What came before the Big Bang?

[godnotgod]

Nay.
The void may have been perfect.
But ...Let there be light....would then be the contamination.

I have said so somewhere in these many postings.....
Light is an aberration.

If light is the aberration, then the void must be the perfection. How can that which is an aberration come out of perfection?

 

[godnotgod]

Then you must accept that your definition will be different from mine.

Yes, but mine is in harmony with the statement at hand, that:

'....center is everywhere'

I find that he was wrong on a lot of ways and his greatest student, Aristotle, proved that without a reasonable doubt. He had many great ideas but his theory of forms was thrown out after Aristotle brought in a much better philosophical view.

True, but in the ultimate sense, we are dealing here with something that does not necessarily follow the rules of formal Logic, Reason, or Analysis, which is the issue at the root of our discussion.

 

[idav]

If light is the aberration, then the void must be the perfection. How can that which is an aberration come out of perfection?

An eternity of perfection sounds boring.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Yes, but mine is in harmony with the statement at hand, that:

'....center is everywhere'

No more than any other definition.

True, but in the ultimate sense, we are dealing here with something that does not necessarily follow the rules of formal Logic, Reason, or Analysis, which is the issue at the root of our discussion.

Except your can't quote plato and be done with it. You have to formulate an argument.

 

[RichardParker]

An eternity of perfection sounds boring.

Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens

 

[Thief]

If light is the aberration, then the void must be the perfection. How can that which is an aberration come out of perfection?

Ask God.

 

[Thief]

Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens

Heaven is a place where you go, to be with others that think and feel just like you do.

How else to be happy?....how else to be fair?

In your case...it will be boring.

 

[godnotgod]

No more than any other definition.

...but more than yours.

Except your can't quote plato and be done with it. You have to formulate an argument.

Shall I formulate an argument in logical terms based on what you claim is a poetic statement, but one that I consider to be a mystical one?

If, as you say, Plato's intent was purely poetic, then he must have been in leave of the realm of Logic and Reason, and approaching the mystical. Unelss, of course, you mean to imply that by poetic his statement is nothing more than fantasy. I would tend to doubt that, coming from a mind as great as his, and submit instead that he saw the truth of the statement itself and quoted it because he cherished it as such.

 

[RichardParker]

Heaven is a place where you go, to be with others that think and feel just like you do.

How else to be happy?....how else to be fair?

In your case...it will be boring.

No, heaven... it's the essence of... things we choose.
In addition to turn... the things we have picked.

How else eat vegateble?.... how else to drink?

Your giraffe... of course it is green.

 

[godnotgod]

I find that he was wrong on a lot of ways and his greatest student, Aristotle, proved that without a reasonable doubt. He had many great ideas but his theory of forms was thrown out after Aristotle brought in a much better philosophical view.

You seem to be implying here that, because Plato's logic in regards to forms was erroneous, his 'poetic' view, [which is not originally his, BTW ] that 'God is a circle, etc.....' is also erroneous. As for Aristotle, however, it turned out that his literal view of the cosmos was erroneous.

Here is how Nicolas of Cusa weighs in on the statement in question:

"For Nicholas, the exact center and circumference of the created universe are to be found only in God. What we take to be center and outer limits depends on our viewpoint. If we change perspectives, say to that from another planet (which might indeed be inhabited) and take it to be center, then earth might be zenith. In this way we come to realize that what is taken as fixed or central can be altered to be moving and at the zenith, depending on the location of the standpoint we pick in the unbounded universe. The reason, Cusanus writes, is that there is no exactness outside of God, and only “God, who is everywhere and nowhere, is its [the universe's] circumference and center” (II.12, Hopkins translation). In this way learned ignorance recognizes that the natural universe itself, as a contracted image of God, has a physical center that can be anywhere and a circumference that is nowhere."

Cusanus, Nicolaus [Nicolas of Cusa] (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Monk Of Reason]

...but more than yours.

Shall I formulate an argument in logical terms based on what you claim is a poetic statement, but one that I consider to be a mystical one?

In what reguard? By definition the universe is all that will ever "exist" in our reality. However there may be other things that "exist" outside of our "existence". That is the mind bender. Your definition leaves us with no usefulness at all.

If, as you say, Plato's intent was purely poetic, then he must have been in leave of the realm of Logic and Reason, and approaching the mystical. Unelss, of course, you mean to imply that by poetic his statement is nothing more than fantasy. I would tend to doubt that, coming from a mind as great as his, and submit instead that he saw the truth of the statement itself and quoted it because he cherished it as such.

Some things he said poetically and others he said seriously. His theory of forms were serious. But they were wrong. Some of it was poetically spoken and some of that was also wrong.

What is the exact argument your making and where are you going with it? If it is your opinion that everywhere is the "center" then fine. I don't see how that matters to me one lick. I don't see how it supports any argument either. If you want to formulate an argument that somehow stands "everywhere is center therefor god" then we have a problem.

 

[godnotgod]

In what reguard? By definition the universe is all that will ever "exist" in our reality. However there may be other things that "exist" outside of our "existence". That is the mind bender. Your definition leaves us with no usefulness at all.


Some things he said poetically and others he said seriously. His theory of forms were serious. But they were wrong. Some of it was poetically spoken and some of that was also wrong.

What is the exact argument your making and where are you going with it? If it is your opinion that everywhere is the "center" then fine. I don't see how that matters to me one lick. I don't see how it supports any argument either. If you want to formulate an argument that somehow stands "everywhere is center therefor god" then we have a problem.

You seem to be open to the idea of new knowledge of 'other' worlds out there, but are you open to another pathway to knowledge other than your current paradigm of Logic, Reason, and Analysis? Surely just the discovery of Quantum Mechanics is enough to demonstrate to you the inability of classical Logic and Science to address this new way of looking at Reality. From my point of view, your initial protest to the statement in question is triggered by your ingrained paradigm. The statement obviously does not conform to standard rational thought. As I stated, it is more of a mystical statement than one coming from Logic. This is a problem of consciousness; the statement is all about consciousness, and by that I mean an awakened, unconditioned consciousness. Conditioned states of consciousness, such as those brought about via Reason, Logic, and Analysis, are all focused on 'figuring things out', whereas awakened consciousness is focused on seeing into the nature of things as they are. Awakened consciousness is what is needed to see the veracity of the statement in question.

Let us use the word 'Absolute' instead of 'God', here, and think of The Absolute as The Universe itself, and you already know that what I mean by 'universe' is Everything that is a totality. That is none other than The Absolute, as there can be no 'other' to which it can be relatively compared.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You seem to be open to the idea of new knowledge of 'other' worlds out there, but are you open to another pathway to knowledge other than your current paradigm of Logic, Reason, and Analysis? Surely just the discovery of Quantum Mechanics is enough to demonstrate to you the inability of classical Logic and Science to address this new way of looking at Reality. From my point of view, your initial protest to the statement in question is triggered by your ingrained paradigm. The statement obviously does not conform to standard rational thought. As I stated, it is more of a mystical statement than one coming from Logic. This is a problem of consciousness; the statement is all about consciousness, and by that I mean an awakened, unconditioned consciousness. Conditioned states of consciousness, such as those brought about via Reason, Logic, and Analysis, are all focused on 'figuring things out', whereas awakened consciousness is focused on seeing into the nature of things as they are. Awakened consciousness is what is needed to see the veracity of the statement in question.

Let us use the word 'Absolute' instead of 'God', here, and think of The Absolute as The Universe itself, and you already know that what I mean by 'universe' is Everything that is a totality. That is none other than The Absolute, as there can be no 'other' to which it can be relatively compared.

To correct you. QM is based upon the scientific method and its findings. It isn't a mystic leap in the realm of science. It follows the same logic and the same sound principles of obtaining knowledge. Empirical data.

It differs greatly from Newtonian physics and the TOR. But its because they are far to small be ruled by the same gravitational physics as large objects. Gravity doesn't mean a lot to them at such a small state. Then what keeps them together? Its different laws of nature and forces that hold them together and they are a different set of rules than what we deal with because they only matter such small spaces as atoms. (Obviously they matter to us on the macro level since without them we would literally just fly apart on the subatomic level). But we don't experience them.

So please get it out of your head that there is some kind of mystical leap with QM. Its an old hat argument made by people who think they know mysticism and falsely claim to know science.

 

[godnotgod]

To correct you. QM is based upon the scientific method and its findings. It isn't a mystic leap in the realm of science. It follows the same logic and the same sound principles of obtaining knowledge. Empirical data.

It differs greatly from Newtonian physics and the TOR. But its because they are far to small be ruled by the same gravitational physics as large objects. Gravity doesn't mean a lot to them at such a small state. Then what keeps them together? Its different laws of nature and forces that hold them together and they are a different set of rules than what we deal with because they only matter such small spaces as atoms. (Obviously they matter to us on the macro level since without them we would literally just fly apart on the subatomic level). But we don't experience them.

So please get it out of your head that there is some kind of mystical leap with QM. Its an old hat argument made by people who think they know mysticism and falsely claim to know science.

I never said that QM is mystical in nature: I said that, as Reason and mysticism are two differing views, QM is a different view than that of classical science. While science may have come across the phenomenon of QM, unlike Newtonian physics which can clearly explain its findings, science still cannot explain QM, though it can observe it. But the problem science is having is not just on the micro level; it is also on the macro level, as demonstrated here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfrvTbsRWHs

The philosopher Kant tells us that Reason has ineluctible limits, which we are now experiencing on both micro and macro levels. Science can no longer be applied to reach an understanding of exactly what the nature of the universe and of Reality is; all it can do is to describe characteristic behavior and make predictions of outward phenomena. We are reaching the outer limits and jumping off point of science. Another kind of knowledge is required, and that is the vision afforded by unconditioned consciousness. Science creates limited mind; unconditioned consciousness is infinite mind, and it is this mind which not only precedes all conditioned consciousness, but, in fact, is the basis for all knowledge.

The real reason that science will never reach a true understanding of the nature of Reality is that the focus of science is the manifestation of Reality, or the phenomenal world, but the phenomenal world is not Reality itself. Reality itself is Nothing, and science is not a system designed to deal with Nothing.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I never said that QM is mystical in nature: I said that, as Reason and mysticism are two differing views, QM is a different view than that of classical science. While science may have come across the phenomenon of QM, unlike Newtonian physics which can clearly explain its findings, science still cannot explain QM, though it can observe it. But the problem science is having is not just on the micro level; it is also on the macro level, as demonstrated here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfrvTbsRWHs

The philosopher Kant tells us that Reason has ineluctible limits, which we are now experiencing on both micro and macro levels. Science can no longer be applied to reach an understanding of exactly what the nature of the universe and of Reality is; all it can do is to describe characteristic behavior and make predictions of outward phenomena. We are reaching the outer limits and jumping off point of science. Another kind of knowledge is required, and that is the vision afforded by unconditioned consciousness. Science creates limited mind; unconditioned consciousness is infinite mind, and it is this mind which precedes all conditioned consciousness.

The boded is as false as it comes.

Observing the phenomenon is the first step to understanding. We have taken that step. We know far more about the subatomic level and the galactic level right now today than Jesus knew of Newtonian physics. That alone is interesting. We learn new things every single day in both the micro and macro levels.

Your making sweeping statements from ignorance. Nothing we have learned in science has reached "the edge of reason". No one feels they should abandon reason. If they do then they are walking down a road to illogical foolery.

 

[godnotgod]

The boded is as false as it comes.

Observing the phenomenon is the first step to understanding. We have taken that step. We know far more about the subatomic level and the galactic level right now today than Jesus knew of Newtonian physics. That alone is interesting. We learn new things every single day in both the micro and macro levels.

Your making sweeping statements from ignorance. Nothing we have learned in science has reached "the edge of reason". No one feels they should abandon reason. If they do then they are walking down a road to illogical foolery.

And yet we have cutting edge theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss telling us the universe was created from Nothing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbsGYRArH_w

IOW, the phenomenal world points to the spiritual world, but to actually get to the spiritual world, the baggage of the phenomenal world must temporarily be set aside because it is not the actual key to understanding. Dismantling the piano cannot reveal the music. One must listen to the music. One must learn to see into the nature of Reality instead of just responding to its outward appearances.

Unfortunately, Mr. Krauss, in spite of his awareness of the starting point of the mystery, then ignores unconditioned consciousness and then proceeds to embark upon a scientific investigation.

I never said we should abandon Reason: I said that Reason cannot lead us to an understanding of the nature of Reality. We still need Reason to deal with the phenomenal world. We still need to use maps, clocks, thermometers, etc to navigate on a basic level, but to navigate on a total level, to know what the context of phenomena actually is, unconditioned consciousness is key.

You have things backwards, which is typical. Observation of the phenomenon and then developing a system to explain the phenomenon (ie; science) does NOT reveal the true nature of Reality; it merely reveals the mechanics of how the phenomena works, and if you think that is the same thing, you are mistaken, and is the very reason you cannot understand the meaning of the statement of the circle 'whose center is nowhere/everywhere'.

Unfortunately, in the case of QM, science CANNOT reveal the mechanics of how the phenomena works because we have something involved that it cannot explain: the observer effect; ie; consciousness.

The first step to understanding phenomena is to return to a state of unconditioned consciousness. That way, we can see phenomena in the context of Reality, rather than how you want to have it: by seeing Reality in the context of phenomena. Doesn't work that way. Newtonian physics cannot put a dent in what the mystic Yeshu (Jesus) knew. If it were the way you have it, we would already have reached an understanding of the true nature of Reality. We can't because the method of science is to dissect into parts, and then to try to explain the whole in terms of the parts, as if an epiphany will be reached when science can then say: 'Ah Ha! So THAT's what it's all about!' That's naive, idiotic and not gonna happen.

Science is still in the realm of perceptual reality. It's instruments are mere extensions of that. Essentially, it is no further along than the 3 blind men trying to describe what an elephant is, except that it can describe what it thinks is the elephant in more detail, none of which is the actual elephant. To understand the nature of 'elephant', we need the vision of Ultimate Reality, not perceptual reality. The analysis of phenomena via science yields a dead, unconscious universe in a lab jar of academic formaldehyde.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

And yet we have cutting edge theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss telling us the universe was created from Nothing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbsGYRArH_w

IOW, the phenomenal world points to the spiritual world, but to actually get to the spiritual world, the baggage of the phenomenal world must temporarily be set aside because it is not the actual key to understanding. Dismantling the piano cannot reveal the music. One must listen to the music. One must learn to see into the nature of Reality instead of just responding to its outward appearances.

Unfortunately, Mr. Krauss, in spite of his awareness of the starting point of the mystery, then ignores unconditioned consciousness and then proceeds to embark upon a scientific investigation.

I never said we should abandon Reason: I said that Reason cannot lead us to an understanding of the nature of Reality. We still need Reason to deal with the phenomenal world. We still need to use maps, clocks, thermometers, etc to navigate on a basic level, but to navigate on a total level, to know what the context of phenomena actually is, unconditioned consciousness is key.

You have things backwards, which is typical. Observation of the phenomenon and then developing a system to explain the phenomenon (ie; science) does NOT reveal the true nature of Reality; it merely reveals the mechanics of how the phenomena works, and if you think that is the same thing, you are mistaken, and is the very reason you cannot understand the meaning of the statement of the circle 'whose center is nowhere/everywhere'.

The first step to understanding phenomena is to return to a state of unconditioned consciousness. That way, we can see phenomena in the context of Reality, rather than how you want to have it: by seeing Reality in the context of phenomena. Doesn't work that way. Newtonian physics cannot put a dent in what the mystic Yeshu (Jesus) knew. If it were the way you have it, we would already have reached an understanding of the true nature of Reality. We can't because the method of science is to dissect into parts, and then to try to explain the whole in terms of the parts, as if an epiphany will be reached when science can then say: 'Ah Ha! So THAT's what it's all about!' That's naive, idiotic and not gonna happen.

Science is still in the realm of perceptual reality. It's instruments are mere extensions of that. Essentially, it is no further along than the 3 blind men trying to describe what an elephant is, except that it can describe what it thinks is the elephant in more detail, none of which is the actual elephant. To understand the nature of 'elephant', we need the vision of Ultimate Reality, not perceptual reality. The analysis of phenomena via science yields a dead, unconscious universe in a lab jar of academic formaldehyde.

I think you are misguided in what "reason" is and I feel you are giving weight to things that you should not. There is no reason to believe that there was a conscious effort or that any of your proposed views or theories should even be considered. If that is "simply what you believe" then by all means. But to promote it as any kind of defensible position seems inadequate.

 

[godnotgod]

I think you are misguided in what "reason" is and I feel you are giving weight to things that you should not. There is no reason to believe that there was a conscious effort or that any of your proposed views or theories should even be considered. If that is "simply what you believe" then by all means. But to promote it as any kind of defensible position seems inadequate.

Perhaps your attitude is similar to Einstein's was in regards to Quantum Mechanics, eh? Because you are still immersed in the old paradigm, it is difficult for you to see anything beyond it, as it holds your attention in a conditioned state, which discourages views other than its own as being legitimate.

Unlike you, who discriminates between one view over another, the mystic embraces both the scientific and the mystical views together. For the mystic, science is not a problem, but for you, the mystic's view is. Whose is the bigger view?

Defensible positon? There is nothing to defend! Unlike science, an unconditioned view is no particular view at all. It is to simply see things as they are, rather than to see things via a highly controlled methodology, whose outcomes are determined by that methodology. The unconditioned mind uses no particular methodology at all, because there is nothing that stands between the observer and the observed.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Perhaps your attitude is similar to Einstein's was in regards to Quantum Mechanics, eh? Because you are still immersed in the old paradigm, it is difficult for you to see anything beyond it, as it holds your attention in a conditioned state, which discourages views other than its own as being legitimate.

Unlike you, who discriminates between one view over another, the mystic embraces both the scientific and the mystical views together. For the mystic, science is not a problem, but for you, the mystic's view is. Whose is the bigger view?

Defensible positon? There is nothing to defend! Unlike science, an unconditioned view is no particular view at all. It is to simply see things as they are, rather than to see things via a highly controlled methodology, whose outcomes are determined by that methodology. The unconditioned mind uses no particular methodology at all, because there is nothing that stands between the observer and the observed.

I am of the mindset of what we currently understand. When evidence comes forth I shall change my view. If someone comes out and tells me (with evidence to back it up) that what we knew was totally wrong then I will change my belief. I won't **** and moan about how we should keep to the old style of thinking.

What your problem is, precisely, that I don't buy any of the crap your spewing about mysticism and your pseudo-wisdom.

Bring the evidence or its no dice. You can quote QM if you'd like but get it right. Most of the time you get it wrong. Sometimes you get it right but then you go and imply things well beyond what the evidence supports.

 

[godnotgod]

I am of the mindset of what we currently understand. When evidence comes forth I shall change my view. If someone comes out and tells me (with evidence to back it up) that what we knew was totally wrong then I will change my belief. I won't **** and moan about how we should keep to the old style of thinking.

What your problem is, precisely, that I don't buy any of the crap your spewing about mysticism and your pseudo-wisdom.

Bring the evidence or its no dice. You can quote QM if you'd like but get it right. Most of the time you get it wrong. Sometimes you get it right but then you go and imply things well beyond what the evidence supports.

All I am saying is that the discovery of QM has overturned previous ideas derived from classical logic and science. This is because a new view of the material world had to be accepted. That alone should tell you that your science does not always apply to the nature of the material world, and should be a queue that perhaps another kind of knowledge is available which can provide a bigger picture as to the true nature of Reality. Even though QM has been 'discovered', science still does not really know what it is looking at.

re: 'crap about mysticism': quite simply, mysticism is simply the realization of the union of observer and observed. QM barely touches upon this. Mystics have known about this for over 4000 years.

There may be new information to change your mindset, but it will only be information about the phenomenal world as you already know it. Just as the prisoners in Plato's Cave could only know about the Sun by going topside to actually SEE and experience it directly, the true nature of Reality can only be apprehended via direct integration of observer and observed. No mumbo jumbo. No concept about what Reality is; only direct experience. IOW, for you to get an entirely new view about the nature of the material world, a transformation of consciousness would need to take place, not just an adjustment of your current paradigm. Changes in the way the shadows dance upon the cave walls provide variation in the belief that those shadows still represent Reality, but tell the observers nothing new. Science will continue to add to its storehouse of factual knowledge, but will never reach a true understanding as to the nature of the universe itself with such methods. The problem is in how the universe is seen from the get go. If all you want is more factual data, science is the way; but if you really want to go to the basis of all knowledge, science is a very limited tool. It fails to see the forest for the trees. The data can only be understood within the context of the whole.

Your demand for 'evidence' is plain silly, in light of what I have told you, which is that unconditioned consciousness is beyond the confines of Reason, Logic, and Analysis. It is beyond your thinking mind; it is seeing, not thinking. It is what is present prior to thought.

re: belief: so you think that what you claim is knowledge is a belief? That is quite revealing.

Are you even aware that one of the world's foremost experts in the field of QM, Anton Zeller, actually consults with the Dalai Lama and his monks for their input on his latest findings, in an attempt to get a different viewpoint? This I call a real scientist, who is humble enough to admit that he does not really understand what he is looking at; only that he is observing something beyond his capacity to know.

re: QM: What the evidence supports is only a small part of what QM actually is. It is not better than the situation of the 3 blind men and the elephant. When I say something about QM, it appears incorrect to you simply because you are looking it through the narrow lens of your limited scientific view, exactly why Einstein had such difficulty with what he saw as 'spooky actions at a distance'.

Yes, the prisoners in Plato's Cave would surely hang the escapee and his 'mystical crap' about something he calls 'The Sun', because there is no evidence he can produce to satisfy their inquiries and suspicions, and because they refuse to go take a look for themselves. I invite you to come take a look for yourself; only leave your baggage at the door. Not to worry. It will be there when you return, but I promise will look quite different to you. I can only tell you this: that the mystical experience is right under your very nose, but your conditioned mind prevents you from having that experience:

"Before my meditation, mountains were just mountains, and trees were just trees. During my study, mountains and trees were no longer mountains and trees. When my Enlightenment was finally realized, mountains were once again mountains, and trees once again trees."
Zen Source