Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[mikkel_the_dane]

“Salvation” is not the goal of doing philosophy, nor is it the goal of most religions, including Judaism, which is responsible for most of the Christian Bible. It is only the goal within Christianity and those religions influenced by it.

On that note, better rationality and a naturalistic view than irrationality and unproven supernaturalism.

Better is not rational as per this definition: " based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings"

Rational Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary

RATIONAL meaning: 1 : based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings; 2 : having the ability to reason or think about things clearly

www.britannica.com

Remember I am a skeptic. I have been doing this for close to 30 years now including reading a lot. BTW naturalism is also unproven. So you cheated there in regards to supernaturalism and used a different standard.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But you understand intuition though, right? That some things are felt rather than understood, and that deeper truths can sometimes be apprehended that way? I think that's one of the functions of poetry; to articulate things which cannot be explained, but which nevertheless have weight and meaning.

Remember I am neuro diverse. I am not sure our brains are exactly the same. But that doesn't really matter as long as we can get along.

 

[shunyadragon]

It is elegant and wonderful literature, a magnificent epic story…maybe the best of them. It is not, however an elegant epistemological resource.

I do go that far in describing Genesis. It is an ancient evolved, edited, compiled over more than a thousand years. The early more original Gilgamesh and Assyrian/Babylonian Creation texts are far more interesting.

 

[shunyadragon]

Better is not rational as per this definition: " based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings"

Rational Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary

RATIONAL meaning: 1 : based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings; 2 : having the ability to reason or think about things clearly

www.britannica.com

Remember I am a skeptic. I have been doing this for close to 30 years now including reading a lot. BTW naturalism is also unproven. So you cheated there in regards to supernaturalism and used a different standard.

Naturalism, ie science, is never proven. Science must be independent of emotions, and reason and rational thinking is limited to the independent investigation of knowledge through the scientific methods, which you evade in almost all your posts.

 

[shunyadragon]

Remember I am neuro diverse. I am not sure our brains are exactly the same. But that doesn't really matter as long as we can get along.

Oxford Languages and Google - English | Oxford Languages

neurodiverse
adjective
adjective: neuro-diverse
displaying or characterized by autistic or other neurologically atypical patterns of thought or behavior;

Needs explanation. The objective understanding of science should be independent of this consideration.

 

[Polymath257]

It is elegant and wonderful literature, a magnificent epic story…maybe the best of them. It is not, however an elegant epistemological resource.

I'm not sure I would even say it is good literature. It has certainly *inspired* good literature, even about the same subject (Milton did a far better job). As science, it is very poor.

 

[Polymath257]

No, I wouldn't recommend it for it's epistemic value. But I do think poets and artists are among the true visionaries of this world. And The Bible is one of the world's great literary compendia.

Meh. I would put the epic of Gilgamesh above it. And Ovid's Metamorphosis, for that matter. it ranks at about the level of the Iliad, which I don't value all that highly. That said, the writings in the bible vary widely in terms of quality.

 

[Polymath257]

Good, a lot of damage has been done to people through their use of the Bible thusly.

I would say that you don't need the last word.

 

[shunyadragon]

Just so that I understand what the term "multiverse" means, is it that there is more than one universe, universes besides ours, currently existing within "space"? Or rather, is it that our universe has other "manifestations" or "versions" of it in "paralell dimensions"? I have never been sure what people mean by this term, and whether it reflects a scientific or an esoteric/"new age" thought process.

The concept of the Multiverse is the possibility of more universes beginning existing and dying in a greater Quantum Matrix containing our universe. I believe in the concept in scientific philosophy that if our physical existence's Natural Laws apply uniformly than nothing is totally unique. whenever there is one universe there are more in a boundless Matrix of our physical existence. This of course, is a scientific philosophical argument and acceptance of the premises is necessary fot the argument to be valid.

We may in the future detect remnants of one or more universe in our universe.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Meh. I would put the epic of Gilgamesh above it. And Ovid's Metamorphosis, for that matter. it ranks at about the level of the Iliad, which I don't value all that highly. That said, the writings in the bible vary widely in terms of quality.

The Bible is not a single book, it's a library. A library which as you say, has inspired centuries of great literature. And I challenge anyone to seriously argue that The Psalms, Ecclesiastes, The Gospels and Revelation are not themselves among the masterpieces of world literature.

I'd also be interested to know on what basis you'd put the epic of Gilgamesh above Genesis. Maybe it's the translation I read, but I wouldn't attribute much literary merit to the former. Your comments here smack of prejudice, frankly.

 

[Zwing]

'm not sure I would even say it is good literature.

I suppose that it largely depends upon the translation. The “Authorized”/King James Version is inspired (though not divinely!) in its language, although that can probably be said of many texts contemporary with it. I gave heard that it makes for the best read of any version in any language.

 

[Zwing]

a boundless Matrix

Might a synonym of this be “an infinite space”?

 

[gnostic]

"It simply means that 13.7 billion years ago is the earliest time possible"

Again.. You don't know that and you can't show that. Its the earliest time to when our science breaks down. It cant go back farther because it breaks down, not because farther back doesn't exist.

You are basing your answer on "if's"

The current model of the Big Bang theory - the Lamda-CDM model - proposed that, which is supported by both evidence & data of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), from the observations of WMAP & the Planck.

I think you need to understand that “we do know” so far, based on what scientists have managed to learn from those evidence & data supplied by WMAP & Planck...so far. And so far, the calculations & measurements points to the universe being 13.798±0.037 billion-years-old.

In the future, either NASA or ESA, or both together, may construct instruments with even more higher resolution than those of the Planck, that may refined & verified Planck’s results, or even push back the age to the universe some more.

But that’s an “if” they do construct another space observatory with superior microwave anisotropic instrument.

The JWST is the latest, more superior than the HST (especially the JWST’s near-infrared instrument), the Hubble is 33-year-old now.

 

[Polymath257]

The Bible is not a single book, it's a library. A library which as you say, has inspired centuries of great literature. And I challenge anyone to seriously argue that The Psalms, Ecclesiastes, The Gospels and Revelation are not themselves among the masterpieces of world literature.

Yes, it is a library. And the quality varies widely from book to book. Numbers is just boring, for example.

I like Ecclesiastes. Psalms is too smarmy for my tastes. And I really dislike the basic story of the gospels-the whole dead and risen god thing just doesn't appeal. Revelation is just strange.

I'd also be interested to know on what basis you'd put the epic of Gilgamesh above Genesis. Maybe it's the translation I read, but I wouldn't attribute much literary merit to the former. Your comments here smack of prejudice, frankly.

The topics of the search immortality, of friendship, of love, and of failure, seems far deeper than most of the Bible. Again, I don't particularly like the Iliad either. Genesis just comes across as propaganda.

 

[Polymath257]

I suppose that it largely depends upon the translation. The “Authorized”/King James Version is inspired (though not divinely!) in its language, although that can probably be said of many texts contemporary with it. I gave heard that it makes for the best read of any version in any language.

I have difficulty with that historical stage of English. I can't seem to read and understand Shakespeare, for example. Too flowery and metaphorical. I find Milton much better, strangely enough.

 

[Polymath257]

No, I wouldn't recommend it for it's epistemic value. But I do think poets and artists are among the true visionaries of this world. And The Bible is one of the world's great literary compendia.

It is certainly one of the oldest compendia. I'll give you that.

I guess part of the difficulty is what makes something great literature. And that is a completely different discussion. I'm not sure I have a good answer.

But would I prefer to read the dialogs of Plato or the Bible? Most definitely, Plato, even though I disagree with almost everything he says. He is literary and thoughtful in a way the Bible seldom is. Aristotle, on the other hand, is dry as dirt. I love Aristophanes.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nope. the phrase 'came from' implies time. The universe of spacetime 'simply exists'. All 'coming from' is within spacetime.

You insist on playing word games no matter how I phrase the BB coming into existence. So here's the thing, there are the four definitions of nothing relevant to science, and it is the fourth type that I am trying to convey, the one you apparently believe is the case, when spacetime emerges at a particular location or instant, when there’s no such thing as "before", “space” or “time”.

The 4 fundamental meanings of “nothing” in science

4.) Nothingness only occurs when you remove the entire Universe and the laws that govern it. This is the most extreme case of all: a case that steps out of reality — out of space, time, and physics itself — to imagine a Platonic ideal of nothingness. We can conceive of removing everything we can imagine: space, time, and the governing rules of reality. Physicists have no definition for anything here; this is pure philosophical nothingness.

How does spacetime emerge at a particular location or instant, when there’s no such thing as “space” (for location) or “time” (for instant)? Can we truly imagine something being “outside” the Universe if we don’t have space, or “having a beginning” if we don’t have time?
From where would the rules governing particles and their interactions arise? This final definition of nothing, while it certainly feels the most philosophically satisfying, may not have a meaning at all. It could just be a logical construct borne out of our inadequate human intuition.

 

[Polymath257]

You insist on playing word games no matter how I phrase the BB coming into existence.

That is because I don't think it 'came into existence'. It simply exists.

So here's the thing, there are the four definitions of nothing relevant to science, and it is the fourth type that I am trying to convey, the one you apparently believe is the case, when spacetime emerges at a particular location or instant, when there’s no such thing as "before", “space” or “time”.

The 4 fundamental meanings of “nothing” in science

4.) Nothingness only occurs when you remove the entire Universe and the laws that govern it. This is the most extreme case of all: a case that steps out of reality — out of space, time, and physics itself — to imagine a Platonic ideal of nothingness. We can conceive of removing everything we can imagine: space, time, and the governing rules of reality. Physicists have no definition for anything here; this is pure philosophical nothingness.

How does spacetime emerge at a particular location or instant, when there’s no such thing as “space” (for location) or “time” (for instant)? Can we truly imagine something being “outside” the Universe if we don’t have space, or “having a beginning” if we don’t have time?
From where would the rules governing particles and their interactions arise? This final definition of nothing, while it certainly feels the most philosophically satisfying, may not have a meaning at all. It could just be a logical construct borne out of our inadequate human intuition.

And I agree this definition is an idea that has nothing that corresponds to it. In this sense, there is no 'nothing'. I tend towards it not having a meaning at all.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And I agree this definition is an idea that has nothing that corresponds to it. In this sense, there is no 'nothing'. I tend towards it not having a meaning at all.

Ok, so your position is that the BB emerged from "an idea that has nothing that corresponds to it", or a "no meaning" type of nothing.

 

[Zwing]

…Numbers is just boring, for example.

Maybe boring for you and I, but for a religious Jew, especially an Orthodox one, it is among the objects of greatest scrutiny. Strangely enough, Numbers contains my favorite verse in the entirety of the Bible.