Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Subduction Zone]

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?

The answer would be "We do not know". As to the ages of other universes you might not even be able to say that they are "older" or not. Time is a trait of our universe. We do not even know if other universes would have it, but if they had time their time would not be our time. So you could not really say that it is "older".

You are making the mistake of assuming that our time is universal. Just think of separate universes as separate number lines all of them starting from their own "0".

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

There are different expressions of the non-dual, which gives the impression of multiplicity to all consciousness that self identifies totally with their apparent differences. An analogy could be the seven colors of the rainbow as different expressions of the Sun's white light.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There are different expressions of the non-dual, which gives the impression of multiplicity to all consciousness that self identifies totally with their apparent differences. An analogy could be the seven colors of the rainbow as different expressions of the Sun's white light.

Yeah, but get back to me, when you are me.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yeah, but get back to me, when you are me.

I am who I am is you too.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The answer would be "We do not know". As to the ages of other universes you might not even be able to say that they are "older" or not. Time is a trait of our universe. We do not even know if other universes would have it, but if they had time their time would not be our time. So you could not really say that it is "older".

You are making the mistake of assuming that our time is universal. Just think of separate universes as separate number lines all of them starting from their own "0".

What do you mean, if other universes would have time, do you not know what time is? Time and space are aspects of a timespace universe?

Ok so what is between the separate number lines in this hypothetical universe of universes, eg, nothing, or what?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do you mean, if other universes would have time, do you not know what time is? Time and space are aspects of a timespace universe?

Ok so what is between the separate number lines in this hypothetical universe of universes, eg, nothing, or what?

We really know nothing about those other universes. And time is a just the equivalent of distance in our universe. You can see that comparing distances between universes would be pointless. The same would be true of time. I guess the analogies did not help.

 

[ChristineM]

What do you mean, if other universes would have time, do you not know what time is? Time and space are aspects of a timespace universe?

Just a little hypothetical...

In a new study, Stanford physicists Andrei Linde and Vitaly Vanchurin have calculated the number of all possible universes, coming up with an answer of 10^10^16. If that number sounds large, the scientists explain that it would have been even more humongous, except that we observers are limited in our ability to distinguish more universes; otherwise, there could be as many as 10^10^10^7 universes.

Physicists Calculate Number of Parallel Universes

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We really know nothing about those other universes. And time is a just the equivalent of distance in our universe. You can see that comparing distances between universes would be pointless. The same would be true of time. I guess the analogies did not help.

No, time is not the equivalence of distance, it is in its absolute form the continuity of the existence of space, ie., universal spacetime. Human conceive of time as a period of duration, and is measured by some proxy method such as a pendulum, sun dial, planetary revolution, orbital period, electronic oscillator, atomic clock, etc.. It is used t measure the

I never asked about the distance between universes, I asked what was between them, for example, nothing, space?

No, time is the continuity of existence, ie., spacetime, it would be the same for any spacetime universe. But understand, in this specific hypothetical case, there is no suggestion of time being synchronized over multiple universes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, time is not the equivalence of distance, it is in its absolute form the continuity of the existence of space, ie., universal spacetime. Human conceive of time as a period of duration, and is measured by some proxy method such as a pendulum, sun dial, planetary revolution, orbital period, electronic oscillator, atomic clock, etc.. It is used t measure the

I never asked about the distance between universes, I asked what was between them, for example, nothing, space?

No, time is the continuity of existence, ie., spacetime, it would be the same for any spacetime universe. But understand, in this specific hypothetical case, there is no suggestion of time being synchronized over multiple universes.

And I never wrote anything about the distances between universes.

And you still do not understand that time is feature of this universe. Time here would not be time somewhere else. Time is just another dimension. You ask silly questions and then distort the answers.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am who I am is you too.

And that is dual.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Just a little hypothetical...

In a new study, Stanford physicists Andrei Linde and Vitaly Vanchurin have calculated the number of all possible universes, coming up with an answer of 10^10^16. If that number sounds large, the scientists explain that it would have been even more humongous, except that we observers are limited in our ability to distinguish more universes; otherwise, there could be as many as 10^10^10^7 universes.

Physicists Calculate Number of Parallel Universes

So Christine, my head hurts even trying to imagine that number, the concept of infinite did enter my mind when I first considered the hypothesis.

In their case, are the authors talking about a multiverse of universes existing in some common underlying space, or each universe being separated from each other, as in no outside of them, and no 'before' them?

 

[ratiocinator]

I have made no reference to Christian nothingness...

Eh? You seem to be losing the plot. I didn't say anything about "Christian nothingness". I've just done a search in case of typo, but no, this is the first time this phrase has appeared over the last few pages of this topic. FYI I'm an atheist. I'm interested in science and it's your claims about science that I'm trying to get to the bottom of.

I am referring Quantum nothing which is the nature of the Hawking 'Nothing'

Yet again: I know about the quantum vacuum (this was not news to me) that the article talks about. That is not what I'm asking you to justify. I'm asking about:

1. A "quantum matrix" beyond space-time.
2. That space and time are not continuous at the "quantum scale".

These are both your claims for which you have given no reference.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And I never wrote anything about the distances between universes.

And you still do not understand that time is feature of this universe. Time here would not be time somewhere else. Time is just another dimension. You ask silly questions and then distort the answers.

The vertical lines on the paper, each with their own starting point, were meant, I understood, to represent different universes?

You are changing your story, you said clearly that some universes may not have time, but those that did would not be our time. I quote you, "Time is a trait of our universe. We do not even know if other universes would have it, but if they had time their time would not be our time."

 

[ratiocinator]

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

You're still spectacularly missing the point. The space-time (in the GR BB model) is not something that has a beginning in the sense of starting to exist or 'coming out' of something. All of it just is as a four-dimensional 'object'. Time, and hence all things with temporal beginnings, are all entirely internal to it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You're still spectacularly missing the point. The space-time (in the GR BB model) is not something that has a beginning in the sense of starting to exist or 'coming out' of something. All of it just is as a four-dimensional 'object'. Time, and hence all things with temporal beginnings, are all entirely internal to it.

I beg your pardon, you are claiming there was not a beginning to universal spacetime?

 

[ChristineM]

So Christine, my head hurts even trying to imagine that number, the concept of infinite did enter my mind when I first considered the hypothesis.

In their case, are the authors talking about a multiverse of universes existing in some common underlying space, or each universe being separated from each other, as in no outside of them, and no 'before' them?

I don't know. I do know that as a leading cosmologist, Andrei Linde is a strong exponent of a multiverse hypothesis.

 

[ratiocinator]

I beg your pardon, you are claiming there was not a beginning to universal spacetime?

As many I, and others here, have already pointed out several times, time being finite in the past direction doesn't mean that the space-time (as a whole) started to exist. In order to start to exist you have to be embedded in a time dimension, but the dimension is just a direction through the space-time 'object'. The space-time is not embedded in time, it contains time.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

As many I, and others here, have already pointed out several times, time being finite in the past direction doesn't mean that the space-time (as a whole) started to exist. In order to start to exist you have to be embedded in a time dimension, but the dimension is just a direction through the space-time 'object'. The space-time is not embedded in time, it contains time.

If spacetime did not start, how did the universal space begin, and continue to exist?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If spacetime did not start, how did the universal space begin, and continue to exist?

It is unknown by the current standard of evidence.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It is unknown by the current standard of evidence.

I don't mean how it started, but since it exists now as it does, then it must have started at some point, yes?