Scientists actually do know everything about the universe.

[Rick O'Shez]

The bold is fascinating unsubstantiated claim. From this sort of claim then enlightenment should entail omniscience which should easily be provable if true.

I think it is totally unsubstantiated. With altered states of mind you can have the FEELING of timelessness and spaciousness ( whatever ), but defining the cosmos based on these subjective experiences looks like the height of egocentricity to me. Somebody on an acid trip might think they can fly, but it doesn't mean they actually can!
And of course you can have a "mystical" experience after some mushrooms, which again points to the subjectivity of these states.

 

[idav]

I think it is totally unsubstantiated. With altered states of mind you can have the FEELING of timelessness and spaciousness ( whatever ), but defining the cosmos based on these subjective experiences looks to me like the height of egocentricity.

This reminds me of a study where they were using free falling to test associated feelings of timelessness, which turned out to be just feelings.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

This reminds me of a study where they were using free falling to test associated feelings of timelessness, which turned out to be just feelings.

I don't have a problem with people adding religious beliefs to altered states of mind, what bothers me is when they present those beliefs as facts, and start making baseless claims like the big bang being an "event in consciousness".
Dressing up such claims with pseudo-science doesn't make them any more convincing, it just looks rather desperate.

 

[godnotgod]

The bold is fascinating unsubstantiated claim. From this sort of claim then enlightenment should entail omniscience which should easily be provable if true.

First of all, what is provable via both experience and logic, is the fact that, if self is present, it implies local consciousness; but if, during meditation, for example, self is no longer apparent, then by default and logic, there can only be universality.

Secondly, Enlightenment permeates the entire Universe, and illuminates all forms as being Empty of self-nature. It does not claim to include factual knowledge about everything.

Thirdly, at least the non-locality of the brain has been proven scientifically:

Awesome, and non-living organisms are not conscious.

Perhaps not directly, but it is consciousness that manifests Everything, living and non-living, although this is a duality where the dividing line is fuzzy, even in science. The fact is that both living and non-living are a single Reality. They're just mental concepts created for convenience, but which is now an outdated view.

 

[godnotgod]

This reminds me of a study where they were using free falling to test associated feelings of timelessness, which turned out to be just feelings.

Maybe those 'feelings' were trying to tell them something.

Most people live in the ordinary everyday world of time and space, and are deluded into thinking it to be real.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't have a problem with people adding religious beliefs to altered states of mind, what bothers me is when they present those beliefs as facts, and start making baseless claims like the big bang being an "event in consciousness".

There is no 'materiality'; all phenomena is empty of self-nature.
At the moment of inception of the BB, there was no Time or Space.
Time and Space are only concepts superimposed over Reality.
The only thing we know of that does not exist in Time or Space is Consciousness.
There is no 'materiality' to Consciousness.
The BB was (is) an event in Consciousness, not in Time or Space.
Consciousness is empty of self-nature.
Absolute Emptiness is Nothingness.
Everything came out of Nothing.
Now cutting edge theoretical physics is telling us that as well.
Mystics have known this for centuries.

It also bothers me when people claim to be "awakened" when they are clearly not, it is really a cheap trick to claim superior knowledge.

Really? Why do you come to the conclusion that awakening is superior knowledge? Perhaps you are just impressionable and readily taken in by the glitter. Calm down. It's just Ordinary Awakening. No Big Thing.
Now please finish peeling the potatoes. The rest of the monks are getting hungry.

"The spirituality found in Zen is not to think about God while peeling the potatoes; it is simply to peel the potatoes."
Alan Watts

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Anyway.

I was looking again at the question of "before" the big bang, and it is all rather mind-boggling

A couple of articles to ponder:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130502-what-came-before-the-big-bang

http://www.universetoday.com/116835/what-came-before-the-big-bang/

 

[godnotgod]

Anyway.

I was looking again at the question of "before" the big bang, and it is all rather mind-boggling

A couple of articles to ponder:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130502-what-came-before-the-big-bang

http://www.universetoday.com/116835/what-came-before-the-big-bang/

Personally, I'll go with Sir Roger Penrose and his Conformal Cyclic Cosmology model:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article...ims-to-have-glimpsed-universe-before-big-bang

http://futurism.com/sir-roger-penrose-alternate-theory-of-the-big-bang-2/

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.3706v1.pdf

A cyclic model is also in conformance with both Hindu and Buddhistic thought:

"The Hindu timeline is considered by some to be the closest to modern scientific timelines. It suggests that the Big Bang is not the beginning of everything, but is just the start of a present cycle preceded by an infinite number of universes and to be followed by another infinite number of universes."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_cosmology

 

[idav]

Personally, I'll go with Sir Roger Penrose and his Conformal Cyclic Cosmology model:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article...ims-to-have-glimpsed-universe-before-big-bang

http://futurism.com/sir-roger-penrose-alternate-theory-of-the-big-bang-2/

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.3706v1.pdf

A cyclic model is also in conformance with both Hindu and Buddhistic thought:

"The Hindu timeline is considered by some to be the closest to modern scientific timelines. It suggests that the Big Bang is not the beginning of everything, but is just the start of a present cycle preceded by an infinite number of universes and to be followed by another infinite number of universes."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_cosmology

From the bbc article @Rick O'Shez pointed out.

The cyclic universe is not a popular model among working cosmologists, but at least it could be ruled out by experimental observations: if the gravitational-wave signature of inflation is found, then the cyclic model is dead.

 

[godnotgod]

From the bbc article @Rick O'Shez pointed out.

Yes, I did see that on his referenced BBC site. Until the GW signature is found, I'll go with Penrose et al and his group's evidence, no matter he is in the minority.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

From the bbc article @Rick O'Shez pointed out.

"The cyclic universe is not a popular model among working cosmologists, but at least it could be ruled out by experimental observations: if the gravitational-wave signature of inflation is found, then the cyclic model is dead."


It looks like gravitational waves from inflation were detected back in 2014: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravity-waves-cmb-b-mode-polarization/

"Physicists have found a long-predicted twist in light from the big bang that represents the first image of ripples in the universe called gravitational waves, researchers announced today. The finding is direct proof of the theory of inflation, the idea that the universe expanded extremely quickly in the first fraction of a nanosecond after it was born. "

 

[godnotgod]

"The cyclic universe is not a popular model among working cosmologists, but at least it could be ruled out by experimental observations: if the gravitational-wave signature of inflation is found, then the cyclic model is dead."


It looks like gravitational waves from inflation were detected back in 2014: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravity-waves-cmb-b-mode-polarization/

"Physicists have found a long-predicted twist in light from the big bang that represents the first image of ripples in the universe called gravitational waves, researchers announced today. The finding is direct proof of the theory of inflation, the idea that the universe expanded extremely quickly in the first fraction of a nanosecond after it was born. "

Yes, and GW have also been detected by the LIGO experiment in 2016. However, Penrose is saying that they do not necessarily verify the inflation theory. In fact, he says the physics is incorrect to the point of being fantasy:

http://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/sir-roger-penrose-cosmic-inflation-is-fantasy/

 

[godnotgod]