Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Polymath257]

Why are you fixated on this time, there is all the time in the world to get it right, a 100, a 1,000 years, be patient.

I wonder if you take the same tact when it comes to the Copernican model, which is less than 500 years old.

Maybe we should withhold judgement about the Ptolemaic system? Maybe Aristotle was right?

The basic BB model is 100 years old and has withstood countless challenges. it is certainly closer to the truth than the Steady State theory was.

 

[Polymath257]

That is the difference between science and religion, one is objective and the other subjective. Every human is unique, therefore there will be different subjective experience for every soul. Science otoh is looking at a common object, and finding evidence that everyone can consider as correct. I take my subjective experiences more seriously than the objective, because I consider religion the more serious aspect of life, as Jesus said, my kingdom is not of this world (meaning the material). However the weeds in the garden are real too, and I accept that.

While I consider religion to be almost completely irrelevant (except for how it plays out politically). Subjective experiences are *opinions*. Unless they can be elevated to objective experiences, that is what they will remain.

It is my subjective experience that tomatoes are vile. That doesn't make it true that tomatoes are vile. It just means that my *opinion* is that they are vile and that I will avoid them.

Truth is a different matter. It is true that there is a sofa in my living room. Anyone that cares to do so can verify that. that is what makes it an objective fact.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

While I consider religion to be almost completely irrelevant (except for how it plays out politically). Subjective experiences are *opinions*. Unless they can be elevated to objective experiences, that is what they will remain.

It is my subjective experience that tomatoes are vile. That doesn't make it true that tomatoes are vile. It just means that my *opinion* is that they are vile and that I will avoid them.

Truth is a different matter. It is true that there is a sofa in my living room. Anyone that cares to do so can verify that. that is what makes it an objective fact.

It is not objective that it is your living room.
And it is not the same verb "be" for the definitions in regards to tomatoes are vile versus some cats are multicolored.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

While I consider religion to be almost completely irrelevant (except for how it plays out politically). Subjective experiences are *opinions*. Unless they can be elevated to objective experiences, that is what they will remain.

It is my subjective experience that tomatoes are vile. That doesn't make it true that tomatoes are vile. It just means that my *opinion* is that they are vile and that I will avoid them.

Truth is a different matter. It is true that there is a sofa in my living room. Anyone that cares to do so can verify that. that is what makes it an objective fact.

You apparently prefer to see reality in a dualistic manner always. For myself, while my mind works in the same dualistic manner as yours' as appropriate, when involved in religious practice, the goal is to be one with the universe, ie.,total reality, which if realized, there is a state of total peace beyond understanding. The mind is not thinking in this state, so if no thinker, there is no observer, just non-dual reality.

Having said that, later, any memory that arises of being in that non-dualistc state is dualistic, ie., the personal mind/observer and the personal mind's memory of the mind's non-dualitic experience. The memory is dualistic, hence the saying, "He is says, does not know, he who knows, does not say."

 

[Polymath257]

You apparently prefer to see reality in a dualistic manner always. For myself, while my mind works in the same dualistic manner as yours' as appropriate, when involved in religious practice, the goal is to be one with the universe, ie.,total reality, which if realized, there is a state of total peace beyond understanding. The mind is not thinking in this state, so if no thinker, there is no observer, just non-dual reality.

Yes. I have had such experiences. That doesn't mean I believe they were giving an accurate picture of things.

Essential point: the mind is not thinking. That actually says everything I need to know.

I'm actually NOT a dualist: I think everything is ultimately material.

Having said that, later, any memory that arises of being in that non-dualistc state is dualistic, ie., the personal mind/observer and the personal mind's memory of the mind's non-dualitic experience. The memory is dualistic, hence the saying, "He is says, does not know, he who knows, does not say."

Yawn. Sorry, but I grew out of that sort of mysticism when I was in my early 20s. I realized it was mostly nonsense. I can still think that way if I so choose, but I don't see the point.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Please no name calling even in jest. There are some very accurate names that I am tempted to use about many posters

II am fully aware that if you have not been committed to serious religious practice for many years, your mind has rarely experience a state of nun-duality. And reality being what it is, the only way you could actually understand fully what I'm explaining is to have the experience and be aware of it.

 

[Polymath257]

II am fully aware that if you have not been committed to serious religious practice for many years, your mind has rarely experience a state of nun-duality. And reality being what it is, the only way you could actually understand fully what I'm explaining is to have the experience and be aware of it.

I've had such experiences and have realized them to be a form of self-delusion. You learn about the world by looking *out*, not by looking *in*. You only learn about yourself by looking in.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Did you ever stop and think that maybe I'm aware of that? Obviously, you know nothing about my background.

Good, keep up your religious practice. "If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me."

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You obviously don't have a clue what "theory" means within the scientific community.

scientific theory, systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.

A theory may be characterized as a postulational system (a set of premises) from which empirical laws are deducible as theorems. Thus, it can have an abstract logical form, with axioms, formation rules, and rules for drawing deductions from the axioms as well as definitions for empirically interpreting its symbols. In practice, however, theories are seldom structured so carefully.

Scientific theory | Definition, Characterization, & Empirical Law

 

[YoursTrue]

Being some of the universe is over 9 billion years older than earth... They could have a near 9 billion year head start.

You know, I worked for a while for publishers and had some sci-fi authors submitting articles. I can see how these things can get started.

 

[YoursTrue]

Good, keep up your religious practice. "If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me."

I don't think you understand yet -- certain persons here do NOT NOT NOT want you to ask too many questions of them -- otherwise -- they will avoid you because you're getting too close to their brain matter. (Have a good one...)

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think you understand yet -- certain persons here do NOT NOT NOT want you to ask too many questions of them -- otherwise -- they will avoid you because you're getting too close to their brain matter. (Have a good one...)

No. This is a a give and take here. A person cannot just demand answers to questions, especially when that person makes claims that are easily shown to be wrong. In a discussion one needs to be an honest interlocutor. That means that one can ask reasonable questions, but that one also has to answer questions.

He won't answer questions. He lost the right to expect answers.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I would point out that Newtonian mechanics is still used even though it is known to be 'wrong' since it is a very good approximation in many cases.

Even if the BB model is shown to be 'wrong', it will continue to be used for the same reason: for periods after nucleosynthesis, it is an incredibly accurate model.

Just saying to 'wait and see' given that the data has come in and shown the SS models to be wrong seems, to me, like someone advocating the Ptolemaic system and claiming that we should wait for all the data to come in.

Enough data has already come in to reject the SS model. Enough data has come in to reject 'tired light'. Neither of those are serious contenders any longer *because the data has come in*.

Now, will the current BB model be the same as that in 50 years? I seriously doubt that it will be. Among other things, we have a lot to learn about neutrino physics and how that relates to cosmology is yet to be determined. We have a lot to learn about the way structure forms in the early universe. We have a lot to learn about the period before nucleosynthesis. We have a lot to learn about matter-antimatter asymmetry. We have a lot to learn about dark matter and dark energy: are there alternatives that don't have these, if not, what is their nature?

ALL of those could significantly affect some aspects of the current BB model.

But what *won't* happen is that the overall model will be eliminated.

Ok, I understand your position, and I acknowledge your excellent understanding of contemporary BB science, but I absolutely can not and will not accept a universal theory that has no idea about how and why the universe began. Something is not right imho, but the answer will come in the future I am sure.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So, you reject the current best scientific explanation in favor of a position that has been considered and rejected based on the evidence. Then you say that you have an inside track to the truth of the matter and are just waiting for science to catch up?

Really?

Have you ever studied red shifts in any detail? Do you understand the difference in what happens to a spectrum when red shifted versus what happens when it goes through dust? Do you know what the Lymann-alpha forest is and how it relates to the nature of the red shifts? Do you know of the known ways in which red shifts can happen and the theoretical reasons for such?

Or are you basing all of your objection on the results of your navel gazing and it feeling contradictory to you? If so, have you ever actually picked up a modern book on cosmology and looked over the evidence? or do you simply 'have faith' that your idea will win out eventually?

No. I accept that you believe current BB theory is complete, but I am not so sure. I suspect future science will clarify any flaws in the current model/s and am patient in that regard.

Tell me why there was a BB, and explain where the BB energy came from, and you will have my attention, until then it is just an unproven theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. I accept that you believe current BB theory is complete, but I am not so sure. I suspect future science will clarify any flaws in the current model/s and am patient in that regard.

Tell me why there was a BB, and explain where the BB energy came from, and you will have my attention, until then it is just an unproven theory.

What makes you think that you are qualified to judge? What is worse is that you won't even try to find out why you are wrong when you make rather gross errors. To make such demands in a discussion you really do need to demonstrate some good will on your part.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I wonder if you take the same tact when it comes to the Copernican model, which is less than 500 years old.

Maybe we should withhold judgement about the Ptolemaic system? Maybe Aristotle was right?

The basic BB model is 100 years old and has withstood countless challenges. it is certainly closer to the truth than the Steady State theory was.

Yes, 100 years and yet still does not have an answer as to why and how the BB began. The future will eventually reveal the truth, however long it takes, we have eternity.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes. I have had such experiences. That doesn't mean I believe they were giving an accurate picture of things.

Essential point: the mind is not thinking. That actually says everything I need to know.

I'm actually NOT a dualist: I think everything is ultimately material.


Yawn. Sorry, but I grew out of that sort of mysticism when I was in my early 20s. I realized it was mostly nonsense. I can still think that way if I so choose, but I don't see the point.

I have no idea what your experience was, but there are no 'picture of things' in non-duality,

No problem, most people take the 'maya' of duality as real, but that is because they do not yet have the prerequisite understanding of what and who they really are in the context of absolute reality, to experience non-duality.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I've had such experiences and have realized them to be a form of self-delusion. You learn about the world by looking *out*, not by looking *in*. You only learn about yourself by looking in.

In the state of non-duality, there is no ego self present to be deluded. So yes, it is true that any ego self that claims it had attained the state of non-duality is deluded.

I agree that you learn about the world by looking "out", but you learn about what and who it really is looking out, by looking in. The ego self has a source, in the state of non-duality, the ego self is united with the source.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What makes you think that you are qualified to judge? What is worse is that you won't even try to find out why you are wrong when you make rather gross errors. To make such demands in a discussion you really do need to demonstrate some good will on your part.

You appear to be judging and making demands of me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You appear to be judging and making demands of me.

You did the same of others. I can justify my judgment.