Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You don't get to have the Big Band and an infinitely old universe . . .However the Big Bang doesn't allow people to shoehorn in a creator simply because there is a point of creation.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Not even true. Before the Big Bang, there was nothing. But as we know now, "nothing" actually is something because it still has zero-point energy. Zero-point energy can undergo quantum fluctuations which probably caused the big bang to begin with.
And thus the universe as we know it is not infinite in age since it came into being at some point.
Originally posted by Quiero MotaNot so much its "rules" as its language. Quantum mechanics--the most accurate and productive theory in human history--already forces scientists to adapt language so they can express (nonmathematically) a "nonsensical" reality. And I believe this is what Don is addressing: whatever context our spacetime bubble (or "brane"😉 is taking place in (I think scientists call it the "bulk"*), conventional language and meaning fall short.
Should science then re-evaluate its rules?
Do they (pyhsicists and other experts) have any idea what was before the big bang? Is it an actual theory that can be tested or "Hypothetical conjecture" (translation: We don't know shit)? Like that stupid "multiverse" theory.One of the hopes of the LHC is that it will indirectly reveal the presence of other dimensions via "disappearing" particles.
* I can't believe they chose "bulk." Something like "plenum" would've been so much better, IMO. Or even Wheeler's "superspace." Bulk. "Bulk smash puny universe!"
Mind,
You meditate? I’ve tried such and appreciate its therapeutic benefits, but alas it has brought me no closer to enlightenment thus far. I was born and raised Catholic and will probably always remain so, notwithstanding my most decidedly unpleasant experiences in parochial school in which the concept of Christianity became so twisted that I doubt Jesus would have recognized any resemblance to His message.
Nevertheless, I have always been tempted towards pantheism on intuitive grounds. I speculated upon many of the tenets of Advaita Vedanta before I had even heard of it or Shankara. Thus, I arrived at many of the same conclusions independently of the formulators of this perennial philosophy based upon the Upanishads. I always give more credence to a theory when two or more people arrive at it independently from one another.
I also like the fact that in Jnana Yoga the way of knowledge is placed upon a higher path than the way of love. That appeals to my intellectual inclinations. I want to know things, not believe them if at all possible.
I like the empirical emphasis within the Eastern metaphysical religions. One is not asked to take matters on faith but is instead urged to experience the way through meditation and other methods of insight. Admittedly, however, it takes faith to embark upon the often long and rigorous path of renunciation inherent within many of the Eastern religious and philosophical schools of thought.
One might be devoting one’s entire life to something that is, for want of a better word, a crock. The reported metaphysical experiences of yogis might be nothing more than a self-delusion; a chemical change within the brain caused by intense meditation.
Finally, the law of karma makes a great deal of sense, especially when juxtaposed against modern concepts of physics such as causality and transcends a strictly moralistic connotation.
In spite of all this, the Eastern metaphysical concept of Consciousness (“Brahman” in Hindu terminology)—as intuitively appealing as it is to me—as the primal plane of existence can no more be explained in terms of origins than can the God of theism or the MEST of atheism. Perhaps one must experience the answer thorough meditation and enlightenment to even understand what the real question is.
In summary, you might be right!
Originally posted by King Kandy
But your "proof" also dictates that there must be a cause for the effects of the one causing first cause. As long as a being causes something to happen, that cause is itself an effect of whatever caused such an act to occur.Additionally, the "contemporaneous" existence you propose, only exists in many worlds theory and that is not proven. You have to also address the fact that the big bang could have simply self-fluctuated to cause itself.
King,
I don’t know where you get your assertion that the contemporaneous existence of the past, present and future only applies to the “multiverse” theory of the MWI. Minkowski’s interpretation of his former protégé’s theory of special relativity long antedates the MWI of QM. Although Einstein was at first reluctant to do so, he later came to embrace the concept of the block universe.
I have analyzed the MWI and have come to the conclusion that it changes nothing of substance in regard to implications of the concept of “spacetime” in which space and time are merged into an unified entity, a fabric of reality if one so pleases to term it. All the MWI does is vastly inflates a single spacetime into a multiverse composed of a virtual infinity of spacetimes.
In the Fabric of Reality, David Deutsch, the leading proponent of the MWI today, seems to contradict himself. He states that there is nothing outside the multiverse and that the multiverse has always existed and it is all that has ever existed. Yet, he later speaks of such concepts as things “evolving.” How can anything evolve when everything has always "just existed" as it is?
In regard to the first cause having to have a cause itself, once again, this is what I have been discussing with Mind. It seems unanswerable, yet it must somehow have an answer. I only purport to prove that *our* reality had a first cause. I cannot answer what caused that cause.
Originally posted by Don Schneider
...In the Fabric of Reality, David Deutsch, the leading proponent of the MWI today, seems to contradict himself. He states that there is nothing outside the multiverse and that the multiverse has always existed and it is all that has ever existed. Yet, he later speaks of such concepts as things “evolving.” How can anything evolve when everything has always "just existed" as it is?...
Let me help you with this one with a thought: Imagine a multiverse with only two universes. One of them, we will call "A" is just like this one and it started 14 billion years ago. The second one, we will call "B", is also just like this one but the arrow of time is moving in the opposite direction. Universe "B" has it's big bang right now, and moves backward in time. That mean when universe "A" was first starting, universe "B" was 14 billion years old. Under this thought, there is no beginning although each universe "A" & "B" both have a beginning.
The problem with theories like the one proposed in this thread is that you need an intimate knowledge of science to refute it, but also an intimate knowledge of nonsense to understand it in the first place. Scientific discoveries about the universe, rarely, if ever, point us to conclusions that can be considered religious. It's people taking the conclusions and shaping them to their own ends, and it usually involves large gaps in logic to reach a particular conclusion. But the desperation to find God in the machine is palpable in society, so such ideas sell.
I've encountered similar "proofs" for a creator by scientific means, though not this particular one. Others seem to be doing a better job of questioning this one than I could, though, so I'll likely leave it alone.
Originally posted by Mindship
"Bulk smash puny universe!"
Rawr.
Originally posted by Don SchneiderI started meditating years ago when I was studying martial arts and have been fascinated by attention training and its implications ever since. As for enlightenment: I like Bruce Lee's spin: If enlightenment were easy, it wouldn't be worth anything.
Mind,You meditate? I’ve tried such and appreciate its therapeutic benefits, but alas it has brought me no closer to enlightenment thus far. I was born and raised Catholic and will probably always remain so, notwithstanding my most decidedly unpleasant experiences in parochial school in which the concept of Christianity became so twisted that I doubt Jesus would have recognized any resemblance to His message.
Nevertheless, I have always been tempted towards pantheism on intuitive grounds. I speculated upon many of the tenets of Advaita Vedanta before I had even heard of it or Shankara. Thus, I arrived at many of the same conclusions independently of the formulators of this perennial philosophy based upon the Upanishads. I always give more credence to a theory when two or more people arrive at it independently from one another.In studying comparative religion and mysticism, I sought the common thread, and it is intriguing what common conclusions may be saying about awareness and the human condition. These days, I prefer the simple dream metaphor, which addresses both the transcendent and immanent aspects of "God," and lucid dreaming in particular I feel is a terrific experiential metaphor for "lower level" enlightenment.
I also like the fact that in Jnana Yoga the way of knowledge is placed upon a higher path than the way of love. That appeals to my intellectual inclinations.Ditto.
I like the empirical emphasis within the Eastern metaphysical religions. One is not asked to take matters on faith but is instead urged to experience the way through meditation and other methods of insight. Admittedly, however, it takes faith to embark upon the often long and rigorous path of renunciation inherent within many of the Eastern religious and philosophical schools of thought.Zazen all the way. It's about as dogma free as one can get.
One might be devoting one’s entire life to something that is, for want of a better word, a crock. The reported metaphysical experiences of yogis might be nothing more than a self-delusion; a chemical change within the brain caused by intense meditation.Could very well be. But I figure I have nothing to lose, and perhaps something to gain.
Finally, the law of karma makes a great deal of sense, especially when juxtaposed against modern concepts of physics such as causality and transcends a strictly moralistic connotation. In spite of all this, the Eastern metaphysical concept of Consciousness (“Brahman” in Hindu terminology)—as intuitively appealing as it is to me—as the primal plane of existence can no more be explained in terms of origins than can the God of theism or the MEST of atheism. Perhaps one must experience the answer thorough meditation and enlightenment to even understand what the real question is.Absolutely. In fact, because both quantum mechanics and mysticism discuss realities outside the ordinary, there is temptation to think they're talking about the same thing (eg, Fritjoff's "The Tao of Physics"😉.
In summary, you might be right!That and $2.50 gets me a ride on a NYC subway.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
How can nothing be something? That makes no sense, unless language has no meaning. Before the big bang, there was either something or nothing.
It suggests a multiverse. If space and time were created at the big bang, then the question of what happened before would be invalid because the question has time as a key element. If time was created at the big bang, then time did not exist before. There would not even be nothing. The question should be, why was the universe at such a low entropy state at the time of the big bang? This leads to the incorrect idea that the universe is somehow special. If there is a multiverse, then the fact of a low entropy state at it beginning would mean that this universe is not special, and simply part of a bigger natural process.
Originally posted by Don Schneider
...
"Dr. Schick is correct. It is, therefore, my intention within this essay to attempt to provide the justification that Dr. Ross’s argument lacks to assume that the big bang (and, therefore, the universe) had a cause. For the benefit of my argument, I appeal to none other than perhaps the most venerated, self-professed atheist in scientific history, Albert Einstein himself! It is an understatement to judge it ironic that I perceive that such a renowned atheist proved, albeit unwittingly, the existence of God or, more precisely, a creator of at least some sort."
...
Don Schneider, did you know that Albert Einstein created the general theory of relativity in 1915? It's been 95 years, and we have learned a lot sense then. There are many things that Einstein was wrong about, or should I say, ignorant of.
Why is it that Creationist always use out of date information? They do the same thing with evolution, as if time had somehow stood still sense Darwin first wrote his idea down.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Let me help you with this one with a thought: Imagine a multiverse with only two universes. One of them, we will call "A" is just like this one and it started 14 billion years ago. The second one, we will call "B", is also just like this one but the arrow of time is moving in the opposite direction. Universe "B" has it's big bang right now, and moves backward in time. That mean when universe "A" was first starting, universe "B" was 14 billion years old. Under this thought, there is no beginning although each universe "A" & "B" both have a beginning.
In your hypothetical, you position a dynamic process by invoking time as in “is happening right now,” or it “happened 14 billion years ago.” I get the impression from reading Dr, Deutsch’s book that he is positioning a stagnant multiverse that has always existed and “is all that exists.” This is in accordance with the concept of the block universe, except as a vast elaboration of it by positioning myriad spacetimes instead of just one.
Within the block universe there is no moment of time privileged to solely call itself the present or “now.” Every moment exists eternally and contemporaneously with every other; thus every moment is “now.” Napoleon is right now still encountering his downfall at Waterloo. All the MWI does is indicate that right now, in another part of the multiverse, Nappy is also emerging victorious on the same blood soaked fields, soaked with more Allied blood than French this time.
Yet, when you invoke the arrow of time I most certainly tend to agree that your hypothetical multiverse did emerge via a sequential process, i.e., via causes and effects in accordance with the laws of physics; thus, the arrow of time. However, that sequential process, that dynamic force, cannot have manifested itself within a static universe or multiverse. Therein lies the problem and the main thrust of my paper.
When we contemplate a Rembrandt masterpiece today, we note that it is static. It has been, as we know, for several centuries. Yet, there is undeniable order within its composition that could only have been the result of some dynamic force. In this instance, we don’t need to speculate about the nature of that force. It was the artist.
In regard to your subsequent note indicating that Einstein formulated his theory in the early Twentieth Century, are you also indicating that Newton’s Law of Gravity is all the more suspect because he formulated it well over three centuries ago? Every empirical test of Einstein’s theory bears it out. What his theory predicts has always been the observed result when tested, such as, for example, clocks running slower the higher the speed they are traveling. Quantum physics, for example, supplements his theory but doesn't displace it or invalidate it.
Originally posted by Don Schneider
In your hypothetical, you position a dynamic process by invoking time as in “is happening right now,” or it “happened 14 billion years ago.” I get the impression from reading Dr, Deutsch’s book that he is positioning a stagnant multiverse that has always existed and “is all that exists.” This is in accordance with the concept of the block universe, except as a vast elaboration of it by positioning myriad spacetimes instead of just one.Within the block universe there is no moment of time privileged to solely call itself the present or “now.” Every moment exists eternally and contemporaneously with every other; thus every moment is “now.” Napoleon is right now still encountering his downfall at Waterloo. All the MWI does is indicate that right now, in another part of the multiverse, Nappy is also emerging victorious on the same blood soaked fields, soaked with more Allied blood than French this time.
Yet, when you invoke the arrow of time I most certainly tend to agree that your hypothetical multiverse did emerge via a sequential process, i.e., via causes and effects in accordance with the laws of physics; thus, the arrow of time. However, that sequential process, that dynamic force, cannot have manifested itself within a static universe or multiverse. Therein lies the problem and the main thrust of my paper.
In regard to your subsequent note indicating that Einstein formulated his theory in the early Twentieth Century, are you also indicating that Newton’s Law of Gravity is all the more suspect because he formulated it well over three centuries ago? Every empirical test of Einstein’s theory bears it out. What his theory predicts has always been the observed result when tested, such as, for example, clocks running slower the higher the speed they are traveling. Quantum physics, for example, supplements his theory but doesn't displace it or invalidate it.
I have not read the book you are talking about, and Newton's concept of time, I assume is what you mean by block universe, is not absolutely valid. If the Newtonian time was absolutely valid, then Relativity would be wrong. In the same way, Relativity is not absolutely valid against Quantum Mechanics. Each one of these theories is a generalization when compared to the one after.
The universe is not a static block time, or even a relativistic space-time of all points of reality. The universe is a waveform that is in an eigenstate. The universe does not require a cause.
Mind,
From my readings, I can’t discern a dime’s worth of substantive difference between Advaita Vedanta and Zen, which is perhaps not surprising as many allege that Shankara formulated the former as a reaction to the inroads that Buddhism had been making in his native India.
There are two Zen stories that I read that seem most appropriate to this thread. They always deeply impressed me. The first concerns two Zen monastery students observing a flag blowing in the wind. One argued that the flag was moving, while the other argued it was the wind. The Zen master happened along and settled it with: “Mind moves.”
The second concerns a Zen master and a pupil observing a flock of geese. They watch the geese fly away and then disappear out of sight. The master inquires of his student, “Where have the geese gone?” The student seemingly perplexed answers, “They have flown away." The master suddenly grasps the pupil’s nose and twists it very hard and asks, “How could they have flown away?”
I trust you will discern the pertinence to this thread.
Best regards,
Don
Originally posted by Don Schneider
Mind,From my readings, I can’t discern a dime’s worth of substantive difference between Advaita Vedanta and Zen, which is perhaps not surprising as many allege that Shankara formulated the former as a reaction to the inroads that Buddhism had been making in his native India.
There are two Zen stories that I read that seem most appropriate to this thread. They always deeply impressed me. The first concerns two Zen monastery students observing a flag blowing in the wind. One argued that the flag was moving, while the other argued it was the wind. The Zen master happened along and settled it with: “Mind moves.”
The second concerns a Zen master and a pupil observing a flock of geese. They watch the geese fly away and then disappear out of sight. The master inquires of his student, “Where have the geese gone?” The student seemingly perplexed answers, “They have flown away." The master suddenly grasps the pupil’s nose and twists it very hard and asks, “How could they have flown away?”
I always liked this one:
One day a man of the people said to Zen master Ikkyu, "Master, will you please write for me some maxims of the highest wisdom?"
Ikkyu immediately took his brush and wrote the word: "Attention."
"Is that all?" asked the man. "Will you not add something more ?"
Ikkyu then wrote twice running: "Attention. Attention."
"Well," remarked the man rather irritably, "I really don't see much depth or subtlety in what you have just written."
Then Ikkyu wrote the same word three times running: "Attention. Attention. Attention."
Half-angered, the man demanded, "What does that word 'attention' mean anyway?"
Ikkyu answered gently, "Attention means attention."