Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Polymath257]

You have no objective evidence and you know it!

There is plenty of objective evidence. The red shifts are objective. The light element abundances are objective. The CMBR is objective. The evidence for general relativity is objective. That our models predicted observations is objective. Supernova observations are objective. Angular measurements are objective.

ALL of these support the basic BB model. Moreover, they support the LCDM model.

 

[Polymath257]

I can see it as spacetime, but as I said, I see time as a handy human construct for managing life's activities, but the real is eternal existence, that is the goal to realize.

*Your* goal. Not mine. You claim that the 'real' is 'eternal existence', but fail to show that with either reasoning or data.

It is understood that as an atheist, you have your own beliefs. God bless you Polymath.

Is that a sideways curse?

 

[YoursTrue]

Because I know the equations of general relativity and have seen the derivation of the BB model from them.

The basic model starts with a homogeneous and isotropic universe, plugs that into the equations for general relativity and the basic BB model pops out. Then, using the equations for thermodynamics, we get the description of the hot BB model. Then, we allow variances from the basic model: density fluctuations, etc. When these are put into the equations for general relativity, and thermodynamics, we are able to model the cosmic background radiation.

The predictions of these models (red-shifts proportional to distance for close galaxies, spectrum of the CMBR, prediction of the fluctuations in the CMBR, etc) have been extensively tested and have been verified by observation.

If you felt like it, you could learn some math (mainly calculus and differential equations, but linear algebra and differential geometry is quite relevant), learn a bit of physics (primarily general relativity) and actually go through the derivations. They are done in most cosmology books at graduate level (the basics are sometimes done at the undergraduate level).

It takes work and the willingness to learn, but it can be done and is freely available to everyone.

Thank you for that.
My reaction to this is: scientists have been wrong about theoretical explanations, and there is an interesting and helpful (for me, not saying you should believe it, but it makes absolute sense to me) account in the gospel of John about a man who was once blind and healed by Jesus, but the religious leaders had more than doubts about this. Notice, " a second time they called the man who had been blind and said to him: “Give glory to God; we know that this man is a sinner.” [The religious leaders meant Jesus was a sinner like the rest of humankind therefore could not heal.}
The man who was healed by Jesus answered them and said (verse 25 ) “Whether he is a sinner, I do not know. One thing I do know, that I was blind, but now I can see.” 26 Then they said to him: “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?” 27 He answered them: “I told you already, and yet you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? You do not want to become his disciples also, do you?” 28 At this they scornfully told him: “You are a disciple of that man, but we are disciples of Moses. 29 We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he is from.” 30 The man answered them: “This is certainly amazing, that you do not know where he is from, and yet he opened my eyes. 31 We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is God-fearing and does his will, he listens to this one. 32 From of old it has never been heard that anyone opened the eyes of one born blind. 33 If this man were not from God, he could do nothing at all.” 34 In answer they said to him: “You were altogether born in sin, and yet are you teaching us?” And they threw him out!"
Yes, they threw him out. (John chapter 9)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you for that.
My reaction to this is: scientists have been wrong about theoretical explanations, and there is an interesting and helpful (for me, not saying you should believe it, but it makes absolute sense to me) account in the gospel of John about a man who was once blind and healed by Jesus, but the religious leaders had more than doubts about this. Notice, " a second time they called the man who had been blind and said to him: “Give glory to God; we know that this man is a sinner.” [The religious leaders meant Jesus was a sinner like the rest of humankind therefore could not heal.}
The man who was healed by Jesus answered them and said (verse 25 ) “Whether he is a sinner, I do not know. One thing I do know, that I was blind, but now I can see.” 26 Then they said to him: “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?” 27 He answered them: “I told you already, and yet you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? You do not want to become his disciples also, do you?” 28 At this they scornfully told him: “You are a disciple of that man, but we are disciples of Moses. 29 We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he is from.” 30 The man answered them: “This is certainly amazing, that you do not know where he is from, and yet he opened my eyes. 31 We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is God-fearing and does his will, he listens to this one. 32 From of old it has never been heard that anyone opened the eyes of one born blind. 33 If this man were not from God, he could do nothing at all.” 34 In answer they said to him: “You were altogether born in sin, and yet are you teaching us?” And they threw him out!"
Yes, they threw him out. (John chapter 9)

Okay,, "Cuz the Bible tells me so" is not a very good argument. Why would anyone trust the Bible in the first place?

 

[YoursTrue]

Because I know the equations of general relativity and have seen the derivation of the BB model from them.

The basic model starts with a homogeneous and isotropic universe, plugs that into the equations for general relativity and the basic BB model pops out. Then, using the equations for thermodynamics, we get the description of the hot BB model. Then, we allow variances from the basic model: density fluctuations, etc. When these are put into the equations for general relativity, and thermodynamics, we are able to model the cosmic background radiation.

The predictions of these models (red-shifts proportional to distance for close galaxies, spectrum of the CMBR, prediction of the fluctuations in the CMBR, etc) have been extensively tested and have been verified by observation.

If you felt like it, you could learn some math (mainly calculus and differential equations, but linear algebra and differential geometry is quite relevant), learn a bit of physics (primarily general relativity) and actually go through the derivations. They are done in most cosmology books at graduate level (the basics are sometimes done at the undergraduate level).

It takes work and the willingness to learn, but it can be done and is freely available to everyone.

I don't need to learn calculus right now to understand that right now no one could possibly know if anything lies beyond the universe, which is said to be still expanding.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It is true that we do not know whether it is finite or not. If it *is*, then it has to be *very large*: far, far larger than what we can observe.

The current models work very well and do not have 'edges'. if there are edges, they are very far outside of the observable universe.

The shape has to do with whether it is finite or not. Again, it is very close to being flat, so there is an uncertainty as to whether it is actually flat or just very, very large and finite.

So, we rely on the data. That data says that the universe is very close to being flat, but the specifics have (and always will have) error bars, so the precise, large scale, shape is in doubt. If the data put the density parameter as smaller than 1, we would *know* the universe is finite. If it put it as definitely larger than 1, we would *know* that it is infinite. But, at this point, that parameter is 1 to within experimental error, so we do not know whether it is less than 1, equal to 1, or more than 1.

If it is actually equal to 1, we will *never* know that as a certainty. The error bars will always allow both more or less than 1.

Thank you for that, you confirm there is a still a lot to learn about the universe, and my most important question is yet to be discussed, ie., was there a cause of the BB?

 

[Polymath257]

Thank you for that, you confirm there is a still a lot to learn about the universe, and my most important question is yet to be discussed, ie., was there a cause of the BB?

If there was, then the BB was not the start of matter and energy. This is a possibility, but we need a good theory of quantum gravity to know for sure.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There is plenty of objective evidence. The red shifts are objective. The light element abundances are objective. The CMBR is objective. The evidence for general relativity is objective. That our models predicted observations is objective. Supernova observations are objective. Angular measurements are objective.

ALL of these support the basic BB model. Moreover, they support the LCDM model.

I understand the evidence for an expanding universe, but it is the beginning of the BB that I find hard to understand, the why and how of the BB. It is one thing to study the existing universe and conclude it has a beginning, but the elephant in the room is the cause. Without knowing the cause of the existence of our universal home, it would make all visiting ET think Earthlings have the cart before the horse with their BB science.

 

[Polymath257]

I understand the evidence for an expanding universe, but it is the beginning of the BB that I find hard to understand, the why and how of the BB. It is one thing to study the existing universe and conclude it has a beginning, but the elephant in the room is the cause. Without knowing the cause of the existence of our universal home, it would make all visiting ET think Earthlings have the cart before the horse with their BB science.

You don't need to know how planets form to study the planets. You also don't need to understand the cause (if any) to the BB to study cosmology.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

*Your* goal. Not mine. You claim that the 'real' is 'eternal existence', but fail to show that with either reasoning or data.


Is that a sideways curse?

The universe is one, any and all apparent 'parts' are integrals of this one, whether they be stars, people, flowers, electrons. One way of seeing this is to consider the universe as expressing itself through all that is, all creation. If one ponders the ultimate source of my happy existence, the answer is, obviously the universe! For example, it is nothing less than the universe that is expressing itself through Polymath, therefore it follows that the universe is Polymath. The reverse is not true, the electron, flower, Polymath, star, etc., are not the universe, but the universe is them individually and collectively.

So far, it is only an unproven theory, it would most likely take many years of still mind meditative practice, or some other efficacious religious practice, to realize being the pure awareness of the universal source within, and few there be who are prepared to give up their devotion to material existence to in turn give it to their ultimate source, universal awareness.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You don't need to know how planets form to study the planets. You also don't need to understand the cause (if any) to the BB to study cosmology.

Ahah, but given in religious practice, one has the goal of uniting with the underlying unity of all that is, not the 4.6% that science mainly deals with, but the 100%., only true understanding of what and who one really in the context of absolute existence is sufficient.

 

[Polymath257]

The universe is one, any and all apparent 'parts' are integrals of this one, whether they be stars, people, flowers, electrons. One way of seeing this is to consider the universe as expressing itself through all that is, all creation. If one ponders the ultimate source of my happy existence, the answer is, obviously the universe! For example, it is nothing less than the universe that is expressing itself through Polymath, therefore it follows that the universe is Polymath. The reverse is not true, the electron, flower, Polymath, star, etc., are not the universe, but the universe is them individually and collectively.

So far, it is only an unproven theory, it would most likely take many years of still mind meditative practice, or some other efficacious religious practice, to realize being the pure awareness of the universal source within, and few there be who are prepared to give up their devotion to material existence to in turn give it to their ultimate source, universal awareness.

Seems far too ego-centric for my tastes.

 

[Polymath257]

Ahah, but given in religious practice, one has the goal of uniting with the underlying unity of all that is, not the 4.6% that science mainly deals with, but the 100%., only true understanding of what and who one really in the context of absolute existence is sufficient.

And, of course, science also has the goal of understanding the whole thing. But that doesn't mean we are totally ignorant before we know everything.

Religion *assumes* its goals are the correct ones. It *assumes* that the answer is of a certain form.

Science goes out and tests those ideas. It is slower, but far more accurate.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Seems far too ego-centric for my tastes.

Yes, forewarned is forearmed, that is the most common cause of failure, the ego assumes it is the source, rather than be subsumed by the source.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, forewarned is forearmed, that is the most common cause of failure, the ego assumes it is the source, rather than be subsumed by the source.

Or that it is all about the happiness of the ego. Looking within finds ego. Looking outward finds wisdom.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And, of course, science also has the goal of understanding the whole thing. But that doesn't mean we are totally ignorant before we know everything.

Religion *assumes* its goals are the correct ones. It *assumes* that the answer is of a certain form.

Science goes out and tests those ideas. It is slower, but far more accurate.

We are all expressions of the universe, life for a serious soul is about being the best expression possible, that is all that matters, concepts like relgion and science are lost in fulfillment of one's destiny itself.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Or that it is all about the happiness of the ego. Looking within finds ego. Looking outward finds wisdom.

The other way around, looking out created the ego, we didn't have one at birth, looking in restores the innocence of babyhood, "Unless you become as little children, in no way will you see the kingdom of God!"

 

[Polymath257]

We are all expressions of the universe, life for a serious soul is about being the best expression possible, that is all that matters, concepts like relgion and science are lost in fulfillment of one's destiny itself.

Best according to whom?

The way I see it, *I* get to decide how to live my life and what is important *to me*. I get to interact with others and when our interests align, we can have a mutually beneficial interaction. Two free individuals coming together to interact well.

We don't have a 'destiny' to 'fulfill'. We simply are and we get to choose what matters and even what it means to be fulfilled.

The other way around, looking out created the ego, we didn't have one at birth, looking in restores the innocence of babyhood, "Unless you become as little children, in no way will you see the kingdom of God!"

A place where we disagree. Looking in only shows yourself, leading to egocentric thoughts and behaviors. We didn't have one (well, much of one) at birth because we were not developed yet.

Yes, play *like children*, have wonder *like children*, have enthusiasms *like children*. But children don't know and understand. If you want knowledge and understanding, you have to put aside childish ways and become an adult.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Best according to whom?

The way I see it, *I* get to decide how to live my life and what is important *to me*. I get to interact with others and when our interests align, we can have a mutually beneficial interaction. Two free individuals coming together to interact well.

We don't have a 'destiny' to 'fulfill'. We simply are and we get to choose what matters and even what it means to be fulfilled.


A place where we disagree. Looking in only shows yourself, leading to egocentric thoughts and behaviors. We didn't have one (well, much of one) at birth because we were not developed yet.

Yes, play *like children*, have wonder *like children*, have enthusiasms *like children*. But children don't know and understand. If you want knowledge and understanding, you have to put aside childish ways and become an adult.

Yes, that is what I meant, the individual's destiny, your destiny, even though you may not believe it, everyone has, every thing does.

You think you have knowledge, but that is all it is, thoughts, conceptions, real understanding otoh is beyond the conceptual mind. Here is probably my last attempt to convey, using concepts, that conceptualization are not as real as that they are meant to represent.

Take the subjective experience of coitus, it is real, you are not thinking about it, you are it. Now take a hypothetical scientist who is a virgin and has never yet actually experienced coitus, but who studies it by measuring subject's bodies temperature, eyeball movements, sounds, blood pressure, heart rate, etc.. Eventually said virgin scientist can write a paper on coitus and be heralded as an expert because of their vast objective knowledge of the subject.

Now tell me, which of the two, lover or virgin scientist, has the best understanding of coitus?

Same thing with the union with universal reality, when the mind state is still and free from thought, in the subjective state of union with our universal source, it is a state of pure bliss, not unlike the bliss of love between humans.

But Polymath is a 'virgin' in this sense in that he has never experienced a still mind, but golly, his mind can think about the huge amount of data accumulated by other 'virgin' scientists as to the nature of the universe, who are heralded as experts because of their vast objective knowledge of the subject.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, that is what I meant, the individual's destiny, your destiny, even though you may not believe it, everyone has, every thing does.

You think you have knowledge, but that is all it is, thoughts, conceptions, real understanding otoh is beyond the conceptual mind. Here is probably my last attempt to convey, using concepts, that conceptualization are not as real as that they are meant to represent.

Take the subjective experience of coitus, it is real, you are not thinking about it, you are it.

Speak for yourself.

Now take a hypothetical scientist who is a virgin and has never yet actually experienced coitus, but who studies it by measuring subject's bodies temperature, eyeball movements, sounds, blood pressure, heart rate, etc.. Eventually said virgin scientist can write a paper on coitus and be heralded as an expert because of their vast objective knowledge of the subject.

Now tell me, which of the two, lover or virgin scientist, has the best understanding of coitus?

Neither. The scientist that is both sexual and an expert on the science does. Both of those in your scenario are missing an important aspect of things.

Same thing with the union with universal reality, when the mind state is still and free from thought, in the subjective state of union with our universal source, it is a state of pure bliss, not unlike the bliss of love between humans.

Yes, I know. But just like that bliss between human beings, it is not knowledge. And often it is self-delusion.

But Polymath is a 'virgin' in this sense in that he has never experienced a still mind, but golly, his mind can think about the huge amount of data accumulated by other 'virgin' scientists as to the nature of the universe, who are heralded as experts because of their vast objective knowledge of the subject.

And why do you assume I have never experienced this? Just like the lover that doesn't understand the science or the virgin scientist that doesn't understand the experience, to be on either extreme is to miss a good part of the phenomenon.

At one point I wondered why people were talking about a noisy mind so much. Mine is *usually* still. I don't have much of an internal monologue. I don't have visual mental imagery. Unless I am consciously thinking about something, I can *easily* drift into the 'no thought, no duality' mode. I just find it to be rather irrelevant and not all that useful.

But, if you still find it enticing, go for it.

Before enlightenment, a rock is a rock and a tree is a tree.

While studying for enlightenment, a rock is not a rock and a tree is not a tree.

After enlightenment, a rock is a rock and a tree is a tree.