Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?

[Shad]

The concept of time is more of about a perception, observation, and subsequent measurement of change, than a representation of something real...in truth there is no time... The cosmic manifestation exists in a state of constant change.....awareness of this movement by the mind results in a subjective sense of flow of time... Time then is an abstraction from the eternal enduring now... a division of the atemporal to create the concept of temporal... This is an important first step to understand if one is to apprehend the real behind the concept of time... I understand the concept of quantum time the way you explained Hawking's idea of a sort of eternal 'pendulum' model of cosmos.. This concept of quantum time then, is the 'imaginary time' mentioned before... The concepts I used above to represent this 'quantum time' is 'atemporal' and ' 'eternal enduring now'...

While you may use quantum time in a different manner you can not use Hawking or an cosmology based on physics as support. Neither are arguing for your definition.

Atemporal is to be static. Any act of creation would require time. Any thought would require time. I see less reason to accept the concept than I do for Hawkings ideas.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

While you may use quantum time in a different manner you can not use Hawking or an cosmology based on physics as support. Neither are arguing for your definition.

Atemporal is to be static. Any act of creation would require time. Any thought would require time. I see less reason to accept the concept than I do for Hawkings ideas.

?...What is it you think I was using Hawking's idea to support?

Atemporal means timeless....or independent of or unaffected by time........http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atemporal ...that is how I was using it...the conceptual mind abstracts from pure timelessness, the concept of time by observing change in the underlying timeless nature of existence. Then measurement of time then becomes simply the process of timing change.. My understanding comes from self observation of my mind when it is still and free from thought...not from believing something I read, or learnt from another...

 

[Shad]

?...What is it you think I was using Hawking's idea to support?

I was merely point out that views based on physics and your own stop at a certain shared point which is "real time". The concept quantum time of Hawking is not the same as your own.

Atemporal means timeless....or independent of or unaffected by time........http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atemporal ...that is how I was using it...the conceptual mind abstracts from pure timelessness, the concept of time by observing change in the underlying timeless nature of existence. Then measurement of time then becomes simply the process of timing change.. My understanding comes from self observation of my mind when it is still and free from thought...not from believing something I read, or learnt from another...

Sorry but this is incoherent to me once you start using words such as change and timeless. To be timeless is to be changeless. Observing change is to be not timeless as the very observation is a change upon you.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I was merely point out that views based on physics and your own stop at a certain shared point which is "real time". The concept quantum time of Hawking is not the same as your own.

Sorry but this is incoherent to me once you start using words such as change and timeless. To be timeless is to be changeless. Observing change is to be not timeless as the very observation is a change upon you.

I now understand on the Hawking question...

Ahhh...I understand you have trouble understanding my understanding on observation of change from a position of no change or timelessness.. My mind...when it is still, has no movement....it is analogous to a white board without any writing on it...there is no sense of time....it is changeless..it is in a state of timelessness...only if a sound is heard or some object within my vision moves...does my my mind respond and the sense of time return.....the white board has writing on it for a moment and then is clear again.... I observe change in my environment,and internal thoughts, if any, from a state of mind that is quiescent... That's all....I understand that the concept of time is merely a mental construct to represent a way of measuring change on a timeless background..

 

[Shad]

I now understand on the Hawking question...

Ahhh...I understand you have trouble understanding my understanding on observation of change from a position of no change or timelessness.. My mind...when it is still, has no movement....it is analogous to a white board without any writing on it...there is no sense of time....it is changeless..it is in a state of timelessness...only if a sound is heard or some object within my vision moves...does my my mind respond and the sense of time return.....the white board has writing on it for a moment and then is clear again.... I observe change in my environment,and internal thoughts, if any, from a state of mind that is quiescent... That's all....I understand that the concept of time is merely a mental construct to represent a way of measuring change on a timeless background..

Your mind is still working even when you think it is not. There are a number of subconscious processes at work such as breathing always in action. The only way for a mind to be still is for the mind to be dead.

Again if you hear a sound or see something this is change since it is an observation thus not timeless nor changeless.

 

[idav]

Does it not make science gibberish?
Regards

Science is finding many things possible and that's what religion says all the things possible in God. Science just finds what's out there.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Your mind is still working even when you think it is not. There are a number of subconscious processes at work such as breathing always in action. The only way for a mind to be still is for the mind to be dead.

Again if you hear a sound or see something this is change since it is an observation thus not timeless nor changeless.

Yes...of course my mind is still working....it is aware, but it is not in thought....which is why it is able to perceive very subtle sound and visual disturbances..but it responds only to those perceptions that disturb the otherwise mind's quiescence.. Yes...when the mind's quiescence is disturbed, it is no longer in a state of relative timelessness...but when the disturbance is gone...it immediately falls into a state of relative timelessness again...(one normally practices this meditation in a quiet place with minimum sound and visible activity) The observation itself is not timeless....but arises from the relative timeless state.. Using the white board again as an analogy...when the mind is still, the white board is blank...when say a sound or thought arises, there is writing in the white board, so it is no longer blank...but when the disturbing sound or thought ceases, the white board is blank again...So mind awareness in this state is extremely sensitive and can discern the most subtle of environmental vibrations across the full range of sensory perception.. Compare that to a mind that is in thought.....the white board is completely covered in writing and and thus is less sensitive to new low level sensory inputs from the environment. Since most people are always in thought from the moment they awake, to the moment they go to sleep...their mind is always too 'noisy' to discern the subtle background vibrations that are present...

 

[gnostic]

Yes...of course my mind is still working....it is aware, but it is not in thought....which is why it is able to perceive very subtle sound and visual disturbances..but it responds only to those perceptions that disturb the otherwise mind's quiescence.. Yes...when the mind's quiescence is disturbed, it is no longer in a state of relative timelessness...but when the disturbance is gone...it immediately falls into a state of relative timelessness again...(one normally practices this meditation in a quiet place with minimum sound and visible activity) The observation itself is not timeless....but arises from the relative timeless state.. Using the white board again as an analogy...when the mind is still, the white board is blank...when say a sound or thought arises, there is writing in the white board, so it is no longer blank...but when the disturbing sound or thought ceases, the white board is blank again...So mind awareness in this state is extremely sensitive and can discern the most subtle of environmental vibrations across the full range of sensory perception.. Compare that to a mind that is in thought.....the white board is completely covered in writing and and thus is less sensitive to new low level sensory inputs from the environment. Since most people are always in thought from the moment they awake, to the moment they go to sleep...their mind is always too 'noisy' to discern the subtle background vibrations that are present...

Which is all meaningless to me...relatively speaking, of course.

You don't even understand "timelessness", let alone prove that "timelessness" you are talking about, exist.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Which is all meaningless to me...relatively speaking, of course.

You don't even understand "timelessness", let alone prove that "timelessness" you are talking about, exist.

Naturally it is not understood by you....who would expect otherwise?

And I am not trying to prove timelessness...the concept is ubiquitous in literature. And how do you know that I don't understand 'timelessness'?

 

[gnostic]

And I am not trying to prove timelessness...the concept is ubiquitous in literature. And how do you know that I don't understand 'timelessness'?

Yes...when the mind's quiescence is disturbed, it is no longer in a state of relative timelessness...but when the disturbance is gone...it immediately falls into a state of relative timelessness again...(one normally practices this meditation in a quiet place with minimum sound and visible activity)

It sounds very new-agey.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It sounds very new-agey.

No...in my case it was a realization that came from Dhyan/Chan/Zen practice...

 

[Awkward Fingers]

this post, TLD: "Science is hard.. books are hard... I won't read responses, because that's satan trying to make me second guess myself, and my almost-but-not-quite-high school level education can't possibly be wrong"

You're welcome.

 

[Milton Platt]

or none of them unless the ONE who created/evolved them communicates and informs us which one.
Topic open for Theists and Atheists alike.

Regards

Who the hell could possibly know???

 

[gnostic]

The Bible says 'in the beginning God created... ' The concept of a specific beginning, a singular creation event, was considered 'religious pseudoscience' by most atheists, who rejected and mocked Lemaitre's primeval atom theory as 'Big Bang' for that explicit reason. They overwhelmingly preferred static, eternal, steady state models for the opposite rationale (no creation = no creator)

It's understandable why people might have believed in uncreated universes back then, but in this day and age?!

Are you still going on about this stupid claim that atheists reject the Big Bang?

Sorry but Lemaitre never stated that God was involved in his primeval atom theory (1927).

And second, Lemaitre wasn't the only contributor to the Big Bang theory. In fact, Lemaitre's theory wasn't the complete theory to the Big Bang, other contributors, physicists like Alexnder Friedman (his Friedman's equation was the governing equation to the expanding universe in 1922), Einstein (his general relativity provide the framework to the Big Bang), and George Gamow (who made th BB theory that it is today with the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, in the late 40s) - all have parts to play with the Big Bang cosmology. Other than these 4 scientists, a number of others, all played their roles, and they include Hubble, Alpher and Herman.

Gamow's BB nucleosynthesis is what Lemaitre have left out. Nucleosynthesis is a theory on how energy transformed into subatomic particles, and these subatomic particles transformed into atomic particles (nuclei, protons and neutrons), and the binding of electron to the nuclei that formed into the lightest elements - hydrogen.

It is Gamow, not Lemaitre, who show how MATTERS (and far more comprehensively) formed after the Big Bang.

I have brought up these other scientists before, but clearly you have ignore it, and made the Big Bang into a game of atheists versus theists, and not about all the scientists who contributed to the science behind the Big Bang.

Lemaitre had only his small part in a lot larger theory. Most of the current theory of the Big Bang, actually derived from Gamow's work than Lemaitre.

I am not denying Lemaitre's achievement with his ground-breaking theory, but it is the achievement for science, not the achievement for theism or for religion or for God.

Stop making the Big Bang about your pathetic (and petty) theist-versus-atheist argument, Guy.

 

[paarsurrey]

Who the hell could possibly know???

That is why I said unless the One who created "something" and or "nothing" we cannot know what/why and how it happened exactly, He only could tell us if He wants how he created hell and heaven also.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

technically someone proposing actual nothing, has gone into the idea of magic. Whether they call it science or not.

This is one aspect when science becomes gibberish. Right?
Regards

 

[gnostic]

technically someone proposing actual nothing, has gone into the idea of magic. Whether they call it science or not.

This is one aspect when science becomes gibberish. Right?

Magic, miracles and superstitions fall more in the realm of religions than of science.

Science tried to acquire knowledge about nature (as well as man-made stuff, like phones, computers, cars, etc), and try to verify if that knowledge are true or false through evidences or through tests.

Science doesn't try to explain magic, miracles, superstitions, god(s), spirits, etc. These are gibberish of religion, not science.

 

[Thief]

No, I'm implying that even if living beings have existed for all of eternity their specific sentience has not.
Their consciousness is not eternal, nor are their bodies.
However, bodies can be recycled but the specific way someone perceives life cannot.

You cannot, to my knowledge, recycle a consciousness.
Therefore, consciousnesses came from something and ends in nothing.

That is my thinking, feel free to sway it.

let's see.....God from the very beginning.....
Jesus makes an appearance...as Son of God....
they share the same mindset....supposedly.....

recycled?

 

[Thief]

Obviously the chicken came before the egg, so the "something" had to have existed before "something else." Matter is eternal.

energy cannot be destroyed.
so sayth science.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

energy cannot be destroyed.
so sayth science.

Sweet baby jeebus, eye larve ben write.