Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[shunyadragon]

The Bible is not a science textbook but offers great insight. "Science" changes even though the projections can come across as being the answer, despite the fact that scientists discover more, overturning what was believed before that.
For a while I did not believe in God. Before I understood the Bible and realized there is a God, I never thought that Genesis described the earth as flat. To say the earth hangs in space is a reasonable way of describing it before the postulations came up about gravity. Yes, it hangs in space. No suspenders showing.

Word salad in spades. The problem remains you ignore science have no knowledge of science and stick to the 'Bible says so.' as your only response/

 

[gnostic]

Yeah, I am from another culture than you and we are playing cultural relativism for in effect the different subjective versions of the definition of science is X and not Y or is Y and not X.
Now you will either get that or defend that your subjective thinking is objective. Mine is not objective, I just belong to a different culture than you.

Mikkel.

These are just classifications of disciplines in both studies (eg from universities) and professions.

Why are you complicating them into objective vs subjective, when you don’t really need to?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Only in the sense that there is no 'outside of the universe'.



As we get closer and closer to t=0, it gets hotter and denser, which means more high energy photons.

Question though, any ideas on how the universe manifested in nothingness, or to use your phrase, no 'outside the universe', when there was no universe?

 

[Polymath257]

Question though, any ideas on how the universe manifested in nothingness, or to use your phrase, no 'outside the universe', when there was no universe?

You keep wanting the universe to 'come out of' something (even if that something is nothing). My whole point is that the universe of spacetime 'simply is'.

You also keep wanting to have 'nothing' have properties so that things can 'come out of it'. And that (as you also say) is contrary to what the word 'nothing' means.

And, finally, you ask about 'when' there was no universe. But if there is a 'when', there is time and so the universe exists. So there was no 'when there was no universe'.

The universe doesn't 'manifest out of'. It doesn't 'come out of'. Those are both time dependent processes and ALL time is *within* the universe. ALL causality is within the universe. So the universe itself has no cause.

 

[shunyadragon]

You keep wanting the universe to 'come out of' something (even if that something is nothing). My whole point is that the universe of spacetime 'simply is'.

You also keep wanting to have 'nothing' have properties so that things can 'come out of it'. And that (as you also say) is contrary to what the word 'nothing' means.

And, finally, you ask about 'when' there was no universe. But if there is a 'when', there is time and so the universe exists. So there was no 'when there was no universe'.

The universe doesn't 'manifest out of'. It doesn't 'come out of'. Those are both time dependent processes and ALL time is *within* the universe. ALL causality is within the universe. So the universe itself has no cause.

My view of no boundary existence is that the Quantum nature that underlies our universe at the smallest scale is continuous without boundary with the Quantum Matrix of our physical existence. There is no 'outside the universe..' The expansion of our universe is not definably separate as would be all possible universes.

I know I take a lot of heat for this view, but simply at the smallest scale there is no continuous time/space, no gravity, and no boundary.

 

[YoursTrue]

Word salad in spades. The problem remains you ignore science have no knowledge of science and stick to the 'Bible says so.' as your only response/

I know Richard Feynman gave lectures. I had some of them. You've heard of him, haven't you?

 

[YoursTrue]

Word salad in spades. The problem remains you ignore science have no knowledge of science and stick to the 'Bible says so.' as your only response/

Nope, you're wrong. I don't "ignore science." Furthermore, what do you think of Richard Feynman? I'm sure you must have heard of him, haven't you?

 

[YoursTrue]

Not for science, it doesn't. Not even close.


No, it does not 'hang'. It moves. Nowhere in the Bible is there any hint that the Earth moves. So, no, it is NOT a reasonable way to describe it at all.

Now, it *is* a reasonable way to describe the ancient Greek view of the Earth as the center of the universe in which the Earth was immobile and the sun and all the planets went around the Earth.

Yes, I think it does offer great insight. You are misunderstanding the use of the word hang. And no, you cannot see with or without telescopes any strings or poles that the earth hangs on. Anyway, have a great night.

 

[YoursTrue]

Reference in post #3341 is a specific reference describing 'Quantum nothingness, Quantum used as a descriptive adjective for the 'nothing.' and you are ignoring playing Duck, Bob and Weasel.

Pleading ignorance on your part is indeed ignorance, and apparent lack of knowledge and willingness to get references to support your assertions.

I liked Richard Feynman anyway.

 

[YoursTrue]

Of course it did. The earth wasn't even there after the big bang. The materials and conditions were obviously there in the formation and emergence of life here.

I'd say the earthlike planets to a greater extent out there favored just as well as the Earth did.

I'm so glad I read Richard Heyman's ideas rather than sci-fi thoughts. Some people liked the movie Star Wars. Even before I believed in God and the Bible as God's communication to mankind, I thought things like Star Wars was a bunch of bunk.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We can only see that if we are not humans as we are humans now.

Yes, we may in fact be more than human, but are not aware of it. Whatever the source of existence, we are its expression. The question is, can the expression be aware of its origins, not in the dualistic sense of knowing, but in the non-dual state of being?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You keep wanting the universe to 'come out of' something (even if that something is nothing). My whole point is that the universe of spacetime 'simply is'.

You also keep wanting to have 'nothing' have properties so that things can 'come out of it'. And that (as you also say) is contrary to what the word 'nothing' means.

And, finally, you ask about 'when' there was no universe. But if there is a 'when', there is time and so the universe exists. So there was no 'when there was no universe'.

The universe doesn't 'manifest out of'. It doesn't 'come out of'. Those are both time dependent processes and ALL time is *within* the universe. ALL causality is within the universe. So the universe itself has no cause.

And it follows logically that there is nothing that is not of the universe of spacetime.

It is not I, but you who theorize a beginning of the BB spacetime universe.

If there was a beginning, looking back in spacetime, there is a point at which there is no spacetime.

 

[YoursTrue]

And it follows logically that there is nothing that is not of the universe of spacetime.

It is not I, but you who theorize a beginning of the BB spacetime universe.

If there was a beginning, looking back in spacetime, there is a point at which there is no spacetime.

If --

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If --

I hope it is not triggering...

 

[YoursTrue]

I hope it is not triggering...

Back we go to Star Wars. c'mon, let's play...!

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm so glad I read Richard Heyman's ideas rather than sci-fi thoughts. Some people liked the movie Star Wars. Even before I believed in God and the Bible as God's communication to mankind, I thought things like Star Wars was a bunch of bunk.

It's not sci fi when the proof is right here with us.

Its not a thought, but a statement.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And it follows logically that there is nothing that is not of the universe of spacetime.

It is not I, but you who theorize a beginning of the BB spacetime universe.

If there was a beginning, looking back in spacetime, there is a point at which there is no spacetime.

No, that does not follow., You do not seem to understand the concept of the positive number line. There is no "before zero" in that example. And in the universe there is no "Before the Big Bang"

If you had attained the ability to, what was the term that you used for your supposed religious level that you claimed to have achieve? At any rate if you had achieved that you would have understood the concept of just existing.

And happy Star Wars day. A universe without relativity.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, we may in fact be more than human, but are not aware of it. Whatever the source of existence, we are its expression. The question is, can the expression be aware of its origins, not in the dualistic sense of knowing, but in the non-dual state of being?

It doesn't matter, if someone else can do it differently than you, because then there is no we. If you claim a non-dual state of being, then there is no we as individuals and somebody else can't do it differently than you. We have to stop being individual and become one for it to be non-dual.
The test off dual is simple: Can you do X and I do non-X as something else? If yes, it is dual.
Hence for your non-dual state of being, we have to stop being individuals.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, that does not follow., You do not seem to understand the concept of the positive number line. There is no "before zero" in that example. And in the universe there is no "Before the Big Bang"

If you had attained the ability to, what was the term that you used for your supposed religious level that you claimed to have achieve? At any rate if you had achieved that you would have understood the concept of just existing.

And happy Star Wars day. A universe without relativity.

Ok SZ, a thought experiment, given that this timespace universe had a beginning, about which we do not know how or why, hypothetically there is no reason why there are not other timespace universes in existence that began the same way. So the question arises, what separates these different timespace universes.

And furthermore, hypothetically let's say one of these other timespace universes is 20 billion years old, how would you refer to them in terms of one beginning (forgive me but for the moment I willl use the only word I can think of that I can think of to make sense) 'before' the other, is it older and earlier?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Mikkel.

These are just classifications of disciplines in both studies (eg from universities) and professions.

Why are you complicating them into objective vs subjective, when you don’t really need to?

Because your classifications are not mine as to the core classification of what science is. It is that simple. You think science is X, I think science is not X, but Y. And that is not about you and I. It is about 2 different cultures.
Classifications is a human behavior. You do it one way for science, I do it differently.

Why do you need to classify science, that way you do it? You do it too and you defend your need and don't accept that my need, but take yours for granted.
We are playing cultural relativism for the human behavior of doing science.