Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[Ben Dhyan]

No, when you are asked reasonable questions you do not get to dodge it by asking different ones. You screwed up a long time ago. I am merely reminding you of that fact.

What is the reality represented by 'no before the BB'?

 

[ratiocinator]

There is the concept of time as the 4th dimension of 3D space, and then there is the concept of time as an entity in itself as in the concept of eternity.

Neither are strictly right. The second is falsified by evidence. Time just isn't like that.

The first isn't really right either, because it's not that simple. Time isn't a single direction that is added to 3D space. Different observers will see different directions though space-time as time and space relative to them. Other observers (generally speaking) will see different directions.

This is even true in Special Relativity. Relative velocity corresponds to a kind of 'rotation' of the perceptions of space and time, which is why we have time dilation, space contraction, and the relativity of simultaneity.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, you do not get to claim that. That is where you screwed up. This is you making the error of attempting to reason using Newtonian physics and it simply does not apply here.

SZ, what is the reality represented by 'before the BB'?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Please you have no understanding of time. You simply cannot grasp the concept that it appears that time had a beginning. This is why the number line example is a good one that I gave you. You can get infinitely close to the beginning of time looking backwards, but you can never get there. In a sense it is like trying to go the speed of light. No matter how fast you go a ray of light will still pass you at the speed of light.

Mr SZ, what is the reality represented by 'before the BB'?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Neither are strictly right. The second is falsified by evidence. Time just isn't like that.

The first isn't really right either, because it's not that simple. Time isn't a single direction that is added to 3D space. Different observers will see different directions though space-time as time and space relative to them. Other observers (generally speaking) will see different directions.

This is even true in Special Relativity. Relative velocity corresponds to a kind of 'rotation' of the perceptions of space and time, which is why we have time dilation, space contraction, and the relativity of simultaneity.

Show me the evidence.

 

[ratiocinator]

Concepts represent reality, they are not reality except as concepts. I deal in reality, unless you can show me the reality, or a way of realizing it, for which the concept represents, then it means nothing to me.

No even sure what you're trying to say here. Nobody is directly in touch with reality. We have models of reality that either correspond to our observations and experiments or not.

General Relativity is the most accurate model we have of space-time. It has 100% success rate of correctly predicting the outcomes of all the experiments and observations we've been able to make to date.

What is the reality represented by 'no time before the BB'?

What do you even mean by that question? If time is finite in the past, then 'before the big bang' does not correspond to anything in reality.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No even sure what you're trying to say here. Nobody is directly in touch with reality. We have models of reality that either correspond to our observations and experiments or not.

General Relativity is the most accurate model we have of space-time. It has 100% success rate of correctly predicting the outcomes of all the experiments and observations we've been able to make to date.


What do you even mean by that question? If time is finite in the past, then 'before the big bang' does not correspond to anything in reality.

You speak for yourself, what do you think still mind meditation is about if not about realizing the non-duality of existence. Conceptualization of reality, aka duality, is how the profane live their lives, they live in maya.

 

[ratiocinator]

Show me the evidence.

Seriously? I can't type it all out on a forum. Just do a search. Here are the Wiki articles to get you started.

Tests of special relativity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Tests of general relativity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Seriously? I can't type it all out on a forum. Just do a search. Here are the Wiki articles to get you started.

Tests of special relativity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Tests of general relativity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't mean a conceptualization of reality, I mean reality itself.

 

[ratiocinator]

You speak for yourself...

If you think you are directly in touch with reality, show me the evidence.

 

[ratiocinator]

I don't mean a conceptualization of reality, I mean reality itself.

You're not making any sense. All anybody can show you is evidence that our models match what we can test about reality.

Nobody can do better than that. Anybody who says they can is not being objective or realistic.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If you think you are directly in touch with reality, show me the evidence.

I don't think, thinking is conceptualizing. Reality can't be shown, you are stuck in duality, a seer and a seen, non-duality has to be realized in stilling the mind.

 

[ratiocinator]

I don't think, thinking is conceptualizing. Reality can't be shown, you are stuck in duality, a seer and a seen, non-duality has to be realized in stilling the mind.

No evidence and no objectivity, then.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is the reality represented by 'no before the BB'?

"The reality" is that you do not understand time.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You're not making any sense. All anybody can show you is evidence that our models match what we can test about reality.

Nobody can do better than that. Anybody who says they can is not being objective or realistic.

That's ok, keep your models, they are models of reality, not the reality they are meant to represent. Funny how some people get so caught up in mental representation of reality, they forget what they are capable of as an expression of Universe

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No evidence and no objectivity, then.

Objectivity is duality, experiencer and experience, non-duality is unity.

 

[Polymath257]

Oh, and I all this time I thought the Southern Cross star constellation was called that because it is seen in the general direction of space called south.

No, because it is in the southern celestial hemisphere as seen from Earth.

If there is no before the BB, then nothing existed in time past the BB beginning,

I think at this stage, we both know each other's position, so it is probably not productive to keep it up, I thank you though Polymath.

You are conflating different notions of 'nothing'. I am not saying that a thing called nothing existed prior to the BB. I am saying that there was no existence at all before the BB. Do you see the difference?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Objectivity is duality, experiencer and experience, non-duality is unity.

Why are you still here? This is not real. Are you sure you are experiencing this?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

"The reality" is that you do not understand time.

Dodger.

 

[Polymath257]

Are you saying that the Southern Cross is not in the southern direction as seen from the southern hemisphere? Why do you think it is called the Southern Cross?

No. The Southern Cross is a constellation in the southern celestial hemisphere. The sky looks like a sphere and it is in the southern hemisphere in the sky.

Astronomers refer to the sky seen from the southern hemisphere as the 'southern sky', it is a fact. The southern direction does not stop at the south pole, and fyi, the north direction does not end at the north pole. And east and west directions also have no end point. Do you understand?

No, 'south' is NOT a direction in space. It is a direction *on a sphere*. There is also a southern celestial pole and you cannot go further south in the sky than that.