Are you sure?
-
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!
What came before the Big Bang?
- Thread starter yoda89
- Start date
You keep saying this. Reminds me of what Newton had to say about absolute time and space and that we only experience relatively. The concept your getting at is similar.
godnotgod
Thou art That
There is no dreamer of the dream; there is only dreaming; there is only awakening.
Which is none other than you. However, there is no self that wakes up and finds anything, because the self is illusory. There is only awakening. Nirvana means 'to extinguish'. The self, the seeker, the dreamer, all dissolve away. It is to see the universe as it actually is: the Absolute. It is to see that what you thought to be reality, was only an illusion; that the 'snake' was only a rope.
Your'e creating the notion of a deity, not I.
Last edited:
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
In those terms, the state of mind would be one of skeptical inquiry that has perennial doubts of its perception.
It was a primitive baseline I started at several decades ago. We all have our faults, but at least I was able to get past the babble and eventually came to embrace uncertainty.
Ah, but in M-Theory, "the universe" becomes MANY universes, each as valid as our own, sending the idea of "absolute" to the domain of relative meaninglessness.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
And what we now know about quantum mechanics also is pushing cosmologists and physicists in this direction.
Only cause you insist on using consciousness as a descriptor which gives the impression of an entity being involved. A conscious entity.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Well, let's examine the issue.
Firstly, a working definition:
I am (and have been, as previously explained) using the word 'Universe' to mean Everything, and that includes all universes, (ie M theory) time, space, etc.
So if the Universe is Everything, logically speaking, there is nothing else to which it can be compared to render it relative. Were it relative, it would cease to be a uni-verse. Being Everything, it is necessarily absolute; not just absolute, but The Absolute.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Yes, of course, but what is the background state of mind to the skeptical attitude? What's causing it?
Uh, huh. And you're embracing uncertainty out of...what?
Except that the working definition here for 'Universe' is that it includes Everything, including the space and/or dimensions between multiverses.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Your'e being anthropomorphic.
There is no such entity that is conscious. There is only consciousness itself.
IOW, consciousness does not originate via an entity; all entities originate via consciousness, just as all waves originate from the ocean. In fact, there are no such things as 'waves', just as there are no such things as 'entities', both being empty of substance. The phenomenal world is an illusion. Only consciousness is real, and it is non-local, contrary to what the illusory self-created mind only thinks it thinks.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Probably my reluctance to get into delusional thinking.
Likely dissatisfaction with entertaining delusional ideas that you seem so comfortable with.
To me, that just doesn't float. It is somewhat absurd to use an antiquated definition to include all hitherto unforeseen Multiverse theory. Traditionally, "the universe" is used to define our single physical universe, not the unlimited permutations of M-Theory and multitudinous universes.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Sounds to me as if you know what it is to be delusional. If that is the case, then can you tell me from which position you are determining that?
That noted in red is what is usually referred to as 'the observable universe', in contrast to the word being used to define the totality of existence, which includes non-observable space and regions beyond the known universe.
"The Universe is commonly defined as the totality of existence, including planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy. Similar terms include the cosmos, the world and nature."
Wikipedia
This definition is broad enough to include the theory of multiverses.
However, I've pre-qualified my usage of the word to mean 'Everything' as a working definition.
Besides that, there is empty space and/or dimensions between multiverses, which connects all of them into a single whole.
Bottom line is that it really doesn't matter, because no matter the nomenclature, the totality of Everything, which would include multi-verses, is the Absolute. If you can demonstrate that it is not, then by all means.....
Last edited:
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
I am going to pass on this silly sideshow. Play it with someone else.
In my view, only if you lower the bar of understanding so low that a kindergarten child can leap over it in a single bound. Truthfully speaking, traditionally, the universe is normally defined as the physical universe and is not ordinarily used to include the exotic permutations of M-Theory. Those permutations literally fly in the face of any notion of an overall "absolute" that we can now quaintly refer to as the universe - as if it was the same old "universe" of yesteryear. Clearly, it is not. It's a much richer view of reality than has ever been previously considered.
It is more likely something that divides them and so to think of it as a unifying factor is highly misleading. If you have 600 boats on the ocean, you can't really claim that the ocean unites those boats though they are all bobbing around in that medium... if you get my drift.
Even if I was to accept this dismal view of a supposed "absolute" state or whatever, defining it thusly is relatively meaningless. My guess is I was to add yet another unexpected element to the equation you would simply move the goal posts.
godnotgod
Thou art That
I see. So with you, it's really a one-way street, rather than a sideshow. You label my view as 'delusional', but when I wish to pursue the discussion, you drop the ball, so that only YOUR view is the sane and valid one. Like: "I have spoken and am done with you...next!"
The fact of the matter is, and which you won't admit, hence your refusal to pursue the discussion, is that you know that to understand what delusion is, one must know what reality is, and if that is the case, then there is certainty. The way you have it is that uncertainty is an absolute. Having said that, uncertainty is an extremely valuable state of mind, in that it leads to the enlightened state. But to tout it as the destination in and of itself is incorrect. In fact, it is a convenient hiding place.
'In your view', but we are not talking about a personal view, but a universal view. I have provided a definition not my own which states the universe as 'the totality of existence', and that covers Everything, including any new exotic and sophisticated theories such as M theory. IOW, 'the universe' is open-ended and leaves room for anything and everything that may come along. The fact that the universe signifies 'everything', means, quite simply, that it is The Absolute. There is no other possibility, that is, unless you refute logic. The 'totality of existence' has nothing else to which it can be compared, and that necessarily makes it absolute.
In spite of how you present your view, as being something far more complex than the 'kindergarten' variety, you don't seem to have a grasp of simple logic. Whatever it is that 'divides' these multi-verses is precisely what unifies them. Here we are dealing with relative values. Division can only occur where unity exists, but unity in which there is nothing else to compare to does not rely on division. That unity is absolute. Were it not for the space between planets, which seemingly divides them, they could not exist as planets. In this respect, space is essential to solids. Whatever is between multi-verses is essential to multi-verses being what they are.
'Division' is only a concept based on appearances.
No. What unites them as 'boats' are the characteristics they share in common, and the space between them. Without space, they could not be distinguished as boats.
You cannot add another element to the equation that would make any difference as far as The Absolute is concerned, because the Absolute already includes anything you can dream up. That is why it can be called The Absolute. Do you get this, or not? It's not so complex; in fact, it is quite simple, and maybe that is why it is a paradox for you.
Last edited:
Talking or typing about the "Absolute" renders it relative, as in a context-based perspective presented for communicable purposes. What is the operational value? How does it incite passion? What attributes make it personable?
godnotgod
Thou art That
As The Absolute, it cannot be relative to anything, because it has no opposite, is Everything, and as Everything, has nothing to which it can be compared.
Remember, we are not referring to any particular thing here, but to the summation of all things, actual or possible.
So far, I have restricted 'The Absolute' to mean simply 'Everything about which there is no other', as a means of approaching Vivikananda's statement in a piecemeal fashion for clarity. Vivikenanda is a Vedantist, and his meaning goes beyond merely the abstract. When he says that the universe is the Absolute, he is talking about consciousness:
Absolute Is Sentient
The modern material conception of life is based on the abstract idea that the Absolute or Ultimate Reality is Substance, while Vedanta concludes that the Absolute is sentient, or Subject... Thus everything turns on grasping that the certainty we have that the Absolute is Substance, must be superseded with the certainty that the Absolute is Subject, sentient, self-conscious....[IOW, both observer and observed together comprise the Absolute].
Substance is being that is not caused by anything outside itself or other than itself. It derives its being from its own self, or by itself. This is the conception of substance derived from Spinoza’s philosophy. On the other hand, Subject is being that is reflected into itself, or is being that is for-itself. These two moments of being (being-by-itself and being-for-itself) characterize the Absolute in its totality.
Conceiving the Absolute only as Substance fails to account for the essential character of sentience that is fundamental to all life. It is the Hegelian philosophy of the Absolute that most explicitly develops the idea of the Absolute Reality as being-by-itself-and-for-itself. He develops the tripartate categories of Being, Essence and Concept through dialectical reason to arrive at the Logical Idea of the Absolute in his Science of Logic, thus providing the philosophical foundation for this conception.
The natural biosphere arises only with the appearance of life. Thus Life is the fundamental basis of Nature, not matter. Matter is ubiquitous in the universe, but only where Life appears is the verdant biomass of Nature found. This living mass can not be scientifically produced from mere matter in the laboratories, whether it be the simplest bacterium or the most complex multicellular plant or animal. Sentient Life plays the basic fundamental formative and constitutive role in the process.
The new field of Cognitive Biology scientifically affirms the role of cognition in even the smallest bacteria. This has revolutionized our understanding of biology that has been dominated for over one and a half centuries by reductionist materialistic thinking since the time of Darwin.
The next phase in science is to understand the relation between consciousness and the manifest bodies of living organisms, and how the subjective evolution of consciousness, and not the objective evolution of bodies, accounts for the various forms of life or species that are found in Nature. The goal of that development is to be ascertained in the fulfillment of one’s existence in harmonious and loving relation to the Absolute.
http://bviscs.org/
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
We Live in a Living Universe [edited]
by Duane Elgin
Consciousness is present throughout. Consciousness, or a capacity for knowing, is basic to life. If the universe is alive, we should therefore find evidence of some form of consciousness operating at every level -- and that is exactly what we find. The respected physicist Freeman Dyson writes this about consciousness at the quantum level: "Matter in quantum mechanics is not an inert substance but an active agent, constantly making choices between alternative possibilities. . . . It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every electron." This does not mean that an atom has the same consciousness as a human being, but rather that an atom has a reflective capacity appropriate to its form and function.
Consciousness is present even at the primitive level of molecules consisting of no more than a few simple proteins. Researchers have found that such molecules have the capacity for complex interaction that is the signature of living systems. As one of the researchers who made this discovery stated, "We were surprised that such simple proteins can act as if they had a mind of their own."
At a somewhat higher level, we find consciousness operating in the remarkable behavior of a forest slime mold in search of a new feeding area. For most of its life, slime mold exists as a single-cell amoeba. When it needs food, however, it can transform itself into a much larger entity with new capacities. Individual amoebas send out signals to others nearby until thousands assemble. When they reach a critical mass, they organize themselves, without the aid of any apparent leader, into an organism that can move across the forest floor. Upon reaching a better feeding area, they release spores from which new amoebas are formed. Thus, under conditions of great stress, the forest slime mold is able to mobilize a capacity for collective consciousness and action so as to insure its own survival.
If some form of consciousness is operating at the level of atoms, molecules, and single-cell organisms, we should not be surprised to find that consciousness is a basic property of the universe that is manifest at every level. Scientific investigation of intuitive or psychic abilities in humans provides further insight into the nature and ecology of consciousness. Dean Radin, director of the Consciousness Research Laboratory at the University of Nevada, did an exhaustive analysis of parapsychological or psi research involving more than 800 studies and 60 investigators over nearly three decades. Based on this research, he concluded that consciousness includes both "receiving" and "sending" potentials.
Evidence of the receiving potentials of consciousness comes from experiments concerned with perception at a distance, which is sometimes called "remote viewing." This is the ability to receive meaningful information by non-physical means about a remote person or location simply by opening our knowing faculty to that possibility. In remote viewing, the receiver does not acquire exact information but rather intuitive impressions regarding, for example, where a person might be located or his state of well-being. Radin found that remote viewing has "been repeatedly observed by dozens of investigators using different methods."[16] He concluded that a capacity for conscious knowing "operates between minds and through space."...
...If consciousness is found at every level of the cosmos and, further, is not confined within the brain, but extends beyond the body and can meaningfully interact with the rest of the universe in both sending and receiving communications, then this is striking evidence that our cosmos is subtly sentient, responsive, conscious -- and alive. The physicist Freeman Dyson thinks it is reasonable to believe in the existence of a "mental component of the universe." He says, "If we believe in this mental component of the universe, then we can say that we are small pieces of God's mental apparatus."[20] While it is stunning to consider that every level of the cosmos has some degree of consciousness, that seems no more extraordinary than the widely accepted view among scientists that the cosmos emerged as a pinpoint some 12 billion years ago as a "vacuum fluctuation" -- where nothing pushed on nothing to create everything.
We Live in a Living Universe | Working with Oneness
by Duane Elgin
Consciousness is present throughout. Consciousness, or a capacity for knowing, is basic to life. If the universe is alive, we should therefore find evidence of some form of consciousness operating at every level -- and that is exactly what we find. The respected physicist Freeman Dyson writes this about consciousness at the quantum level: "Matter in quantum mechanics is not an inert substance but an active agent, constantly making choices between alternative possibilities. . . . It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every electron." This does not mean that an atom has the same consciousness as a human being, but rather that an atom has a reflective capacity appropriate to its form and function.
Consciousness is present even at the primitive level of molecules consisting of no more than a few simple proteins. Researchers have found that such molecules have the capacity for complex interaction that is the signature of living systems. As one of the researchers who made this discovery stated, "We were surprised that such simple proteins can act as if they had a mind of their own."
At a somewhat higher level, we find consciousness operating in the remarkable behavior of a forest slime mold in search of a new feeding area. For most of its life, slime mold exists as a single-cell amoeba. When it needs food, however, it can transform itself into a much larger entity with new capacities. Individual amoebas send out signals to others nearby until thousands assemble. When they reach a critical mass, they organize themselves, without the aid of any apparent leader, into an organism that can move across the forest floor. Upon reaching a better feeding area, they release spores from which new amoebas are formed. Thus, under conditions of great stress, the forest slime mold is able to mobilize a capacity for collective consciousness and action so as to insure its own survival.
If some form of consciousness is operating at the level of atoms, molecules, and single-cell organisms, we should not be surprised to find that consciousness is a basic property of the universe that is manifest at every level. Scientific investigation of intuitive or psychic abilities in humans provides further insight into the nature and ecology of consciousness. Dean Radin, director of the Consciousness Research Laboratory at the University of Nevada, did an exhaustive analysis of parapsychological or psi research involving more than 800 studies and 60 investigators over nearly three decades. Based on this research, he concluded that consciousness includes both "receiving" and "sending" potentials.
Evidence of the receiving potentials of consciousness comes from experiments concerned with perception at a distance, which is sometimes called "remote viewing." This is the ability to receive meaningful information by non-physical means about a remote person or location simply by opening our knowing faculty to that possibility. In remote viewing, the receiver does not acquire exact information but rather intuitive impressions regarding, for example, where a person might be located or his state of well-being. Radin found that remote viewing has "been repeatedly observed by dozens of investigators using different methods."[16] He concluded that a capacity for conscious knowing "operates between minds and through space."...
...If consciousness is found at every level of the cosmos and, further, is not confined within the brain, but extends beyond the body and can meaningfully interact with the rest of the universe in both sending and receiving communications, then this is striking evidence that our cosmos is subtly sentient, responsive, conscious -- and alive. The physicist Freeman Dyson thinks it is reasonable to believe in the existence of a "mental component of the universe." He says, "If we believe in this mental component of the universe, then we can say that we are small pieces of God's mental apparatus."[20] While it is stunning to consider that every level of the cosmos has some degree of consciousness, that seems no more extraordinary than the widely accepted view among scientists that the cosmos emerged as a pinpoint some 12 billion years ago as a "vacuum fluctuation" -- where nothing pushed on nothing to create everything.
We Live in a Living Universe | Working with Oneness
Leftimies
Dwelling in the Principle
There was this theory coined up by a more or less respected Belgian scientist about the nature of consciousness, and he proposed that it might be universe-spanning activity, that emerges in brain - and that brain actually works as a "work station" and "receiver" of the consciousness. He drew the comparison to computer (brain) and internet (consciousness), although the analogy wasn't the best possible - radio/radiowaves comes to my mind. He did say that death is the end of "person" and identity, but quite likely not the end for "raw materials" of consciousness.
It was a documentary about NDEs. Quite interesting theory.
godnotgod
Thou art That
So here is how the rest of Vivikenanda's statement plays out:
Vivekananda's statement that the Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space and causation allows us to get some interesting information, albeit in negative terms, about what he calls the Absolute.
Since it is not in time, it cannot be changing.
Change takes place only in time.
And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because dividedness and separation occur only in space.
And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it.
Now "changeless," "infinite," and "undivided" are negative statements, but they will suffice. We can trace the physics of our Universe from these three negative statements.
If we don't see the Absolute as what it is, we'll see it as something else.
If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms.
http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/EquationsOfMaya.html
So the question: 'What came before the Big Bang?' is just tomfoolery. The real question is: 'Why do we not see the universe for what it is: The Absolute?'
Vivekananda's statement that the Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space and causation allows us to get some interesting information, albeit in negative terms, about what he calls the Absolute.
Since it is not in time, it cannot be changing.
Change takes place only in time.
And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because dividedness and separation occur only in space.
And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it.
Now "changeless," "infinite," and "undivided" are negative statements, but they will suffice. We can trace the physics of our Universe from these three negative statements.
If we don't see the Absolute as what it is, we'll see it as something else.
If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms.
http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/EquationsOfMaya.html
So the question: 'What came before the Big Bang?' is just tomfoolery. The real question is: 'Why do we not see the universe for what it is: The Absolute?'
Last edited:
Yadon
Active Member
Before I answer any of these, I will note that the Big Bang Theory only addresses what happened at the beginning of the observable Universe, not what caused it. That question is an entirely different matter.
I advocate the view that has the most evidence, which is the Big Bang.
Without a vague term such as "superior being" defined, I can't really answer this. The question needs to be more specific. But alas I can't speculate on something that happened before time and space as we know it.
Actually, talking about things that happened before time as if it has it's own time is paradoxical. This is why some scientists say it's pointless to talk about "before" the Big Bang because there couldn't of been any before.
Not currently, it just adds another layer and can't be tested (yet so far as I know). It could however be true and I wouldn't be surprised if it is, but if I go by the history of science and astronomy and physics, something even more strange will turn out to be where the evidence leads to, and that picture will make us realize that the Universe is even more insanely large than we previously thought.
There is a growing view among some scientists that quantum fluctuations might have caused it since everything would of existed at singularity.
I advocate the view that has the most evidence, which is the Big Bang.
Without a vague term such as "superior being" defined, I can't really answer this. The question needs to be more specific. But alas I can't speculate on something that happened before time and space as we know it.
Actually, talking about things that happened before time as if it has it's own time is paradoxical. This is why some scientists say it's pointless to talk about "before" the Big Bang because there couldn't of been any before.
Not currently, it just adds another layer and can't be tested (yet so far as I know). It could however be true and I wouldn't be surprised if it is, but if I go by the history of science and astronomy and physics, something even more strange will turn out to be where the evidence leads to, and that picture will make us realize that the Universe is even more insanely large than we previously thought.
There is a growing view among some scientists that quantum fluctuations might have caused it since everything would of existed at singularity.
godnotgod
Thou art That
If there was no time, there also was no space, as the two are inextricably tied. And if there was no space; no time, 'when' and 'where' did the universe originate?
It originated in consciousness, where there is no space or time, where there is no history, no memory, and if that is the case, then the universe is The Absolute. It only exists in the present, which is 'when' and 'where' the BB is now occurring.
As astronomer John Dobson suggests:
Since it [The Absolute] is not in time, it cannot be changing.
Change takes place only in time.
And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because dividedness and separation occur only in space.
How absolutely and utterly compelling.
'The universe is the Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation'
Vivikenanda
You see the hedge against the hills;
you see the hills against the sky;
but you see the sky against consciousess.
Last edited: