A Reasonable Conclusion to Explain Pre-Big Bang Conditions.

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by smithjustinb

par·a·dox    /ˈpærəˌdɒks/ Show Spelled[par-uh-doks] Show IPA noun 1. a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.

Infinity is nothing. Nothing is infinity. If infinity were a measurable quantity, it would be finite. If nothing were a measurable quantity, it would be something. If infinity were something it would be finite, therefore infinity is nothing. Anything you say about infinity you can say about nothing, so if you want to doubt this logic and argue with me about it, first say something that holds true of infinity, and realize that it can also apply to nothingness.

Two things are infinite: The Universe and human stupidity. and Einstein was not sure on the universe.

Well if you were so smart, maybe you would have something logical to contribute or maybe at least some constructive criticism. But since you don't, this obviously isn't the thread for you.

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by akushla99
Discussion boards are replete with the kind of rubbish dished out by armchair scientists, trying to convince all and sundry that they are 'au fe' with the mechanics of system that could appear from nowhere! Doesnt explain much at all, especially since these same people are relying on 'background noise' from an incident in our vastly remote past. The rest is speculation!
Akushla

Ultimately, I believe philosophy and science need each other.

Agreed!
But most 'science' has an aversionary reaction to anything spiritual in nature.
Good to see where they meet.
Akushla

You're right about that. This is due to the fact that knowledge and materialism are directly related. Materialism is the beginning of the forgetting of your true self thus knowledge is the beginning of the forgetting of your true self.

Wisdom is a different thing entirely.

edit on 15-7-2011 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)

'the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.'
Might have been a reason for this?
Akushla

Intelligence is dualistic just like everything else that arises from the original paradox. You have knowledge and wisdom. Science and philosophy.

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by akushla99
Discussion boards are replete with the kind of rubbish dished out by armchair scientists, trying to convince all and sundry that they are 'au fe' with the mechanics of system that could appear from nowhere! Doesnt explain much at all, especially since these same people are relying on 'background noise' from an incident in our vastly remote past. The rest is speculation!
Akushla

Ultimately, I believe philosophy and science need each other.

Agreed!
But most 'science' has an aversionary reaction to anything spiritual in nature.
Good to see where they meet.
Akushla

You're right about that. This is due to the fact that knowledge and materialism are directly related. Materialism is the beginning of the forgetting of your true self thus knowledge is the beginning of the forgetting of your true self.

Wisdom is a different thing entirely.

edit on 15-7-2011 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)

'the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.'
Might have been a reason for this?
Akushla

Intelligence is dualistic just like everything else that arises from the original paradox. You have knowledge and wisdom. Science and philosophy.

I would go one further, and contend that there is no paradox, as stated in your 'signature'. The 'separation' is a manufactured one. It doesnt exist. Humans like to put things into little boxes, and get them out and look at them, then put them back into these boxes...seems a bit OCD to me?!
Akushla

Originally posted by akushla99

I would go one further, and contend that there is no paradox, as stated in your 'signature'. The 'separation' is a manufactured one. It doesnt exist. Humans like to put things into little boxes, and get them out and look at them, then put them back into these boxes...seems a bit OCD to me?!
Akushla

It would have to be one hell of a well-crafted elaborate illusion.

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by akushla99

I would go one further, and contend that there is no paradox, as stated in your 'signature'. The 'separation' is a manufactured one. It doesnt exist. Humans like to put things into little boxes, and get them out and look at them, then put them back into these boxes...seems a bit OCD to me?!
Akushla

It would have to be one hell of a well-crafted elaborate illusion.

Yes! And who or what would be able to achieve such a feat?
An illusion that sees us scratching and scrabbling around for generations on end, discussing the vagaries or seemingless inconcievable notion of 'something-from-nothing'.
Infinity has no beginning or end. Everything is available all of the time.
The one stumbling block, is temporal 'vision'. That something could not be possible (for whatever scientific or philosphical reason).
Yet, the questions remain - with the answer under our noses, in the space between our eyes...that way, lies the door!
Akushla

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by akushla99

I would go one further, and contend that there is no paradox, as stated in your 'signature'. The 'separation' is a manufactured one. It doesnt exist. Humans like to put things into little boxes, and get them out and look at them, then put them back into these boxes...seems a bit OCD to me?!
Akushla

It would have to be one hell of a well-crafted elaborate illusion.

Yes! And who or what would be able to achieve such a feat?

A highly advanced uncomprehendable intelligence.

An illusion that sees us scratching and scrabbling around for generations on end, discussing the vagaries or seemingless inconcievable notion of 'something-from-nothing'.
Infinity has no beginning or end. Everything is available all of the time.
The one stumbling block, is temporal 'vision'. That something could not be possible (for whatever scientific or philosphical reason).
Yet, the questions remain - with the answer under our noses, in the space between our eyes...that way, lies the door!
Akushla

How is temporal vision a stumbling block?

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by akushla99

I would go one further, and contend that there is no paradox, as stated in your 'signature'. The 'separation' is a manufactured one. It doesnt exist. Humans like to put things into little boxes, and get them out and look at them, then put them back into these boxes...seems a bit OCD to me?!
Akushla

It would have to be one hell of a well-crafted elaborate illusion.

Yes! And who or what would be able to achieve such a feat?

A highly advanced uncomprehendable intelligence.

An illusion that sees us scratching and scrabbling around for generations on end, discussing the vagaries or seemingless inconcievable notion of 'something-from-nothing'.
Infinity has no beginning or end. Everything is available all of the time.
The one stumbling block, is temporal 'vision'. That something could not be possible (for whatever scientific or philosphical reason).
Yet, the questions remain - with the answer under our noses, in the space between our eyes...that way, lies the door!
Akushla

How is temporal vision a stumbling block?

Temporal vision compartmentalises knowledge into blocks of time. Temporal vision is dependant on temporal circumstances. All knowledge is available all of the time! It is not bound by 'percieved' or manufactured 'time'.
Anything that is true now, has always been true. It is the interpretation of this knowledge which changes.
Akushla

reply to post by akushla99


Where I'm at, its 2:30 AM. I enjoyed our conversation, but we'll have to continue it later. I'm too tired. My mind can't think right now.

Originally posted by smithjustinb
reply to post by akushla99

 

Where I'm at, its 2:30 AM. I enjoyed our conversation, but we'll have to continue it later. I'm too tired. My mind can't think right now.

I enjoyed it also.
Goodnight
Akushla

(keep a note pad beside you...you may want to write something down, when you wake!)

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by smithjustinb

par·a·dox    /ˈpærəˌdɒks/ Show Spelled[par-uh-doks] Show IPA noun 1. a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.

Infinity is nothing. Nothing is infinity. If infinity were a measurable quantity, it would be finite. If nothing were a measurable quantity, it would be something. If infinity were something it would be finite, therefore infinity is nothing. Anything you say about infinity you can say about nothing, so if you want to doubt this logic and argue with me about it, first say something that holds true of infinity, and realize that it can also apply to nothingness.

Two things are infinite: The Universe and human stupidity. and Einstein was not sure on the universe.

Well if you were so smart, maybe you would have something logical to contribute or maybe at least some constructive criticism. But since you don't, this obviously isn't the thread for you.

Einstein's quote not mine bro, if you dont agree with it or believe it does not hold true than take it up with him when you pass over. inifinity is arbitary anyway, its relative like time. plus you keep talking about a logical contribution when the whole inifinity concept is illogical reasoning. how can something that must exist doesnt exist?

Why is something illogical bounded to the logical side of discussion?

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by smithjustinb

par·a·dox    /ˈpærəˌdɒks/ Show Spelled[par-uh-doks] Show IPA noun 1. a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.

Infinity is nothing. Nothing is infinity. If infinity were a measurable quantity, it would be finite. If nothing were a measurable quantity, it would be something. If infinity were something it would be finite, therefore infinity is nothing. Anything you say about infinity you can say about nothing, so if you want to doubt this logic and argue with me about it, first say something that holds true of infinity, and realize that it can also apply to nothingness.

Two things are infinite: The Universe and human stupidity. and Einstein was not sure on the universe.

Well if you were so smart, maybe you would have something logical to contribute or maybe at least some constructive criticism. But since you don't, this obviously isn't the thread for you.

Einstein's quote not mine bro, if you dont agree with it or believe it does not hold true than take it up with him when you pass over. inifinity is arbitary anyway, its relative like time. plus you keep talking about a logical contribution when the whole inifinity concept is illogical reasoning. how can something that must exist doesnt exist?

Why is something illogical bounded to the logical side of discussion?

...and what of matter/anti-matter?
Akushla

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by smithjustinb

par·a·dox    /ˈpærəˌdɒks/ Show Spelled[par-uh-doks] Show IPA noun 1. a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.

Infinity is nothing. Nothing is infinity. If infinity were a measurable quantity, it would be finite. If nothing were a measurable quantity, it would be something. If infinity were something it would be finite, therefore infinity is nothing. Anything you say about infinity you can say about nothing, so if you want to doubt this logic and argue with me about it, first say something that holds true of infinity, and realize that it can also apply to nothingness.

Two things are infinite: The Universe and human stupidity. and Einstein was not sure on the universe.

Well if you were so smart, maybe you would have something logical to contribute or maybe at least some constructive criticism. But since you don't, this obviously isn't the thread for you.

Einstein's quote not mine bro, if you dont agree with it or believe it does not hold true than take it up with him when you pass over. inifinity is arbitary anyway, its relative like time. plus you keep talking about a logical contribution when the whole inifinity concept is illogical reasoning. how can something that must exist doesnt exist?

Why is something illogical bounded to the logical side of discussion?

...and what of matter/anti-matter?
Akushla

i dont know what you are getting at but i'd assume logic demands equal amounts of both, cant create something out of nothing. somehow the big bang left out the anti-matter?

I see where the OP was headed in his original post, and I understand the drive of the theory.

I'm not going to argue for or against it...but I will say this -- If time itself was created with the big bang (and I think it was), the title "A Reasonable Conclusion to Explain Pre-Big Bang Conditions" makes about as much sense as "A Reasonable Conclusion to Explain Conditions one mile north of the North Pole." In both cases the sentences, while grammatically correct, do not reflect underlying realities.

How can we conceive of a universe that began contiguiously with time? Only with great difficulty, because it involves perspectives so far beyond the human perceptual and cognative range (our brains originally are jsut glorified hunting and gathering tools, remember...) as to be quite incomprehensible, psychologically. The only way we can "understand" is by mathematical modeling and such, which is not the same as immediate, intuitive cognition.

Sounds to me like what the OP is going for here is what the Tibetans call "Non-conceptual cognition." This is a difficult thing to define but I imagine the OP and others will be able to intuitively understand this term. "Non-conceptual congnition" is a type of knowing that takes place beyond words, symbol manipulation, tghoughts and images. It's a kind of open-ended totalist "grokking" of the situation, I suppose.

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by smithjustinb

par·a·dox    /ˈpærəˌdɒks/ Show Spelled[par-uh-doks] Show IPA noun 1. a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.

Infinity is nothing. Nothing is infinity. If infinity were a measurable quantity, it would be finite. If nothing were a measurable quantity, it would be something. If infinity were something it would be finite, therefore infinity is nothing. Anything you say about infinity you can say about nothing, so if you want to doubt this logic and argue with me about it, first say something that holds true of infinity, and realize that it can also apply to nothingness.

Two things are infinite: The Universe and human stupidity. and Einstein was not sure on the universe.

Well if you were so smart, maybe you would have something logical to contribute or maybe at least some constructive criticism. But since you don't, this obviously isn't the thread for you.

Einstein's quote not mine bro, if you dont agree with it or believe it does not hold true than take it up with him when you pass over. inifinity is arbitary anyway, its relative like time. plus you keep talking about a logical contribution when the whole inifinity concept is illogical reasoning. how can something that must exist doesnt exist?

Why is something illogical bounded to the logical side of discussion?

...and what of matter/anti-matter?
Akushla

i dont know what you are getting at but i'd assume logic demands equal amounts of both, cant create something out of nothing. somehow the big bang left out the anti-matter?

Explain 'anti-matter', logically!
Then, look at 'time-nontime' (infinity)
Which is less logical than the other?
Akushla

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by smithjustinb

par·a·dox    /ˈpærəˌdɒks/ Show Spelled[par-uh-doks] Show IPA noun 1. a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.

Infinity is nothing. Nothing is infinity. If infinity were a measurable quantity, it would be finite. If nothing were a measurable quantity, it would be something. If infinity were something it would be finite, therefore infinity is nothing. Anything you say about infinity you can say about nothing, so if you want to doubt this logic and argue with me about it, first say something that holds true of infinity, and realize that it can also apply to nothingness.

Two things are infinite: The Universe and human stupidity. and Einstein was not sure on the universe.

Well if you were so smart, maybe you would have something logical to contribute or maybe at least some constructive criticism. But since you don't, this obviously isn't the thread for you.

Einstein's quote not mine bro, if you dont agree with it or believe it does not hold true than take it up with him when you pass over. inifinity is arbitary anyway, its relative like time. plus you keep talking about a logical contribution when the whole inifinity concept is illogical reasoning. how can something that must exist doesnt exist?

Why is something illogical bounded to the logical side of discussion?

...and what of matter/anti-matter?
Akushla

i dont know what you are getting at but i'd assume logic demands equal amounts of both, cant create something out of nothing. somehow the big bang left out the anti-matter?

Explain 'anti-matter', logically!
Then, look at 'time-nontime' (infinity)
Which is less logical than the other?
Akushla

maybe i should let you explain anti matter logically i know nothing about that stuff. time is relative it only becomes logical once we humans have decided to have it in relation to us. time is like a concept that works and because it is related it makes more sense to us. I cant comprehend no time because there is no relation to it, its mostly illogical there was no one around to perceive it everything was frozen and moving at the same instance.

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by smithjustinb

par·a·dox    /ˈpærəˌdɒks/ Show Spelled[par-uh-doks] Show IPA noun 1. a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.

Infinity is nothing. Nothing is infinity. If infinity were a measurable quantity, it would be finite. If nothing were a measurable quantity, it would be something. If infinity were something it would be finite, therefore infinity is nothing. Anything you say about infinity you can say about nothing, so if you want to doubt this logic and argue with me about it, first say something that holds true of infinity, and realize that it can also apply to nothingness.

Two things are infinite: The Universe and human stupidity. and Einstein was not sure on the universe.

Well if you were so smart, maybe you would have something logical to contribute or maybe at least some constructive criticism. But since you don't, this obviously isn't the thread for you.

Einstein's quote not mine bro, if you dont agree with it or believe it does not hold true than take it up with him when you pass over. inifinity is arbitary anyway, its relative like time. plus you keep talking about a logical contribution when the whole inifinity concept is illogical reasoning. how can something that must exist doesnt exist?

Why is something illogical bounded to the logical side of discussion?

...and what of matter/anti-matter?
Akushla

i dont know what you are getting at but i'd assume logic demands equal amounts of both, cant create something out of nothing. somehow the big bang left out the anti-matter?

Explain 'anti-matter', logically!
Then, look at 'time-nontime' (infinity)
Which is less logical than the other?
Akushla

maybe i should let you explain anti matter logically i know nothing about that stuff. time is relative it only becomes logical once we humans have decided to have it in relation to us. time is like a concept that works and because it is related it makes more sense to us. I cant comprehend no time because there is no relation to it, its mostly illogical there was no one around to perceive it everything was frozen and moving at the same instance.

In case you were thinking i would fall for this, the 'matter/antimatter' example was used to illustrate the logic, or non-logic, of negative or reverse concepts.
I agree, time is relative...but what does not follow, is that it somehow does not exist outside of us experiencing it. Where does space begin and end? Is it spaceless, and spaceful at the same time?
Time and movement have no correlation outside of materiality. This is why it is illogical that 'everything is frozen and moving at the same instance'.
The 'time' before the big bang/creation, having no materiality, therefore, was timeless...since as you, yourself have said it, in no uncertain terms - you cannot comprehend no time, without you percieving it.
The nexus between temporal and infinite, is between your eyes...
Akushla

Originally posted by akushla99


In case you were thinking i would fall for this, the 'matter/antimatter' example was used to illustrate the logic, or non-logic, of negative or reverse concepts.
I agree, time is relative...but what does not follow, is that it somehow does not exist outside of us experiencing it. Where does space begin and end? Is it spaceless, and spaceful at the same time?
Time and movement have no correlation outside of materiality. This is why it is illogical that 'everything is frozen and moving at the same instance'.
The 'time' before the big bang/creation, having no materiality, therefore, was timeless...since as you, yourself have said it, in no uncertain terms - you cannot comprehend no time, without you percieving it.
The nexus between temporal and infinite, is between your eyes...
Akushla

so the big bang just happened? not a collection of atoms? (honestly i dont know much about it, i had always believed it was a collection of hydrogen atoms or something along those lines) p.s. i also cannot comprehend a time/era where the there was no material no nothing, something coming from nothing is in effect illogical. i can understand without any material time cannot exist as there is nothing to compare the movement of something that does not exist. But discussing timelessness in a period where it existed cannot be done logically, im sure you can discuss the concept of it logically til time ends but to explain the workings of it logically?

reply to post by smithjustinb

In infinity and nothing both, there is a potential. In nothing there is a potential for an outflowing of energy into infinity. In infinity, there is a potential for the inflowing of energy from nothingness. Thus you have a potential difference, or pressure, or in electrical terms (I'm an industrial electronics technician), a voltage.

Thanks. I understand now. Circuit theory uses hydraulic metaphors. Potential is analogous to pressure, current to liquid flow, impedance to the constriction of that flow through a pipe, etc. So yes, it is indeed a kind of metaphysical hydraulics you are proposing here.

I also understand the construction of your argument. However, my question remains. How do you get from the realm of abstract ideas (such as ‘infinity’ and ‘nothing’) to the very concrete universe that originated in the Big Bang? How do you bridge the gap between the world of ideas and the world of things? Usually, people invent a God or some other mystical process to help them across. Your hypothesis does not seem to feature any such deus ex machina.

While considering this, it may help to recall that neither infinite quantities nor absolute nothingness actually exist in nature.

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by akushla99


In case you were thinking i would fall for this, the 'matter/antimatter' example was used to illustrate the logic, or non-logic, of negative or reverse concepts.
I agree, time is relative...but what does not follow, is that it somehow does not exist outside of us experiencing it. Where does space begin and end? Is it spaceless, and spaceful at the same time?
Time and movement have no correlation outside of materiality. This is why it is illogical that 'everything is frozen and moving at the same instance'.
The 'time' before the big bang/creation, having no materiality, therefore, was timeless...since as you, yourself have said it, in no uncertain terms - you cannot comprehend no time, without you percieving it.
The nexus between temporal and infinite, is between your eyes...
Akushla

so the big bang just happened? not a collection of atoms? (honestly i dont know much about it, i had always believed it was a collection of hydrogen atoms or something along those lines) p.s. i also cannot comprehend a time/era where the there was no material no nothing, something coming from nothing is in effect illogical. i can understand without any material time cannot exist as there is nothing to compare the movement of something that does not exist. But discussing timelessness in a period where it existed cannot be done logically, im sure you can discuss the concept of it logically til time ends but to explain the workings of it logically?

I dont know how you could assume that something comes from nothing. The word, is a clue. No-thing! No materiality.
Something from nothing happens all the time. Next time you 'think' about moving from a chair to the window, remember, this didnt 'just happen'! You thought about it first. Which is where this discussion has been tickling.
Yes, it is illogical to discuss timelessness and material-lessness, but merely thinking is done at a timeless and material-less level. Yes, we are collections of atomic slime - but is this all we are?
Logic can be fuzzy...and produces a fuzzy picture (as effective as it can be). A + B = C...in this paradigm. It would be illogical to assume that ours is the only paradigm that ever existed. This may be why it looks illogical, it doesnt fit this paradigm. There are forces, powers, generating principles which existed before the paradigm we come to a halting, screaching stop (backwards) at the big bang/creation paradigm.
Which is why any scenario before this does not make sense...timelessness, materiallessness, etc...
Akushla

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by akushla99


In case you were thinking i would fall for this, the 'matter/antimatter' example was used to illustrate the logic, or non-logic, of negative or reverse concepts.
I agree, time is relative...but what does not follow, is that it somehow does not exist outside of us experiencing it. Where does space begin and end? Is it spaceless, and spaceful at the same time?
Time and movement have no correlation outside of materiality. This is why it is illogical that 'everything is frozen and moving at the same instance'.
The 'time' before the big bang/creation, having no materiality, therefore, was timeless...since as you, yourself have said it, in no uncertain terms - you cannot comprehend no time, without you percieving it.
The nexus between temporal and infinite, is between your eyes...
Akushla

so the big bang just happened? not a collection of atoms? (honestly i dont know much about it, i had always believed it was a collection of hydrogen atoms or something along those lines) p.s. i also cannot comprehend a time/era where the there was no material no nothing, something coming from nothing is in effect illogical. i can understand without any material time cannot exist as there is nothing to compare the movement of something that does not exist. But discussing timelessness in a period where it existed cannot be done logically, im sure you can discuss the concept of it logically til time ends but to explain the workings of it logically?

I dont know how you could assume that something comes from nothing. The word, is a clue. No-thing! No materiality.
Something from nothing happens all the time. Next time you 'think' about moving from a chair to the window, remember, this didnt 'just happen'! You thought about it first. Which is where this discussion has been tickling.
Yes, it is illogical to discuss timelessness and material-lessness, but merely thinking is done at a timeless and material-less level. Yes, we are collections of atomic slime - but is this all we are?
Logic can be fuzzy...and produces a fuzzy picture (as effective as it can be). A + B = C...in this paradigm. It would be illogical to assume that ours is the only paradigm that ever existed. This may be why it looks illogical, it doesnt fit this paradigm. There are forces, powers, generating principles which existed before the paradigm we come to a halting, screaching stop (backwards) at the big bang/creation paradigm.
Which is why any scenario before this does not make sense...timelessness, materiallessness, etc...
Akushla

i assumed something came from nothing before the big bang because "The 'time' before the big bang/creation, having no materiality, therefore, was timeless" so no material becoming a big bang, i didnt get it. i only understand that before the big bang there were atoms that came together to create what we know now.

now with those particles we can take one atom and make everything else relative to that therefore perceiving time. that much i can understand, but if there was no material, time cannot exist. and a big bang from no material is really beyond me id guess id have to attribute it to 'GOD'

the thought process is not neccesarily coming from nothing just impulses from the brain triggered by outside influences, i dont know enough about biology to really go into details though.