What came before the Big Bang?

[godnotgod]

Certainly looks that way. After all-

"Whoever knows he is deep, strives for clarity; whoever would like to appear deep to the crowd, strives for obscurity. For the crowd considers anything deep if only it cannot see to the bottom: the crowd is so timid and afraid of going into the water." (Nietzsche)

Yet when anyone in the crowd does go into the water, he is roundly attacked for not having the proper credentials.

Currently, it is science that cannot see either to the bottom nor to the top. The mystical view has addressed both these issues long ago.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Sigh...

 

[godnotgod]

As I said, if it allowed us to manipulate and successfully interact with the world, despite not providing us with an understanding about the nature of the world, or certain aspects thereof, this would be a ridiculously fortuitous coincidence. As it happens, the two go hand-in-hand; science works (i.e. technology, accurate predictions, etc.) in virtue of the fact that it successfully provides accurate insights into the nature of the world.


We aren't talking about manipulating people, but reality, in the form of accurate predictions and correctly identifying causal relationships, such that, e.g. we can create the sorts of technology we use everyday.


No, that does not render uniqueness an illusion.


No, not necessarily, since plants perform photosynthesis without conscious intelligence- if we had the requisite biological machinery, we could do the same, without requiring conscious intelligence. In any case, this is irrelevant to any of your claims.


Going to have to be more specific than that- as is, the question is so vague as to be essentially meaningless.


No, since you continue to be unable to offer any sort of substantiation for your claim that "seeing into the nature of Reality, without Reason, Logic, or Analysis is to see things as they are", I can only imagine that the basis for this claim is that it sounds cool or romantic or something. It certainly is not being offered on the basis of anything like cogent reasoning or evidence.


Actually, science tells us a great deal about "the nature of reality". I'm guessing, however, that you're thinking of some sort of grandiose metaphysical principle, which is just a chimera to begin with.

I asked you what the nature of the world is on the basis of your claim that factual knowledge tells us what it is; not what the natures of the world are. Is there more than one nature of the world?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Your implication is that those who accept Chopra's ideas are being hypnotized

No. It's that people who eschew reason in favor of what amounts to bad pseudoscientific "poetry" will be impressed by Chopra, who can to such people sound wonderful when he isn't saying anything. And you've regurgitated points he's made which don't make anymore sense when you say them than when he did. This is, alas, too often the world of modern internet-based mysticism.

 

[godnotgod]

No. It's that people who eschew reason in favor of what amounts to bad pseudoscientific "poetry" will be impressed by Chopra, who can to such people sound wonderful when he isn't saying anything. And you've regurgitated points he's made which don't make anymore sense when you say them than when he did. This is, alas, too often the world of modern internet-based mysticism.

...Being yet another LOM regurgitation exclusive from his 'Automatic Inner Regurgitation Knee-Jerk Duplication Machine', LOL.:biglaugh::jester3:

(sorry, I had no intention of stimulating any foaming at the mouth responses)

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I asked you what the nature of the world is on the basis of your claim that factual knowledge tells us what it is; not what the natures of the world are. Is there more than one nature of the world?

Maybe, depending on you define the term- probably more accurate to say that there are many aspects to the "nature of the world"; which is why I asked you to be more specific. Are you asking about chemical composition? Geography? What? Anyways, if you don't think that learning facts about the world tells us about the nature of the world- just like learning facts about, say, tigers tells us more about the nature of tigers- then clearly you have something peculiar in mind for the term "nature".

 

[godnotgod]

Maybe, depending on you define the term- probably more accurate to say that there are many aspects to the "nature of the world"; which is why I asked you to be more specific. Are you asking about chemical composition? Geography? What? Anyways, if you don't think that learning facts about the world tells us about the nature of the world- just like learning facts about, say, tigers tells us more about the nature of tigers- then clearly you have something peculiar in mind for the term "nature".

I am not asking you about the 'many aspects to the nature of the world'; I am asking you, point blank, in reference to YOUR claim that factual knowledge tells us what the nature of the world is. There is only one underlying nature of the world, or the universe, if you will.

There is only one world, one universe, so there can only be one nature. Or is there more than one nature to the universe?

What is it?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I am not asking you about the 'many aspects to the nature of the world'; I am asking you, point blank, in reference to YOUR claim that factual knowledge tells us what the nature of the world is. There is only one underlying nature of the world, or the universe, if you will.

There is only one world, one universe, so there can only be one nature. Or is there more than one nature to the universe?

What is it?

The way you're posing the question is nonsensical. If I ask, "what is the nature of a tiger", the question is vague, because there are many aspects of the nature of a tiger- one could say that it is a cat, or that it has four legs, that its coloring is such-and-such, that its brain operates in such a fashion, that it behaves in such-and-such a way, and so on. All of this informs us about the nature of a tiger. But if there is no one, single, easy-to-state "nature" to a tiger, then all the less so for the universe as a whole.

In other words, you're demanding that I answer the question in a way that is not possible, and that I state my claim in your terms, rather than my own.

As it happens, I doubt anything has a nature in the sense you seem to be thinking of. But if learning facts about a tiger, or the universe, does not inform us about the nature of a tiger or the universe, then it seems nothing can.

 

[godnotgod]

The way you're posing the question is nonsensical. If I ask, "what is the nature of a tiger", the question is vague, because there are many aspects of the nature of a tiger- one could say that it is a cat, or that it has four legs, that its coloring is such-and-such, that its brain operates in such a fashion, that it behaves in such-and-such a way, and so on. All of this informs us about the nature of a tiger. But if there is no one, single, easy-to-state "nature" to a tiger, then all the less so for the universe as a whole.

In other words, you're demanding that I answer the question in a way that is not possible, and that I state my claim in your terms, rather than my own.

As it happens, I doubt anything has a nature in the sense you seem to be thinking of. But if learning facts about a tiger, or the universe, does not inform us about the nature of a tiger or the universe, then it seems nothing can.

OK, so you want to make a big stink over a simple question because your brain's udders are all in a bunch.

Here is your original claim, quoted directly from YOU:

Providing factual information about the world is telling us about the nature of the world.

YOU are saying there is a 'nature of the world'.

What is it?

Or do you wish to retract your statement?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

OK, so you want to make a big stink over a simple question because your brain's udders are all in a bunch.

Nope. Its unfortunate that you're being deliberately obtuse, and refusing to ask an intelligible question.

YOU are saying there is a 'nature of the world'.

Um, yes. That is to say, there are certain things that are the case.

What is it?

Or do you wish to retract your statement?

Well, I'm sure neither one of us have time to sit here and write/read an exhaustive account of "the nature of the world", even if we were in possession of one, but we can certainly make a start. Here's a few aspects of "the nature of the world"-
-the universe is approximately 14 billion years old, so far as we can tell
-our planet Earth travels through space at 66,700 miles per hour.
-The Milky Way galaxy is one among billions.
-The very furthest galaxies are spreading away from us at more than 90% of the speed of light.
-The continent of Asia is covered 30% of the total earth land area, but represent 60% of the world's population.
-Sunlight can penetrate clean ocean water to a depth of 240 feet.
-Only 3% water of the earth is fresh, 97% salted. Of that 3%, over 2% is frozen in ice sheets and glaciers.

Would you like more? We could literally go all day. Of course, as we both know you're thinking of something different, some essentialist metaphysical account of "the nature of the world"- but when the question is nonsensical, an answer doesn't even exist. There are no such things as essentialist natures- we can describe what is true of the universe, and in doing so, are describing the nature of the universe, i.e. what it is like.

 

[Slapstick]

Consciousness, while everyone has it, can either be conditioned or awakened.

Beyond the Third Level of [conditioned] Consciousness, that of Identification (Waking Sleep), there are levels of Awakening or Higher Consciousness, such as Self-Transcendence and Cosmic Consciousness.

Maybe somewhere between all those levels of consciousness you will find some common sense instead of going on wild tirades to complain about how much you hate science.

“Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things which is shared by ("common to") nearly all people, and can be reasonably expected of nearly all people without any need for debate.” (From Wiki: The all comprehensive source for internet information).

 

[godnotgod]

Nope. Its unfortunate that you're being deliberately obtuse, and refusing to ask an intelligible question.

Excuse me: YOU, as in YOU, are the one who implied that a 'nature of the world' was understood by YOU via factual knowledge! Now you want to put the onus on me. Apparently, YOU do not understand what you are saying.

Um, yes. That is to say, there are certain things that are the case.

OMG!

Well, I'm sure neither one of us have time to sit here and write/read an exhaustive account of "the nature of the world", even if we were in possession of one, but we can certainly make a start. Here's a few aspects of "the nature of the world"-
-the universe is approximately 14 billion years old, so far as we can tell
-our planet Earth travels through space at 66,700 miles per hour.
-The Milky Way galaxy is one among billions.
-The very furthest galaxies are spreading away from us at more than 90% of the speed of light.
-The continent of Asia is covered 30% of the total earth land area, but represent 60% of the world's population.
-Sunlight can penetrate clean ocean water to a depth of 240 feet.
-Only 3% water of the earth is fresh, 97% salted. Of that 3%, over 2% is frozen in ice sheets and glaciers.

Would you like more? We could literally go all day. Of course, as we both know you're thinking of something different, some essentialist metaphysical account of "the nature of the world"- but when the question is nonsensical, an answer doesn't even exist. There are no such things as essentialist natures- we can describe what is true of the universe, and in doing so, are describing the nature of the universe, i.e. what it is like.

I'm not asking what it's LIKE; I'm asking what it IS.

Stop trying to guess what I am thinking.

Providing characteristic details and minutiae ABOUT the universe does not tell me what it actually IS, because yours is only a textbook 'understanding'. It is no better than the 3 blind men touching different part of an elephant and declaring them to be the elephant.

Science gives us all the facts but tells us absolutely nothing.

It is now clear to me that you simply don't know what the universe is.

I will provide the answer that I have been posting here since Day One:

"The universe is the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"

Now before you provide a classic LOM knee-jerk parrot reaction, please reflect on that statement so that you really do understand it.

 

[godnotgod]

Maybe somewhere between all those levels of consciousness you will find some common sense instead of going on wild tirades to complain about how much you hate science.

“Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things which is shared by ("common to") nearly all people, and can be reasonably expected of nearly all people without any need for debate.” (From Wiki: The all comprehensive source for internet information).

And maybe when you make real honest efforts to wake up from your delusion you will stop saying things about other people that simply aren't true.

Common sense? You can't even use common sense where your own science is concerned, namely, QM, because it has overturned common sense.

 

[Slapstick]

Common sense? You can't even use common sense where your own science is concerned, namely, QM, because it has overturned common sense.

How so?

 

[godnotgod]

SHUZAN held up his staff and waved it before his monks.

"If you call this a staff," he said, "you deny its eternal life.
If you do not call this a staff, you deny its present fact. Tell
me just what do you propose to call it?"
*****

1st observer: 'the flag is moving'
2nd observer: 'the wind is moving'
3rd observer: 'wrong! both flag and wind are moving!'
passerby: 'ALL wrong! your MINDS are moving!'
*****

First there is a mountain;
then, there is no mountain;
then, there is.

 

[godnotgod]

How so?

Do you understand that classical logic and physics (let alone common sense) do not apply in the realm of QM?

 

[Slapstick]

Do you understand that classical logic and physics (let alone common sense) do not apply in the realm of QM?

Yeah, I'm waiting for you to give an explanation.

 

[godnotgod]

Yeah, I'm waiting for you to give an explanation.

If common sense were applicable to QM, everyone would easily understand it. But no one does.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If common sense were applicable to QM, everyone would easily understand it. But no one does.

"The glib assertions by many scientists and science popularizers that ‘nobody understands quantum mechanics’– another Feynman idiom – is balderdash. Competent physicists (as opposed to poorly informed science writers or science philosophers), who use quantum mechanics on a daily basis to elucidate successfully countless physical phenomena, clearly must understand the instrument with which they are working."
Silverman, M. P. (2008). Quantum Superposition: Counterintuitive Consequences of Coherence, Entanglement, and Interference (Frontiers Collection)Springer-Verlag.

Of course, no doubt having read Feynman's lectures you know exactly what he meant and the context of his quip about "anybody who says they understand" QM is a liar (something he used to say in class, including to John Conway). And you can determine if this is true through you diligent reading of the literature

Oh wait. You can't do more than watch Deepak Chopra on youtube. Nevermind.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Excuse me: YOU, as in YOU, are the one who implied that a 'nature of the world' was understood by YOU via factual knowledge! Now you want to put the onus on me.

I'm putting the onus on you to stop insisting I answer the question on your terms, rather than the terms on which I originally made the statement. Now you're just acting like a child throwing a temper tantrum.

Apparently, YOU do not understand what you are saying.

Lol. I understand what I've said perfectly well- but you're clearly dead-set on deliberately misunderstanding/misconstruing me, to try to make some misguided point.

OMG

Well, ask a stupid question get a stupid answer. You should've seen that one coming.

I'm not asking what it's LIKE; I'm asking what it IS.

You're asking what the world is? A world, duh! Any more silly questions?

Stop trying to guess what I am thinking.

Actually, I was spot on, as you confirm here-

Science gives us all the facts but tells us absolutely nothing.

It is now clear to me that you simply don't know what the universe is.

I will provide the answer that I have been posting here since Day One:[/COLOR]

"The universe is the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"

You were looking for some nonsensical, vacuous, essentialist metaphysical formulation. Its ironic that the facts that science provides, which, you claim, do not divulge "the nature" of the world, are infinitely more informative than this pearl of wisdom you've provided us, presumably as a result of extensive meditation, consciousness-raising, and hallucinogenic-drug ingesting. How ironic.