Re: [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time
That's assuming there is a universe out there - what if we are all in a dream and we are just projecting our consciousness onto the universe? A man once dreamed he was a butterfly. The dream was so real that when he woke up he couldn't tell if he was a man dreaming he was a butterfly, or if he was a bitterfly dreaming he was a man. Chuang: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Zhuangzi There's nothing in the so-called waking state that we couldn't also experience in a dream. In the waking state doors are doors and tables are tables. We can run and jump in and consult our friends in dreams just like we do in the waking state. The universe exists inside of consciousness, not outside. Without consciousness, maybe there is no universe. On 6/20/2014 3:30 AM, jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Professor Robbert Dijkgraaf from the University of Amsterdam presented a lecture about the current developments in physics. In order to easily understand this presentation, the slogan to remember is, It is bit. The lecturer was saying that the universe (it) began as a burst of information (bit). He seemed to imply that our universe is a white hole, i.e. our universe came from another parent universe eons ago. He was also implying that our universe may end up as information either in a black hole or in the infinite expansion of this universe. My question primarily is: what caused the Big Bang? Based on this lecture, one can gather that the dark energy contained in our parent universe was the source of power that fed a black hole which exploded to create our own universe. IOW, our universe could generate the same baby universes which could be understood as an infinite burst of universes or information, aka the multiverse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDAJinQL2c0
Re: [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time
On 6/20/2014 5:04 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: John, with all due respect, your question seems to be asked from the perspective of someone who cannot conceive of eternity. It seems to be based on the anthropomorphic projection that because we had a beginning and an end, so must the universe. If you hold -- as I do -- that the universe is eternal and was never created, there is no need to waste time postulating a creator. The term /eternity is a religious term/ has no relation to how the universe got it's start in physics. The term implies an intelligent creator, since that' the only way eternity could be constructed. Eternity would have to exist outside time and space and separate from the physical world, by definition. Only God could create such an eternal universe. In reality, there is no space-time because that concept implies boundaries in the universe. But, we know that there are no boundaries in nature or in the universe. Only in unity consciousness, or oneness with all reality, can we eliminate boundaries. Unity consciousness does not exist in space-time. Unity consciousness or no-boundary consciousness, by definition has no boundary. Read more: 'No Boundary: Eastern and Western Approaches to Personal Growth' by Ken Wilber Shambhala, 1979 Amazon reviews: http://tinyurl.com/plbuc96 *From:* jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Friday, June 20, 2014 10:30 AM *Subject:* [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time Professor Robbert Dijkgraaf from the University of Amsterdam presented a lecture about the current developments in physics. In order to easily understand this presentation, the slogan to remember is, It is bit. The lecturer was saying that the universe (it) began as a burst of information (bit). He seemed to imply that our universe is a white hole, i.e. our universe came from another parent universe eons ago. He was also implying that our universe may end up as information either in a black hole or in the infinite expansion of this universe. My question primarily is: what caused the Big Bang? Based on this lecture, one can gather that the dark energy contained in our parent universe was the source of power that fed a black hole which exploded to create our own universe. IOW, our universe could generate the same baby universes which could be understood as an infinite burst of universes or information, aka the multiverse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDAJinQL2c0
Re: [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time
On 6/20/2014 1:44 PM, fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: I saw it more as a one trick pony response from Barry - nothing original, just the same ol', same ol'. When the waking state attempts to talk about infinity, it often has this stunted and stale quality to it. Infinity isn't newly experienced, it is a memory, growing ever more distant - Where does Barry get these religious ideas? No intelligent Buddhist would ascribe to the eternal view, since that wouldn't be following a middle path between the extremes of permanence and temporariness. Change is inevitable and so nothing is permanent or eternal - permanence would be contradictory to change and would seem to imply that the universe had agency and purpose. Go figure. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : You are trying to force your square peg, into a round hole. :-) John is curious, not about the beginning of the universe, or a creator, per se, but the mechanics of the beginning of *the manifestation* of the universe. In other words, *he already recognizes the infinite nature of the universe*, and is trying to account for the 'something from nothing' phenomenon. Seems obvious that the universe, like everything within it, is not eternal, in its physical form - it grows, lives, and dies, like everything else - but the energy continues, unchanged. John is curious about what happens to the energy, when it is no longer obvious. So his discussion points are a little more subtle than your old, 'creator, or not' question. IOW, your 'answer' has nothing to do with his question, unless the mechanics of the creator are assumed to be exactly the same, as the mechanics of the creation of the universe. This is a really nice answer and I appreciate your ideas here, Mac. To imagine the existence of the Universe as having a beginning, a middle and an end is hardly anthropomorphic. (And perhaps only our physical bodies are bound by this, not our consciousness.) And certainly, as you point out Mac, stars and planets and galaxies (the physical aspect of the Universe) have beginnings and middles and ends so then the question is really about Creation as a whole and that would be Creation as both physical and as consciousness. No one can, as of yet, answer the question to anyone's satisfaction - can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Creation has no beginning (as bawee asserts so positively) or, in fact had a start somehow and that it will have an end, or perhaps will go on forever now that it exists. Bawee's little snippet here is nothing if not a brick wall thrown up in the face of John who is merely speculating. Bawee has to insult him and tell him he is wasting his time because, after all, bawee knows the truth behind this mystery of the Universe and Creation. It always amazes me how terrible a conversationalist bawee is (and yes, in this case it is all about bawee). He does not live to learn and come to know, he already has the answers and to all the others out there who don't hold the same viewpoint as he does he feels sorry for them and dismisses their 'stupidity' as some sort of proof of cultishness or having been brainwashed. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : John, with all due respect, your question seems to be asked from the perspective of someone who cannot conceive of eternity. It seems to be based on the anthropomorphic projection that because we had a beginning and an end, so must the universe. If you hold -- as I do -- that the universe is eternal and was never created, there is no need to waste time postulating a creator. *From:* jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Friday, June 20, 2014 10:30 AM *Subject:* [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time Professor Robbert Dijkgraaf from the University of Amsterdam presented a lecture about the current developments in physics. In order to easily understand this presentation, the slogan to remember is, It is bit. The lecturer was saying that the universe (it) began as a burst of information (bit). He seemed to imply that our universe is a white hole, i.e. our universe came from another parent universe eons ago. He was also implying that our universe may end up as information either in a black hole or in the infinite expansion of this universe. My question primarily is: what caused the Big Bang? Based on this lecture, one can gather that the dark energy contained in our parent universe was the source of power that fed a black hole which exploded to create our own universe. IOW, our universe could generate the same baby universes which could be understood as an infinite burst of universes or information, aka the multiverse. https://www.youtube.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time
On 6/20/2014 7:38 PM, fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Yes, it is similar to the difference between a person being asleep or awake - all energy in either potential, or active form. Even more intriguing to me, is the idea of detectable, but unobservable, 'dark matter', which is supposed to account for far more of the universe's energy, than the manifested bits we can see. In a sense we are all asleep - /no one can see the totality of existence/. We are awake most of the time but we can only perceive a very small part of the universe with the human eye or even with instruments. And, there seems to be a parallel universe inside our own minds that we can only get glimpses of. It may be that there is dark matter out there in the universe, but there could also be dark matter in our own brains. The universe out there may just be a shadow of what's inside our own minds. The 'shadow' is something the Perennial Philosophy of the world's great religions NEVER knew about. No mystical literature or scripture from any of the world's religions (both great and small) even realized human beings could and did hide significant aspects of their being and project them outward so as not to be seen... - T. J. Melody 'No Boundary: Eastern and Western Approaches to Personal Growth' by Ken Wilber Shambhala, 1979 Amazon review: http://tinyurl.com/plbuc96 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Fleetwood, You understood the points precisely. In my first viewing of the clip several months ago, I didn't understand it completely. After viewing it the second time, I understood the implications of the professor's ideas. Hence, I posted the clip for everyone to comment on. But here's another clip from Leonard Susskind, a Stanford University professor, which discusses points that touch along the lines of Dijkgraaf's presentation. Both discuss the storage of information inside the black hole that is similar to a hologram. However, Susskind's ideas have a different twist to it. He states that the universe's expansion is the reverse dynamics that occur in a black hole. He's implying that information is stored as well when the galaxies disappear from our line of sight horizon due to their expansion at the speed of light. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : You are trying to force your square peg, into a round hole. :-) John is curious, not about the beginning of the universe, or a creator, per se, but the mechanics of the beginning of *the manifestation* of the universe. In other words, *he already recognizes the infinite nature of the universe*, and is trying to account for the 'something from nothing' phenomenon. Seems obvious that the universe, like everything within it, is not eternal, in its physical form - it grows, lives, and dies, like everything else - but the energy continues, unchanged. John is curious about what happens to the energy, when it is no longer obvious. So his discussion points are a little more subtle than your old, 'creator, or not' question. IOW, your 'answer' has nothing to do with his question, unless the mechanics of the creator are assumed to be exactly the same, as the mechanics of the creation of the universe. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : John, with all due respect, your question seems to be asked from the perspective of someone who cannot conceive of eternity. It seems to be based on the anthropomorphic projection that because we had a beginning and an end, so must the universe. If you hold -- as I do -- that the universe is eternal and was never created, there is no need to waste time postulating a creator. *From:* jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Friday, June 20, 2014 10:30 AM *Subject:* [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time Professor Robbert Dijkgraaf from the University of Amsterdam presented a lecture about the current developments in physics. In order to easily understand this presentation, the slogan to remember is, It is bit. The lecturer was saying that the universe (it) began as a burst of information (bit). He seemed to imply that our universe is a white hole, i.e. our universe came from another parent universe eons ago. He was also implying that our universe may end up as information either in a black hole or in the infinite expansion of this universe. My question primarily is: what caused the Big Bang? Based on this lecture, one can gather that the dark energy contained in our parent universe was the source of power that fed a black hole which exploded to create our own universe. IOW, our universe could generate the same baby universes which could be understood as an infinite burst of universes or information, aka
Re: [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time
Richard, what the great religions did know about is the dark night of the soul. And I'm theorizing that that definitely has something to do with one's shadow and its emergence from, well, the shadows! On Saturday, June 21, 2014 9:59 AM, 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: On 6/20/2014 7:38 PM, fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Yes, it is similar to the difference between a person being asleep or awake - all energy in either potential, or active form. Even more intriguing to me, is the idea of detectable, but unobservable, 'dark matter', which is supposed to account for far more of the universe's energy, than the manifested bits we can see. In a sense we are all asleep - no one can see the totality of existence. We are awake most of the time but we can only perceive a very small part of the universe with the human eye or even with instruments. And, there seems to be a parallel universe inside our own minds that we can only get glimpses of. It may be that there is dark matter out there in the universe, but there could also be dark matter in our own brains. The universe out there may just be a shadow of what's inside our own minds. The 'shadow' is something the Perennial Philosophy of the world's great religions NEVER knew about. No mystical literature or scripture from any of the world's religions (both great and small) even realized human beings could and did hide significant aspects of their being and project them outward so as not to be seen... - T. J. Melody 'No Boundary: Eastern and Western Approaches to Personal Growth' by Ken Wilber Shambhala, 1979 Amazon review: http://tinyurl.com/plbuc96 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Fleetwood, You understood the points precisely. In my first viewing of the clip several months ago, I didn't understand it completely. After viewing it the second time, I understood the implications of the professor's ideas. Hence, I posted the clip for everyone to comment on. But here's another clip from Leonard Susskind, a Stanford University professor, which discusses points that touch along the lines of Dijkgraaf's presentation. Both discuss the storage of information inside the black hole that is similar to a hologram. However, Susskind's ideas have a different twist to it. He states that the universe's expansion is the reverse dynamics that occur in a black hole. He's implying that information is stored as well when the galaxies disappear from our line of sight horizon due to their expansion at the speed of light. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : You are trying to force your square peg, into a round hole. :-) John is curious, not about the beginning of the universe, or a creator, per se, but the mechanics of the beginning of *the manifestation* of the universe. In other words, *he already recognizes the infinite nature of the universe*, and is trying to account for the 'something from nothing' phenomenon. Seems obvious that the universe, like everything within it, is not eternal, in its physical form - it grows, lives, and dies, like everything else - but the energy continues, unchanged. John is curious about what happens to the energy, when it is no longer obvious. So his discussion points are a little more subtle than your old, 'creator, or not' question. IOW, your 'answer' has nothing to do with his question, unless the mechanics of the creator are assumed to be exactly the same, as the mechanics of the creation of the universe. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : John, with all due respect, your question seems to be asked from the perspective of someone who cannot conceive of eternity. It seems to be based on the anthropomorphic projection that because we had a beginning and an end, so must the universe. If you hold -- as I do -- that the universe is eternal and was never created, there is no need to waste time postulating a creator. From: jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 10:30 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time Professor Robbert Dijkgraaf from the University of Amsterdam presented a lecture about the current developments in physics. In order to easily understand this presentation, the slogan to remember is, It is bit. The lecturer was saying that the universe (it) began as a burst of information (bit). He seemed to imply that our universe is a white hole, i.e. our universe came from another parent universe eons ago. He was also implying that our universe may end up as information either in a black hole or in the infinite expansion of this universe. My question primarily is: what caused the Big Bang
Re: [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time
On 6/20/2014 9:43 PM, jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Richard, There's a story in the Srimad Bhagavatam stating that when Vishnu was sleeping in the causal ocean he would breathe out an infinite number of universes. And when he breathes in, all of the universes are annihilated as they enter his body. The cycle repeats until he wakes up. According to the Bhagwatam although Lord Vishnu *appears* to be a part of creation (prakriti) He is really existing in the *transcendental* field outside of space-time. That's why He is called the 'Transcendental Person.' This is a very subtle cosmology - Lord Krishna as an emanation of Vishnu is totally separate from the prakriti, but yet He *appears* to 'come down to earth', but in reality, He always remains the Transcendent. Vaishnavism is based on the Upanishads - all the Upanishadic thinkers were transcendentalists. I'm assuming that when he awakes he would be conversing with Laksmi, his consort, and that creation stops temporarily until he falls asleep again. it is /inconceivable/ how the Lord can be transcendental and an emanation both at the same time - /one, and at the same time, different./ Go figure. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : That's assuming there is a universe out there - what if we are all in a dream and we are just projecting our consciousness onto the universe. A wise man once dreamed he was a butterfly. The dream was so real that when he woke up he couldn't tell if he was a many dreaming he was a butterfly, or if he was a bitterfly dreaming he was a man. Once upon a time, a man named Chuang, dreamed he was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, a veritable butterfly, enjoying itself to the fullest, not knowing he was a man. Suddenly he woke up and became himself again. So, was he a man dreaming he was a butterfly or was he a butterfly dreaming he was a man? http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Zhuangzi There's nothing in the so-called waking state that we couldn't also experience in a dream. In the waking state doors are doors and tables are tables. We can run and jump in and consult our friends in dreams just like we do in the waking state. On 6/20/2014 3:30 AM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Professor Robbert Dijkgraaf from the University of Amsterdam presented a lecture about the current developments in physics. In order to easily understand this presentation, the slogan to remember is, It is bit. The lecturer was saying that the universe (it) began as a burst of information (bit). He seemed to imply that our universe is a white hole, i.e. our universe came from another parent universe eons ago. He was also implying that our universe may end up as information either in a black hole or in the infinite expansion of this universe. My question primarily is: what caused the Big Bang? Based on this lecture, one can gather that the dark energy contained in our parent universe was the source of power that fed a black hole which exploded to create our own universe. IOW, our universe could generate the same baby universes which could be understood as an infinite burst of universes or information, aka the multiverse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDAJinQL2c0
Re: [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time
Don't imagine that the 'middle path' is an average between two polar opposites, it is more like finding that mid-point (so to speak), and coming to rest there, balanced, and then having the separation between them dissolve. As for where people get religious ideas, they just make them up. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 6/20/2014 1:44 PM, fleetwood_macncheese@... mailto:fleetwood_macncheese@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: I saw it more as a one trick pony response from Barry - nothing original, just the same ol', same ol'. When the waking state attempts to talk about infinity, it often has this stunted and stale quality to it. Infinity isn't newly experienced, it is a memory, growing ever more distant - Where does Barry get these religious ideas? No intelligent Buddhist would ascribe to the eternal view, since that wouldn't be following a middle path between the extremes of permanence and temporariness. Change is inevitable and so nothing is permanent or eternal - permanence would be contradictory to change and would seem to imply that the universe had agency and purpose. Go figure. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... mailto:fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : You are trying to force your square peg, into a round hole. :-) John is curious, not about the beginning of the universe, or a creator, per se, but the mechanics of the beginning of *the manifestation* of the universe. In other words, *he already recognizes the infinite nature of the universe*, and is trying to account for the 'something from nothing' phenomenon. Seems obvious that the universe, like everything within it, is not eternal, in its physical form - it grows, lives, and dies, like everything else - but the energy continues, unchanged. John is curious about what happens to the energy, when it is no longer obvious. So his discussion points are a little more subtle than your old, 'creator, or not' question. IOW, your 'answer' has nothing to do with his question, unless the mechanics of the creator are assumed to be exactly the same, as the mechanics of the creation of the universe. This is a really nice answer and I appreciate your ideas here, Mac. To imagine the existence of the Universe as having a beginning, a middle and an end is hardly anthropomorphic. (And perhaps only our physical bodies are bound by this, not our consciousness.) And certainly, as you point out Mac, stars and planets and galaxies (the physical aspect of the Universe) have beginnings and middles and ends so then the question is really about Creation as a whole and that would be Creation as both physical and as consciousness. No one can, as of yet, answer the question to anyone's satisfaction - can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Creation has no beginning (as bawee asserts so positively) or, in fact had a start somehow and that it will have an end, or perhaps will go on forever now that it exists. Bawee's little snippet here is nothing if not a brick wall thrown up in the face of John who is merely speculating. Bawee has to insult him and tell him he is wasting his time because, after all, bawee knows the truth behind this mystery of the Universe and Creation. It always amazes me how terrible a conversationalist bawee is (and yes, in this case it is all about bawee). He does not live to learn and come to know, he already has the answers and to all the others out there who don't hold the same viewpoint as he does he feels sorry for them and dismisses their 'stupidity' as some sort of proof of cultishness or having been brainwashed. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... wrote : John, with all due respect, your question seems to be asked from the perspective of someone who cannot conceive of eternity. It seems to be based on the anthropomorphic projection that because we had a beginning and an end, so must the universe. If you hold -- as I do -- that the universe is eternal and was never created, there is no need to waste time postulating a creator. From: jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] mailto:jr_esq@...[FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 10:30 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time Professor Robbert Dijkgraaf from the University of Amsterdam presented a lecture about the current developments in physics. In order to easily understand this presentation, the slogan to remember is, It is bit. The lecturer was saying that the universe (it) began as a burst of information (bit). He seemed to imply that our universe
Re: [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time
Share, The dark night of the soul is strictly a form of Roman Catholic emotional angst. It is symptomatic of R.C. belief in the unredeamable corruption of human nature by original sin. This leads pious individuals to feel emotionally barren when they are emotionally distant and uninvolved with their concept of god's presence and likewise their belief in god's stark absence. I was taught a long time ago by the Orthodox that this idea was a consequence of R.C. theology's sin-guilt-redemption dialectic. Contrary to this, the Orthodox see the radiant light of Mt. Tabor as the prototype for human experiences of god. I wondered if the Orthodox had now formulated an official statement about it but it isn't even searchable on Orthodox Wiki. Dark Nights are psycho-dramas for a Roman Catholic's sinful I,I You otta feel shame, guilt and nihilistic rage at yourself for even having an I. After all, this is the very corruption that killed Christ ... and you, Share, now personally murder and crucify Him every morning you wake up as yourself. Won't you abandon this Ecumenical satanism you so blithely declare and stand up, stand up for Jesus blah, blah!
Re: [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time
emptybill, I just googled on jewish dark night of the soul and there it is, in their mystical tradition! Which lead me to think about human archetypes such as the hero's journey. Isn't there always a descent into the underworld? I think that would suffice as a dark night of the soul. Plus when people go on vision quests, isn't there always a moment when all seems lost, when the person gives up, etc? Also a kind of dark night of the soul. I'm just saying, I think it's a universal human experience but maybe the RCs came up with the meme y name! On Saturday, June 21, 2014 12:27 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Share, The dark night of the soul is strictly a form of Roman Catholic emotional angst. It is symptomatic of R.C. belief in the unredeamable corruption of human nature by original sin. This leads pious individuals to feel emotionally barren when they are emotionally distant and uninvolved with their concept of god's presence and likewise their belief in god's stark absence. I was taught a long time ago by the Orthodox that this idea was a consequence of R.C. theology's sin-guilt-redemption dialectic. Contrary to this, the Orthodox see the radiant light of Mt. Tabor as the prototype for human experiences of god. I wondered if the Orthodox had now formulated an official statement about it but it isn't even searchable on Orthodox Wiki. Dark Nights are psycho-dramas for a Roman Catholic's sinful I,I You otta feel shame, guilt and nihilistic rage at yourself for even having an I. After all, this is the very corruption that killed Christ ... and you, Share, now personally murder and crucify Him every morning you wake up as yourself. Won't you abandon this Ecumenical satanism you so blithely declare and stand up, stand up for Jesus blah, blah!
Re: [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time
, lives, and dies, like everything else - but the energy continues, unchanged. John is curious about what happens to the energy, when it is no longer obvious. So his discussion points are a little more subtle than your old, 'creator, or not' question. IOW, your 'answer' has nothing to do with his question, unless the mechanics of the creator are assumed to be exactly the same, as the mechanics of the creation of the universe. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... wrote : John, with all due respect, your question seems to be asked from the perspective of someone who cannot conceive of eternity. It seems to be based on the anthropomorphic projection that because we had a beginning and an end, so must the universe. If you hold -- as I do -- that the universe is eternal and was never created, there is no need to waste time postulating a creator. *From:* jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] mailto:jr_esq@...[FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Friday, June 20, 2014 10:30 AM *Subject:* [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time Professor Robbert Dijkgraaf from the University of Amsterdam presented a lecture about the current developments in physics. In order to easily understand this presentation, the slogan to remember is, It is bit. The lecturer was saying that the universe (it) began as a burst of information (bit). He seemed to imply that our universe is a white hole, i.e. our universe came from another parent universe eons ago. He was also implying that our universe may end up as information either in a black hole or in the infinite expansion of this universe. My question primarily is: what caused the Big Bang? Based on this lecture, one can gather that the dark energy contained in our parent universe was the source of power that fed a black hole which exploded to create our own universe. IOW, our universe could generate the same baby universes which could be understood as an infinite burst of universes or information, aka the multiverse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDAJinQL2c0
[FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time
Professor Robbert Dijkgraaf from the University of Amsterdam presented a lecture about the current developments in physics. In order to easily understand this presentation, the slogan to remember is, It is bit. The lecturer was saying that the universe (it) began as a burst of information (bit). He seemed to imply that our universe is a white hole, i.e. our universe came from another parent universe eons ago. He was also implying that our universe may end up as information either in a black hole or in the infinite expansion of this universe. My question primarily is: what caused the Big Bang? Based on this lecture, one can gather that the dark energy contained in our parent universe was the source of power that fed a black hole which exploded to create our own universe. IOW, our universe could generate the same baby universes which could be understood as an infinite burst of universes or information, aka the multiverse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDAJinQL2c0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDAJinQL2c0
Re: [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time
John, with all due respect, your question seems to be asked from the perspective of someone who cannot conceive of eternity. It seems to be based on the anthropomorphic projection that because we had a beginning and an end, so must the universe. If you hold -- as I do -- that the universe is eternal and was never created, there is no need to waste time postulating a creator. From: jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 10:30 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time Professor Robbert Dijkgraaf from the University of Amsterdam presented a lecture about the current developments in physics. In order to easily understand this presentation, the slogan to remember is, It is bit. The lecturer was saying that the universe (it) began as a burst of information (bit). He seemed to imply that our universe is a white hole, i.e. our universe came from another parent universe eons ago. He was also implying that our universe may end up as information either in a black hole or in the infinite expansion of this universe. My question primarily is: what caused the Big Bang? Based on this lecture, one can gather that the dark energy contained in our parent universe was the source of power that fed a black hole which exploded to create our own universe. IOW, our universe could generate the same baby universes which could be understood as an infinite burst of universes or information, aka the multiverse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDAJinQL2c0
Re: [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time
You are trying to force your square peg, into a round hole. :-) John is curious, not about the beginning of the universe, or a creator, per se, but the mechanics of the beginning of *the manifestation* of the universe. In other words, *he already recognizes the infinite nature of the universe*, and is trying to account for the 'something from nothing' phenomenon. Seems obvious that the universe, like everything within it, is not eternal, in its physical form - it grows, lives, and dies, like everything else - but the energy continues, unchanged. John is curious about what happens to the energy, when it is no longer obvious. So his discussion points are a little more subtle than your old, 'creator, or not' question. IOW, your 'answer' has nothing to do with his question, unless the mechanics of the creator are assumed to be exactly the same, as the mechanics of the creation of the universe. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : John, with all due respect, your question seems to be asked from the perspective of someone who cannot conceive of eternity. It seems to be based on the anthropomorphic projection that because we had a beginning and an end, so must the universe. If you hold -- as I do -- that the universe is eternal and was never created, there is no need to waste time postulating a creator. From: jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 10:30 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time Professor Robbert Dijkgraaf from the University of Amsterdam presented a lecture about the current developments in physics. In order to easily understand this presentation, the slogan to remember is, It is bit. The lecturer was saying that the universe (it) began as a burst of information (bit). He seemed to imply that our universe is a white hole, i.e. our universe came from another parent universe eons ago. He was also implying that our universe may end up as information either in a black hole or in the infinite expansion of this universe. My question primarily is: what caused the Big Bang? Based on this lecture, one can gather that the dark energy contained in our parent universe was the source of power that fed a black hole which exploded to create our own universe. IOW, our universe could generate the same baby universes which could be understood as an infinite burst of universes or information, aka the multiverse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDAJinQL2c0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDAJinQL2c0
Re: [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time
John, I'm rushing and will read article later but what immediately comes to mind is an article I read earlier this week about how sound was the beginning of creation, sound or vibration. From this perspective I wonder what dark energy is. Is it silence? Silence pregnant with possible or virtual sound? On Friday, June 20, 2014 6:49 AM, fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: You are trying to force your square peg, into a round hole. :-) John is curious, not about the beginning of the universe, or a creator, per se, but the mechanics of the beginning of *the manifestation* of the universe. In other words, *he already recognizes the infinite nature of the universe*, and is trying to account for the 'something from nothing' phenomenon. Seems obvious that the universe, like everything within it, is not eternal, in its physical form - it grows, lives, and dies, like everything else - but the energy continues, unchanged. John is curious about what happens to the energy, when it is no longer obvious. So his discussion points are a little more subtle than your old, 'creator, or not' question. IOW, your 'answer' has nothing to do with his question, unless the mechanics of the creator are assumed to be exactly the same, as the mechanics of the creation of the universe. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : John, with all due respect, your question seems to be asked from the perspective of someone who cannot conceive of eternity. It seems to be based on the anthropomorphic projection that because we had a beginning and an end, so must the universe. If you hold -- as I do -- that the universe is eternal and was never created, there is no need to waste time postulating a creator. From: jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 10:30 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time Professor Robbert Dijkgraaf from the University of Amsterdam presented a lecture about the current developments in physics. In order to easily understand this presentation, the slogan to remember is, It is bit. The lecturer was saying that the universe (it) began as a burst of information (bit). He seemed to imply that our universe is a white hole, i.e. our universe came from another parent universe eons ago. He was also implying that our universe may end up as information either in a black hole or in the infinite expansion of this universe. My question primarily is: what caused the Big Bang? Based on this lecture, one can gather that the dark energy contained in our parent universe was the source of power that fed a black hole which exploded to create our own universe. IOW, our universe could generate the same baby universes which could be understood as an infinite burst of universes or information, aka the multiverse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDAJinQL2c0
Re: [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : You are trying to force your square peg, into a round hole. :-) John is curious, not about the beginning of the universe, or a creator, per se, but the mechanics of the beginning of *the manifestation* of the universe. In other words, *he already recognizes the infinite nature of the universe*, and is trying to account for the 'something from nothing' phenomenon. Seems obvious that the universe, like everything within it, is not eternal, in its physical form - it grows, lives, and dies, like everything else - but the energy continues, unchanged. John is curious about what happens to the energy, when it is no longer obvious. So his discussion points are a little more subtle than your old, 'creator, or not' question. IOW, your 'answer' has nothing to do with his question, unless the mechanics of the creator are assumed to be exactly the same, as the mechanics of the creation of the universe. This is a really nice answer and I appreciate your ideas here, Mac. To imagine the existence of the Universe as having a beginning, a middle and an end is hardly anthropomorphic. (And perhaps only our physical bodies are bound by this, not our consciousness.) And certainly, as you point out Mac, stars and planets and galaxies (the physical aspect of the Universe) have beginnings and middles and ends so then the question is really about Creation as a whole and that would be Creation as both physical and as consciousness. No one can, as of yet, answer the question to anyone's satisfaction - can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Creation has no beginning (as bawee asserts so positively) or, in fact had a start somehow and that it will have an end, or perhaps will go on forever now that it exists. Bawee's little snippet here is nothing if not a brick wall thrown up in the face of John who is merely speculating. Bawee has to insult him and tell him he is wasting his time because, after all, bawee knows the truth behind this mystery of the Universe and Creation. It always amazes me how terrible a conversationalist bawee is (and yes, in this case it is all about bawee). He does not live to learn and come to know, he already has the answers and to all the others out there who don't hold the same viewpoint as he does he feels sorry for them and dismisses their 'stupidity' as some sort of proof of cultishness or having been brainwashed. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : John, with all due respect, your question seems to be asked from the perspective of someone who cannot conceive of eternity. It seems to be based on the anthropomorphic projection that because we had a beginning and an end, so must the universe. If you hold -- as I do -- that the universe is eternal and was never created, there is no need to waste time postulating a creator. From: jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 10:30 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time Professor Robbert Dijkgraaf from the University of Amsterdam presented a lecture about the current developments in physics. In order to easily understand this presentation, the slogan to remember is, It is bit. The lecturer was saying that the universe (it) began as a burst of information (bit). He seemed to imply that our universe is a white hole, i.e. our universe came from another parent universe eons ago. He was also implying that our universe may end up as information either in a black hole or in the infinite expansion of this universe. My question primarily is: what caused the Big Bang? Based on this lecture, one can gather that the dark energy contained in our parent universe was the source of power that fed a black hole which exploded to create our own universe. IOW, our universe could generate the same baby universes which could be understood as an infinite burst of universes or information, aka the multiverse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDAJinQL2c0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDAJinQL2c0
Re: [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time
John and Fleetwood, I admit this topic popped into my mind during program. The phrase *no beginning* acted like a koan on my brain every single time it arose. Very cool, so thanks... On Friday, June 20, 2014 6:49 AM, fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: You are trying to force your square peg, into a round hole. :-) John is curious, not about the beginning of the universe, or a creator, per se, but the mechanics of the beginning of *the manifestation* of the universe. In other words, *he already recognizes the infinite nature of the universe*, and is trying to account for the 'something from nothing' phenomenon. Seems obvious that the universe, like everything within it, is not eternal, in its physical form - it grows, lives, and dies, like everything else - but the energy continues, unchanged. John is curious about what happens to the energy, when it is no longer obvious. So his discussion points are a little more subtle than your old, 'creator, or not' question. IOW, your 'answer' has nothing to do with his question, unless the mechanics of the creator are assumed to be exactly the same, as the mechanics of the creation of the universe. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : John, with all due respect, your question seems to be asked from the perspective of someone who cannot conceive of eternity. It seems to be based on the anthropomorphic projection that because we had a beginning and an end, so must the universe. If you hold -- as I do -- that the universe is eternal and was never created, there is no need to waste time postulating a creator. From: jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 10:30 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time Professor Robbert Dijkgraaf from the University of Amsterdam presented a lecture about the current developments in physics. In order to easily understand this presentation, the slogan to remember is, It is bit. The lecturer was saying that the universe (it) began as a burst of information (bit). He seemed to imply that our universe is a white hole, i.e. our universe came from another parent universe eons ago. He was also implying that our universe may end up as information either in a black hole or in the infinite expansion of this universe. My question primarily is: what caused the Big Bang? Based on this lecture, one can gather that the dark energy contained in our parent universe was the source of power that fed a black hole which exploded to create our own universe. IOW, our universe could generate the same baby universes which could be understood as an infinite burst of universes or information, aka the multiverse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDAJinQL2c0
Re: [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time
I saw it more as a one trick pony response from Barry - nothing original, just the same ol', same ol'. When the waking state attempts to talk about infinity, it often has this stunted and stale quality to it. Infinity isn't newly experienced, it is a memory, growing ever more distant - ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : You are trying to force your square peg, into a round hole. :-) John is curious, not about the beginning of the universe, or a creator, per se, but the mechanics of the beginning of *the manifestation* of the universe. In other words, *he already recognizes the infinite nature of the universe*, and is trying to account for the 'something from nothing' phenomenon. Seems obvious that the universe, like everything within it, is not eternal, in its physical form - it grows, lives, and dies, like everything else - but the energy continues, unchanged. John is curious about what happens to the energy, when it is no longer obvious. So his discussion points are a little more subtle than your old, 'creator, or not' question. IOW, your 'answer' has nothing to do with his question, unless the mechanics of the creator are assumed to be exactly the same, as the mechanics of the creation of the universe. This is a really nice answer and I appreciate your ideas here, Mac. To imagine the existence of the Universe as having a beginning, a middle and an end is hardly anthropomorphic. (And perhaps only our physical bodies are bound by this, not our consciousness.) And certainly, as you point out Mac, stars and planets and galaxies (the physical aspect of the Universe) have beginnings and middles and ends so then the question is really about Creation as a whole and that would be Creation as both physical and as consciousness. No one can, as of yet, answer the question to anyone's satisfaction - can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Creation has no beginning (as bawee asserts so positively) or, in fact had a start somehow and that it will have an end, or perhaps will go on forever now that it exists. Bawee's little snippet here is nothing if not a brick wall thrown up in the face of John who is merely speculating. Bawee has to insult him and tell him he is wasting his time because, after all, bawee knows the truth behind this mystery of the Universe and Creation. It always amazes me how terrible a conversationalist bawee is (and yes, in this case it is all about bawee). He does not live to learn and come to know, he already has the answers and to all the others out there who don't hold the same viewpoint as he does he feels sorry for them and dismisses their 'stupidity' as some sort of proof of cultishness or having been brainwashed. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : John, with all due respect, your question seems to be asked from the perspective of someone who cannot conceive of eternity. It seems to be based on the anthropomorphic projection that because we had a beginning and an end, so must the universe. If you hold -- as I do -- that the universe is eternal and was never created, there is no need to waste time postulating a creator. From: jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 10:30 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time Professor Robbert Dijkgraaf from the University of Amsterdam presented a lecture about the current developments in physics. In order to easily understand this presentation, the slogan to remember is, It is bit. The lecturer was saying that the universe (it) began as a burst of information (bit). He seemed to imply that our universe is a white hole, i.e. our universe came from another parent universe eons ago. He was also implying that our universe may end up as information either in a black hole or in the infinite expansion of this universe. My question primarily is: what caused the Big Bang? Based on this lecture, one can gather that the dark energy contained in our parent universe was the source of power that fed a black hole which exploded to create our own universe. IOW, our universe could generate the same baby universes which could be understood as an infinite burst of universes or information, aka the multiverse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDAJinQL2c0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDAJinQL2c0
Re: [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time
Would you explain this in more detail? All 'states of consciousness' in which we can talk include waking, and talking about infinity or infinities tends to metaphor. The phrase 'Infinity isn't newly experienced, it is a memory, growing ever more distant' is rather peculiar. Obviously when we think and say something we are referring to memory. And there are experiences that at the time seem timeless, though if we speak of them simulaneously, they draw on certain aspects of memory. Infinity in the spiritual sense is essentially undefined, so talking about it is always indirect. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : I saw it more as a one trick pony response from Barry - nothing original, just the same ol', same ol'. When the waking state attempts to talk about infinity, it often has this stunted and stale quality to it. Infinity isn't newly experienced, it is a memory, growing ever more distant -
Re: [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time
Fleetwood, You understood the points precisely. In my first viewing of the clip several months ago, I didn't understand it completely. After viewing it the second time, I understood the implications of the professor's ideas. Hence, I posted the clip for everyone to comment on. But here's another clip from Leonard Susskind, a Stanford University professor, which discusses points that touch along the lines of Dijkgraaf's presentation. Both discuss the storage of information inside the black hole that is similar to a hologram. However, Susskind's ideas have a different twist to it. He states that the universe's expansion is the reverse dynamics that occur in a black hole. He's implying that information is stored as well when the galaxies disappear from our line of sight horizon due to their expansion at the speed of light. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : You are trying to force your square peg, into a round hole. :-) John is curious, not about the beginning of the universe, or a creator, per se, but the mechanics of the beginning of *the manifestation* of the universe. In other words, *he already recognizes the infinite nature of the universe*, and is trying to account for the 'something from nothing' phenomenon. Seems obvious that the universe, like everything within it, is not eternal, in its physical form - it grows, lives, and dies, like everything else - but the energy continues, unchanged. John is curious about what happens to the energy, when it is no longer obvious. So his discussion points are a little more subtle than your old, 'creator, or not' question. IOW, your 'answer' has nothing to do with his question, unless the mechanics of the creator are assumed to be exactly the same, as the mechanics of the creation of the universe. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : John, with all due respect, your question seems to be asked from the perspective of someone who cannot conceive of eternity. It seems to be based on the anthropomorphic projection that because we had a beginning and an end, so must the universe. If you hold -- as I do -- that the universe is eternal and was never created, there is no need to waste time postulating a creator. From: jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 10:30 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time Professor Robbert Dijkgraaf from the University of Amsterdam presented a lecture about the current developments in physics. In order to easily understand this presentation, the slogan to remember is, It is bit. The lecturer was saying that the universe (it) began as a burst of information (bit). He seemed to imply that our universe is a white hole, i.e. our universe came from another parent universe eons ago. He was also implying that our universe may end up as information either in a black hole or in the infinite expansion of this universe. My question primarily is: what caused the Big Bang? Based on this lecture, one can gather that the dark energy contained in our parent universe was the source of power that fed a black hole which exploded to create our own universe. IOW, our universe could generate the same baby universes which could be understood as an infinite burst of universes or information, aka the multiverse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDAJinQL2c0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDAJinQL2c0
Re: [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time
When we realize that we, ourselves, are without boundaries, then we no longer have to talk about infinity, as something else. Infinity is immediate, personal, and fresh, and is expressed the same way. Otherwise, it isn't, and comes across as rehearsed. Pretty simple, and obvious, really - nothing more to say about it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Would you explain this in more detail? All 'states of consciousness' in which we can talk include waking, and talking about infinity or infinities tends to metaphor. The phrase 'Infinity isn't newly experienced, it is a memory, growing ever more distant' is rather peculiar. Obviously when we think and say something we are referring to memory. And there are experiences that at the time seem timeless, though if we speak of them simulaneously, they draw on certain aspects of memory. Infinity in the spiritual sense is essentially undefined, so talking about it is always indirect. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : I saw it more as a one trick pony response from Barry - nothing original, just the same ol', same ol'. When the waking state attempts to talk about infinity, it often has this stunted and stale quality to it. Infinity isn't newly experienced, it is a memory, growing ever more distant -
Re: [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time
Yes, it is similar to the difference between a person being asleep or awake - all energy in either potential, or active form. Even more intriguing to me, is the idea of detectable, but unobservable, 'dark matter', which is supposed to account for far more of the universe's energy, than the manifested bits we can see. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Fleetwood, You understood the points precisely. In my first viewing of the clip several months ago, I didn't understand it completely. After viewing it the second time, I understood the implications of the professor's ideas. Hence, I posted the clip for everyone to comment on. But here's another clip from Leonard Susskind, a Stanford University professor, which discusses points that touch along the lines of Dijkgraaf's presentation. Both discuss the storage of information inside the black hole that is similar to a hologram. However, Susskind's ideas have a different twist to it. He states that the universe's expansion is the reverse dynamics that occur in a black hole. He's implying that information is stored as well when the galaxies disappear from our line of sight horizon due to their expansion at the speed of light. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : You are trying to force your square peg, into a round hole. :-) John is curious, not about the beginning of the universe, or a creator, per se, but the mechanics of the beginning of *the manifestation* of the universe. In other words, *he already recognizes the infinite nature of the universe*, and is trying to account for the 'something from nothing' phenomenon. Seems obvious that the universe, like everything within it, is not eternal, in its physical form - it grows, lives, and dies, like everything else - but the energy continues, unchanged. John is curious about what happens to the energy, when it is no longer obvious. So his discussion points are a little more subtle than your old, 'creator, or not' question. IOW, your 'answer' has nothing to do with his question, unless the mechanics of the creator are assumed to be exactly the same, as the mechanics of the creation of the universe. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : John, with all due respect, your question seems to be asked from the perspective of someone who cannot conceive of eternity. It seems to be based on the anthropomorphic projection that because we had a beginning and an end, so must the universe. If you hold -- as I do -- that the universe is eternal and was never created, there is no need to waste time postulating a creator. From: jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 10:30 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time Professor Robbert Dijkgraaf from the University of Amsterdam presented a lecture about the current developments in physics. In order to easily understand this presentation, the slogan to remember is, It is bit. The lecturer was saying that the universe (it) began as a burst of information (bit). He seemed to imply that our universe is a white hole, i.e. our universe came from another parent universe eons ago. He was also implying that our universe may end up as information either in a black hole or in the infinite expansion of this universe. My question primarily is: what caused the Big Bang? Based on this lecture, one can gather that the dark energy contained in our parent universe was the source of power that fed a black hole which exploded to create our own universe. IOW, our universe could generate the same baby universes which could be understood as an infinite burst of universes or information, aka the multiverse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDAJinQL2c0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDAJinQL2c0
Re: [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time
That's assuming there is a universe out there - what if we are all in a dream and we are just projecting our consciousness onto the universe. A wise man once dreamed he was a butterfly. The dream was so real that when he woke up he couldn't tell if he was a many dreaming he was a butterfly, or if he was a bitterfly dreaming he was a man. Once upon a time, a man named Chuang, dreamed he was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, a veritable butterfly, enjoying itself to the fullest, not knowing he was a man. Suddenly he woke up and became himself again. So, was he a man dreaming he was a butterfly or was he a butterfly dreaming he was a man? http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Zhuangzi There's nothing in the so-called waking state that we couldn't also experience in a dream. In the waking state doors are doors and tables are tables. We can run and jump in and consult our friends in dreams just like we do in the waking state. On 6/20/2014 3:30 AM, jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Professor Robbert Dijkgraaf from the University of Amsterdam presented a lecture about the current developments in physics. In order to easily understand this presentation, the slogan to remember is, It is bit. The lecturer was saying that the universe (it) began as a burst of information (bit). He seemed to imply that our universe is a white hole, i.e. our universe came from another parent universe eons ago. He was also implying that our universe may end up as information either in a black hole or in the infinite expansion of this universe. My question primarily is: what caused the Big Bang? Based on this lecture, one can gather that the dark energy contained in our parent universe was the source of power that fed a black hole which exploded to create our own universe. IOW, our universe could generate the same baby universes which could be understood as an infinite burst of universes or information, aka the multiverse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDAJinQL2c0
Re: [FairfieldLife] End of Space and Time
Richard, There's a story in the Srimad Bhagavatam stating that when Vishnu was sleeping in the causal ocean he would breathe out an infinite number of universes. And when he breathes in, all of the universes are annihilated as they enter his body. The cycle repeats until he wakes up. I'm assuming that when he awakes he would be conversing with Laksmi, his consort, and that creation stops temporarily until he falls asleep again. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : That's assuming there is a universe out there - what if we are all in a dream and we are just projecting our consciousness onto the universe. A wise man once dreamed he was a butterfly. The dream was so real that when he woke up he couldn't tell if he was a many dreaming he was a butterfly, or if he was a bitterfly dreaming he was a man. Once upon a time, a man named Chuang, dreamed he was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, a veritable butterfly, enjoying itself to the fullest, not knowing he was a man. Suddenly he woke up and became himself again. So, was he a man dreaming he was a butterfly or was he a butterfly dreaming he was a man? http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Zhuangzi http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Zhuangzi There's nothing in the so-called waking state that we couldn't also experience in a dream. In the waking state doors are doors and tables are tables. We can run and jump in and consult our friends in dreams just like we do in the waking state. On 6/20/2014 3:30 AM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Professor Robbert Dijkgraaf from the University of Amsterdam presented a lecture about the current developments in physics. In order to easily understand this presentation, the slogan to remember is, It is bit. The lecturer was saying that the universe (it) began as a burst of information (bit). He seemed to imply that our universe is a white hole, i.e. our universe came from another parent universe eons ago. He was also implying that our universe may end up as information either in a black hole or in the infinite expansion of this universe. My question primarily is: what caused the Big Bang? Based on this lecture, one can gather that the dark energy contained in our parent universe was the source of power that fed a black hole which exploded to create our own universe. IOW, our universe could generate the same baby universes which could be understood as an infinite burst of universes or information, aka the multiverse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDAJinQL2c0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDAJinQL2c0
