Origin of Existence

[jinydu]

Current understanding of the Big Bang is far more detailed than just: "It came out of nothing". There are in-depth theories about what happened. But there is evidence to support some of those theories, whereas there is no evidence that life can survive inside a black hole (and plenty of evidence against it), let alone that the univese is a black hole.

It is a fact seldom mentioned in science classes that most scientific theories in history were wrong. For every successful theory, such as Newton's Theory of Gravitation, there have been many unsuccesful theories, such as Descartes' Theory of Vortices. What are the chances that a new idea, dreamt up with no detailed understanding about current knowledge, no experimental evidence and no hope of falsifiability, could be an accurate representation of reality?

[Gilles]

As I stated before, there is no evidence for a black hole, there's a theory, and there are some observations, but there is no way to match the two points of vieuv: quantum mechanics and the relativity theory.

Talking about detailed understanding, in any case, I understand myself in a detailed way, but it's hard to communicate that in a non-telepathic way (especially on a forum).

I'm not stating I know the truth, I'm just stating truth depends on the point from were you look at it. What I say is real for me though, cos I haven't found any better ideas yet, but if they come, out of myself or someone I trust, I'll accept them with open arms.

Hard to trust someone on a forum though, I can't see your movements, can't hear your voice or feel how you are, and neither can you.
All I see, is that you state the obvious, known ideas, and I come up with something new, i don't think there's anything wrong with either of us, cos is just the way we look that differs.

[Rkyeun]

There is some evidence for the view that we are inside the black hole.
Escape velocity is greater than the speed of light.
We can't see the starfield outside in any direction due to gravitational lensing.
Entropy increases closer to center.
We are under effect from some unknown but rather significant mass in the form of the Great Attractor which is accelerating our entire galactic cluster at irrational speeds.

It's possible that life could exist in a black hole, though it would be considerably doomed. As long as its planet/galaxy/observableuniverse falls in roughly with it (as things tend to do) it should be good until it gets to the lower levels where it gets simultaneously squished and torn.

Which could actually kind of resemble the big crunch, I suppose.

It's just a matter of finding a hole the size of the universe to fit it all in.
...which seems to by assumption and definition not be a problem.

[jinydu]

There is some evidence for the view that we are inside the black hole.

I'm afraid not: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101shape.html

"We now know that the universe is flat with only a 2% margin of error."

Of course, if you know even the basics of General Relativity, you'll know that spacetime near a black hole (let alone inside it) is anything but flat.

Escape velocity is greater than the speed of light.
We can't see the starfield outside in any direction due to gravitational lensing.

An explanation vastly more in accordance with observational evidence is that the redshift from very distant stars is caused by the expansion of the universe, which is roughly proportional to the distance from the observer (us). At sufficiently large distance, the relative expansion speed is greater than the speed of light, so we are unable to observe that region.

Furthermore, if we were really inside a black hole, it would be impossible to observe things closer to the singularity than we are. Obviously, this is not what is observed.

Entropy increases closer to center.
We are under effect from some unknown but rather significant mass in the form of the Great Attractor which is accelerating our entire galactic cluster at irrational speeds.

You probably mean this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor

According to the article, the Great Attractor is drawing in galaxies across hundreds of millions of light years. While this may seem large (and it certainly is on galactic scales), it is small compared to the size of the observable universe, which is some two orders of magnitude larger.

It's just a matter of finding a hole the size of the universe to fit it all in.
...which seems to by assumption and definition not be a problem.

Occam's Razor: Don't make more assumptions than you need. There's no evidence that the Universe is a black hole (in fact, all available evidence points against it). Thus, we shouldn't make that assumption.

[RQ]

As I stated before, there is no evidence for a black hole, there's a theory, and there are some observations, but there is no way to match the two points of vieuv: quantum mechanics and the relativity theory.

There's evidence by quantom foam a.k.a. Hawkings Radiation and X-Ray waves which bounce off the concentrated material around a black hole, as well as bistar galaxy that follows paths that can be perfectly explained with another "dark" star that is next to them.

Talking about detailed understanding, in any case, I understand myself in a detailed way, but it's hard to communicate that in a non-telepathic way (especially on a forum).

I'm not stating I know the truth, I'm just stating truth depends on the point from were you look at it. What I say is real for me though, cos I haven't found any better ideas yet, but if they come, out of myself or someone I trust, I'll accept them with open arms.

Hard to trust someone on a forum though, I can't see your movements, can't hear your voice or feel how you are, and neither can you.
All I see, is that you state the obvious, known ideas, and I come up with something new, i don't think there's anything wrong with either of us, cos is just the way we look that differs.

A bit solipsistic don't you think. Besides the point of view you are talking about has nothing to do with the entropy you're describing. Entropy isn't with respect to us, it's with respect to each particle, so if we were the size of a molecule (biologically impossible) we would still measure entropy the same way. Maybe your perception of the universe would be different, i.e. a Lightyear is 1000 times longer, but that would be only because you define a kilometer 1000 smaller.

[thigle]

to find coherence of different views, coherence of logical bases is needed.

atemporality (=being not affected by change) doesn't give sense under temporal logic-base.
temporal logic-base doesn't apply from atemporal.

actually, the atemporal ever-freshness is unborn. so it exists beyond eternality/essence, being the 4th time, within which past, present & future are taking place. atemporality is now-ever.
it is by not being.

so what might be called 'origin' is spontaneously ever-present, within what appears under influence of time, which itself is a projection mechanism.

that means that it never started. we're at it all the 'time'. just have to grab the time by the right 'end'.

time is movement. that which never moves is what is the ever-present origin.

however, to be blunt, without past, present & future times, there is nothing to origin.ate. there is no need for the 'origin', for what would it be origin of, if nothing started ? as Nagarjuna says: without extremes, there's no need even to remain in the middle.

this is a call for experiential transtemporal alocality practice.

so the atemporal approach sees the temporal one as unnecessary but still happening, while the temporal one sees the atemporality as impossible and non-existent.

in non-dual approach, being aware of both and not only,
time is bliss.

[Batman3]

There is a confusion about the nature of time. Space extends infinity in either directon without changing its nature(though it contents may vary). time however is different. The future direction is not the same as the past direction. To state a math parable,

one '3', a second '3' and that is '2' numerals

but if you include the '2' in the count you get '3' numerals.

If fact the first 2 '3's are obvious and the third '3' is the first 2 '3's and the third '3' is the third '3' itself

I call this parable of time "the 3 '3's".

[houserichichi]

That's numerology. You look for numbers and you'll find them anywhere. I'm curious what you think it has to do with time.

...and by the same logic the "third" three actually gives the fourth three because you've the first two numerals {3,3}, then you decided (for no good reason, of course) to include the two in your set which gives a "third" numeral ("third" implying another three) {3,3,3}, but then you have "three" numbers in the set so you've got four threes (the "three" numbers giving another) {3,3,3,3}.

Anyway, don't see what this has to do with time, please explain.

[Batman3]

What I am trying to do is to give an example of a time-like event which is directional in the sense that it is different in the one direction than in the other. Also it is limited in extent because there are only 2(or perhaps3) steps involved. There is a beginning and an end and they are not equivalent. You could reverse the arrow of time but it would not give the same response going forwards as going backwards.

W/regard to the numbers, when I go from 2 '3's and a two, I replace the 2 with a '3'. I don't leave the '2' there, I throw it away and transform it into a '3' since there are now by definition 3 threes we are talking about.
By your reasoning we should have 3 '3's and a '2': (3,3,2,3) which is 4 numbers, then 5,6...etc. But this infinite progression need never have bothered us since we still have 3 '3's.
There are 2 steps:(3,3,2) and then a replacement and then (3,3,3).

You can't go past 3 '3's to 4 's's like (3,3,3,4) because the fourth '3' would be a four so : (3,3,3,4) w/ 4 numbers. But that is not 3 '3's
You can also do this with 4 '4's with the 4th '4' counting the other three '4's. &c.

My Philosopher dad says there may be a problem with this beause it is like metalanuage which is a language about language. You might get self-reflexive sentences like "this sentence is false", which would be neither true nor false. Presumably a metalanguage could only describe a lower language, not itself. But I am talking abot metamath (here).

[thigle]

hi batman3.

firstly, no metalanguague is really a metalanguague. as said already (i think it was Lacan in his famous 'Mirror Stage as Formative of the Function of the I as Revealed in Psychoanalytic Experience'), metalanguague is communicated by languague anyway. or all languague is metalanguague.
and self-reflexivity is not a problem, but a pointer to the essence of our languaguing: the very basis is of our rationality is groundlessness. our rationality is a paradox. something being neither true nor false is as ordinary as the air you breathe. it's just reductive tendency, habituated by our civilization in last few hundred years, to consider as real only statements with logical value A or nonA, and to consider as 'strange' those that do not accept this stupid western imperative of either/or. ask your dad about Aristotle's excluded middle vs. boolean logic (or multivalued & modal logics). the very actuality of computer processing, allowing us (among other things) to communicate via this forum, could not operate if either/or was the only possibility in this universe.
are your mind & body one or two ? both apply simply. " 'all cretans are liars' says the cretan" is where philosophy leans against aesthetics. but... that's another story.

second, irreversibility of time is a question applying in the realm of linear time-flow perception. one should surely consider cyclical time paradigms, as well as timeless paradigms, if one wants to understand timing-as-such. linear time is a matter of delay. you can also consider time as meeting of future&past flows in the now. or as rolling cycles. or purely as unreal actuality.

and thirdly, your statement that 'space extends infinity in either direction without changing its nature' is just an assumption. what kind of 'infinity' do you mean ?

on the current on-the-edge approach to time, integrating ALL time models, check this out:
http://www.astro.sk/~msaniga/ this guy's crazy about time ! please pay relaxed attention and don't miss it !

and i think these are relevenat to the logic issues...
http://dialog.net:85/homepage/incose2002/vl01A01.pdf
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=779598

i look forward to time when general public pattern of logic-frame will transcend the current dualistic state of either/or, and abide in myriad-valued logics of actual experience-as-such. if we don't kill ourselves before. i hope that not.

[batubolu]

the universe come form singularity - expand - collapse - then will back to singularity. So, i think the universe is a 4 dimensional thing, that someone in tetraspace pass it through 3D space (and also create 3D space). Don't know if he/her is God or Emily.

So, everyone of us have our own 4D body, and we'll know that after death. :twisted:

[thigle]

we're truly multi-bodied and one of these meta-levels of our being is 4d. but we don't have to die physically to learn that. simply bring consciousness to your dreams.
unfortunatelly, some people do not look beyond their word-veils during their lifetime and thus encounter their multidimensional glows only after physical death.
many others travel freely beyond the possibilities of their physical bodies, while staying embodied and taking full responsibility and advantage of their physical embodiments during life.

[Hartigan]

I guess I can throw in my opinion about existince. I sort of belive that existince is impossible, but at the same time the lack of existince is also impossible.
(Wow, what a paradox I have slung myself into.)

A little short, but to the point. LMAO, "to the point,"