Space-Time continuum.

1. 60

   A.Villarasaposted 12 years ago

   If  I am not mistaken, it was Einstein who coined the term "Space-Time Comtinuum" perhaps to indicate that like Mass and Energy, Space and Time are one and the same thing.
   The Big Bang Theory posits that Time and Space started when  an infinitisimally dense entity the size of an atom "disintegrated" so to speak (via what and which mechanism, scientist are still not in congruence), and expanded/rippled  rapidly within nanoseconds of its inititaion to become, 12 billions years later,  what we now know as our universe.
   Now astrophysicists and theoretical physicists are coming up with the 'Multi-verse Theory", which posits that our universe(that came from that "BiG Bang") is only one among mulititudes of universes, each one possibly starting pretty much the same way that our universe did. The concept is stunningly complex and to contemplate it is, to say the least "truly" mind boggling.
   In the physical realm perhaps, it is mind-boggling, with scientists tripping all over the place trying to outdo each other in explaining  how that could and would come to pass.
   One such scientist is Davide Castelvecchi, who, in an article for Scientific American (jan 2013 issue) stated that what we routinely call the Big Bang, should now be termed the Big Bounce, i.e a mere "FLUCTUATION) (but as fluctuations go, this indeed was a Big One) among multiple simultaneous states via the prism of loop quantum gravity, a big bounce from an earlier collapsing universe.  This theory of Never-ending expansion and collapsing, could potentially undergird the idea that Time-Space is in fact eternal, like a circle that one could not quite know where/whence it started or ended.
   In the spiritual realm, would the above discusion give credence to the concept  that GOD, embodied in the Time-Space continuum is in fact ETERNAL?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Rad Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The above discussion has nothing to do with God. But it would be directly opposed to Genesis, where it states God made everything in a few day a few thousand years ago from nothing.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         @RadMan:
         I didn't know that you are also into  interpreting biblical passages, aside from quoting irrelevant neuro-scientists.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Rad Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Ha, are you somehow more qualified then me? Attempting to insert God into science is what kept humans in the dark ages for about a thousand years. Do you really want to back to the flat earth theory?

            replyreport
            1. 60

               A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               @RadMan:
               The first chapter of Genesis could not and should not be interpreted literally, because if it is is not interpreted metaphorically, it would literally fly smack against  the  earth's  geological and paleontological record. Now some folks may believe in the literal interpretation of everything that is written in the Bible.... I don't.
               
               "Attempting to insert God into science is what kept man in the dark ages.."is a statement borne out of pure arrogance and hubris and factually full of holes that if you use that as your metaphorical parachute, you would fall to earth with a Big Bang, or is it Big Bounce?

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Rad Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Okay, perhaps you want to explain the middle ages to me then. Do you even understand what arrogance means?
                  
                  Arrogance is having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.
                  Hubris is the excessive pride or self-confidence.
                  
                  You continue to call atheists arrogant, when it's Christians that think humans are the only animal with a soul and made in Gods image. I would like to understand why?
                  
                  Good for you that you don't interpret the first Chapter of Genesis literally. I've had conversations with many that do take it literally. During the middle ages such statements may have gotten you charged with heresy. How do you interpret Chronicles 16:30 and Psalm 93:1 were it's stated  "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved". That's the part that got  Galileo in trouble.
                  
                  What about Psalm 104:5, "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place"?

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     @RadMan: Sorry if I wasn't too clear... I was not referring to personal arrogance/hubris , but to arrogance of the scientific/empiric model that implies that if God or religion were not in the way, scientific discoveries   would have blossomed beyond anyone's imagination.
                     The term Dark Ages is so outdated that even historians have dropped that  term because of its unintended connotation. For historical perspective of the Middle Ages, of which the Dark Ages is part of, you might just click on Wikipedia.
                     As I said I am not a biblical scholar and for me to comment on those that you quoted  in your post would indeed be hubristic on my part.

                     replyreport
2. 61

   knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

   Time is a concept and context of memory. The more memory the larger the context until what, God memory all. Who cares?
   You couldn't remember the big0bang. It would have killed you.
   Don't really see why we need it, except to support the theory of evolution, or I am better than you. Give me God. Give me Gold. This is a hold-up.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      @Knol::
      On the contrary, the Big Bang or the Big Bounce does not necessarily support the Theory of Evolution for in its complexity, it undergirds the IDEA that Time-Space is eternal, and so is GOD.... No beginning, no end... Has always been here and will always be here forever.

      replyreport
3. 0

   Emile Rposted 12 years ago

   I'm afraid if we found out that the Big Bounce were true  I would see it as evidence against God. Sure, the universe would be, for all intents, eternal; but that seems rather random to me.  Now, if you were to argue that this made our universe the lung of an incredibly large and long living creature I'd say 'hmm'.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      @Emile R
      The randomness of  quantum mechanics is exactly what made Einstein very leery of it. He  did not accpet is as such because it did not fit nicely with his theory of general relativity. In fact it was what led him to say" ..God does not play dice with the universe."

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Maybe not. But, we know so little about the universe I wouldn't rule out a giant game of craps going on with the cosmos hanging in the balance.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            @Emile:
            We know so little about the universe is a factual statement from a pure empirically i.e. scientifically drived narrative, so the question have to be asked: can we know a lot more about the universe through other means.
            
            The subject of spiritual renewal has to be included in that discussion. Eons and ages back, when humans where more attuned to their spiritual nature, they came to an understanding of the cosmos unaided by scientific knowledge. We (with the scientific community leading the way) may now pooh-pooh early human's understanding, because they were based mostly on their spiritual perception and derivation of what the universe truly is... but there must be something to be said about that approach.
            In some quarters, there has been a resurgence of people  trying to reconnect with their spiritual bearing through various methodologies i.e yoga/transcendental/lucid meditation, spiritual retreats, etc) while others, have experienced "the-other-wordly" via mechanisms not consciously pursued, i.e. near-death-experience.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I do agree. Science, by giving us access to so much knowledge about the physical world, has sidelined the search for the spiritual by a growing percentage of society. But isn't that the way of progress?  The spiritual isn't going anywhere. For us to find a way to understand the metaphysical (if it does exist) we have to first understand the physical. I think we are making progress; although we still have a long way to go.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  @Emile:
                  "The spiritual is not going anywhere?"  Really?
                  
                  I suppose in this day and age of rapid secularism, rabid atheism undergirded by objectivism, reductionism and nihilism... the concept of spitritualism having lost its way among the morass of those "isms" is to be expected and verbalized and  advertised. But don't count it out yet.
                  
                  What you call progress might in fact  be the start of the devaluation and devolution of Homo Sapiens to a soul-less version of his old self---what I would call Homo Roboticus, living the la vida loca  in technological nirvana.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     The above scenario can only be forstalled if humans go back to their spiritual roots.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Rad Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Talk about spiritual arrogance?

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Spiritual and arrogance are oxymorons.
                           Ego from whence arrogance oozes from does not exist in the spiritual realm. The factuality and reality of man's spiritual nature have been degraded and ultimately denied by those whose EGO have blinded them to their perception that  physical realm is the sole destiny of humanity.

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              I meant to say...by their perception

                              replyreport
                           2. 0

                              Rad Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Nonsense. The ego is what makes us human, thinking planning, organizing and seeking to please the id's drive in realistic ways that will benefit in the long term rather than bring grief. Without the ego and super ego the ID would take over and demand instant self-gratification. The super-ego is always striving for perfection and currently that would mean to be in good standing with society. When looking for the cause of spirituality we need to look at brain processes. The ID is interested in instant self-gradification so it's not concerned with any afterlife. The ego is trying to keep the ID's needs satisfied and is thinking longer term to do so, so we can say the ego is trying to balance what he ID wants and what the Super-ego wants therefore not interested in the spiritual world. The Super-ego strives to act in a socially appropriate manner and controls our sense of right and wrong and guilt. An over active supper-ego is where the problem lies. In an attempt to regulate it's self it tries to regulate everyone around it to feel normal. A strong ego and a balanced ID should put things back where they belong. Education helps develop the ego and bring back the proper balance. Before you know it your not trying to have everyone around you believe the same nonsense as yourself just to satisfy your super-ego.

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 @RadMan:
                                 Excellent desertation on the various  individual/societal  ramification of the ego, super-ego and id.
                                 
                                 But what do they mean in terms of our degraded/denied spiritual nature, either through individual licentiousness and or societal promiscuity, since as you emphatically stated, these psychological concepts have nothing to do with our spiritual  nature and continuing endeavour.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    Rad Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    I believe I connected the Super-ego to the spiritual nature. I believe education and thought can help the ego better regulate the needs of the ID and Super-ego. Left unchecked the Super-ego will attempt to fit in with society in good standing at all cost. To do so it will make sure society conforms to the same desires. This is why we end up with the religious righteous attempting to control societal laws. The super-ego is very good at convincing the ego that it has valid reasons for doing what it's doing, but a strong healthy ego should be able to strike a good balance between what the ID want an what the Super-ego wants.

                                    replyreport
                           3. 58

                              A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              That's actually quite funny, you're telling us characteristics of a realm that has never even been shown to exist let alone possess any characteristics.

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 @TM:
                                 And here I am thinking you have no sense of humor.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 58

                                    A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    On the contrary, I laughed till I cried after reading your post.

                                    replyreport
                  2. 0

                     Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     You don't have enough faith in the eternal existence of life. We are stardust, as they say. That which constitutes the parts of our physical make up has been here since the beginning. Whether we recognize it, or not. Changed, but stardust nonetheless. Wouldn't the spiritual be the same?
                     
                     When you go to an expert to learn to do something better, you sometimes become worse at the task, because you have to retrain your self to do it a better way. In golf, your swing suffers terribly at first, but becomes better as old habits are finally replaced through a better understanding of how to reach your goal. I think, if there is anything to spirituality, we have to accept that old habits and beliefs must be examined and removed (if they prove to be nothing but habits and beliefs) before knowledge can be internalized; to our collective advantage. And the only way to move forward is as a collective.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        kessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        But for the collective to move forward every single individual must first be transformed....
                        
                        So the tranformatiion of the collective begins with you the individual.
                        As long as the individual eyes remain on the collective so as to judge its progress,
                        The eye of that individual will be decieved  and negate any (if any) progress made.
                        
                        So the statement God (the perfect) is in you....is most important.
                        This means the individual self assessment unto himself alone.. .
                        This is why Truth becomes imperative.
                        
                        The mindset that the collective can make progress collectively  is the caused the birth of all religion/anti-religion ( those who collectively oppose religion), by which an education system is introduced to bring it to reality.
                        
                        But if you can see, this most applauded system is cause of massive brainwashing which cause men not to see the obvious.
                        
                        Consider its ways and it how works within what is called our modern heath systems,
                        In trying to eliminate death and creating longevity of life, it has only succeeded in creating one million more ways to die while it pat itself on the back that it saves us from the cold weather.
                        
                        Forgetting that men were born into and strive under these same conditions successfully, with out any of their contraptions.
                        
                        These things happen because men strive after a boast of having more knowledge, and in effect they are merely abandoning the very source of it.
                        
                        The one who argues against these things are effectively elimination themselves from the Only Progressive Collective, which is called LIFE.
                        
                        ....and the sill wonder why they die.......

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           I get what you are saying, but throughout recorded history man has attempted to connect with the Divine within himself. To what end?
                           
                           I say, we have to first accept the Divine in others. We have to see it. Developing that sight first may lead to finding the true spirit. Searching inside of ourselves is an exercise in ego. Grab someone else's bootstraps to pull them up first, in a manner of speaking.

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              kessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              You keep looking outwardly at the collective so as determine yourself.
                              
                              Thus your perception is blurred and cannot understand that thing are exactly as expected..
                              that is from Life's perspective of course.
                              
                              If you did not, you wont see another man ego but your own,
                              For it Only you that matters in the end, and every other ego,
                              works for you and not against you.

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 Kess, my point is that our ego is the problem. Our ego skews our vision when viewing others. We have to find a way to release the ego because all life is interconnected. As long as we search within we separate ourselves from the whole. We perpetuate the optical delusion that creates this belief in separation. We are one in more senses than we can see. I don't disagree that things are as expected. We need to change our expectations before we can unblur our vision.
                                 
                                 I don't look to the collective to determine myself. I'm not sure where you came up with that one.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 60

                                    kessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    When you talk about another mans ego,
                                    You can only see this by looking at the collective,
                                    and as long as you describe it as a problem it has become relevant to you as that...
                                    
                                    And you can only see it this way because you lack the perception that comes from within.
                                    For the only problem a man can create is unto himself and unto those see Life as such.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 0

                                       Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                       Well, I suppose you have it all figured out. That is good for you, but I don't see it the same way. I don't think that I am, necessarily, the one who lacks perception. But, perception is determined by the eye perceiving. So what explanations work for you are best for you.

                                       report
                     2. 60

                        A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        @Emile:
                        
                        I fully agree if by "...moving forward as a collective..."  you mean moving forward as a specie. The word "collective" as far as I am concerned, has  a rather negative connotation i.e.(1) collectivism=communism, (2) collective consciousness=absence of free will, (3) collectivization=controlization

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           I get that it has negative connotations (I'm thinking the Borg); but to refer to us as a species isn't a term I would have used in that sentence. A species is defined by our physical characteristics; but it isn't our physical characteristics we are speaking of.

                           replyreport