Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[ratiocinator]

Ahem, there was no Earth BB beginning.

The North Pole is just a point on the surface of the Earth. The BB (in the standard GR model) is just a point in the space-time manifold.

 

[ratiocinator]

The question is, what or who caused the BB, if there even was one, and why?

Yes, so far as I understand it, the universe is eternal, it was never created, but everything in it is a creation, such as galaxies, stars, planets, people, atoms, electron, etc.. All these creations have beginnings and endings, eternally.

So, we can conclude that you've learnt absolutely nothing from all the explanations you have been given about why this is just an unwarranted assumption.

Ho-hum.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, what did cause the BB if anything or is that not a relevant question?

Well perhaps there was no BB, tired light seems both realistic and logical to me, but in any event, the 'all that exists' is infinite and eternal, there is no non-existence ever, it is impossible.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well perhaps there was no BB, tired light seems both realistic and logical to me, but in any event, the 'all that exists' is infinite and eternal, there is no non-existence ever, it is impossible.

Well, I do philosophy different than you.

 

[ratiocinator]

Well perhaps there was no BB, tired light seems both realistic and logical to me...

From your position of near complete ignorance of the science. Okay.

....but in any event, the 'all that exists' is infinite and eternal, there is no non-existence ever, it is impossible.

If time is finite in the past, it would still be the case that there was "no non-existence ever".

You are so trapped in the intuitive/Newtonian concept of time that you don't even seem to see it. It's painful (and saddening) to read.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The North Pole is just a point on the surface of the Earth. The BB (in the standard GR model) is just a point in the space-time manifold.

I understand the spin axis point on the northern part of the globe is called the North Pole, there is a physical reason for, and direct physical evidence of, it. But there is no reason for, or direct evidence of any kind of, a point in a space-time manifold.

 

[ratiocinator]

But there is no reason for, or direct evidence of any kind of, a point in a space-time manifold.

This is bizarre. I'm not sure what you're even trying to claim here. We are entirely embedded in points in space-time (events).

The BB is an extrapolation of GR (without QFT) backwards. The theory itself has endless direct evidence.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So, we can conclude that you've learnt absolutely nothing from all the explanations you have been given about why this is just an unwarranted assumption.

Ho-hum.

Except that you do not have an explanation for why the theoretical BB occurred, nor how, all you do is parrot the BB dogma.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, I do philosophy different than you.

Yes, and that is how it should be, we are not clones.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, and that is how it should be, we are not clones.

You do understand that you think about the universe as such, does not cause the universe to be in a certain way. You are aware of the limits of rationalism, right?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This is bizarre. I'm not sure what you're even trying to claim here. We are entirely embedded in points in space-time (events).

The BB is an extrapolation of GR (without QFT) backwards. The theory itself has endless direct evidence.

Oh yes, feeling at all the space time events happening is fascinating, who said science could not be fun.

You sir, are caught up in conceptualizing reality aka duality, otoh, I am reality, I don't think, I practice still mind meditation to realize non-duality.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You do understand that you think about the universe as such, does not cause the universe to be in a certain way. You are aware of the limits of rationalism, right?

I have read a lot of stuff, nowadays I meditate. Stilling the mind means the cessation of all thought, theta brain wave stuff, awesome,

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oh yes, feeling at all the space time events happening is fascinating, who said science could not be fun.

You sir, are caught up in conceptualizing reality aka duality, otoh, I am reality, I don't think, I practice still mind meditation to realize non-duality.

Yeah, you are really not posting here as it is the duality. So this is not real.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have read a lot of stuff, nowadays I meditate. Stilling the mind means the cessation of all thought, theta brain wave stuff, awesome,

Yeah, you are not really posting here, as this is not real.

 

[ratiocinator]

Except that you do not have an explanation for why the theoretical BB occurred, nor how, all you do is parrot the BB dogma.

And it's still going way over your head. Look, it's fine to question the standard GR view (most cosmologists do) or disagree for whatever reason, but at the moment it's quite clear that you don't understand what is being suggested.

In the GR view, the questions you say I can't answer simply don't arise. They don't make sense.

Whether you agree with it or not, it is a logically self-consistent possibility (it's formulated in mathematics), so you can't just dismiss it without understanding it or explaining way.

It's been explained to you multiple times now, what are you struggling with?

You sir, are caught up in conceptualizing reality aka duality, otoh, I am reality, I don't think, I practice still mind meditation to realize non-duality.

Yes, it's quite clear that you don't think. The problem is you can provide no reason at all to accept that what you claim is anything more than a subjective feeling that you have elevated into an insight into reality without any justification.

You ask others for evidence, yet you can provide none of your own. You just post grandiose claims of your own insights.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yeah, you are really not posting here as it is the duality. So this is not real.

Ah ha, you have some learning to do about non-duality. The ego self which is the thinking 'I' is body/brain consciousness, beta/alpha brain wave stuff, it is dualistic. When the mind is still and free from thought, pure awareness is present, theta/delta brainwave stuff, the mind is non-dual, the ego self/I is not present.

When one has attained to a certain level of the non-dual realization state, one can drop from conceptual to nonconceptual relatively seamlessly. It's a case of "being in the world, but not of it". Iow, thinking/duality has its place, as does non-conceptualizing/non-duality when it is appropriate,

In the non-dual state, one is one with the reality represented by the concept that is meant to represent reality in the thinking and talking dualistic state. For example, in the state of samadhi, pure non-dual awareness is present, it is an experience that can never be conveyed to another, it requires the aspirant to be in a state of mind totally free from cogitation. There can never be any objective evidence for non-duality as far as I can see, so only the very determined aspirant will realize it, and even then, generally only after a good number of years of practice.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ah ha, you have some learning to do about non-duality. The ego self which is the thinking 'I' is body/brain consciousness, beta/alpha brain wave stuff, it is dualistic. When the mind is still and free from thought, pure awareness is present, theta/delta brainwave stuff, the mind is non-dual, the ego self/I is not present.

When one has attained to a certain level of the non-dual realization state, one can drop from conceptual to nonconceptual relatively seamlessly. It's a case of "being in the world, but not of it". Iow, thinking/duality has its place, as does non-conceptualizing/non-duality when it is appropriate,

In the non-dual state, one is one with the reality represented by the concept that is meant to represent reality in the thinking and talking dualistic state. For example, in the state of samadhi, pure non-dual awareness is present, it is an experience that can never be conveyed to another, it requires the aspirant to be in a state of mind totally free from cogitation. There can never be any objective evidence for non-duality as far as I can see, so only the very determined aspirant will realize it, and even then, generally only after a good number of years of practice.

The point is that this is happening and a part of reality.

 

[ratiocinator]

Well perhaps there was no BB, tired light seems both realistic and logical to me...

For the record, no.

'Tired-Light' Hypothesis Gets Re-Tired

Even so, researchers doubt whether the results will convert tired-light diehards. “I don't think it's possible to convince people who are holding on to tired light,” says Ned Wright, an astrophysicist at the University of California, Los Angeles. “I would say it is more a problem for a psychological journal than for Science.”​

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And it's still going way over your head. Look, it's fine to question the standard GR view (most cosmologists do) or disagree for whatever reason, but at the moment it's quite clear that you don't understand what is being suggested.

In the GR view, the questions you say I can't answer simply don't arise. They don't make sense.

Whether you agree with it or not, it is a logically self-consistent possibility (it's formulated in mathematics), so you can't just dismiss it without understanding it or explaining way.

It's been explained to you multiple times now, what are you struggling with?


Yes, it's quite clear that you don't think. The problem is you can provide no reason at all to accept that what you claim is anything more than a subjective feeling that you have elevated into an insight into reality without any justification.

You ask others for evidence, yet you can provide none of your own. You just post grandiose claims of your own insights.

Ok, you are into dualistic science and are convinced it has the answers. I won't knock you for that, but I do see things differently, mainly due to my non-dualistic approach to life.

So the dualistic approach or the non-dualistic approach, that is the question. Actually, they both have their validity, clearly science deals with objective reality and thus the dualistic methodology is relevant, whereas religion is about union, oneness, subjective reality, and thus the non-dualistic approach is essential.

 

[ratiocinator]

Actually, they both have their validity, clearly science deals with objective reality and thus the dualistic methodology is relevant, whereas religion is about union, oneness, subjective reality, and thus the non-dualistic approach is essential.

How do you know?

As far as I can see you have no way to distinguish what you call "non-duality" from reading something into a subjective experience and kidding yourself it's some insight into reality. Just like most religion or superstition, really.