"We are certain of this fact" "We have no idea of this bit" "We are sure that X" "and X supports the Big Bang"
Unfortunately I was not sold on the God idea and have not been sold on the Big Bang one either. Where, in either case was the G or the BB? Religion says don't ask and science says don't know.
Where was the singularity?
Well they say it was not anywhere as it contained time, space, all matter and so on.
Well what is anti to all of that?
Well it contained that too..
And anti to that?
No there was no anti to that, it contained it all.
Contained? So it has size and other such qualities?
No, it was a singularity, they have no such qualities, they contain them all, this is the science of the singularity.
Where?
There was no where, the where is inside, well not inside as in contained in, but a quality of, well not a quality of - it all came from it, it was the source.
So made of what?
No not made of anything.
Can I go home now I'm bored.
Yes piss off.
So the singularity is something even they can't explain, it is just an idea to fill a problem area. This is how I define God also:
"A label for the limit of your imagination"
Where imagination ceases, then people call that God, God is the name for the limit of imagination. Big Bang is the name for the limit of Sciences imagination.
Is Tao the name for the limit to my imagination? No. Ha.
Because I don't see any linearity. I have no need for Big Bang or Creation and I therefore have no need for a label for the limit of my imagination, as I don't have a limit. As I have no linear or dualistic fantasy to play out, I don't meet that trap.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tao Wow | Daily Cup of Tao
.webp)
30 comments:
Thought I'd share this congruent passage from Asbestos Head:
"Big bang theorists think the Universe is finite yet began as an infinitely dense, hot and infinitesimally small singularity. The theory also maintains that since then, the Universe has been expanding and cooling. This means shortly after the space-time singularity, certain aspects of the Universe (heat, density, and size) somehow changed from infinite to finite. We must either accept this mathematical impossibility, or that space-time singularities are extremely small, hot, and dense, but are not infinitely so. And if this is true, it means at some measurable heat, size and density, all physical laws break down. Like at 100 googolplex degrees, 100 googolplex grams per negative cubic centimeter all laws of temperature and density hold, but at 100 googolplex and 1, everything changes allowing space-time itself to enter or exit existence.
Big bang theorists also think the Universe is between 10 and 20 billion years old, yet We’ve recently discovered huge galaxies and quasars 15 billion light-years away from Us. Based on Einstein and Hubble’s own equations, this means that fifteen billion years ago, the fabric of space-time was stretched at least 15 billion light-years across, and gigantic celestial bodies were already formed. These are both quite incompatible with current inflationary cosmology. To top it off, We can’t observe the red-shifting of galaxies beyond the Hubble radius because they’re approaching and possibly breaking the light barrier at the very bounds of Our perception. Theoretically We’re left with few options. Either galaxies break the light barrier past the Hubble radius where We’ll never see them or they mysteriously disappear for another reason, because We don’t yet see a boundary, just the infinite anything."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6150732/Asbestos-Head
To be precise, the singularity isn't the essential problem area of the Big Bang. Singularities are theorized to exist in many locations today. More pressing would be "well why did it go BANG?" or "well what was outside it?" (or, for that matter, what is outside it)
I find it somewhat curious that you're questioning the idea of a singularity, since it sounds (to me at least) extraodinarily similar to how you describe your own views of reality. Much of the descriptive language is very similar, and I'm a little surprised that you have so little patience for listening to the same type of language that you yourself write so often.
Hi Benjamin: Isn't the language similar as, I wrote it?
The issue being, although I chose to cover it flippantly, is as Eric said: Laws and space and time just appear - My point is about how there is an infinite a-happening and not any linearity at all.
Big Bang and Big God both offer a linear map and both naturally have an end.
Importantly Time: Time comes from an idea, it is nothing more. We project that from now. You can project depth into a painting, but the painting is only as thick as the paint. You can project the idea of time but you never leave the present. So this seeming age of the universe is projected back from now, they go back so far and say "there is the beginning".
This linear view based on a false idea of time is the error. They use the finite and ideas based on a point of reference to describe the infinite. Infinity can have no time as even they admit in their preamble.
I don't know if you read comments on old posts, but whatever:
I actually was thinking about Time in this manner a while back. An important idea that, in my opinion, throws a wrench in such ideas of Time, is relativity. In relativity, different objects can essentially move at different rates through time. If we wish to transition to the now-mainstream idea that reality is really made up of Spacetime and not just Space, then I don't think we can say that the past or future don't actually exist.
If you can move at different rates through time as modern physics requires, then time, the past, and the future, must all exist in some sense. They cannot simply be figments of our imagination.
When you achieve something in the past or the future, tell me how.
Well, according to the everyday concept of time, I have achieved millions of things in the past...
I'll have to get back to you about the future, though. I'm still working on that one. Apparently it involves putting you on a really fast spaceship, but I haven't worked out the specifics yet.
Do something that is in the past or the future.
Didn't I just tell you that I have done things in the past? If I did them right now, wouldn't that mean I am actually doing them in the present? You have to do it in the past to do it in the past, don't you?
I guess by the same token, I will do many things (hopefully, unless I die in the next few minutes) in the future, so I suppose I have satisfied both of your requests!
Not at all :)
You are always doing things now.
Note you can not do something in the past, you can only report that you have done them in the past.
And you are saying that now. The notation of past is an idea you are conveying to me through language, yet you are doing it now.
You can not do anything in the past, or the future, you can only operate in the now moment.
Of course I can only currently act in the now... How would that prove that the past and future don't exist though? I mean, I can't do anything in the Andromeda galaxy either, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, does it?
If that galaxy was no longer present, neither would you be present. This is an important recognition.
You have seen at least that you can not operate in the past or future. This is a welcome and positive step.
Uh...sure I would. We wouldn't even be able to see or feel the Andromeda galaxy disappear for 2.5 million years! It may even be gone right now, for all we know.
Ok Benjamin if you can't see it on that level then what is more important to you; the air in your lungs or all the air around you?
~~~
I'm asking you to recognize oneness and that in fact a far away galaxy is as much you as your teeth. Take away the sun and you die, take away your head also death. You'd argue your head is more you, you'd give some distance to the sun or some life support system, but you're replacing one external for another. So recognize how the external is as you as the internal.
You'd argue that a far of galaxy has no such impact, well..
The universe has a set of circumstances leading to now, remove an entire galaxy, where would you put it? The balance is gone and so too would this reality you claim would not be effected by the act.
First consider the air in your lunges then decide where you really end.. is it the hairs on your arms or are you truly infinite and contain all others just as they contain you.
It is all relationships and you can't discount anything. This is the core realization to the infinite is that it is one with you, you are are it not came from it. To come from it you say there is infinity +1. This is not possible.
The universe can not have begun, it can not have size, it can not have time, as infinity can not have these qualities only contain them as concepts related to other concepts.
~~~
The air in your lungs will serve you for a minute or so, then you need to refresh.
It's not a matter of me not seeing it, it's a matter of factual truths. If the Andromeda galaxy exploded tomorrow, we wouldn't even know about it for 2.5 million years. It is in no way a requirement for my survival, nor will it be a requirement for anyone else's survival for at least 2.5 million years.
Also, you are making a leap that I don't think is valid. Just because I cannot live without something does not make me and that something the same thing. Air (more specifically, oxygen) is a requirement for me to exist, of course; but it is not me. This criteria doesn't work for a number of things - for instance, you use the phrase "as much you as your teeth," when I am perfectly capable of living without my teeth. Therefore, by the criteria of "everything I need to survive is me," my teeth would not be a part of me. I could live without my left hand, or my ears, or Australia, as well.
This criteria just doesn't apply to a very large number of things - including things that are usually considered a part of me, such as my teeth and hands.
You are not seeing the point of this at all.
I predicted how you would reply in my reply and you did just that.
No, you didn't. You predicted that I would argue that my head is more me, which I did not do. I took your criteria for determining what is a part of me (as I understand it - I could be interpreting you incorrectly) and I applied it to some other objects in order to highlight the inconsistency. The distance, strictly speaking, is irrelevant; if I can live without it, then it isn't a part of me, correct?
The aim is to see where you end and who you are. The I who was born and will die or the true I.
If I ask you if you end at the hairs on your arms then you may open to the consideration that there is more to you than the bag of skin.
The atmosphere is very much you, the air, the light from the sun... If you fail to get on board at this point then sure you will argue the depths of space are remote and irrelevant. If you open to this idea though you will open to the true I.
Please appreciate it is not a simple task to explain this to anyone and as we are not in the same room for a discussion there will be numerous misses with the ways I try to point you towards this.
And in the end it is up to you to see.
I am under the impression you are returning here to see what I am saying and not just to debate.
Can you truly not see how loaded your statements are? You sound like a Christian infomercial.
"The I who was born and will die or the true I."
"If you open to this idea you will open to the true I."
Just replace "True I" with "Jesus" and you'd be set!
Seriously though, I'm perfectly open to the idea. I know exactly what conclusion you're driving at; I do read your blog, after all, and about 90% of your posts are stressing the same thing. In fact, I would agree with you that we are not simply this bag of skin, but I don't think you've taken the right step from there. Honestly, I'm not sure what the right step is - that's why I have discussions like this.
However, in order for me to believe something, I must be convinced that it is true. This is why I'm not a Christian, and this is why I'm not a Taoist, and this is why I haven't just said "yeah dude you're right!"
If the basis for your beliefs doesn't make any sense, then no, I'm not going to come around to your position. Repeating your point isn't going to get you anywhere in a debate; you have to give reasons for your beliefs. You can't just say "this is the truth" over and over again and expect to convince any reasonable person. I'll get on board when you present an argument that I cannot disprove.
For example, I have shot down several of your attempts to explain this to me. You can't just say "OK, well, you're not getting this" - that's not a conversation. You have to actually respond to the other person's points.
As for why I keep returning, it is in the hope that either you will say something that convinces me that you're right, or I will say something that convinces you that I'm right. It seems that my efforts are largely wasted - it is extraodinarily difficult to have a debate with someone who is absolutely convinced that you are wrong, and who doesn't even bother to respond to the arguments you present. Perhaps I shouldn't be bothering - what can I say, I'm a glutton for punishment.
As an aside, I believe it was Socrates who was told by the Oracle that he was the wisest man in all of Greece. When asked why he thought they had said this, he responded that he was wiser than all the "wise men" because, unlike those who thought they knew everything, he understood that in reality, he and they both knew nothing. The ability to understand how little he knows is why he was the wisest man in Greece.
Now obviously this isn't necessarily a true story, and I'm probably remembering it slightly wrong in any case, but the moral, I think, is valid. Knowledge itself is not as important as being open to other ideas. Compared to the vast complexity of the universe, our minds are feeble things.
I am open to your ideas, or I wouldn't be reading your blog; however, it certainly feels to me that you are not open to the possibility that you might be wrong. I may be incorrect, but I think you should take a look at how you approach disagreements, and question exactly how dogmatic your beliefs really are.
Apparently I have too much to say about this...I will have to try to be more concise in the future.
I really don't think you have shot down the points but not attempted to follow them through. These are not simple logical points you can yes no.
I too will say how knowledge is limited, so too the mind and these in fact are basis and reinforcement to my point and part of what lead me to my ideas on infinity. All of these things bare limit - so where then end there must be something else and the same reasoning follows through.
Can you agree than no sun = no world?
no sun = no life here.
that is how I extend to the position that the sun is as much me as my heart as I can live without neither. My example was air, this also holds true, you could say water, any element.
It may sound flippant to say one grain of sand on a beach or to use a far off galaxy but that is because once the idea is taken on board the concept does in fact not end, you can not remove one item from here to infinity and still have the same universe.
I don't mean blow up the galaxy but remove it out right. Where did all that matter go? What of the space you left behind? The entire universe would re-order and you would no longer exist.
That is my point and I think that given reasonable consideration can not be disputed.
Would you rather no heart or no sun? can you choose? No sun kills you and all other life, no heart kills you. Either way it is a part of you.
The only way to scramble out of that is with modern technology of lights or false hearts but that simply sidesteps the core issue and does not answer the intended question - which is not one of literal biology but one to point to a bigger picture.
I have followed the ideas through to the point where they become invalid. I'm not sure why I would want to go beyond that point - if they're invalid, they're invalid. If my arguments are in turn not applicable, please, explain how.
The Sun is certainly necessary for life on Earth. I definitely agree that this is true. I do not agree that "Object A is necessary for me to exist" equates to "Object A is me." This is a huge leap, and I have not seen you provide any evidence that it is valid.
In addition, even if I were to agree that the above leap is valid, this would not lead to the conclusion that all things are me, because all things are definitely not necessary for me to exist, as I stated in an earlier response.
I am not certain that there is any point in examining what would happen if the entire galaxy was "removed outright," because you can't just straight-up remove things. Not because of its effect on me, but because that would be a blatant violation of physical laws and is therefore quite simply impossible. Would I be different if the rules of reality changed? Well yeah, sure, but that's because I am subject to the laws of physics, not because I'm subject to the Andromeda galaxy.
We can discuss a theoretical event within the bounds of physical laws, but if you start moving outside them, it becomes a very different question.
You are seeing the point now.
Um...I am? How so? I'm pretty sure my conception of this hasn't changed since the previous post.
The possibility that the laws of the universe might change is certainly something that can be discussed, but I'm not sure that it has any relevance to the issue at hand.
I mean, just because two things are subject to the same rules doesn't mean they are the same thing. That doesn't logically follow. 1 and 2 are both numbers that are subject to the laws of mathematics, but they are not the same number - I mean, they can't be, because of the laws of mathematics!
You are like a person playing chess and someone moves the Rook diagonally.
How so?
I've attempted to engage you on several points, and you've evaded every time. I'm not sure how that would make ME the rule-breaker...
This is the issue. You're not.
You're playing the game of Mind and complain as I test the rules.
I'm not what?
We can test all the rules you want - didn't I say that what would happen if the rules of reality changed is something that can be discussed? However, there's not much point in testing rules if only one of us knows what rules you're testing.
You seem to be under the impression that I'm far more closed-minded than I actually am. I'm not sure where you get this impression, aside from the fact that I disagree with you. I'm actually quite open to new ideas, I simply, you know...examine them to find out if they are correct or not. I don't really see anything wrong with this.
The mind has a severe limit, it is not suitable to discussions on the infinite.
So, let me get this straight: you posit that your worldview is the truth. Then, when questioned, you respond with "the mind isn't capable of having this conversation."
How did you originally decide that you were right then? Divine inspiration?
No I'm just a guy with a blog.
The only way is to explore for yourself, as you inquire you will find a limit to mind. Beyond mind then you explore its source and so on. How can you explore beyond mind? You can only know this once you have gone beyond mind.
It is not something special but takes some will, deep interest or dedication.
While you try to place me in a box you demonstrate that you are still using the mind.
Post a Comment