What came before the Big Bang?

[godnotgod]

Sure. Reminds me of the image in the book of revelations. God is said to be the source, the light, and jesus is described as the lamp. But thats not the issue brought up. Do you think there is a difference between oneness and omnipresence? Is the lamp literally god the source?

'You are not just the drop in the ocean; you are the mighty ocean itself'
Rumi

idav, you are still thinking in dual terms. The actual universe is non-dual; non-relative, and therefore, is absolute. Being the universe, it is THE Absolute. There is no 'other' to which it can be compared. 'This' and 'that' exist only, and I mean only, in your mind as concepts.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What non-locality is existed prior to its having been defined

You confuse denote and define. What we denote by nonlocality we could denote by "alocality" or "exspatiality". However, there exists a phenomenon that physicists have identified and using the framework of modern physics and it is this phenomenon we refer to by "nonlocality".

Just because science came along and 'discovered' it

What you describe (and refer to by "nonlocality") isn't something science has discovered.

 

[godnotgod]

You confuse denote and define. What we denote by nonlocality we could denote by "alocality" or "exspatiality". However, there exists a phenomenon that physicists have identified and using the framework of modern physics and it is this phenomenon we refer to by "nonlocality".

Yes, and it is done via consciousness and the already-existing universe! Science may refer to it any way it likes, but it still does not know what the hell it is, and that is because it is attempting to encapsulate the unencapsulatable via a 'framework of modern physics'. It's the old story of the blind men groping around the elephant.

What you describe (and refer to by "nonlocality") isn't something science has discovered.

I was referring to non-locality as science sees it.

 

[Thief]

'You are not just the drop in the ocean; you are the mighty ocean itself'
Rumi

idav, you are still thinking in dual terms. The actual universe is non-dual; non-relative, and therefore, is absolute. Being the universe, it is THE Absolute. There is no 'other' to which it can be compared. 'This' and 'that' exist only, and I mean only, in your mind as concepts.

Note my signature.....

 

[godnotgod]

Note my signature.....

'This' exists because of 'that', and vice-versa.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes, and it is done via consciousness and the already-existing universe! Science may refer to it any way it likes, but it still does not know what the hell it is

I must have been unclear. It is true (as you said) that whatever physicists refer to by "nonlocality" existed before physicists knew of it or had a word for it. The same is true of oxygen, supernovae, electricity, etc. What you are doing is equivalent to using the term "photon" to mean "gravity" as we experience it on Earth.

The fact that you are misusing the term "nonlocality" does not in any way mean that the notion you refer to/denote by your use of "nonlocality" doesn't exist, is wrong, or inaccurate. In fact, the only relationship between the concept/notion you refer to and the word "nonlocality" is the fact it isn't related to anything scientists refer to by "nonlocality".

that is because it is attempting to encapsulate the unencapsulatable

This is irrelevant. There was a time when scientists believed that phlogiston existed and that light propagated through a medium they called the aether. Phlogiston doesn't exist and neither does the either, but both of these terms denoted specific things. When phlogiston was still thought to exist, had you lived then and stated that phlogiston was the "wholeness of the cosmos" or māyā or just that it was nitrogen, you would be using the term incorrectly regardless of the fact that the term denoted something that didn't exist.

I was referring to non-locality as science sees it.

You stated:

What non-locality is existed prior to its having been defined, and is a feature of oneness.

Regardless of whether your understanding of the universe is true, "non-locality as science sees it" is not a feature of oneness. in fact, the concept/phenomenon that scientists denote by "nonlocality" cannot exist unless there are distinct, discrete systems that we not only distinguish from one another but from everything else (i.e., not oneness). Like phlogiston, it doesn't matter if scientists are using the term to refer to something that doesn't exist or that what they mean by "nonlocality" is only a piece of some larger notion/concept. You are still using the term incorrectly. You are using it to mean something that it does not mean (and whether what you mean by it is more accurate or a better understanding or "real" or whatever") is irrelevant.

This wouldn't really matter were it not for the fact that (among other things) this is a discussion board and by using technical terms from physics in ways that they are not used in physics is extremely misleading. So why do it?

 

[godnotgod]

I must have been unclear. It is true (as you said) that whatever physicists refer to by "nonlocality" existed before physicists knew of it or had a word for it. The same is true of oxygen, supernovae, electricity, etc. What you are doing is equivalent to using the term "photon" to mean "gravity" as we experience it on Earth.

The fact that you are misusing the term "nonlocality" does not in any way mean that the notion you refer to/denote by your use of "nonlocality" doesn't exist, is wrong, or inaccurate. In fact, the only relationship between the concept/notion you refer to and the word "nonlocality" is the fact it isn't related to anything scientists refer to by "nonlocality".



This is irrelevant. There was a time when scientists believed that phlogiston existed and that light propagated through a medium they called the aether. Phlogiston doesn't exist and neither does the either, but both of these terms denoted specific things. When phlogiston was still thought to exist, had you lived then and stated that phlogiston was the "wholeness of the cosmos" or māyā or just that it was nitrogen, you would be using the term incorrectly regardless of the fact that the term denoted something that didn't exist.




You stated:


Regardless of whether your understanding of the universe is true, "non-locality as science sees it" is not a feature of oneness. in fact, the concept/phenomenon that scientists denote by "nonlocality" cannot exist unless there are distinct, discrete systems that we not only distinguish from one another but from everything else (i.e., not oneness). Like phlogiston, it doesn't matter if scientists are using the term to refer to something that doesn't exist or that what they mean by "nonlocality" is only a piece of some larger notion/concept. You are still using the term incorrectly. You are using it to mean something that it does not mean (and whether what you mean by it is more accurate or a better understanding or "real" or whatever") is irrelevant.

This wouldn't really matter were it not for the fact that (among other things) this is a discussion board and by using technical terms from physics in ways that they are not used in physics is extremely misleading. So why do it?

Your analogy is incorrect: phlogiston was supposed to be some-thing that can exist or not-exist, but non-locality is not in the realm of 'things'; it is a condition; a state; a characteristic of the universe. The 'distinct, discrete systems' you claim make non-locality different than how Amit Goswami or Deepak Chopra use the term cannot exist apart from the universe. The phenomena those systems define pre-exist as something, though they may be transformed or even created by those same systems. Human artifacts do not pre-exist in their finished forms, but the material from which they are derived do. However, once created, they are nonetheless part and parcel of everything, and everything is what the universe is.

From the point of view of ordinary reality, including science, something has changed; but from the point of view of higher consciousness, nothing has changed: all phenomena and change is maya. Only the changeless Absolute is real. This gives us a clue as to why we see what we call 'non-locality', 'holography' and 'fractals'.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Your analogy is incorrect: phlogiston was supposed to be some-thing that can exist or not-exist, but non-locality is not in the realm of 'things'

The analogy is not between nonlocality and phlogiston. It's not even an analogy. It's simply an illustration that it doesn't matter what you think to be true of the cosmos or whether you are correct: the term nonlocality refers to a phenomenon and is a technical term. How you view the universe and whether your views are correct do not change what the term means and how it is used in physics literature.

it is a condition; a state; a characteristic of the universe.

As I have said, your views aside this is a technical term. What it refers to or means is determined by how it is used within physics literature (whether physicists are wrong or incorrect or limited or whatever other derisive comments you may throw at the sciences).

The 'distinct, discrete systems' you claim make non-locality different than how Amit Goswami or Deepak Chopra use the term

Do they use it in scientific literature this way? Two people do not define a word, or we'd be referring to "spukhafte Fernwirkung" not nonlocality. You are either using the term consistent with the way it is used (and referring to what it is used to refer to) in technical literature or you are not. If you are not, then your use is not correct, regardless of whether your view of the universe is correct.

The phenomena those systems define pre-exist as something

?????

From the point of view of ordinary reality, including science, something has changed; but from the point of view of higher consciousness

The term is a scientific term no matter how ordinary the conscious minds behind it be.

This gives us a clue as to why we see what we call 'non-locality', 'holography' and 'fractals'.

I can understand the confusion behind the holographic principle and nonlocality, as both of these are
1) views within the sciences
2) frequently expressed poorly in popular science through sensationalist hype

but fractals? It's just mathematics. They are less relevant to our understanding of reality than is linear algebra.

 

[Thief]

'This' exists because of 'that', and vice-versa.

As in? ...the universe exists....because of God...

 

[shawn001]

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?

"Do you believe in the Big Bang?"

What if we had a picture of the light left over from the Bang? Oh wait science does have one.

WMAP 1 Year Mission Results Press Release

"The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation is the radiant heat left over from the Big Bang. It was first observed in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey."

WMAP Goals: Early Universe


The big Bang, is one of the strongest theories in all of science.

Tests of Big Bang Cosmology

WMAP Big Bang Tests

I am talking about the big bang theory itself, not a singularity as the cause, although that is connected.


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

If everyone was honest they would say "I don't know." No ones knows.

"Do you think the multiverse theory is a good explanation?"

Its certainly possible and there is possible ways for us to test it, including the CMB radation.

"Was it something else?"

Again it could be possible.

 

[Thief]

"Do you believe in the Big Bang?"

What if we had a picture of the light left over from the Bang? Oh wait science does have one.

WMAP 1 Year Mission Results Press Release

"The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation is the radiant heat left over from the Big Bang. It was first observed in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey."

WMAP Goals: Early Universe


The big Bang, is one of the strongest theories in all of science.

Tests of Big Bang Cosmology

WMAP Big Bang Tests

I am talking about the big bang theory itself, not a singularity as the cause, although that is connected.


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

If everyone was honest they would say "I don't know." No ones knows.

"Do you think the multiverse theory is a good explanation?"

Its certainly possible and there is possible ways for us to test it, including the CMB radation.

"Was it something else?"

Again it could be possible.

I honestly think so...Spirit before substance.

 

[outhouse]

I honestly think so...Spirit before substance.

Belief with no evidence what so ever. :slap:


Can you describe this spirit?,

What does this spirit do?

What has this spirit done?

 

[Thief]

Belief with no evidence what so ever. :slap:


Can you describe this spirit?,

What does this spirit do?

What has this spirit done?

That spirit is Almighty and Creator.
The universe is the One Word.

Spirit First.
Logic First.
(history much later)

That's how I describe It.

 

[outhouse]

That spirit is Almighty and Creator.
The universe is the One Word.

Spirit First.
Logic First.
(history much later)

That's how I describe It.

Pathetic dodge :slap:

Can you describe this spirit?,

What does this spirit do?

What has this spirit done?

What evidence is there for this?

 

[shawn001]

Spirit, one of the definitions.

"a malevolent being that enters and possesses a human being"

 

[Thief]

No faith to a life after death?

Evil things await...if anything at all?

Soooooo positive.

 

[outhouse]

No faith to a life after death?

Evil things await...if anything at all?

Soooooo positive.

Its not about attitude. This is about your wild imagination and your proselytizing unsubstantiated nonsense in a science thread :slap:


The only thing evil is when your trying to steer people into your own world with no evidence what so ever.

 

[Thief]

Its not about attitude. This is about your wild imagination and your proselytizing unsubstantiated nonsense in a science thread :slap:


The only thing evil is when your trying to steer people into your own world with no evidence what so ever.

And how many times have I said so...?
No photo, no equation, no fingerprint, no repeatable experiment.
No proof.

But requires no proving....see Webster's

Your insistence for proof of spiritual discussions may be a stubborn as my faith...
but that's really all you've got.

No one is good but the Father....so I've read.
Call me evil if it makes you feel better.

 

[ruffen]

No faith to a life after death?

Evil things await...if anything at all?

Soooooo positive.

If there's no life after death, then evil things do not await... don't know how you reached that conclusion.


But positive (ie. conforming with one's wishful thiking) or not, Life, the Universe and Everything is the way it is whether or not it scares you.

 

[Thief]

If there's no life after death, then evil things do not await... don't know how you reached that conclusion.


But positive (ie. conforming with one's wishful thiking) or not, Life, the Universe and Everything is the way it is whether or not it scares you.

Bravo!.....and shall we go gently into that good night?

I think not.

I do believe in life after death.
I believe the peace of heaven is guarded.

Circumstances as I see them.....the first step into the life hereafter....
could be met with immediate objection.

I suspect the angelic have the advantage.
They know the territory, the language and the scheme of things.

We can only stand from the dust....naked.