining QM physic's and cosmology.
"
Before the Beginning
The universe begins with the big bang at time zero. It is natural to ask: what about before time zero? In the context of the big bang theory, there is no scientific answer to that question. That is, at least at this point, a fundamental limitation of the big bang theory. Some individuals asking that question provide a theological answer. Others accept that the question has no answer. A few are seeking a scientific answer, but they have not made much progress.

The Planck Time
The big bang theory also runs into a fundamental limitation during the first 1E-43 seconds (1E-43 refers to the power of 10 i.e. 1 times 10 to the minus 43rd power.) after time zero. This time is called the Planck time and arises from quantum mechanics.

Without going into detail, quantum mechanics predicts that for anything smaller than a certain scale, chance and uncertainty win out over Newtonian determinism. We can therefore predict or measure the path of a planet or a baseball, but we can only estimate probabilities for an electron. Subatomic particles are smaller than Planck's scale, so chance and uncertainty dominate. This inability to predict or measure their paths results not from faulty instruments or techniques but from a fundamental limitation of nature.

The Planck time is this limiting scale translated into time units. For times in the history of the universe less than 1E-43seconds, quantum mechanics limits our ability to predict or measure the conditions. Our history of the big bang must therefore begin at 1E-43 seconds. At this time the universe had an estimated density of 1E96times the density of water and an estimated temperature of 1E32 degrees Kelvin. Our universe began in an unimaginably hot dense state. From this initial state the universe began to expand in the big bang."

The Planck Time and the Big Bang

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Before the Beginning
It is natural to ask: what about before time zero? In the context of the big bang theory, there is no scientific answer to that question. That is, at least at this point, a fundamental limitation of the big bang theory.

Some individuals asking that question provide a theological answer.

Others accept that the question has no answer.

A few are seeking a scientific answer, but they have not made much progress.

.......as I said...for now wrt BB theory, it's the first step that is the miracle step....it needs to be more explicit....

 

[George-ananda]

"Science can rigorously know things but can not get at the ultimate questions that concern humans."

science has and is certainly addressing those issues.

Science at this time is limited to studying only the physical realm of multi-realm universe. I am thinking science can not get at ultimate questions by only studying the physical realm.

Science says the physical is about 5% of the universe.

""insight into nature which can't be studied objectively by science."

That is what science does study nature, as for mystical insight, that is because it can study the supernatural. So if the "mystical insight has a natural origin it can study it.

Mystical insight is consciousness experiencing beyond the limitations of the physical realm. Science might be able to see what is happening to the brain at the physical level only when such experiences occur. The actual experience itself is subjective.

 

[shawn001]

.......as I said...for now wrt BB theory, it's the first step that is the miracle step....it needs to be more explicit....

The miracle step is at time zero before the BB, since the math works up until that point and we have the picture of the BB. The real point is using "miracles" in the context of real science.

 

[shawn001]

Science at this time is limited to studying only the physical realm of multi-realm universe. I am thinking science can not get at ultimate questions by only studying the physical realm.


Mystical insight is consciousness experiencing beyond the limitations of the physical realm. Science might be able to see what is happening to the brain at the physical level only when such experiences occur. The actual experience itself is subjective.

What is the mass of something outside of the nature?

I have mentioned this before, but you need a nervous system for consciousness. There is some really basic science your missing here.

 

[George-ananda]

What is the mass of something outside of the nature?

It is not understood yet by science. Physical matter composes only about 5% of the universe.

I have mentioned this before, but you need a nervous system for consciousness. There is some really basic science your missing here.

My understanding is that physical hardware is only required for consciousness to express itself on the physical plane. Consciousness also exists on the higher planes.

 

[shawn001]

It is not understood yet by science. Physical matter composes only about 5% of the universe.


My understanding is that physical hardware is only required for consciousness to express itself on the physical plane. Consciousness also exists on the higher planes.

"It is not understood yet by science. Physical matter composes only about 5% of the universe."

So your saying the supernatural is dark energy and dark matter we don't fully understand yet? Which we see effects from like keeping the galaxies from flying apart, even though its being studied by science. Something they don't fully understand yet, because it doesn't interact with Matter the way matter interacts with Matter.

Your also saying it has no energy?

"My understanding is that physical hardware is only required for consciousness to express itself on the physical plane. Consciousness also exists on the higher planes"

Name something living that is conscious that doesn't have a nervous system? Consciousness evolved in life on Earth.


"Consciousness also exists on the higher planes"

747's?

"Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations
Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won't help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality."

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

 

[shawn001]

There are millions of dollars in award money if anyone can prove anything supernatural.

Randi $1,000,000 paranormal challenge - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

No one has claimed a dime.

 

[George-ananda]

"It is not understood yet by science. Physical matter composes only about 5% of the universe."

So your saying the supernatural is dark energy and dark matter we don't fully understand yet? Which we see effects from like keeping the galaxies from flying apart, even though its being studied by science. Something they don't fully understand yet, because it doesn't interact with Matter the way matter interacts with Matter.

Your also saying it has no energy?

"My understanding is that physical hardware is only required for consciousness to express itself on the physical plane. Consciousness also exists on the higher planes"

Name something living that is conscious that doesn't have a nervous system? Consciousness evolved in life on Earth.


"Consciousness also exists on the higher planes"

747's?

"Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations
Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won't help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality."

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

We represent the two major schools of thought; Materialism and Spiritualism. (there are no perfect terms so I don't want to go there)

Materialism: Matter is primary and consciousness is a product of matter
Spiritualism; Consciousness is primary and matter is a product of consciousness
.
This is all a divine drama of God/Brahman. Matter is the stage props for this drama. Our physical consciousness is a ray of the One consciousness animating a finite form.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The miracle step is at time zero before the BB, since the math works up until that point and we have the picture of the BB..

Please explain the math that you say that works up until the zero point before the BB? That is....the math that explains how and what caused the zero point to come into existence, and the math that explains where all the energy released at zero point come from?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There are millions of dollars in award money if anyone can prove anything supernatural.

Randi $1,000,000 paranormal challenge - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

No one has claimed a dime.

You're in with a chance if you can explain what caused the BB...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Materialism: Matter is primary and consciousness is a product of matter
Spiritualism; Consciousness is primary and matter is a product of consciousness

Is there any evidence for the second option here?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

"Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations

Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won't help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality."

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

Thanks for that Shawn....I know this should be already understood be any educated person, so I hope all those who thought otherwise take note that science does not speak with any authority on matters beyond the realm of physical nature.

 

[shawn001]

Please explain the math that you say that works up until the zero point before the BB? That is....the math that explains how and what caused the zero point to come into existence, and the math that explains where all the energy released at zero point come from?

Come on Ben? We can go back in time to Planck time and then the math itself breaks down due to QM. You still, I believe are confused on the BB theory and the add on to the theory the Singularity.

again its like abiogenesis and evolution, not the same.

We do know for a fact the universe was very hot and very dense in the past and is expanding. That is the actual BB theory. That is also what we have the pictures of from Cobe, Wmap and now Planck in the microwave spectrum in very fine detail, before any stars or galaxies existed at all. At the 370,000 after the Big Bang and the time of recombination.

 

[shawn001]

You're in with a chance if you can explain what caused the BB...

Not necessarily, it could be explained without supernatural causes, in fact recently there was an explanation without breaking any of the natural laws of physics. Although again a QM and cosmological theory combined is needed.

We could all give up on the question though and just say "God did it" and move on, but that is not what a lot of humans are about.