IT IS...

[Jason]

Jason wrote:

The Big Bang and dominoes-causality is associated very strongly and almost universally with science and thus with the existence-is-independent-from-consciousness worldview that goes along with that.

I don't think it does. Most people who follow science nowadays have very little consciousness of cause and effect as a principle - or if they do, it is only to repudiate it using quantum theorizing as evidence. Cause and effect tends to be regarded as an antiquated theory which no one really believes in any more.

I don't know what alternate universe you live in David. Here are the very first sentences about these subjects from Wikipedia(underlining added by me):

CAUSALITY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_%28physics%29 "Causality describes the relationship between causes and effects, and is fundamental to all natural science, especially physics."

BIG BANG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang "In physical cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory that the universe emerged from an enormously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago."

Maybe you are going to argue that even saying everything is an "appearance" is limiting things to a certain non-absolute worldview. Then we get back to the never ending argument of using our preferred finite ideas for explaining the non-finite, and then arguing that each others ways is actually finite not infinite....and on and on.

It's important to break the spell exerted by all appearances, and not just a limited selection of them. The perception that "everything is an appearance" is itself an appearance and needs to be abandoned as well. This is what entering into Emptiness means - you have to abandon attachment to utterly everything that presents an appearance.

Once you do this successfuly, you can then reclaim the world. You can affirm that mountains really are mountains and trees really are trees. You can even go back to science and reaffirm the reality of independent existence, safe in the knowledge that it is all fundamentally an illusion.


-

But "illusion" is itself an illusion BLAH BLAH BLAH. This is annoyingly redundant. I think I've finished with this particular discussion.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Jason, you'd be surprised how much of the Big Bang theory is build upon the philosophical preposition that the universe must have an ultimate beginning (uncaused cause).

Or as astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."

(From "Profile: George F. R. Ellis", Scientific American, October 1995)

The Big Bang theory provides us the imagery of the universe being in a state of explosion which in my view is close enough to the correct view that reality itself is an explosion. But it doesn't have to mean causality itself had a start, lying in a dormant state waiting to happen. This would be a misunderstanding of the fundamental principle that causality forms, a failure to see it as more than some observation or a logical construct.


(edit: rephrased last sentence)

[David Quinn]

Jason,

I don't know what alternate universe you live in David. Here are the very first sentences about these subjects from Wikipedia(underlining added by me):

CAUSALITY
"Causality describes the relationship between causes and effects, and is fundamental to all natural science, especially physics."

Well, it's fundamental to any rational knowledge of the Universe - whether it be scientific or philosophical. One cannot understand the essential "oneness" of the Universe without it, nor the illusory nature of all things.

The fact that science affirms the principle of causality - except when it has lapses of judgment, as is currently the case in the field of quantum mechanics - indicates something different to me. Rather than concluding that causality is a misleading or limited teaching, it indicates to me that the human race is a little closer to reality than it was in the pre-science days of the Middle Ages.

BIG BANG
In physical cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory that the universe emerged from an enormously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago."

The Big Bang is as real as anything you are currently experiencing at this moment. Deal with it.

DQ: It's important to break the spell exerted by all appearances, and not just a limited selection of them. The perception that "everything is an appearance" is itself an appearance and needs to be abandoned as well. This is what entering into Emptiness means - you have to abandon attachment to utterly everything that presents an appearance.

Once you do this successfuly, you can then reclaim the world. You can affirm that mountains really are mountains and trees really are trees. You can even go back to science and reaffirm the reality of independent existence, safe in the knowledge that it is all fundamentally an illusion.

J: But "illusion" is itself an illusion BLAH BLAH BLAH. This is annoyingly redundant. I think I've finished with this particular discussion.

It may be annoying, but it is definitely not redundant. The fact that you reject a particular set of appearances on account that they are appearances, but don't extend the same courtesy to all appearances without exception, is a problem.

-

[David Quinn]

Diebert wrote:

Or as astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."

I agree with that. Cosmology has largely been a theological exercise for the part few decades. As in the case of the Christian God, the Big Bang model is so vague and contentless that it can be twisted and distorted quite easily in order to fit the facts. Cosmologists think nothing of inserting arbitrary constants or neat conceptual tricks like "dark matter" and "inflationary expansion" into the theory when it suits them. This is much closer to theology than science.

The Big Bang theory provides us the imagery of the universe being in a state of explosion which in my view is close enough to the correct view that reality itself is an explosion.

Why do you have the view that Reality is an explosion? Where does that come from?


-

[Jason]

Jason,

J: But "illusion" is itself an illusion BLAH BLAH BLAH. This is annoyingly redundant. I think I've finished with this particular discussion.

David Quinn: It may be annoying, but it is definitely not redundant. The fact that you reject a particular set of appearances on account that they are appearances, but don't extend the same courtesy to all appearances without exception, is a problem.

-

I can't leave it like that, I have to respond. There are several points in your response that show that you don't understand what I said.

Addressing the last part of what I wrote: What I meant was that I predicted the discussion would degenerate into both of us arguing that the other was using finite terms/ideas which were therefore not true in themselves in an absolute sense. That is exactly what hapenned, and since that has happened repeatedly in our past encounters on Genius-L, that is why it is reduntant. We have been over it all before.

The way in which you respond to much of my post surprises me too, because in the past(genius-l) I think I made it obvious that I fully understand what you are saying about the Big Bang, appearances etc. Maybe you don't remember, you've obviously preached to a lot of different people since then.

If you read my posts in this thread again you should see that my points are not relating to me, but rather to how some of your ideas are likely to be wrongly perceived by the majority of philosophically inclined people. It was probably silly of me to even bother pointing this out anyway, I don't know why I should be helping you with your teaching methods.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert wrote:

The Big Bang theory provides us the imagery of the universe being in a state of explosion which in my view is close enough to the correct view that reality itself is an explosion.

Why do you have the view that Reality is an explosion? Where does that come from?

Reality seems to be well described by the term 'explosion' since it points to the almost violent immediacy of the now. Also an explosion suggests an overall connection to everything involved in the blast since it's animated by the same causal process, whatever the exact reaction would be underlying the process.

Also the term relates to an overwhelming of the senses with light and sound, which is in some ways, and not just in sensational ways, akin to the discovery of Reality in its full glory, when compared to the state of dull sleep we're in by default.

[David Quinn]

Jason wrote:

Addressing the last part of what I wrote: What I meant was that I predicted the discussion would degenerate into both of us arguing that the other was using finite terms/ideas which were therefore not true in themselves in an absolute sense. That is exactly what hapenned, and since that has happened repeatedly in our past encounters on Genius-L, that is why it is reduntant. We have been over it all before.

It looks like we'll have to agree to disagree, then. I doubt there is anything you can say which will change my mind on this issue. I simply don't see the limitations of the causality concept that you are seeing.

Even if a person is very materialistic in his outlook and wholly immersed in science, it can only benefit him to meditate on causality. At the very least, it will encourage him to think about the beginninglessness and endlessness of Nature and the core process of how things come into being. This alone will propel him beyond science.

If he does remain stuck in science, it won't be due to his contemplations on causality. Rather, it will be due to the strong attachment that he has towards science. In this situation, we can chip away at his attachment by focusing on the nature of science and its limitations, as well as opening up his mind to the wonders of philosophic logic, and so on.

-

[David Quinn]

Diebert wrote:

Reality seems to be well described by the term 'explosion' since it points to the almost violent immediacy of the now. Also an explosion suggests an overall connection to everything involved in the blast since it's animated by the same causal process, whatever the exact reaction would be underlying the process.

I know what you mean. I used to enjoy picturing everything happening around me as "smoke" emanating from the original Big Bang. I used to tell people that the Big Bang is happening right now, and that our every action is part of its smoke. It was a visualization exercise that I engaged in occasionally. It gave me a more tangible sense of the timelessness of causality.

However, I always viewed this kind of thing as a metaphor, rather than as a direct fact about reality. Are you saying that your intuitive sense of reality's explosiveness is meant to taken as more than a metaphor?

I tend to regard the expanding nature of the universe - which, keep in mind, is only a speculative scientific theory at this stage, one based on flimsy evidence and seriously questioned by some cosmologists - as part of a larger fabric of Nature. In other words, the explosiveness of the particular space-time bubble we call the "observeable universe" is but a tiny explosion in a vast sea of similar explosions and other assorted happenings. Of course, I have no idea whether this is true or not, but it does appeal to my own intuitive sense of how things should be.

(Well, it has to be true to some extent. Otherwise, we would be postulating that the Big Bang exploded out of nothing whatsoever, without cause.)

Also the term relates to an overwhelming of the senses with light and sound, which is in some ways, and not just in sensational ways, akin to the discovery of Reality in its full glory, when compared to the state of dull sleep we're in by default.

Again, as metaphor?

-

[Diebert van Rhijn]

However, I always viewed this kind of thing as a metaphor, rather than as a direct fact about reality. Are you saying that your intuitive sense of reality's explosiveness is meant to taken as more than a metaphor?

In my opinion the highest possibility of any sense or observation is its function as metaphor of the nature of reality. At the other end of the stick it only can add to further confusion and delusion.

In science however it's unavoidable that over time certain higher principles, already known by wise philosophers throughout the ages, are being demonstrated by experiments and accurate observations of matter and mind, little by little. It's surprising somewhat that this scientific knowledge doesn't seem to do much for instigation of wisdom. Or maybe it does but many just use the scientific mumbo jumbo in the same manner as a member of a regular religion does: mostly repetition without much understanding.