What came before the Big Bang?

[Slapstick]

Chopra has the bigger picture to put QM into the right context because, by default, the mystic's view includes everything.

So do physicists. What makes you think they do not?

We need the bigger picture in order to interpret QM.

QM includes the bigger picture.

The scientist does not know how to interpret what his facts tell him.

If that were the case science wouldn't be relative to the world we live in today.

You don't want an expert or specialist for interpretation, unless you happen to have someone like an Amit Goswami, who is both physicist and mystic.

[youtube]s42mrdhKwRA[/youtube]
Amit Goswami, Quantum Physics & Consciousness 1 of 3 - YouTube

That goes back to consciousness and we have already moved beyond the debate of consciousness, because consciousness means nothing more than being "aware" of ones surroundings.

Goswami's interpretation of his scientific knowledge about QM coincides, pretty much, with Chopra's interpretation. Why? Because in the final analysis, there is only one way the universe is, and the mystic sees it that one way, and other mystics also see it that same way.

Seeing isn't believing and you would need to provide a proper explaniation as to what mystics see in regards to the universe.

The scientist has not yet arrived at the point where he has this vision. He is still toying around with the machinations of the discriminating mind, not the enlightened mind, and so, different scientists have differing views. They don't yet see the One Reality that the universe is about. They still see the universe as being fragmented into many 'parts'.

False. That is your interpretation of a scientist without understanding how knowledge is obtained or acquired.

Chopra cannot overstep any boundaries. You don't understand what you're saying, because the mystic's view contains the scientific view, but the scientific view does not contain the mystic's view. While the scientist omits the mystic's view, the mystic incorporates and integrates the scientific view into the big picture. Understand?

A Mystic's view doesn't equate to knowledge or science. If it does you need to explain how.

In spite of the fact that Chopra is not a physicist, he IS a scientist, and he DOES consult with physicists. In fact, he has now written two books in partnership with two physicists. So what are you talking about?

That doesn't make him a scholar when it comes to physics.

re: common sense: Your explanation is faulty, in that common sense is where the average Joe can figure things out just via talking about them, without any other source, such as classroom or textbook learning. The non-scientist, in just working things out with 'common sense' will never understand QM in the slightest possible way. The average Joe's 'common sense' is still rooted in a consciousness that is a conditioned one. As for the scientist, (whose consciousness is also highly conditioned) most shun the mystic view as 'crap', but the more intelligent ones, like physicist Dr. Anton Zellinger, are humble enough to consult with the Dalai Lama about QM:

No my explanation isn't faulty. You are talking about average Joe's who don't know diddly squat about anything. An average Joe isn't the poster boy for common sense.

See here:

[youtube]Zjd26JSaq64[/youtube]
The Dalai Lama and Quantum Physics 1/6 - YouTube

I will watch it later if I have time.

 

[Thief]

I see we are moving right along....

 

[godnotgod]

So do physicists. What makes you think they do not?

Because, the scientific view is a highly structured, conditioned view with strict parameters through which the world is then 'understood'. Anything not conforming to this highly restrictive methodology is discarded. This is not the big picture; it is the scientific view. It's essentially the same thing the Church did to the Apocryphal writings. It is not the religious view; it is Christianity's view.

QM includes the bigger picture.

No. The bigger picture includes QM.

If that were the case science wouldn't be relative to the world we live in today.

It is only relative in terms of applied science, which equates to the application of technology for human use.

That goes back to consciousness and we have already moved beyond the debate of consciousness, because consciousness means nothing more than being "aware" of ones surroundings.

Your response shows you have learned nothing, and no, we have not 'moved beyond' because consciousness is what the universe is all about.

Seeing isn't believing and you would need to provide a proper explaniation as to what mystics see in regards to the universe.

Again, you've not been paying attention. I have explained in many ways what the mystical view is. You just choose to ignore/dismiss it, turning your attention back to the old paradigm of materialism.

False. That is your interpretation of a scientist without understanding how knowledge is obtained or acquired.

You don't need to have any understanding in order to gather and process facts and data. That's all science actually does, except when theories are formulated, but even theories are only about mechanisms.

A Mystic's view doesn't equate to knowledge or science. If it does you need to explain how.

Man, you sure don't pay attention consistently, don't you?

The mystic's view is not knowledge or science of any particular thing perse, but encompasses any new knowledge or science that comes its way.

That doesn't make him a scholar when it comes to physics.

No one is claiming that it does. He is not attempting to espouse a physics point of view, but a mystic's point of view, which includes what physics says about the world. He is interpreting the findings of physics via the big picture of consciousness, which is the ONLY way it can ultimately and accurately be understood. The mind of the scientist is not the mind of the universe. They mystic's mind is the same mind as that of the universe. So you need the universal mind of the mystic to tell you what physics represents, because physics is a particular kind of language about the universe, just as math is another kind of language. But they mystic's view is before language. It sees into the very heart of the universe.

No my explanation isn't faulty. You are talking about average Joe's who don't know diddly squat about anything. An average Joe isn't the poster boy for common sense.

'Common sense' means what we, as humans, all share in common in terms of what seems to make sense on the surface of things without having to gain knowledge via education. Common sense is what we all possess by default. That does not apply when it comes to the science of QM. The moment you begin to learn about QM, it becomes uncommon knowledge; it is specialized knowledge. But it is still not understanding. The mystic view is about understanding.

I will watch it later if I have time.

Even if you don't, just the very fact that a renowned QM physicist understands that he needs to consult with a mystic should give you a clue.

 

[Slapstick]

Because, the scientific view is a highly structured, conditioned view with strict parameters through which the world is then 'understood'. Anything not conforming to this highly restrictive methodology is discarded. This is not the big picture; it is the scientific view.

This shows little to nothing about the subject you are debating.

No. The bigger picture includes QM.

You can't even describe a single science, yet claim to know what QM is after asking me to explain it to you.

It is only relative in terms of applied science, which equates to the application of technology for human use.

No it isn't.

Your response shows you have learned nothing, and no, we have not 'moved beyond' because consciousness is what the universe is all about.

More hearsay from a wannabe mystics.

Again, you've not been paying attention. I have explained in many ways what the mystical view is. You just choose to ignore/dismiss it, turning your attention back to the old paradigm of materialism.

More made up stuff coming from a wannabe mystic.

You don't need to have any understanding in order to gather and process facts and data. That's all science actually does.

You must be crazy.

Man, you sure don't pay attention consistently, don't you?

The mystic's view is not knowledge or science of any particular thing perse, but encompasses any new knowledge or science that comes its way.

You can continue to live in your fantasy world. It has no affect on the real one.

No one is claiming that it does. He is not attempting to espouse a physics point of view, but a mystic's point of view, which includes what physics says about the world. He is interpreting the findings of physics via the big picture of consciousness, which is the ONLY way it can ultimately and accurately be understood. The mind of the scientist is not the mind of the universe. They mystic's mind is the same mind as that of the universe. So you need the universal mind of the mystic to tell you what physics represents, because physics is a particular kind of language about the universe, just as math is another kind of language. But they mystic's view is before language. It sees into the very heart of the universe.

If that is the case then he can do it without trying to refute science. See how that works?

'Common sense' means what we, as humans, all share in common in terms of what seems to make sense on the surface of things without having to gain knowledge via education. Common sense is what we all possess by default. That does not apply when it comes to the science of QM. The moment you begin to learn about QM, it becomes uncommon knowledge; it is specialized knowledge. But it is still not understanding. The mystic view is about understanding.

Wrong. Common Sense involves having knowledge. Consciousness does not. You could be aware of a fladingo running across your patio and would never know what it was until you consorted with a specialist who knows about fladingos. Definition of a mystic. Someone that makes stuff up as they go.

Even if you don't, just the very fact that a renowned QM physicist understands that he needs to consult with a mystic should give you a clue.

That means nothing.

 

[godnotgod]

If that is the case then he can do it without trying to refute science. See how that works?

No, because he never did refute science, but you sure do ignore the truth.

Wrong. Common Sense involves having knowledge.

Yes, but it is not acquired knowledge through any formal learning or education, something knowledge about QM requires. You are using the term 'common sense' to indicate that the non-scientist can understand what the scientist has to say about QM. That is not common sense. Common sense cannot be applied to knowing what QM is about. You need to go beyond common sense.

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.
Wikipedia

That means nothing.

YOU mean nothing!

 

[Slapstick]

No, because he never did refute science, but you sure do ignore the truth.

It is when you continue to say things like this: " So you need the universal mind of the mystic to tell you what physics represents."

Yes, but it is not acquired knowledge through any formal learning or education, something knowledge about QM requires. You are using the term 'common sense' to indicate that the non-scientist can understand what the scientist has to say about QM. That is not common sense. Common sense cannot be applied to knowing what QM is about. You need to go beyond common sense.

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.
Wikipedia

You must not know what the word understanding means in the definition that I provide to your earlier.

 

[godnotgod]

It is when you continue to say things like this: "So you need the universal mind of the mystic to tell you what physics represents."

Well, duh! Physics is a narrow view of Reality attempting to access the universal. Which is better? To use a universal mind or a limited mind to access the bigger universal Reality that is the universe?

 

[Slapstick]

Well, duh! Physics is a narrow view of Reality attempting to access the universal. Which is better? To use a universal mind or a limited mind to access the bigger universal Reality that is the universe?

More nonsense that doesn’t come close to a rebuttal. Scientist don't rely on mystics to better understand the Universe.

 

[godnotgod]

More nonsense that doesn’t come close to a rebuttal. Scientist don't rely on mystics to better understand the Universe.

They don't understand the universe, Period!

 

[idav]

They don't understand the universe, Period!

Was Einstein enlightened or he not do enough oneness meditation? We all stand on the shoulders of greats to understand what we do.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Was Einstein enlightened or he not do enough oneness meditation? We all stand on the shoulders of greats to understand what we do.

To some no matter how much humanity may learn and advance the ideas of the past will always be superior simply because they are older.

 

[Mycroft]

Do you believe in the Big Bang?

Do you think it was a superior being who created the Big Bang?

Do you think the multiverse theory is a good explanation?

Was it something else?

Actually the sciences are, at present, trying to re-investigate whether there was a big bang at all. One of the emerging, but popular, theories in theoretical physics is that the universe was created by a four dimensional black hole.

Believing in the Big Bang is a bit of a fallacy. One does not believe in the big bang. There is evidence for there having being some event which created the beginning of the universe, one theory of which is the big bang.

 

[Slapstick]

To some no matter how much humanity may learn and advance the ideas of the past will always be superior simply because they are older.

Unless you are someone like this guy going to GA Tech.

[youtube]znYTmu2trKE[/youtube]

 

[godnotgod]

Was Einstein enlightened or he not do enough oneness meditation? We all stand on the shoulders of greats to understand what we do.

Oh? And what might that be?

Actually, there are indications that Einstein relied on his intuitive mind in his approach to physics. (LOM will be tossing down a red flag about that here, soon.) Any idea that classic Einstein was, at heart, a New Age hippie enrages some folk, LOL

It will at least have to be admitted that he was a maverick.

 

[godnotgod]

To some no matter how much humanity may learn and advance the ideas of the past will always be superior simply because they are older.

Too bad only a few understand that the answers we seek come out of the living Present Moment, not the past, nor the future.

 

[godnotgod]

Unless you are someone like this guy going to GA Tech.

[youtube]znYTmu2trKE[/youtube]

This is a good example as to how this kind of indoctrination works just like a narcotic drug.

 

[godnotgod]

I wish to take the statement by Vedantist Swami Vivikenanda and analyze it. He said:

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

Firstly, that the universe is the Absolute should be self-explanatory, 'universe' being Everything, and being Everything, there is no 'other' to which it can be compared.

That is the first premise.

 

[Thief]

I wish to take the statement by Vedantist Swami Vivikenanda and analyze it. He said:

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

Firstly, that the universe is the Absolute should be self-explanatory, 'universe' being Everything, and being Everything, there is no 'other' to which it can be compared.

That is the first premise.

Analyze the terms as presented?.....nay.
How about Almighty?...as in First...and 'self'-explanatory.

 

[godnotgod]

Analyze the terms as presented?.....nay.
How about Almighty?...as in First...and 'self'-explanatory.

The problem with that, is that then there would be no universe, because the universe, by definition, is Everything, which would include the Almighty and the First. There cannot be an Almighty because that would entail there being a not-Almighty, meaning the existence of The Absolute and some 'other', which is logically impossible where there is The Absolute, which implies that there is no 'other'. In addition, the Almighty, being the Creator, is outside the creation, which is the universe, which also is logically impossible, since the universe is Everything. The same rules apply to there being a 'First' as this implies a 'not-First'. I am afraid your 'Almighty' and 'First' are dual notions.

I'm not presenting Vivikenanda's statement in opposition to any other view; I am only presenting it on its own merits, whose points I wish to continue to extrapolate upon. I only wanted first to establish that the 'universe is', in fact, 'the Absolute', as he states.

If there are no other objections to this statement, I will continue.

 

[Thief]

The problem with that, is that then there would be no universe, because the universe, by definition, is Everything, which would include the Almighty and the First. There cannot be an Almighty because that would entail there being a not-Almighty, meaning the existence of The Absolute and some 'other', which is logically impossible where there is The Absolute, which implies that there is no 'other'. In addition, the Almighty, being the Creator, is outside the creation, which is the universe, which also is logically impossible, since the universe is Everything. The same rules apply to there being a 'First' as this implies a 'not-First'. I am afraid your 'Almighty' and 'First' are dual notions.

I'm not presenting Vivikenanda's statement in opposition to any other view; I am only presenting it on its own merits, whose points I wish to continue to extrapolate upon. I only wanted first to establish that the 'universe is', in fact, 'the Absolute', as he states.

If there are no other objections to this statement, I will continue.

'You' can call God Absolute if you want to.

Can't really grasp that singularity...can 'you'.