First Cause

Remove all ads!

It was God, the Universal Consciousness that exists outside of space and time. He was the Big Bang, the 'sound' that originated the universe. Bang, Aum, Logos, The Word...whatever you want to call it, that was God creating this universe. After that he fell asleep...or got stoned and sat on his mountain meditating if youre like me and worship Lord Shiva.

 

Objects that enter the event horizon of a black hole exist outside of time and quite arguably space as well since the laws of space begin to break down in the event horizon. Seeing how it is possible for an object to enter a state of "timelessness" it stands to reason that a being could have always existed outside of time.

Lets take for instance the idea of a white hole, an object that spews matter into the universe. If we have an object that is bring material in from outside the universe (if it's even conceivable to think of what is being brought in as matter before entering the universe), it's conceivable to posit that there is something in the vaguest sense that exists outside our universe. Now if something exists outside of our universe it doesn't follow that it is necessarily bound to time and space, it would need to "convert" itself upon entering our universe, but is most likely isn't conceivable until it enters our universe (not in any the twelve dimensions physicists claim exist).

This consists of three statements.

the statement D, that being "He danced"

the statement P, that being "Being paralyzed" or "He is paralyzed"

and the statement not P

p & -q is radically different then -p

 

@Nataraja: Sitting on a mountain? I thought that the dance of Shiva is going on all the time...

How about this people: There is no infinity. Stop dividing and infinity ceases to exist.

Claiming that something is true does not bring any additional value. If something functions, then good.

But I think what brings confusion to a lot of arguments is saying that something is 'true' or 'really real'. We've gotten confused about logic being something more than a rhetorical tool; Plato was a clever rhetorician, claiming that logic was the only way to discern The Truth he managed to sway the thinkers of the western history to see things his way. Of course logic is useful, but it's main function is to be a rhetorical tool, to provide arguments that are most difficult to disprove.

Other rhetorical tool of similar strength is to appeal to an authority. And what better authority than the ultimate one. Authority beyond all authorities that rules everything, has created everything and cannot be disproven.

As religious rhetoric doesn't persuade people the same way it has before, logical argumentation has gained extreme influence. People in the middle ages were mad if they did not believe in God, the consequences of claiming such a thing for the common man were very real. Authority ruled and only by saying so made things true or false. Logic could be viewed as a more practical tool but a fascinating thing is that it's not logical argumentation that makes scientific advances, quite the contrary. But nowadays the person who does not believe in the magical truth divining force of logical argumentation can be argued to be insane.

I started to study natural sciences last fall and I've noticed how often other biology students say 'it's logical' about something that they believe to be true, or about a thing that is not complicated. A lot of natural science and engineering students have the habit of belittling the humanistic disciplines, like philosophy for instance. Whenever I get the chance I recommend them to start studying analytical philosophy, which has a lot more to do with being logical than biology has ever had.

What a long rant...pardon me...What my point might be is that religion is a nice thing to have if it doesn't distract you from what's important, even by the standards of major religions. Being a nice person. And if the debate gets heated in a way that people start belittling each other and saying that the other person is not of the right mind, and if this happens every time a discussion of some controversial topic takes place, then I think that the debate is not worth having and it will not reach any conclusion.

 

@ IS

OK, I don't like you. It is personal. I think you are someone who is practiced at sounding like you know what you are talking about, but is in fact entirely full of ****.

Don't tell me about what you know that is happening inside of a black hole. Don't waste my time like that.

Don't argue with me in symbols. Don't imply that your symbols give any credibility to something that when said plainly, is entirely full of ****.

Don't be so full of **** IS.

Alright, I'm done here. I am going to go do something else, and I will do it until after time has ended, while being beside the outside of the universe. Or whatever...

 

I'm not so sure. After reading the last two pages, the last post of LNT is about the only thing that makes sense in this topic. Apart from the personal remark, the above statement means essentially "don't try to talk about the attributes of a timeless being without being able to tell me what timelessness really is".

Makes sense to me. I'm glad someone has the balls to post this.

 

I apologise, IS, but although I don't hold the same spite towards you as LNT, I disagree all the same.

The notions of black holes, white holes, wormholes and just holes in space is untested, unknown and unproven territory. To base any claim on such objects and then claim said results as fact is arrogant. Nobody knows what happens inside a black hole, all we know is that they draw in matter and that nothing nearby can resist their pull. White holes, on the other hand, have been argued to simply be black holes spewing out all the matter they have drawn in over the years. Such explanations hold a bit more water than 'alternate universe' theories or places where the laws of time and space break down.

So far nothing has been proven to exist outside of our universe. Not a single thing. Certainly that doesn't mean that nothing exists outside of our universe but one can not make the assumption that something does based on no evidence at all. You might remember the purple space monkeys on the dark side of the moon argument. Just because we can't prove they're not there doesn't prove that they are there.

The most simple conclusion is that the universe is infinite. Certainly wrapping your head around the idea that there is no end to space is one people can struggle with but once you're past that speedbump it becomes so simple. It's an adventurer's paradise. There will ALWAYS be something new to discover. Galaxies upon galaxies stretching to and beyond infinity. You would never loop back on yourself, there will always be something else out there - well, there could be nothing out there past a certain point if the Big Bang theory is to be believed but you'll still be able to keep travelling in that direction. There is no centre to the universe, there doesn't have to be one.

 

@Iku-Turso

Yes, he does dance a lot, but only some times, and at the moment we are in the middle of the 'dance', and soon he will start his dance of destruction, but thats only 'soon' on a cosmic scale. For us it would be in the very very distant future, long after we have ceased to exist as a species. That is when the universe will collapse in on itself and stay in a compressed state until the energy builds up and the universe expands again. It is synonymous with the eyes of God opening and shutting metaphor used to explain the expanse and collapse of the universe because it is in constant flux. And also Shiva sits on his mountain meditating a lot while smoking charras, sustaining the universe through the strength of his meditative will.

 

@Darkthrone: Yes, well that's what I've been saying all the time in this post, but in a nonsensical manner and approaching from the angle that begs to tell first what Time is before you can talk about timelesness. But makin it as "don't try to talk about the attributes of a timeless being without being able to tell me what timelessness really is" is putting it a bit better perhaps.

@Nataraja: Yuh, well I fancied a notion that the dance of destruction and creation is the same thing and that it takes place all the time. Things are created and destroyed every single moment. But if there's not a mention of this in the Vedantas, then it's an interpretation that has come out of some other tradition.

 

We are finite minds attempting to explain the infinite, whether it be an infinite universe or an infinite consciousness. We are using words created by our finite minds and from our finite experience.

I get the impression that some of you are saying either that time always existed which IMO makes time infinite or that suddenly there was time and space. Infinity

Here are links to a few of the scientific theories of the beginning of the universe
Big Bang
Singularity
Steady State Theory
Anthropic Universe

 

How about if there's no infinity and no time? How about if there's no causality, only correlation?

How can one speak of something to which words are not enough? By using more words? Dividing does not increase the amount of that which is divided. A minute is still a minute even if you'd say it to be 60 seconds. The words increase, but that of which is spoken of is still the same.

Changing perspective does not change the object of perception.

 

It changes how the observer sees it.
Can you describe colors to some one who is born blind?

 

Should you even try to describe colors to somene born blind? Does it benefit the blind in any way even if you'd manage to do so?

edit: typo

[ February 18, 2007, 11:59: Message edited by: Iku-Turso ]

 

Well does it benefit us to discuss this when we will inevitably die some years from now? What's the point of anything when you are a mortal being?

 

I do think that asking certain questions like this is important and develops the way that we see the world. But also, every single time these types of questions are asked it should be stressed that there might not be an answer, or that even if there might be, it is not possible for us to know. Pushing the limits of our knowledge is an extremely valuable effort and without ever embarking on efforts like these would make us never to get closer to our potential as thinking human beings.

 

But it really serves no purpose since we are all finite and mortal beings (unless you respawn somewhere). Everything boils down to the ultimate philosophical question: should I end it now? Personally, I won't, but I also know that living serves no purpose. Infact, there is no purpose, if you question something enough.


(I realize the stuff written above may come off as insane ramblings, but at least I find some logic in it)

 

Not insane at all BtR. Everything will still be here when I'm gone and will continue to do exactly what it was going to do despite my presence or lack of it. Discussing the topic doesn't accomplish anything in the real sense and the creation of the universe can't be proven either way till someone either proves or disproves gods and even then we'll only know what it is or wasn't.

 

Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, "Some gardener must tend this plot." The other disagrees, "There is no gardener." So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. "But perhaps he is an invisible gardener." So they set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H.G. Wells's 'The Invisible Man' could be both smelt and touched though he could not be seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. "But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves." At last the Skeptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?"

 

Bahir: have you read Albert Camus' "The Myth of Sisyphus?" If what you wrote is insane ramblings, you're in good company.

 

which is why religion is so tempting, most people get scared with the thought of life having no purpose.
imho the best people in this world are does not scared of this thought, does who dosn't try to hide behind fictive characters to make it all make sence.
So no, its hardly insane rambling.