Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[YoursTrue]

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.

We, in essence, should get to decide how to live our lives, but unfortunately not all have that opportunity.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Speak for yourself.

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.

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

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.

I do.

Well that may be so, but that was not the question, so I'll mark 'neither' as impermissible/wrong.

If it were delusional, it is not the real thing, but a conception that it is the real thing.

Because, I am not aware that you have shared conceptually your experience of the still mind state of 'Samadhi' before. Good for you Polymath.

I am quite astonished that you find this state irrelevant.

Ok, we do agree on some things, on other things, no. The future will no doubt provide the experiences for us both that will get us to the same page, I have that faith.

 

[Polymath257]

We, in essence, should get to decide how to live our lives, but unfortunately not all have that opportunity.

There are always the constraints consisting of the rest of the universe.

 

[Polymath257]

I do.

Well that may be so, but that was not the question, so I'll mark 'neither' as impermissible/wrong.

Like I said, neither has a better understanding. Both are missing significant aspects. A bit of knowledge about sexual function can immensely help the lover and a bit of experience can immensely help the virgin.

Much better to have BOTH knowledge and experience.

If it were delusional, it is not the real thing, but a conception that it is the real thing.

Because, I am not aware that you have shared conceptually your experience of the still mind state of 'Samadhi' before. Good for you Polymath.

I am quite astonished that you find this state irrelevant.

Ok, we do agree on some things, on other things, no. The future will no doubt provide the experiences for us both that will get us to the same page, I have that faith.

Thing and care. Have knowledge and have experience.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Like I said, neither has a better understanding. Both are missing significant aspects. A bit of knowledge about sexual function can immensely help the lover and a bit of experience can immensely help the virgin.

Much better to have BOTH knowledge and experience.

Thing and care. Have knowledge and have experience.

Ok, I will agree, both! I do take science seriously, but it moves so slowly due to the significant consensus that must be there before being accepted as mainstream.

But while I am not claiming this as science, I am free as an individual to have my own mental cogitations on things. For example, such as dark energy being constituted of super high frequency wavelengths, ie. approaching, at, and beyond Planck Length, and which are responsible for the Casimir effect and gravitational waves, In fact I suspect gravity is based on the Casimir effect principle, the high frequency component having such a small wavelength that it interacts with the sub-atomic particles of atoms. Such that objects on one side of a planet will be pushed towards the surface due to the planet having absorbed the equal and opposite gravitational waves coming from the opposite direction.

My mind can 'see' in detail the nature of waves, and their interactions causing harmonics, and 2 & 3D standing waves, etc. that practically form and shape all the manifested forms of the universe, from sub-atomic particles, to planets, black holes, etc.. Darks energy imho represents the essence of all that exists.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, I will agree, both! I do take science seriously, but it moves so slowly due to the significant consensus that must be there before being accepted as mainstream.

Which is a good thing. Jumping farther than the evidence allows leads to all sorts of mistakes.

But while I am not claiming this as science, I am free as an individual to have my own mental cogitations on things. For example, such as dark energy being constituted of super high frequency wavelengths, ie. approaching, at, and beyond Planck Length, and which are responsible for the Casimir effect and gravitational waves, In fact I suspect gravity is based on the Casimir effect principle, the high frequency component having such a small wavelength that it interacts with the sub-atomic particles of atoms. Such that objects on one side of a planet will be pushed towards the surface due to the planet having absorbed the equal and opposite gravitational waves coming from the opposite direction.

Lots of problems. Not least is that the Casimir effect is way larger than gravity in most cases. Also, gravity doesn't require the presence of conductors. Then there is the observed fact that the gravitational force is inverse square while Casimir drops off much faster.

My mind can 'see' in detail the nature of waves, and their interactions causing harmonics, and 2 & 3D standing waves, etc. that practically form and shape all the manifested forms of the universe, from sub-atomic particles, to planets, black holes, etc.. Darks energy imho represents the essence of all that exists.

Uh huh.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are always the constraints consisting of the rest of the universe.

I'm not sure what you mean. Constraints consisting of the rest of the universe regarding living our lives as we wish? Can you explain what you mean by contraints consisting of the rest of the universe?

 

[YoursTrue]

Which is a good thing. Jumping farther than the evidence allows leads to all sorts of mistakes.

Lots of problems. Not least is that the Casimir effect is way larger than gravity in most cases. Also, gravity doesn't require the presence of conductors. Then there is the observed fact that the gravitational force is inverse square while Casimir drops off much faster.

Uh huh.

I see things differently from the other poster. I believe within the past several thousand years science has moved rather quickly. Because the idea by some is that prior to the past 5,000 or so years men did not need science or something like that. Yet considering the passage of time science (including writing) has moved quickly. I know the reasons some would give for the slow passage they say happened for 40,000 + years but I am simply going to reiterate the idea that given the passage of time within the past several thousand years scientific endeavors and progress have moved rapidly.

 

[danieldemol]

The universal existence/God is eternal, time is a human mental construct that helps him to understand the ever changing manifested reality. Iow, there is no beginning, only manifested things have beginnings,.....and endings.

You appear to have all existence as a concept as being identical with the universe, but I believe we don't know if the universe is all that exists, for example there may possibly be other universes, or a cycling expanding/contracting universe etc.

You say that manifested things have beginnings and ends, but in my view you dont know that the universe itself is not a "manifest" thing.

In my opinion.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Which is a good thing. Jumping farther than the evidence allows leads to all sorts of mistakes.

Lots of problems. Not least is that the Casimir effect is way larger than gravity in most cases. Also, gravity doesn't require the presence of conductors. Then there is the observed fact that the gravitational force is inverse square while Casimir drops off much faster.

Uh huh.

I was meaning the principle, the Casimir experiment itself involved zpe wavelengths large enough to 'push' metal plates together, but I am talking of wavelengths small enough to penetrate atoms and 'push' against all the sub-atomic particles in any mass in the path of the gravitational wave.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You appear to have all existence as a concept as being identical with the universe, but I believe we don't know if the universe is all that exists, for example there may possibly be other universes, or a cycling expanding/contracting universe etc.

You say that manifested things have beginnings and ends, but in my view you dont know that the universe itself is not a "manifest" thing.

In my opinion.

Existence is all there is, and since universe means one, if we take the concept of a multiverse having an infinite number of 'universes' like the one contemporary science studies, then that would be the universe.

Given this 'all that is' universe, so so called universes like this one would be just a manifested part, and so it would have a beginning and an ending, but the 'all that is' universe would have no beginning or end.

Imho.

 

[danieldemol]

Existence is all there is, and since universe means one, if we take the concept of a multiverse having an infinite number of 'universes' like the one contemporary science studies, then that would be the universe.

Given this 'all that is' universe, so so called universes like this one would be just a manifested part, and so it would have a beginning and an ending, but the 'all that is' universe would have no beginning or end.

Imho.

Ok, so we need to distinguish between the "all that is" and the technical term "universe" as used by scientists which i understand refers to the local universe, not necessarily the "all that is" universe (hope that made sense).

The big bang does not necessarily describe the beginning of the "all that is", because scientists currently have no means of detecting all that is.

So I see no reason (once the technical term universe is understood in it's proper context) that you couldn't accept that this universe may have had a beginning even if you reject the concept of the "all that is" having had a beginning.

In my opinion.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ok, so we need to distinguish between the "all that is" and the technical term "universe" as used by scientists which i understand refers to the local universe, not necessarily the "all that is" universe (hope that made sense).

The big bang does not necessarily describe the beginning of the "all that is", because scientists currently have no means of detecting all that is.

So I see no reason (once the technical term universe is understood in it's proper context) that you couldn't accept that this universe may have had a beginning even if you reject the concept of the "all that is" having had a beginning.

In my opinion.

Yes, I think.

Yes

Theoretically yes, in a multiverse universe (I hope that makes sense), this universe would have had to have a beginning.

 

[danieldemol]

Yes, I think.

Yes

Theoretically yes, in a multiverse universe (I hope that makes sense), this universe would have had to have a beginning.

So why not believe in a multiverse universe? It may not be fully supported by current science, but at least there is no known evidence that contradicts it as far as I can tell.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So why not believe in a multiverse universe? It may not be fully supported by current science, but at least there is no known evidence that contradicts it as far as I can tell.

I have never doubted the possibility of a multiverse universe. What I think also is that the universe is infinite and eternal,

 

[danieldemol]

I have never doubted the possibility of a multiverse universe. What I think also is that the universe is infinite and eternal,

The multiverse or the local universe or both or other?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The multiverse or the local universe or both or other?

The universe, regardless of whether it is a multiverse or not.

 

[danieldemol]

The universe, regardless of whether it is a multiverse or not.

Well to me that looks not much different to saying - "the universe, regardless of whether it is a solar system or not".

We have made observations that make it likely that our solar system had a beginning, so if we were unsure of whether there were other solar systems, it would still be unreasonable to assume our solar system had been around forever in my view.

Likewise with the local-verse. Observations have made it clear that it is expanding, so whether it is just part of a multiverse or not it is still illogical to conclude that there wasn't a time it began expanding in my view.

If we do turn out to be in a multiverse then you can entertain the possibility that the local-verse is expanding, so why not tentatively believe in the multiverse? You can always change your mind and go back to rejecting the evidence later if by some amazing feat science does manage to detect conclusively that we are not part of a multiverse in my view.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well to me that looks not much different to saying - "the universe, regardless of whether it is a solar system or not".

We have made observations that make it likely that our solar system had a beginning, so if we were unsure of whether there were other solar systems, it would still be unreasonable to assume our solar system had been around forever in my view.

Likewise with the local-verse. Observations have made it clear that it is expanding, so whether it is just part of a multiverse or not it is still illogical to conclude that there wasn't a time it began expanding in my view.

If we do turn out to be in a multiverse then you can entertain the possibility that the local-verse is expanding, so why not tentatively believe in the multiverse? You can always change your mind and go back to rejecting the evidence later if by some amazing feat science does manage to detect conclusively that we are not part of a multiverse in my view.

No, I thought you understood that I understood the 'all that is' universe, regardless of what constitutes it, is infinite and eternal, ergo, it never had a beginning. only manifested things have beginnings.

Likely means a considered opinion, but there is no objective evidence of this universe having a beginning, only theoretical claims.

There is the Tired Light Theory, which implies distance, not doppler, and I do not rule it out yet, despite refutation by BBers.

If the universe is a multiverse, that's fine, I've already told you I thought it was a possibility, if not, that's fine too, we shall see. I keep an open mind.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm not sure what you mean. Constraints consisting of the rest of the universe regarding living our lives as we wish? Can you explain what you mean by contraints consisting of the rest of the universe?

Well, if there is a wall, it might mean you cannot walk where you wish. The laws of physics dictate that you can't flap your arms and fly, no matter how much you want to.

If you want to play tennis, but can't find anyone else who wants to play tennis, you don't get to play.

The rest of the universe constrains what you can do.