Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[It Aint Necessarily So]

4D reality means the BB universe must have edges.

Disagree, but what makes you think you know how many dimensions there are, or that whatever the answer is matters to this discussion? Four dimensions are evident to the bare senses, but we may live in Plato's cave and be sensing only part of reality.

to postulate that our 4D universe was caused by an absence of 4D reality is nonsense.

What is nonsense to you reflects your level of understanding. Do you see yourself as the measure of what constitutes nonsense for those who disagree with you?

You say one or the other, and I go with the eternal

OK, and I said that I suspect that you are correct, but you're guessing and don't need to.

You have not proved that the universe is not eternal

Nor need I. Do you think I do? I'll bet that you don't feel a need to prove that it is.

You may see me as a Panetheist, all that exists, ie., the eternal Cosmos/absolute universe, is alive and aware, hence fits the concept of Deity.

OK. I leave out the alive and aware part, because I have no way to decide that and don't see evidence of life in clusters of galaxies of solar systems passively obeying physical law, but perhaps at a larger scale, there is something more. However, the value of that knowledge would be about zero even if we had an answer.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Disagree, but what makes you think you know how many dimensions there are, or that whatever the answer is matters to this discussion? Four dimensions are evident to the bare senses, but we may live in Plato's cave and be sensing only part of reality.

What is nonsense to you reflects your level of understanding. Do you see yourself as the measure of what constitutes nonsense for those who disagree with you?

OK, and I said that I suspect that you are correct, but you're guessing and don't need to.

Nor need I. Do you think I do? I'll bet that you don't feel a need to prove that it is.

OK. I leave out the alive and aware part, because I have no way to decide that and don't see evidence of life in clusters of galaxies of solar systems passively obeying physical law, but perhaps at a larger scale, there is something more. However, the value of that knowledge would be about zero even if we had an answer.

Physical reality has 3 dimensions of space and one has been added by human science to these 3 dimensions of space due to the fact that the 3D of space continues to exist, and this continuation of existence to exist is called time. Thus spacetime is 4D.

So you actually believe it is possible for universal existence to have its beginning in non-existence?

Not a guess, existence can not come from non-existence! If you think it can, please explain how the absence of existence can produce existence?

The universe exists, that is proof, it is a given, anyone who claims it has not always existed needs to explain how it came from nothing. Science can't do that because the concept of absolute nothing has no reality behind it, thus it is proof that the universe can not have had a beginning, nor can it have an ending for the same reason, there is no nothing into which to put the universe.

'We'.... you imagine all human beings are equal? There are very advanced humans and very primitive people on this planet, some understand what and who they are in the context of universal existence and some don't even ask the question.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So you actually believe it is possible for universal existence to have its beginning in non-existence?

I don't know that it is impossible, so yes. But keep in mind that possible has two meanings. We use it to refer to things that we know could happen because they have happened before, but it can also be used to refer to things that actually are impossible, but we can't demonstrate it to be so. Gods fit that category. It may in fact be impossible for such a thing to exist, but if that's the case, we don't know it yet and may never know it.

Here's the problem from a pure reason perspective: Reality has either always existed, or something came into being from nothing and uncaused. I can't conceive of another possibility. It seems to me that one and only one of those must be true. Both possibilities are extremely counterintuitive. To have always existed means to have already passed through an infinite amount of time. That's not more palatable than something from nothing. I can't answer that question, and neither can anybody else, but it seems to me that whatever the answer is, it's "impossible." So, to look at only one of the options in isolation and reject it because it seems impossible to you is a logical error.

Not a guess, existence can not come from non-existence! If you think it can, please explain how the absence of existence can produce existence?

Here you are making that mistake - declaring one of the two possibilities impossible without simultaneously considering the equally counterintuitive alternative. I cannot and need not explain how that could happen. If you claim it can't, then it's you that has some 'splainin' to do. How do you know that that can't happen? Because you've never seen it happen?

The universe exists, that is proof, it is a given, anyone who claims it has not always existed needs to explain how it came from nothing.

I think you're using your private definition of universe here, but no matter. But regarding explaining, maybe you should explain how something can already have existed for an infinite amount of time (no beginning). Reality having a first moment and having no first moment are each counterintuitive, each seemingly impossible. Pick one if you must, but it'll be a guess. I prefer to remain agnostic. I don't know. Nobody does.

Science can't do that because the concept of absolute nothing has no reality behind it, thus it is proof that the universe can not have had a beginning

This argument has just been rebutted, and I'd say successfully. If you disagree, I await your counter-rebuttal - your explanation for why what I wrote here is incorrect in your opinion. Please not that I am not asking you what you believe, but to tell me why you consider me wrong if you do.

'We'.... you imagine all human beings are equal? There are very advanced humans and very primitive people on this planet, some understand what and who they are in the context of universal existence and some don't even ask the question.

That was in response to, "the value of that knowledge [whether the universe or multiverse collectively is conscious] would be about zero even if we had an answer." No, I don't see all human beings as intellectually equal, but I still conclude that the answer to that is not useful information. If we are pieces of a conscious organism, then we have the same status as the pieces of ourselves. Imagine that our constituent neutrons, protons, and electrons were conscious. Would knowing that they are part of a larger, conscious whole be useful knowledge to them?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I don't know that it is impossible, so yes. But keep in mind that possible has two meanings. We use it to refer to things that we know could happen because they have happened before, but it can also be used to refer to things that actually are impossible, but we can't demonstrate it to be so. Gods fit that category. It may in fact be impossible for such a thing to exist, but if that's the case, we don't know it yet and may never know it.

Here's the problem from a pure reason perspective: Reality has either always existed, or something came into being from nothing and uncaused. I can't conceive of another possibility. It seems to me that one and only one of those must be true. Both possibilities are extremely counterintuitive. To have always existed means to have already passed through an infinite amount of time. That's not more palatable than something from nothing. I can't answer that question, and neither can anybody else, but it seems to me that whatever the answer is, it's "impossible." So, to look at only one of the options in isolation and reject it because it seems impossible to you is a logical error.

Here you are making that mistake - declaring one of the two possibilities impossible without simultaneously considering the equally counterintuitive alternative. I cannot and need not explain how that could happen. If you claim it can't, then it's you that has some 'splainin' to do. How do you know that that can't happen? Because you've never seen it happen?

I think you're using your private definition of universe here, but no matter. But regarding explaining, maybe you should explain how something can already have existed for an infinite amount of time (no beginning). Reality having a first moment and having no first moment are each counterintuitive, each seemingly impossible. Pick one if you must, but it'll be a guess. I prefer to remain agnostic. I don't know. Nobody does.

This argument has just been rebutted, and I'd say successfully. If you disagree, I await your counter-rebuttal - your explanation for why what I wrote here is incorrect in your opinion. Please not that I am not asking you what you believe, but to tell me why you consider me wrong if you do.

That was in response to, "the value of that knowledge [whether the universe or multiverse collectively is conscious] would be about zero even if we had an answer." No, I don't see all human beings as intellectually equal, but I still conclude that the answer to that is not useful information. If we are pieces of a conscious organism, then we have the same status as the pieces of ourselves. Imagine that our constituent neutrons, protons, and electrons were conscious. Would knowing that they are part of a larger, conscious whole be useful knowledge to them?

If you do not understand that the real can't be created from the unreal, existence from non-existence, something from nothing, then your sense of logic is off imho.

You need to understand that the concept of time in the context you are using it refers to the continuation of space, spacetime refers to the universal 4D, All universal objects that science studies are temporal, the universe otoh is like a container of all temporal manifestations, it is beyond time as it has no beginning. How could it have a beginning if there is no nothing. Logically, if there was the possibility there was a nothing, then we would not exist, 'nothing' would be eternal. So make up your mind, which is the more likely reality, there is an eternal nothing, or there is eternal existence? There can not be a compromise, these are complementary opposite concepts, exist or non-exist.

So it is obvious our different respective understanding on whether existence can be created from non-existence is the cause of our disagreement. Until and unless that is resolved, we will continue to waste bandwidth. My position is that no, existence can not come from non-existence, and I present as objective evidence the reality of a universe that exists, I understand that you can not provide objective evidence of reality of non-existence, so I win so far. Now in addition, I give you the law of reciprocity that implies if non-existence can be converted to existence, then existence can be converted back to non-existence. Can science convert something that exists to nothing (no, electron-positron annihilations do not result in absolute nothing, the law of conservation of charge is in play)?

 

[gnostic]

If you do not understand that the real can't be created from the unreal, existence from non-existence, something from nothing, then your sense of logic is off imho.

Sorry, but what you call God?

Unreal? Nonexistence? Nothing?

Yes, yes, yes...to all 3 questions.

I would also add - supernatural, mythological, unnatural, imaginary.

Nothing in the Quran or the biblical genesis explain anything natural, whether it be the earth, sun, life, human biology.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sorry, but what you call God?

Unreal? Nonexistence? Nothing?

Yes, yes, yes...to all 3 questions.

I would also add - supernatural, mythological, unnatural, imaginary.

Nothing in the Quran or the biblical genesis explain anything natural, whether it be the earth, sun, life, human biology.

God is existence itself, it is called Panetheism.

What do mean 'yes' to the three questions, are you agreeing with me?

Depends on context.

Scripture is not science, it is religion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you do not understand that the real can't be created from the unreal, existence from non-existence, something from nothing, then your sense of logic is off imho.

You need to understand that the concept of time in the context you are using it refers to the continuation of space, spacetime refers to the universal 4D, All universal objects that science studies are temporal, the universe otoh is like a container of all temporal manifestations, it is beyond time as it has no beginning. How could it have a beginning if there is no nothing. Logically, if there was the possibility there was a nothing, then we would not exist, 'nothing' would be eternal. So make up your mind, which is the more likely reality, there is an eternal nothing, or there is eternal existence? There can not be a compromise, these are complementary opposite concepts, exist or non-exist.

So it is obvious our different respective understanding on whether existence can be created from non-existence is the cause of our disagreement. Until and unless that is resolved, we will continue to waste bandwidth. My position is that no, existence can not come from non-existence, and I present as objective evidence the reality of a universe that exists, I understand that you can not provide objective evidence of reality of non-existence, so I win so far. Now in addition, I give you the law of reciprocity that implies if non-existence can be converted to existence, then existence can be converted back to non-existence. Can science convert something that exists to nothing (no, electron-positron annihilations do not result in absolute nothing, the law of conservation of charge is in play)?

The problem with your kind of rationalism, is that it is magical thinking. It works like this:
You in your mind think that the real can't be created from the unreal, thus because it is so in your mind, it is so of the world as such.
The problem is that it in effect your thinking that causes it to be so.
I think X in my mind, therefore X is a fact independent of my mind. That "therefore" is in effect a cause and the effect is in something independent of your mind is so, because you think so.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The problem with your kind of rationalism, is that it is magical thinking. It works like this:
You in your mind think that the real can't be created from the unreal, thus because it is so in your mind, it is so of the world as such.
The problem is that it in effect your thinking that causes it to be so.
I think X in my mind, therefore X is a fact independent of my mind. That "therefore" is in effect a cause and the effect is in something independent of your mind is so, because you think so.

I feel you misunderstood, I was equating unreal with non-existence and nothing. and real with existence and something.

Now if you think the universe came out of absolute nothing, ie., existence from non-existence, then fine, but you would be in error. Do you actually believe that?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I feel you misunderstood, I was equating unreal with non-existence and nothing. and real with existence and something.

Now if you think the universe came out of absolute nothing, ie., existence from non-existence, then fine, but you would be in error. Do you actually believe that?

I don't know, how the universe came about. So I just observe this funny fact:
Someone: I know how the universe came about as X is Y and not Z.
Someone else: I know how the universe came about X is Z and not Y.
Me: Well, one of those don't know, so it is possible to not know and be in the world, so I do that.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I don't know, how the universe came about. So I just observe this funny fact:
Someone: I know how the universe came about as X is Y and not Z.
Someone else: I know how the universe came about X is Z and not Y.
Me: Well, one of those don't know, so it is possible to not know and be in the world, so I do that.

Ok, so if you don't know, that's fine. Most people probably find it too complicated to reflect very deeply about where they really came from, I don't mean you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok, so if you don't know, that's fine. Most people probably find it too complicated to reflect very deeply about where they really came from, I don't mean you.

Do you know?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Do you know?

The universe is eternal for the reasons given, so yes, it had no beginning, only manifested things have beginnings.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The universe is eternal for the reasons given, then yes.

The problem is that I and everybody else can act differently than you, so it is not really objective. The trick is that reasons are in brains are not independent of brains, yet everybody who know in effect claim, that they know in effect claim that what is independent of their brains, is dependent on how they think.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The problem is that I and everybody else can act differently than you, so it is not really objective. The trick is that reasons are in brains are not independent of brains, yet everybody who know in effect claim, that they know in effect claim that what is independent of their brains, is dependent on how they think.

Sure, and we each live according to the way we see reality. Science though tries to go the extra yard in terms of proof, but in the context of the universe, they can't do it so it seems.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure, and we each live according to the way we see reality. Science though tries to go the extra yard in terms of proof, but in the context of the universe, they can't do it so it seems.

The problem is if we see as see reality or if it is a bit more complicated.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The problem is if we see as see reality or if it is a bit more complicated.

One needs to be persistent if we hope to understand, true understanding is not just understanding, it is understanding not understanding. One has to really want to understand a topic, and not just proffer an opinion to fill in time.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

One needs to be persistent if we hope to understand, true understanding is not just understanding, it is understanding not understanding. One has to really want to understand a topic, and not just proffer an opinion to fill in time.

The problem is if someone thinks that everything can be understood as positive coherent true as making positively sense of everything.
That is psychology or philosophy in practice and the answer is that it is an idea just like the universe is from God or the universe is physical. Or any other variant of everything is X and not Y. Just find the not Y as Y and do the Y. Then do the same in reverse with the universe is not X, but Y.

Falsification is a human behavior's and once I learned to do that for the categories of independent of the control of a brain, share as same control in different humans and done different by different humans, it is easy.
Just analyze the claim as whether it is objective, inter-subjective or subjective.
So there are 3 categories of true and false and then there are combinations in some cases. But overall in variant of:
Someone: I am objective.
Me: Okay, I can do that subjectively different, so it really can't be objective, if you want to play real.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The problem is if someone thinks that everything can be understood as positive coherent true as making positively sense of everything.
That is psychology or philosophy in practice and the answer is that it is an idea just like the universe is from God or the universe is physical. Or any other variant of everything is X and not Y. Just find the not Y as Y and do the Y. Then do the same in reverse with the universe is not X, but Y.

Falsification is a human behavior's and once I learned to do that for the categories of independent of the control of a brain, share as same control in different humans and done different by different humans, it is easy.
Just analyze the claim as whether it is objective, inter-subjective or subjective.
So there are 3 categories of true and false and then there are combinations in some cases. But overall in variant of:
Someone: I am objective.
Me: Okay, I can do that subjectively different, so it really can't be objective, if you want to play real.

I understand the difference between existence and non-existence, real and unreal, something and nothing, my mind's thoughts about the concepts 'real' or 'unreal' are not the goal, it is reality itself beyond the brain's cogitations about it that is the goal to apprehend. One meditates on the subject, and apprehends that which the concepts are meant to represent. This is not about what others say or think, it is about one's own apprehension of truth regardless of what anyone else thinks are says. If you can't trust yourself, who can you trust?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I understand the difference between existence and non-existence, real and unreal, something and nothing, my mind's thoughts about the concepts 'real' or 'unreal' are not the goal, it is reality itself beyond the brain's cogitations about it that is the goal to apprehend. One meditates on the subject, and apprehends that which the concepts are meant to represent. This is not about what others say or think, it is about one's own apprehension of truth regardless of what anyone else thinks are says. If you can't trust yourself, who can you trust?

Well, I am a skeptic, so I do it differently. Yet I am also religious so I trust the universe to be real, knowable and orderly. But I have found no evidence of that and the properties are ontologically a case of idealism, so I am religious.

So I don't trust me in a sense. I trust God as in effect the universe is real, knowable and orderly.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, I am a skeptic, so I do it differently. Yet I am also religious so I trust the universe to be real, knowable and orderly. But I have found no evidence of that and the properties are ontologically a case of idealism, so I am religious.

So I don't trust me in a sense. I trust God as in effect the universe is real, knowable and orderly.

Sure, the 'I' self is as what it was conditioned to be, it can hardly be blamed for its flaws, but to the extent some of us have realized sufficient security, financial and other, to have the opportunity to reflect on what and who we are in the context of the greater existence, then we naturally transcend some of our lower self-survival nature that is no longer relevant, and as a result is more trustworthy and empathetic to all life. Implied in that sentence, is the presence of a new conditioning, a 'higher' self that is sometimes running the system when the original ego self is not.