Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Ben Dhyan]

No, I gave you the answer twice. It was beyond your understanding. And I do not care to try to explain it to someone that appears to be thinking at a 5th grade level or even earlier. Just a reminder, you do not get to make demands. That is your fault. So even if I do not answer that is not "running away". All you need to do is to try to change.

Run away then.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I beg your pardon, do I have to once again explain that the conceptual reality (duality) is the way humans communicate, non-conceptual reality (non-duality) is pure realization. Non-duality can not be conveyed conceptually.

Yes, I get it, you are talking about something you can't talk about if it is real for us all and not just a result of how your brain works. I get it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is not the ego=self present in non-duality, there is spiritual awareness present.

Yeah, we are playing psychology and you assume that because you can do what you do, that is then the objective standard for us all.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, I get it, you are talking about something you can't talk about if it is real for us all and not just a result of how your brain works. I get it.

Using the ego self mind (duality) to realize the spiritual/cosmic mind (non-duality) will end in failure, for the spiritual mind is omnipresent source of all consciousness, and using the ego self mind to find the spiritual mind of which it is an integral 'part' ensures the enlightenment will never be realized in all eternity.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yeah, we are playing psychology and you assume that because you can do what you do, that is then the objective standard for us all.

All I do is meditate until my mind ceases thinking, the I then is not present, but there is a selfless awareness of mind present, call it what you will, It can not be conveyed conceptually, it has to be realized in the thoughtless mind state.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Using the ego self mind (duality) to realize the spiritual/cosmic mind (non-duality) will end in failure, for the spiritual mind is omnipresent source of all consciousness, and using the ego self mind to find the spiritual mind of which it is an integral 'part' ensures the enlightenment will never be realized in all eternity.

All I do is meditate until my mind ceases thinking, the I then is not present, but there is a selfless awareness of mind present, call it what you will, It can not be conveyed conceptually, it has to be realized in the thoughtless mind state.

Yes, you do something and I do it differently. The falsification that what you do, is universal is that I can do it differently.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Seriously, if you have not understood what is being explained to you about non-duality after all my best effort to convey it, it is not going to happen.

Yes, you do something and I do it differently. The falsification that what you do, is universal is that I can do it differently.

The fact that you claim "I" do it falsifies that you are doing it. It cannot be said "I am enlightened" for in enlightenment the illusion of I cannot exist, and if it did there would not be enlightenment. This does not mean enlightenment is not possible, just that no self or identify can be enlightened.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Seriously, if you have not understood what is being explained to you about non-duality after all my best effort to convey it, it is not going to happen.

The fact that you claim "I" do it falsifies that you are doing it. It cannot be said "I am enlightened" for in enlightenment the illusion of I cannot exist, and if it did there would not be enlightenment. This does not mean enlightenment is not possible, just that no self or identify can be enlightened.

No, but that is the point of being a skeptic like me. I don't have to be enlightened. I just have to have a systems of beliefs that work for me.
You do it differently than me and all the power to you. But please stop claiming I have to become like you, because being you makes sense to you.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, but that is the point of being a skeptic like me. I don't have to be enlightened. I just have to have a systems of beliefs that work for me.
You do it differently than me and all the power to you. But please stop claiming I have to become like you, because being you makes sense to you.

Fair enough.

 

[shunyadragon]

It is the absurdity in Tao or strong skepticism. Those are different philosophical traditions than yours.
Now if you in the strong sense of meaningful can do that objectively, go ahead. But no one so far in recorded history has been able to do that.

'Strong sense of meaningful?' is a subjective consideration. The issue is 'What is objective or subjective' from the human perspective.

Hundreds of years of science has done very well using objective verifiable evidence, as defined, to develop the knowledge of science we have today. This is reality. So far you presented nothing to justify your assertions.

 

[shunyadragon]

The problem is that your meaningful is also subjective as meaningful has no objective referent.

Huh?!?!?!?!?!

 

[shunyadragon]

Here we go again, forget Polymath, we can debate this between you and me, once and for all.

1 When this BB universe did not exist, was there no existence or existence?

2 When this BB universe began until now, is there no existence or existence?

If you obfuscate in any way, you will be exposed for what you are!

I vote for Quantum existence. Considering the present knowledge of science as long as our physical existence existed there has always been a Quantum World that our universe and all possible universes arose,. We have no evidence of an absolute beginning.

Obfuscation rules @mikk_the_dane's world.

 

[Polymath257]

Thank you Polymath, well done,

But there is a one point I would challenge, that is to do with not acknowledging the proper English of using 'before' in thr term before the BB. We are in time, talking in time, we are aware in time. You and I say are aware that BBT says that the universe did not always exist,

Be careful. In the BB theory, the universe has only existed for a finite amount of time. But, whenever there was time, the universe existed. In that sense, it has 'always existed'.

it had a beginning, the beginning was when there was a transition from no existence to existence.

Wrong. There was no 'transition'. Non-existence simply does not exist. The universe does.

Just like there is no south of the south pole, there is no 'before the BB'. And, just like the south pole is not a 'transition' from non-existence to existence of the Earth, the BB is NOT a 'transition' from non-existence to existence of the universe.

There is no 'becomming', no 'transition', no 'before..after', no 'brought about by', etc. ALL of those assume that there was time, specifically a previous time. And, in the BB scenario, that is simply not the case. So language gives a poor description if you use time based language.

This sequence of no existence followed by existence is proper English imho.

Sure, it is proper English, but that is irrelevant to what we are discussing. That 'proper English' assumes that there is always a 'before', just like someone might assume there is always a 'south'.

It follows then that it is proper English to note and rephrase it to mean the same thing and say that no existence preceded existence.

No, that is simply wrong. There is no 'preceding' because there was no time. The proper English assumes that there was.

These term 'followed' and 'before' are not to do with science, but with proper English expression.

They have to do with certain assumptions of language which may not be valid in this context.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, that a Creator had to be existing before the universe began makes sense. To me. Obviously not to you or Stephen Hawking. And others.

So, time existed before the universe even though time is part of the universe?

 

[Polymath257]

You are obfuscating.

Polymath confirmed that he said what I said he said,

There is form of redshift other than doppler.

Now please apologize and just cease your incessant misinformation.

Now, did I say such red shifts are relevant to cosmology? No.

Are they? Only in very limited cases.

Does tired light explain what we actually see? Nowhere close.

 

[Polymath257]

You really have a tendency to intentionally distort the truth of what other people write. Be a man and cop on the chin when you are caught doing it, you will at least gain some respect.

Sorry, but you are the one that misinterpreted what I said.

 

[Polymath257]

Here we go again, forget Polymath, we can debate this between you and me, once and for all.

1 When this BB universe did not exist, was there no existence or existence?

There was no 'when the BB universe did not exist' in the BB model. So there was no 'was'.

This is like asking 'at a point south of the south pole, does the Earth exist or not?'.

2 When this BB universe began until now, is there no existence or existence?

The universe exists. That includes the time period from the BB until now as well as the time period into the future.

If you obfuscate in any way, you will be exposed for what you are!

You ask loaded questions that make assumptions that may not be true.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

'Strong sense of meaningful?' is a subjective consideration. The issue is 'What is objective or subjective' from the human perspective.

Hundreds of years of science has done very well using objective verifiable evidence, as defined, to develop the knowledge of science we have today. This is reality. So far you presented nothing to justify your assertions.

Well, you do your religion of religion and science. I do another. That means that what I am doing is so unreal that I didn't write this. In fact it is so meaningless that you can't even read this.
You used meaningful. That has no objective referent. You are doing philosophy.

Now if you could consider what it means that you had to write this: "... from the human perspective." or even "The issue is ..."? Then we might be able to figure out what objective and subjective is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Huh?!?!?!?!?!

Read above. You are asking how to make sense of the world. That requires a human. Start there.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Be careful. In the BB theory, the universe has only existed for a finite amount of time. But, whenever there was time, the universe existed. In that sense, it has 'always existed'.

Wrong. There was no 'transition'. Non-existence simply does not exist. The universe does.

Just like there is no south of the south pole, there is no 'before the BB'. And, just like the south pole is not a 'transition' from non-existence to existence of the Earth, the BB is NOT a 'transition' from non-existence to existence of the universe.

There is no 'becomming', no 'transition', no 'before..after', no 'brought about by', etc. ALL of those assume that there was time, specifically a previous time. And, in the BB scenario, that is simply not the case. So language gives a poor description if you use time based language.

Sure, it is proper English, but that is irrelevant to what we are discussing. That 'proper English' assumes that there is always a 'before', just like someone might assume there is always a 'south'.

No, that is simply wrong. There is no 'preceding' because there was no time. The proper English assumes that there was.

They have to do with certain assumptions of language which may not be valid in this context.

That time has always existed since it began is beside the point, before time existed there was no time! Please do not play with words!