I liked the part about the Big Bank Theory. Creation out of nothing. Sounds like the Federal Reserve.
Mark On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:26 PM, ADRIE KINTZIGER <[email protected]> wrote: > Here they are referring implicitly to Eisteins so called biggest > mistake, the cosmological constant. > It's bashed since he gave up on it. > > nowadays science is turning around, very carefully it is assumed now, but > hypothetical that there is a cosmological constant to be found, a mechanis > sm behind it all. > > I think it will be found some day. > > Pay attention to the parts as where the authors are calling any subject or > object > statement meaningless. > ggod book , btw, for a change. > > 2010/12/2 MarshaV <[email protected]> > >> >> M: >> "The Buddhist view does not, however, exclude the possibility of the >> unfolding of the world. Obviously the phenomena we all see around us aren't >> nonexistent, but if we examine _how_ they exist, then we soon see that they >> can't be viewed as a set of independent entities, each with its own >> existence. Thus, phenomena exist only as a dream, an illusion or mirage. >> Like mirror images, they can clearly be seen, but have no separate >> existence. Nagarjuna, the great second-century Indian philosopher, said, >> "The nature of phenomena is that of mutual dependence; in themselves, >> phenomena are nothing at all." Their evolution is neither random nor fixed >> by divine intervention. Instead, they follow the laws of cause and effect >> in a global interdependence and reciprocal causality. The problem of an >> "origin" comes about only from a belief in the absolute reality of phenomena >> and the existence of space and time. >> >> "In terms of absolute truth, there is no creation, no duration, and no >> end. The paradox is a good illustration of the illusory nature of the world >> of phenomena. It can reveal itself in an infinite number of ways because >> its final reality is emptiness. In terms of the relative truth of >> appearances, we say that the conditioned world, called samsara, is "without >> beginning" because each state must have caused by the previous one. So, >> with the Big Bank theory, do we have an _ex nihilo_ creation, a creation out >> of nothingness, or the expression of some kind of preexisting potential that >> is not yet manifested in the universe? Is it seen as a real beginning, or >> as a stage in the universe's evolution?" >> >> >> 'Mathieu Ricard & Trinh Xuan Thuan, 'The Quantum and the Lotus: A Journey >> to the Frontiers Where Science and Buddhism Meet',p.29) >> >> >> ___ >> >> >> Moq_Discuss mailing list >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >> Archives: >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >> > > > > -- > parser > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
