You can take it as you wish but there was no intentional goal post change.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Universe a big brain
- Thread starter atanu
- Start date
-
- Tags
- virat purusha
You can take it as you wish but there was no intentional goal post change.
Fascinating
You remind me of H.G. Wells' story >Under the Knife<.
Haha. I could not get entry there.
Again. I get the following:
..................
Nevertheless, I take your comparison as a high compliment. But I could be wrong.
I know that you are hardcore naturalist, yet I feel that I can tell you my view. You survive the torture that I mete out relatively well, without snapping back, unlike most others.
In my opinion, strict empiricism is good and indispensable for validation of propositions. But if we were to stick to empiricism and only empiricism (neglecting the imaginative integrative faculties of intellect) probably there would be no Einstein, no Beethoven, no Michelangelo and no Buddha.
Let me note a few points.
There are two views of our existence: the internal-subjective "I am" and the external-objective neuronal brain. It now appears that the external view of the cosmos is similar. But Is there any subjective awareness of the universe? Does the universe ever feel "I exist thus"?
There is an answer in Hinduism and Buddhism. Hinduism teaches "You That art". If you could still your mind of all your thoughts related to the personal I, not only you remain aware but you are non-different from the universe. I cite from Buddhism.
"There is monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned."
— Ud 8.3
Where water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing: There the stars do not shine, the sun is not visible, the moon does not appear, darkness is not found. And when a sage, a brahman through sagacity, has known [this] for himself, then from form & formless, from bliss & pain, he is freed.
— Ud 1.10
.................................
I can assure you that exactly the same is said in Upanishad and in Gita. Please do not tell me that the above is not objective or testable. The procedure is recorded and knowledge of numerous practitioners is also available with us.
...
I think, information, information exchange and actions thereof are built-in in the universe. Even as fish in water does not recognise water, we do not recognise this.
But that is a secondary issue. I wish to take this opportunity to share a statement from an Upanishad that I think is foundational. The statement is (paraphrased): "The person in the eye here is the same as the person in sun".
...
Last edited:
Science and religion overlap (so rightly belong in both forums). Most of the religious are not well versed in science, but this is a good opportunity to catch up.
If an intelligence (perhaps God) exists in space, it "might be" that it can store information (thoughts, facts) in some brain-like structure. The first step is to recognize that this structure does exist (it sort of looks like interconnecting strings, like the neurons of the brain), then we must come up with some proof that these strings can store information (which, so far, we have not).
This would also explain how psychics are able to pull facts out of the thin blue sky. Psychics pull info out of the past and future, as well.
Physicists show that the universe has too many clumps and ribbons of material to be random, and those ribbons of matter could not have been formed recently because they are too far away for an explosion of matter to have effected the flow of matter.
However, if the matter had clumped and formed ribbons of matter in the early stages of the big bang, such clumping and ribboning was possible.
The universe started as a small expansion of space, and it was so cramped at the beginning that the matter was plasma (nuclei of atoms with the electrons ripped off). Photons were coupled.
Coupling means that changing one photon changes it's coupled partner photon, even if they are far from each other. This coupling is instantaneous (which apparently violates the rules about traveling faster than the speed of light). This is why this is called "spooky action."
The Cosmic Web, or: What does the universe look like at a VERY large scale?
Link above: The website claims that the explosion of stars makes a ring of matter, and that the ring is responsible for finding galaxies in the outer ring of the cosmic bullseyes at 500 million light years from the center of the explosions (and far less likely to find galaxies at different distances, such as 400 million light years or 600 million light years). The website claims that this distancing is caused by photon decoupling.
If an intelligence (perhaps God) exists in space, it "might be" that it can store information (thoughts, facts) in some brain-like structure. The first step is to recognize that this structure does exist (it sort of looks like interconnecting strings, like the neurons of the brain), then we must come up with some proof that these strings can store information (which, so far, we have not).
This would also explain how psychics are able to pull facts out of the thin blue sky. Psychics pull info out of the past and future, as well.
Physicists show that the universe has too many clumps and ribbons of material to be random, and those ribbons of matter could not have been formed recently because they are too far away for an explosion of matter to have effected the flow of matter.
However, if the matter had clumped and formed ribbons of matter in the early stages of the big bang, such clumping and ribboning was possible.
The universe started as a small expansion of space, and it was so cramped at the beginning that the matter was plasma (nuclei of atoms with the electrons ripped off). Photons were coupled.
Coupling means that changing one photon changes it's coupled partner photon, even if they are far from each other. This coupling is instantaneous (which apparently violates the rules about traveling faster than the speed of light). This is why this is called "spooky action."
The Cosmic Web, or: What does the universe look like at a VERY large scale?
Link above: The website claims that the explosion of stars makes a ring of matter, and that the ring is responsible for finding galaxies in the outer ring of the cosmic bullseyes at 500 million light years from the center of the explosions (and far less likely to find galaxies at different distances, such as 400 million light years or 600 million light years). The website claims that this distancing is caused by photon decoupling.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
It´s almost as reading this sentense from the Norse Mythology of Creation:
“Odin and his brothers slew Ymir and set about constructing the world from his corpse. They fashioned the oceans from his blood, the soil from his skin and muscles, vegetation from his hair, clouds from his brains, and the sky from his skull”. Quote from – The Creation of the Cosmos - Norse Mythology for Smart People
It is similar to an account in Rig Veda that tells how they (who?) fashioned the cosmos with the dismemberment of Purusha (person). Purusha means ‘purva Usha’ ( the person prior to dawn).
...
Read it now. Stupendous. Thank you. I am always envious of people who can enthral others with their craft.
...
Martin
Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
Again. I get the following:
..................
Nevertheless, I take your comparison as a high compliment. But I could be wrong.
I know that you are hardcore naturalist, yet I feel that I can tell you my view. You survive the torture that I mete out relatively well, without snapping back, unlike most others.
In my opinion, strict empiricism is good and indispensable for validation of propositions. But if we were to stick to empiricism and only empiricism (neglecting the imaginative integrative faculties of intellect) probably there would be no Einstein, no Beethoven, no Michelangelo and no Buddha.
Let me note a few points.
There are two views of our existence: the internal-subjective "I am" and the external-objective neuronal brain. It now appears that the external view of the cosmos is similar. But Is there any subjective awareness of the universe? Does the universe ever feel "I exist thus"?
There is an answer in Hinduism and Buddhism. Hinduism teaches "You That art". If you could still your mind of all your thoughts related to the personal I, not only you remain aware but you are non-different from the universe. I cite from Buddhism.
"There is monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned."
— Ud 8.3
Where water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing: There the stars do not shine, the sun is not visible, the moon does not appear, darkness is not found. And when a sage, a brahman through sagacity, has known [this] for himself, then from form & formless, from bliss & pain, he is freed.
— Ud 1.10
.................................
I can assure you that exactly the same is said in Upanishad and in Gita. Please do not tell me that the above is not objective or testable. The procedure is recorded and knowledge of numerous practitioners is also available with us.
...
I do wish you would stop misrepresenting Buddhism, and implying that it teaches the same as Hinduism. It really doesn't, and such claims are disingenuous.
Buddhist anatta negates Hindu Atman, and Buddhist shunyata negates Hindu Brahman. They are completely different traditions, with completely different assumptions.
Last edited:
Isn’t it more like space ( and time) appears and disappears in the truth-reality? Some people call that the God?
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Such "information transfer" goes on everywhere. In the human brain, electric impulses are made chemically, thus causing "information transfer" and it´s the same basic principle all over in the Universe.
This is why the human brain can experience direct "intuitive" cosmic informations as well as lots of other physical informations. It´s all about E&M charges and discharges of formation and information.
Quotes from - https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-hidden-magnetic-universe-begins-to-come-into-view-20200702/ - Read the full article here.
Excerpts:
"Anytime astronomers figure out a new way of looking for magnetic fields in ever more remote regions of the cosmos, inexplicably, they find them".
"These force fields — the same entities that emanate from fridge magnets — surround Earth, the sun and all galaxies. Twenty years ago, astronomers started to detect magnetism permeating entire galaxy clusters, including the space between one galaxy and the next. Invisible field lines swoop through intergalactic space like the grooves of a fingerprint.
The question is: Where did these enormous magnetic fields come from?
It clearly cannot be related to the activity of single galaxies or single explosions or, I don’t know, winds from supernovae,” said Franco Vazza, an astrophysicist at the University of Bologna who makes state-of-the-art computer simulations of cosmic magnetic fields. This goes much beyond that.
One possibility is that cosmic magnetism is primordial, tracing all the way back to the birth of the universe. In that case, weak magnetism should exist everywhere, even in the “voids” of the cosmic web — the very darkest, emptiest regions of the universe. The omnipresent magnetism would have seeded the stronger fields that blossomed in galaxies and clusters”.
----------------
The article content is the very essence of an Electric Universe. IMO the magnetic fields have always been there, hence there was no universal Big Bang.
A relevant article here. And one for "nerds" here.
Last edited:
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Universe a big brain
I understand, it is an illusion, the universe has no brain, heart and or mind. It obeys the orders of its Creator. G-d controls it and the angels serve Him in this connection, as I envision. Right, please?
Regards
_______________
[32:12] قُلۡ یَتَوَفّٰٮکُمۡ مَّلَکُ الۡمَوۡتِ الَّذِیۡ وُکِّلَ بِکُمۡ ثُمَّ اِلٰی رَبِّکُمۡ تُرۡجَعُوۡنَ ﴿٪۱۲﴾
Say, ‘The angel of death that has been put in charge of you will cause you to die; then to your Lord will you be brought back.’
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 32: As-Sajdah
I understand, it is an illusion, the universe has no brain, heart and or mind. It obeys the orders of its Creator. G-d controls it and the angels serve Him in this connection, as I envision. Right, please?
Regards
_______________
[32:12] قُلۡ یَتَوَفّٰٮکُمۡ مَّلَکُ الۡمَوۡتِ الَّذِیۡ وُکِّلَ بِکُمۡ ثُمَّ اِلٰی رَبِّکُمۡ تُرۡجَعُوۡنَ ﴿٪۱۲﴾
Say, ‘The angel of death that has been put in charge of you will cause you to die; then to your Lord will you be brought back.’
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 32: As-Sajdah
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
I agree with one that Buddhism is a distinctively separate religion, I understand.
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
It is just a myth, neither from Science nor from Religion, I understand.
Right, please?
Regards
Your position is that universe obeys creator Lord. Okay. Fine.
Even if I assume your position to be correct, then that leads to the fact that to obey orders intelligence is required.
Furthermore, if You think creator Lord is separate from the created, then you are contradicting the ‘immanence’ aspect of Lord.
You have not understood the point of the OP. The question is “What the universe is subjectively?”
...
Last edited:
It is not literal.