The Watchmaker Revisited

[BilliardsBall]

Answer me honestly:

Did you stop reading gnostic's post after the very first sentence?

I read the post in its entirety. Science cannot yet say which of my two alternatives is the more plausible. Either alternative raises existential questions.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There is also the question of the definition of the term 'eternal'. Does it mean 'for all time'? Or does it require that time go infinitely far into the past? So we actually have the following possibilities:

1. Times goes infinitely into the past and the universe exists whenever there is time.

2. Time goes infinitely into the past and the universe came into being at some time.

3. Time only goes finitely far into the past and the universe exists whenever there is time.

4. Time goes only finitely far into the past and the universe started after time did.


Now, your question 'How is it possible' requires the action of causality. So one issue that needs to be addressed is the connection between causality and time. Similarly, the question of 'who or what process?' also requires a discussion of causality.

Now, my position is that 1) time is part of the universe and 2) causality requires time. Now, if time is part of the universe, then my 2 and 4 cannot happen. But if causality requires time, then there *cannot* be causality for the universe in cases 1 or 3. That means that your questions of cause simply do not apply in the only cases that make sense.

The only way to avoid this is to show either that time is *not* part of the universe (which is difficult because of general relativity) or that causality does not require time (which is difficult because of the nature of both causality and time).

Time is based on light and the speed of light. Light was not emitted from the singularity before it expanded, yes? I understand God as existing for before time-light in this continuum.

 

[Polymath257]

Time is based on light and the speed of light. Light was not emitted from the singularity before it expanded, yes? I understand God as existing for before time-light in this continuum.

What does it even mean to say something exists 'before time'? Isn't time required to even talk about 'before'?

 

[BilliardsBall]

What makes you think it was 'created'? That is to say, what makes you think the 'material' world is really material? Quantum Physics is now saying that there are no material particles in the Universe, only energy fields.

Your semantic makes sense if we also accept that energy was created to exist in a universe where the sum total of energy is zero and where energy cannot be created or destroyed.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Asking questions are fine, but only if you can suspend false assumptions before you get the answers with real data (evidences) to work with.

I am not saying that you cannot ask further questions, if you can manage to get answer to your question.

I am saying, can you wait for the answer from your first question. Because your 2nd set of questions, deal with casualIty, if you do get answer from the 1st question?

But what if your 1st question cannot be answered? Can your ask more questions if your 1st question is unanswerable?

I think you are being correct and logical here.

I can see how my first question is unanswerable, however, I've been asking if you see a third alternative--that is--when science proves what happened (or didn't happen) the only two alternatives are an eternal or a non-eternal universe.

An eternal universe prompts many of the same questions as a non-eternal universe--most people feel the same way.

 

[gnostic]

In the Hindu view, Brahman is the fundamental Reality playing itself as 'The Universe'.

Are you saying that a Zen practitioner who realizes his own Enlightenment is not fully in and of the Universe when this occurs? If not, where do you suppose he is?

In Hinduism, the jiva, or individual soul, becomes one with Brahman, ie; 'Pure Consciousness', because his true nature already IS Brahman. IOW, he was Brahman all the time, but asleep, pretending he was NOT Brahman, playing the cosmic game of Hide and Seek. Actually, the jiva is a play of Brahman, and in reality, never existed from the very beginning. The only true Reality is that of Brahman.

Can you provide any source from Zen Buddhism that earliest Zen Buddhist monks, know much about the universe?

Before the invention of the telescope, from Bronze Age to most of Renaissance, people used the naked eyes to observed the stars in the night sky.

The ancient and medieval people thought the stars were countless, but what they actually see, is barely 9000 stars.

That was the limits what anyone could see, and they thought that was the entire universe.

By the time, the telescopes became more available during the Baroque to the 19th century, they could see more stars, but astronomers thought the Milky Way was the only galaxy in the universe.

Although they could observe the Andromeda (2 million light years away) and Triangulum (3 million light years away), the pre-20th century astronomers thought they were only nebulae and part of the Milky Way, not separate galaxies.

It wasn’t until 1919, with the newest and largest telescope of the time, the Hooker Telescope, that Edwin Hubble discovered the Milky Way wasn’t the only galaxy in the universe; the Milky Way wasn’t even the largest or have the most stars, because the Andromeda Galaxy have more stars and larger in volume.

No religions and no philosophies knew of any of these facts, not Hinduism and certainly not Buddhism. Siddhārtha Gautama certainly didn’t know anything more about the universe than his contemporaries.

You talk of the universe, because we have the technology to see more of the universe than anyone else did before 1919.

To say that any ancient Buddhist or Hindu know more than people today, is nothing more than anachronistic BS.

All I see, is you talking a whole lot of unsubstantiated craps. It is not Hinduism apor Buddhism that I have problems with, it is people like you, making up things that Hinduism and Buddhism don’t teach.

You are no better than the YECs or ID followers. You make up one bs after another, with no better understanding of science before you joined this RF.

 

[dfnj]

Just a quick aside.
The trouble with science and religion is assumption.

Assumption is an essential part of human language and understanding. Every belief system, or system of thought, has a set of assumptions considered to be true without any proof. Once assumptions are established, then assertions can be categorized as "right" or "wrong", "smart", or "insane". Human language has certain characteristics and limitations that must be taken into account especially with science. Many people have argued without the Unity of Opposites nothing we talk about would make any sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_of_opposites

I would say the trouble with science and religion is the nature of language.

 

[dfnj]

Can you provide any source from Zen Buddhism that earliest Zen Buddhist monks, know much about the universe?

This is one of the best explanations I've seen on how Buddhists experience reality:

 

[gnostic]

I think you are being correct and logical here.

I can see how my first question is unanswerable, however, I've been asking if you see a third alternative--that is--when science proves what happened (or didn't happen) the only two alternatives are an eternal or a non-eternal universe.

Scientists (real scientists, not these theoretical scientists) don’t prove anything. They would either VERIFY or REFUTE if any theory is true or false through empirical and testable evidences.

Only explanations and predictions have been verified and rigorously tested, become accepted SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

Until we have actual evidences that any of the questions, then it becomes a game of “what...if” scenarios.

I don’t see how I could possibly answer your questions, without those evidences been available.

So far, the only successful physical cosmology, today, is the Big Bang theory. And that theory only explain the observable universe that can be detected and measured, eg the earliest radiation, CMBR, from Recombination Epoch (this epoch started 377,000 after the Big Bang).

The othe epochs earlier than Recombination Epoch, haven’t been fully or successfully verified.

So if they cannot see beyond Recombination Epoch, how can it be possible to see beyond the Big Bang, eg before the Planck Epoch?

That being the case, how can any cosmologist knowingly say that the universe is eternal or not eternal?

 

[gnostic]

I know that science don’t have all the answers, but I think all religions (including spiritualism and mysticism) and all philosophies don’t know much too.

And when it concern the natural world, These others know lot less than science.

 

[godnotgod]

He is quite clear that particles exist in the sense of quantum mechanics. They don't have the same properties as classical particles, but they * exist.

You are very hung up on the concept of 'material' in a classical sense. And it is true that the *classical* notion is false. But that doesn't mean that things aren't material. It just means that our definitions need to be changed in the light of what we have learned.

Our experiments detect particles, not 'energy fields'.

Which confirms what I'm saying that there are two schools of thought about this. You say you detect 'material particles'; Tong says what you call 'particles' are 'bundles of energy'.

Hinduism says that Pure Abstract Intelligence is playing itself as 'material reality'.

So what do you mean, then, by 'material'?

 

[godnotgod]

Can you provide any source from Zen Buddhism that earliest Zen Buddhist monks, know much about the universe?

Before the invention of the telescope, from Bronze Age to most of Renaissance, people used the naked eyes to observed the stars in the night sky.

The ancient and medieval people thought the stars were countless, but what they actually see, is barely 9000 stars.

That was the limits what anyone could see, and they thought that was the entire universe.

By the time, the telescopes became more available during the Baroque to the 19th century, they could see more stars, but astronomers thought the Milky Way was the only galaxy in the universe.

Although they could observe the Andromeda (2 million light years away) and Triangulum (3 million light years away), the pre-20th century astronomers thought they were only nebulae and part of the Milky Way, not separate galaxies.

It wasn’t until 1919, with the newest and largest telescope of the time, the Hooker Telescope, that Edwin Hubble discovered the Milky Way wasn’t the only galaxy in the universe; the Milky Way wasn’t even the largest or have the most stars, because the Andromeda Galaxy have more stars and larger in volume.

No religions and no philosophies knew of any of these facts, not Hinduism and certainly not Buddhism. Siddhārtha Gautama certainly didn’t know anything more about the universe than his contemporaries.

You talk of the universe, because we have the technology to see more of the universe than anyone else did before 1919.

To say that any ancient Buddhist or Hindu know more than people today, is nothing more than anachronistic BS.

All I see, is you talking a whole lot of unsubstantiated craps. It is not Hinduism apor Buddhism that I have problems with, it is people like you, making up things that Hinduism and Buddhism don’t teach.

You are no better than the YECs or ID followers. You make up one bs after another, with no better understanding of science before you joined this RF.

Your entire post wants to know whether Buddhists have FACTUAL knowledge of the Universe. The mystical experience is not about factual knowledge, but about the nature of Reality, and realization of union with the Universe, which can only be experienced when 'the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation merge into a single Reality'. What does that mean? It means that there is no separate observer of the Universe; that what we think of as a separate observer is none other than the Universe itself, just as a wave on the ocean's surface is none other than the ocean itself, playing itself as 'wave'. The 'observer' is the Universe playing itself as 'the observer'.

I asked you a question that you did not answer, but went off on a tangent:

Are you saying that a Zen practitioner who realizes his own Enlightenment is not fully in and of the Universe when this occurs? If not, where do you suppose he is? In fact, whether anyone comes to Enlightenment or not, are they not fully in and of the Universe at all times, regardless?

 

[Into the Night]

Time is based on light and the speed of light. Light was not emitted from the singularity before it expanded, yes? I understand God as existing for before time-light in this continuum.

Well...that assumes there WAS a singularity in the first place.

Who's to say the Universe hasn't always existed, and will always exist forever?

Yes, I realize that flies in the face of the Big Bang religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well...that assumes there WAS a singularity in the first place.

Who's to say the Universe hasn't always existed, and will always exist forever?

Yes, I realize that flies in the face of the Big Bang religion.

Since the Big Bang theory is based upon evidence and has been tested and confirmed it is far from a religion. Once again here is a simplified version of the scientific method for you:

We could go over how the Big Bang theory was developed using that.

 

[gnostic]

Your entire post wants to know whether Buddhists have FACTUAL knowledge of the Universe. The mystical experience is not about factual knowledge, but about the nature of Reality, and realization of union with the Universe, which can only be experienced when 'the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation merge into a single Reality'. What does that mean? It means that there is no separate observer of the Universe; that what we think of as a separate observer is none other than the Universe itself, just as a wave on the ocean's surface is none other than the ocean itself, playing itself as 'wave'. The 'observer' is the Universe playing itself as 'the observer'.

I asked you a question that you did not answer, but went off on a tangent:

Are you saying that a Zen practitioner who realizes his own Enlightenment is not fully in and of the Universe when this occurs? If not, where do you suppose he is? In fact, whether anyone comes to Enlightenment or not, are they not fully in and of the Universe at all times, regardless?

Off the tangent?

I don’t think so.

It is your rationale that off the tangent here.

We all part of the universe, including every single atom, and you don’t need awakening or enlightenment, you don’t even be aware of to be part of the universe.

But to say that you are “one with the universe”, that you are “observing” or “experiencing” directly as mystics, is load of craps.

You say I didn’t answer but you haven’t answered mine.

Can you show me a since Zen texts which say Zen practitioners are the Observers of the Universe?

My understanding of Buddhism, not just Japanese Zen, is that the awakening/enlightenment is the experiences in the world around him, like as in his current geographical location, as in his environment; the experiences of awakening/enlightenment have nothing to do with with experiences in space, and certainly not in universe.

Again that you trying to plug Hindu Brahman into Zen Buddhism, plus mixed with absurdity of the New Age mysticism.

Please provide source, where the Zen masters experienced the entire reality of the entire universe. I am quite sure it doesn’t, because I think this is your twisted version of Zen.

 

[godnotgod]

Can you show me a since Zen texts which say Zen practitioners are the Observers of the Universe?

I did not say that. I said:

Are you saying that a Zen practitioner who realizes his own Enlightenment is not fully in and of the Universe when this occurs? If not, where do you suppose he is?

My understanding of Buddhism, not just Japanese Zen, is that the awakening/enlightenment is the experiences in the world around him, like as in his current geographical location, as in his environment; the experiences of awakening/enlightenment have nothing to do with with experiences in space, and certainly not in universe.

The world around him is not in space? He himself is not in space? The world around him is not in the Universe? Is he in the Universe?

Please provide source, where the Zen masters experienced the entire reality of the entire universe. I am quite sure it doesn’t, because I think this is your twisted version of Zen.

I said they experience the nature of Reality, which is universal to Everything. There is only one nature of Reality, but it applies to all things. That is why, for example, in the Heart Sutra, the essential teaching is that 'all phenomena are empty of self nature', summed up as:

"form is emptiness;
emptiness is form"

That is the Buddha's insight into the universal nature of all things: Emptiness, or Sunyata, which cannot be understood via individual consciousness; only via universal consciousness, which in turn is empty of self-nature. Emptiness is universal to all phenomena, including man.

 

[godnotgod]

We all part of the universe, including every single atom, and you don’t need awakening or enlightenment, you don’t even be aware of to be part of the universe.

But to say that you are “one with the universe”, that you are “observing” or “experiencing” directly as mystics, is load of craps.

It is one thing to know that you are part of the universe intellectually, and quite another to experience yourself as being one with the universe.

Whether you are aware of it or not, you are at all times one with the Universe, whether you like that idea or not.

As far as 'the observer' goes, you are twisting my words. I said that:

'the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation merges into a single Reality'.

IOW, 'the observer' ceases to exist, because there never was an observer from the very beginning. It is an illusion. There is only The Universe, and you and I are it.

 

[Polymath257]

Well...that assumes there WAS a singularity in the first place.

Who's to say the Universe hasn't always existed, and will always exist forever?

Yes, I realize that flies in the face of the Big Bang religion.

That depends on which BB model you use. If you use only general relativity, a singularity is inevitable, but when quantum effects are factored in, that is no longer the case. And yes, it is *possible* that that time goes infinitely far into the past and the BB was just a 'phase transition'. But at this point we have absolutely no way to test that idea. It is on the self of possibilities that need supporting evidence.

 

[Audie]

Well...that assumes there WAS a singularity in the first place.

Who's to say the Universe hasn't always existed, and will always exist forever?

Yes, I realize that flies in the face of the Big Bang religion.

I wonder if you realize how much your use of those
two words I put in bold tell us about how little
thought or understanding of the topic we can
expect from you.

 

[Audie]

Off the tangent?

I don’t think so.

It is your rationale that off the tangent here.

We all part of the universe, including every single atom, and you don’t need awakening or enlightenment, you don’t even be aware of to be part of the universe.

But to say that you are “one with the universe”, that you are “observing” or “experiencing” directly as mystics, is load of craps.

You say I didn’t answer but you haven’t answered mine.

Can you show me a since Zen texts which say Zen practitioners are the Observers of the Universe?

My understanding of Buddhism, not just Japanese Zen, is that the awakening/enlightenment is the experiences in the world around him, like as in his current geographical location, as in his environment; the experiences of awakening/enlightenment have nothing to do with with experiences in space, and certainly not in universe.

Again that you trying to plug Hindu Brahman into Zen Buddhism, plus mixed with absurdity of the New Age mysticism.

Please provide source, where the Zen masters experienced the entire reality of the entire universe. I am quite sure it doesn’t, because I think this is your twisted version of Zen.

My step Dad surprised me one time by saying he'd
experimented with LSD, in college.

He described this feeling of being connected to
everything, whatever exactly his words, but it sounded
a lot like what our little zen master talks about.

Of course, with the drug, it wore off, and he thought
well, that was weird, it all seemed so real, I guess
I wont do that again.

Why should one doubt that a person can feel this
sensation of everything making sense now, it is
all connected, I see the universe in this orange
I'm holding, etc and so on.

It sounds like an unfortunate mental condition to me.

Another interesting thing-

After being seriously injured, ever since, i have
gotten these episodes of "enhanced perception".
Everything looks, well, supernatural. It is beautiful
and fascinating but, it scares me. Like I am losing it.

I think- he is gone now, so I cannot ask him, that
it is very similar to what he experienced with LSD.

Yeah, a mental condition. Something wrong with
the brain.

I guess is someone has that going on, they may as
well think it is wonderful. Or maybe not, I'd advise
a checkup. It is not normal, and it may be a very
bad sing of what is to come.