Philosophy Discussion Forums

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Present awareness asks:

"Before asking the question, 'when did the universe begin', perhaps a better question is 'when did I begin'."

Maybe an even better question may be what's the connection between the two? Can you draw the dots?

It might turn out that they are not "two" but just diffent aspects of "one". The object and the subject produce each other. Without sometime to perceive, there could be no preciever.

Present awareness wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Present awareness asks:

"Before asking the question, 'when did the universe begin', perhaps a better question is 'when did I begin'."

Maybe an even better question may be what's the connection between the two? Can you draw the dots?

It might turn out that they are not "two" but just diffent aspects of "one". The object and the subject produce each other. Without sometime to perceive, there could be no preciever.

Different aspects of one what? You can't draw dots between a human being and the universe since they're one and the same as you claim (in fact, aren't human beings part of the universe?)

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Present awareness wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


It might turn out that they are not "two" but just diffent aspects of "one". The object and the subject produce each other. Without sometime to perceive, there could be no preciever.

Different aspects of one what? You can't draw dots between a human being and the universe since they're one and the same as you claim (in fact, aren't human beings part of the universe?)

All that we perceive could be said to be different aspects of one universe. The universe does not begin where our skin ends. We "are" the universe. It takes place "inside" our brain, brought there by the five physical senses. Each persons perception is different, so if there are five billion people on the planet, does that mean there are five billion different universes, or one universe experienced from five billion different points of view. I feel that there is one universe, and everything contained within that universe, is relative to everything else. Since everything is indirectly connected to everything else and nothing exists outside of the universe, it could be viewed as a oneness.

Present awareness said

"Since everything is indirectly connected to everything else and nothing exists outside of the universe, it could be viewed as a oneness."

Are you suggesting you're as old as the universe? (last time I checked on this, said by scientists to be around 13.7 - 13.8 billion years old). Also since you're at "oneness" with the universe, you should be able to tell us what lies at the very edge of the universe since the speed of light is a constant and we seem to know how old the universe is.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Present awareness said

"Since everything is indirectly connected to everything else and nothing exists outside of the universe, it could be viewed as a oneness."

Are you suggesting you're as old as the universe? (last time I checked on this, said by scientists to be around 13.7 - 13.8 billion years old). Also since you're at "oneness" with the universe, you should be able to tell us what lies at the very edge of the universe since the speed of light is a constant and we seem to know how old the universe is.

You are speaking of the visible universe, that which we are able to see, and yes, we are able to calculate it's age at roughly 13.8 billion years, but the actual universe itself goes well beyond that. And yes, it has always been here, just as we have always been here, although perhaps in a different form. The thing with math is that you can always add another digit to it, so you could go back into time for infinity, never reaching the end.

Beginnings and endings are childish concepts which only the primitive mind would cling on to. Note - The universe's currently accepted shape or form strangely resembles the shape of the human brain. This suggests the limitations of the people who study the universe and doesn't represent a clear picture of the universe itself. Scientists forget that space goes on forever outwards as well as forever inwards. The forever inwards concept is a difficult concept for the primitive human mind to grasp. Time must be relative to fractal size, the smaller the fractal the faster the time. This is why galaxies appear to us to be travelling really slowly and why atoms appear to be buzzing around really fast so they appear to us as a fuzzy blur and their location is difficult to predict. Note - This is only a theory based on logical observation of nature and its properties.

Present awareness wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Present awareness said

"Since everything is indirectly connected to everything else and nothing exists outside of the universe, it could be viewed as a oneness."

Are you suggesting you're as old as the universe? (last time I checked on this, said by scientists to be around 13.7 - 13.8 billion years old). Also since you're at "oneness" with the universe, you should be able to tell us what lies at the very edge of the universe since the speed of light is a constant and we seem to know how old the universe is.

You are speaking of the visible universe, that which we are able to see, and yes, we are able to calculate it's age at roughly 13.8 billion years, but the actual universe itself goes well beyond that. And yes, it has always been here, just as we have always been here, although perhaps in a different form. The thing with math is that you can always add another digit to it, so you could go back into time for infinity, never reaching the end.

Being that you're at oneness with the universe, can you give a physical description of the "actual" universe. Are you also saying that the number of stars in the universe is infinite? What accredited studies by peer scientists back up what you're saying?

-- Updated February 18th, 2014, 6:23 pm to add the following --

DarwinX said

"Note - The universe's currently accepted shape or form strangely resembles the shape of the human brain." Clearly untrue. Scientists say that the shape of the universe is nearly flat.

-- Updated February 18th, 2014, 6:26 pm to add the following --

DarwinX also said:

"Beginnings and endings are childish concepts which only the primitive mind would cling on to"

-- Updated February 18th, 2014, 6:32 pm to add the following --

But then DarwinX had this to say:

"Scientists forget that space goes on forever outwards as well as forever inwards."

Are you now comparing scientists with primitives. Just because they don't agree with your infinity ideas (btw which order of infinity are you talking about?)

-- Updated February 18th, 2014, 6:44 pm to add the following --

One more for DarwinX:

"Time must be relative to fractal size."

Is there a study by peer scientists that shows this?

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
"Time must be relative to fractal size."

Is there a study by peer scientists that shows this?

You just have to open up your mind and look. Its just an observation of nature, you can't get any more basic than that. Scientists are so busy trying to justify their existence that they can't afford to let the universe be understood in an easy manner by the general population. Thus, they must cloak reality in a veil of unreality, so that they create a kind of religious mysticism of which, only they have the key to unlock. This is the basic deception that the ruling class and scientists have been playing for thousands of years. If you can't see through this deception, then I can't help you any further on this issue. Its a matter of being inside the system and seeing the corruption from the inside, its hard to see it from the outside. If you study science in great detail you will find many errors of currently accepted facts. Thus, one gets to the point where you decide that nobody can be trusted on any hardly any matter concerning science.

So DarwinX, you're unable to justify your statement with a peer study.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:So DarwinX, you're unable to justify your statement with a peer study.

The peer system itself is corrupt so how can anybody trust it? […]

DarwinX wrote:Beginnings and endings are childish concepts which only the primitive mind would cling on to. Note - The universe's currently accepted shape or form strangely resembles the shape of the human brain. This suggests the limitations of the people who study the universe and doesn't represent a clear picture of the universe itself. Scientists forget that space goes on forever outwards as well as forever inwards. The forever inwards concept is a difficult concept for the primitive human mind to grasp. Time must be relative to fractal size, the smaller the fractal the faster the time. This is why galaxies appear to us to be travelling really slowly and why atoms appear to be buzzing around really fast so they appear to us as a fuzzy blur and their location is difficult to predict. Note - This is only a theory based on logical observation of nature and its properties.

I agree with what you are saying here, although I would not label a different concept as childish. […] Everything that exists, occupies empty space. It is the empty space which allows us to move around freely.

DarwinX wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:So DarwinX, you're unable to justify your statement with a peer study.

The peer system itself is corrupt so how can anybody trust it? Its just one consensus driven sycophant patting another consensus driven sycophant on the back. Long live the system!

Have you ever worked in a scientific institution? […] We are talking about immensely hard-headed, intelligent and ornery types, not easily led lambs.

I find scientists' findings vastly far more credible than your unsubstantiated assertions. Beginnings and endings are a fact of life, even if contained within a larger, *seemingly* endless larger entity, ie. the Universe.

[…]

Greta wrote: Have you ever worked in a scientific institution? […] We are talking about immensely hard-headed, intelligent and ornery types, not easily led lambs.

I find scientists' findings vastly far more credible than your unsubstantiated assertions. Beginnings and endings are a fact of life, even if contained within a larger, *seemingly* endless larger entity, ie. the Universe.

1. Scientists maybe immensely hard-headed, intelligent and ornery types but when it comes to accepting irrational science from the past they suddenly become very soft-headed, unintelligent and weak types. They just become typical communists and accept the irrational, otherwise they wouldn't get their qualifications in the first place. The system initially brainwashes them with nonsense which they must accept to pass the university tests and then takes away their initiative, common-sense and time for external studies. The time restrictions in study don't allow any spare time for external study of alternate theories. Alternate theories are trashed by the system and any person found discussing them would be expelled from the system. Thus, the system protects itself, by making external study an unspoken thought crime. (George Orwell 1984 etc)

2. Beginnings and endings only relate to life forms. The universe is not a life form, thus, it is not applicable. It is illogical that the universe has a beginning and ending or that the universe is confined to a measurable area. Limiting of the universe is just a result human insecurities and is an ego related problem. It is a psychological inevitability of human group and individual behavior patterns. It is also a religious control mechanism that is used by the ruling classes so that power may be maintained. Note - Complication of simple science creates confusion and disorientation of students. Thus, confused and disorientated students are more easily manipulated.

-- Updated February 20th, 2014, 10:58 am to add the following --

Present awareness wrote: I agree with what you are saying here, although I would not label a different concept as childish. […] Everything that exists, occupies empty space. It is the empty space which allows us to move around freely.

Science creates fairy tales about the universe to keep the 'little children' (thats us) happy. They make it all nice and sugary so we don't have nightmares at night. Like a fairy tale, they give it a beginning and an ending to make us feel secure and safe. Ni ni little ones, don't let the bedbugs bite!

A letter I received recently from the Australian Taxpayers Alliance -

There is nothing more vital to Australia's prosperity than securing our next generation.

But our universities have become little more than production lines for hard-left brainwashing: I will never forget what happened when I was a first year student at the University of Sydney.

I was studying economics, and half way through First Semester, my macroeconomics tutor pulled me aside after class.

“Tim” she told me “you know more about economics than anyone else in this class. But unless you’re going to start supporting Keynsianism, we’re not going to pass you. Don’t rock the boat”.

Don’t rock the boat - This is what she actually said.

I was directly threatened with failure because I refused to support a discredited, failed, left wing ideology. Follow the left wing line, or fail.

Which came first: the chicken or the egg? The chicken, is just an eggs way of making another egg. Half of our DNA was once in the form of an egg, the other half a sperm cell. We were here in completely different forms back then, but we were still here. We've been changing forms since the beginning of time, which never had a beginning. Since time had no beginning, the universe and everything in it, including us, have always been here, only in different forms then we are currently.

Present awareness said:

"We've been changing forms since the beginning of time, which never had a beginning."

Can you cite a study that's been peer reviewed that supports this?

Present awareness also said:

"Since time had no beginning, the universe and everything in it, including us, have always been here, only in different forms then we are currently."

How do you know this? Can you cite a study that's been peer reviewed that supports this?