Not like it would come as a suprise but What if The Universe Has No End

A place to post videos, pictures, and any other sort of Buddhist or non-Buddhist media.
Post Reply
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 10668
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Not like it would come as a suprise but What if The Universe Has No End

Post by Johnny Dangerous » Sun Jan 26, 2020 6:26 pm

"...if you think about how many hours, months and years of your life you've spent looking at things, being fascinated by things that have now passed away, then how wonderful to spend even five minutes looking into the nature of your own mind."

-James Low

User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 2425
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Not like it would come as a suprise but What if The Universe Has No End

Post by Caoimhghín » Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:55 pm

The beginning of the article says that science knows that the universe has a beginning, middle, and end (severe paraphrase).

That's the thing. Science doesn't know that. When scientists discard agnosticism, science transforms into a religion, and I mean that in exclusively the negative overtones of the term "religion." Scientists can, in their informed opinions, calculate what is the most likely thing to have happened X years retrograde, and once they reach the furthest point they can, there is an information dearth. The data is simply not there/reachable to guess further.
歸命本覺心法身常住妙法心蓮臺本來莊嚴三身徳三十七尊住心
城遠離因果法然具普門塵數諸三昧無邊徳海本圓滿還我頂禮心諸佛

In reverence for the root gnosis of the heart, the dharmakāya,
for the ever present good law of the heart, the lotus terrace,
for the inborn adornment of the trikāya, the thirty-seven sages dwelling in the heart,
for that which is removed from seed and fruit, the upright key to the universal gate,
for all boundless concentrations, the sea of virtue, the root perfection,
I prostrate, bowing to the hearts of all Buddhas.

胎藏金剛菩提心義略問答鈔, Treatise on the teaching of the gnostic heart of the womb and the diamond, T2397.1.470c5-8

User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 10668
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Not like it would come as a suprise but What if The Universe Has No End

Post by Johnny Dangerous » Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:19 am

Caoimhghín wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:55 pm
The beginning of the article says that science knows that the universe has a beginning, middle, and end (severe paraphrase).

That's the thing. Science doesn't know that. When scientists discard agnosticism, science transforms into a religion, and I mean that in exclusively the negative overtones of the term "religion." Scientists can, in their informed opinions, calculate what is the most likely thing to have happened X years retrograde, and once they reach the furthest point they can, there is an information dearth. The data is simply not there/reachable to guess further.
This is true, but what science actually shows, and the implicit "truths" that people often (incorrectly) infer are two different things. So just like there is an idea of consciousness as merely an epi-phenomena of matter -not based on anything in particular; there is also an idea that spacetime is somehow finite. Again, while I'm not a scientist I don't think there's any particular evidence for that conclusion, it seems to be a sort of barely-conscious inference.
"...if you think about how many hours, months and years of your life you've spent looking at things, being fascinated by things that have now passed away, then how wonderful to spend even five minutes looking into the nature of your own mind."

-James Low

PeterC
Posts: 1563
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Not like it would come as a suprise but What if The Universe Has No End

Post by PeterC » Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:22 am

Caoimhghín wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:55 pm
The beginning of the article says that science knows that the universe has a beginning, middle, and end (severe paraphrase).

That's the thing. Science doesn't know that. When scientists discard agnosticism, science transforms into a religion, and I mean that in exclusively the negative overtones of the term "religion." Scientists can, in their informed opinions, calculate what is the most likely thing to have happened X years retrograde, and once they reach the furthest point they can, there is an information dearth. The data is simply not there/reachable to guess further.
I have no idea how you get that from the article. It doesn’t use the word “know”. It presents scientists discussing the plausibility and evidence for different theories. It does completely the opposite of what you accuse it of

User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 2425
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Not like it would come as a suprise but What if The Universe Has No End

Post by Caoimhghín » Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:34 am

PeterC wrote:
Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:22 am
Caoimhghín wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:55 pm
The beginning of the article says that science knows that the universe has a beginning, middle, and end (severe paraphrase).

That's the thing. Science doesn't know that. When scientists discard agnosticism, science transforms into a religion, and I mean that in exclusively the negative overtones of the term "religion." Scientists can, in their informed opinions, calculate what is the most likely thing to have happened X years retrograde, and once they reach the furthest point they can, there is an information dearth. The data is simply not there/reachable to guess further.
I have no idea how you get that from the article.
Literally the first sentence: "The usual story of the Universe has a beginning, middle, and an end."

Also, note the "(severe paraphrase)" at in what you responded to. I was just too lazy to copy and paste. I would have said the same thing regardless of if I copied and pasted it or not, and still stand by what I said. Re-reading the precise phrasing of the article, nothing has changed IMO.

And yes, I read the article. My comments were on the first sentence.
歸命本覺心法身常住妙法心蓮臺本來莊嚴三身徳三十七尊住心
城遠離因果法然具普門塵數諸三昧無邊徳海本圓滿還我頂禮心諸佛

In reverence for the root gnosis of the heart, the dharmakāya,
for the ever present good law of the heart, the lotus terrace,
for the inborn adornment of the trikāya, the thirty-seven sages dwelling in the heart,
for that which is removed from seed and fruit, the upright key to the universal gate,
for all boundless concentrations, the sea of virtue, the root perfection,
I prostrate, bowing to the hearts of all Buddhas.

胎藏金剛菩提心義略問答鈔, Treatise on the teaching of the gnostic heart of the womb and the diamond, T2397.1.470c5-8

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 4128
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Not like it would come as a suprise but What if The Universe Has No End

Post by Kim O'Hara » Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:09 am

Caoimhghín wrote:
Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:34 am
PeterC wrote:
Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:22 am
Caoimhghín wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:55 pm
The beginning of the article says that science knows that the universe has a beginning, middle, and end (severe paraphrase).

That's the thing. Science doesn't know that. When scientists discard agnosticism, science transforms into a religion, and I mean that in exclusively the negative overtones of the term "religion." Scientists can, in their informed opinions, calculate what is the most likely thing to have happened X years retrograde, and once they reach the furthest point they can, there is an information dearth. The data is simply not there/reachable to guess further.
I have no idea how you get that from the article.
Literally the first sentence: "The usual story of the Universe has a beginning, middle, and an end."

Also, note the "(severe paraphrase)" at in what you responded to. I was just too lazy to copy and paste. I would have said the same thing regardless of if I copied and pasted it or not, and still stand by what I said. Re-reading the precise phrasing of the article, nothing has changed IMO.

And yes, I read the article. My comments were on the first sentence.
Sorry, Caoimhghín, but I'm with Peter on this one. I reckon your "severe paraphrase" misrepresents the beginning of the article and your own comment begins with a strawman in that these the whole point of the article is the scientists' ongoing agnosticism. It ends, in fact, with, "Until then, the story of our universe, its beginnings and whether it has an end, will continue to be debated."

:namaste:
Kim

PeterC
Posts: 1563
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Not like it would come as a suprise but What if The Universe Has No End

Post by PeterC » Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:10 am

Caoimhghín wrote:
Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:34 am
PeterC wrote:
Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:22 am
Caoimhghín wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:55 pm
The beginning of the article says that science knows that the universe has a beginning, middle, and end (severe paraphrase).

That's the thing. Science doesn't know that. When scientists discard agnosticism, science transforms into a religion, and I mean that in exclusively the negative overtones of the term "religion." Scientists can, in their informed opinions, calculate what is the most likely thing to have happened X years retrograde, and once they reach the furthest point they can, there is an information dearth. The data is simply not there/reachable to guess further.
I have no idea how you get that from the article.
Literally the first sentence: "The usual story of the Universe has a beginning, middle, and an end."

Also, note the "(severe paraphrase)" at in what you responded to. I was just too lazy to copy and paste. I would have said the same thing regardless of if I copied and pasted it or not, and still stand by what I said. Re-reading the precise phrasing of the article, nothing has changed IMO.

And yes, I read the article. My comments were on the first sentence.
“The usual story”. This is not equivalent to “know” in any way. It’s saying that the commonly-adopted explanation of phenomena is a certain way, and from there it goes on to challenge that explanation and discuss the alternative explanations and the debate about them. In other words, it emphasizes the uncertainty about the correct explanation, rather than asserting it.

I’m sorry but you’ve got it backwards. If there is an evil scientists’ conspiracy against religion out there, this isn’t it.

User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 2425
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Not like it would come as a suprise but What if The Universe Has No End

Post by Caoimhghín » Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:18 am

Well, I disagree. I think I responded to the opening sentence of the article. I think I was only talking about the first sentence. I don't recall commenting on any other of the content in the article. People seem to be reading between my lines.

I think the author of the article may well have a similar stance as myself on terms of what gets presented as scientific truth, namely that the universe has a beginning, a middle, an end, and that that is presented as more or less a true fact. I think that's why the author opened with that sentence.

In light of that, I believe I am agreeing with the article and not criticizing it. I think I should be reread with this in mind. It is presented as a true fact that the universe began with a big bang, when the true case is simply that that is as far back as people (i.e. scientists here) can reasonably go.

I don't think "know" was a particularly important word in my post, and I don't think it misrepresents the article at all.

My comment was only on what my comment was on. I didn't comment, for instance, on any of the other models, which was the actual content of the article, as opposed to its introduction.
歸命本覺心法身常住妙法心蓮臺本來莊嚴三身徳三十七尊住心
城遠離因果法然具普門塵數諸三昧無邊徳海本圓滿還我頂禮心諸佛

In reverence for the root gnosis of the heart, the dharmakāya,
for the ever present good law of the heart, the lotus terrace,
for the inborn adornment of the trikāya, the thirty-seven sages dwelling in the heart,
for that which is removed from seed and fruit, the upright key to the universal gate,
for all boundless concentrations, the sea of virtue, the root perfection,
I prostrate, bowing to the hearts of all Buddhas.

胎藏金剛菩提心義略問答鈔, Treatise on the teaching of the gnostic heart of the womb and the diamond, T2397.1.470c5-8

User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 10668
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Not like it would come as a suprise but What if The Universe Has No End

Post by Johnny Dangerous » Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:20 am

PeterC wrote:
Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:10 am
Caoimhghín wrote:
Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:34 am
PeterC wrote:
Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:22 am


I have no idea how you get that from the article.
Literally the first sentence: "The usual story of the Universe has a beginning, middle, and an end."

Also, note the "(severe paraphrase)" at in what you responded to. I was just too lazy to copy and paste. I would have said the same thing regardless of if I copied and pasted it or not, and still stand by what I said. Re-reading the precise phrasing of the article, nothing has changed IMO.

And yes, I read the article. My comments were on the first sentence.
“The usual story”. This is not equivalent to “know” in any way. It’s saying that the commonly-adopted explanation of phenomena is a certain way, and from there it goes on to challenge that explanation and discuss the alternative explanations and the debate about them. In other words, it emphasizes the uncertainty about the correct explanation, rather than asserting it.

I’m sorry but you’ve got it backwards. If there is an evil scientists’ conspiracy against religion out there, this isn’t it.
There's no conspiracy against religion, but there are a number of implicit assumptions that trickle down into what I guess you'd call "casual philosophical thought" from inferences made on these assumptions.

Whether or not this or that scientist holds these assumptions or not (and I'm guessing at least some do, as scientists in the end are no more impartial than any other sentient beings beyond whatever data they are attempting objectivity with at the time), they certainly play a role in debates over this sort of thing. As one example, I remember when Thomas Nagels book Mind and Cosmos came out there was a concerted effort to defame it, put it down, and even to impugn his character and motives in writing the book by various people aligned with this sort of defacto "we represent science" wing of philosophers, Daniel Dennett etc. It was a good book.

There is certainly a camp of people out there who claim to represent naturalistic or scientific thought, who hold some...questionably 'scientific' viewpoints but insist on their primacy anyway.

In no way do I think they represent the viewpoints of most scientists (boy talk about an impossible thing to quantify), but I don't think it's fake at all to assert that this sort of philosophical viewpoint exists. All one needs to read is read one of the New Athiests or similar. There are definitely people out there who claim science has "been there done that" and use absence of a given type of data as proof non-existence, or of some sort of final statement on reality.
"...if you think about how many hours, months and years of your life you've spent looking at things, being fascinated by things that have now passed away, then how wonderful to spend even five minutes looking into the nature of your own mind."

-James Low

User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 2425
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Not like it would come as a suprise but What if The Universe Has No End

Post by Caoimhghín » Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:20 am

PeterC wrote:
Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:10 am
I’m sorry but you’ve got it backwards. If there is an evil scientists’ conspiracy against religion out there, this isn’t it.
This is entirely too much projection. It's a bit of a non-sequitur, to be honest. What are you talking about? Are you responding to me or making your own new point?
歸命本覺心法身常住妙法心蓮臺本來莊嚴三身徳三十七尊住心
城遠離因果法然具普門塵數諸三昧無邊徳海本圓滿還我頂禮心諸佛

In reverence for the root gnosis of the heart, the dharmakāya,
for the ever present good law of the heart, the lotus terrace,
for the inborn adornment of the trikāya, the thirty-seven sages dwelling in the heart,
for that which is removed from seed and fruit, the upright key to the universal gate,
for all boundless concentrations, the sea of virtue, the root perfection,
I prostrate, bowing to the hearts of all Buddhas.

胎藏金剛菩提心義略問答鈔, Treatise on the teaching of the gnostic heart of the womb and the diamond, T2397.1.470c5-8

PeterC
Posts: 1563
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Not like it would come as a suprise but What if The Universe Has No End

Post by PeterC » Mon Jan 27, 2020 4:44 am

Caoimhghín wrote:
Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:20 am
PeterC wrote:
Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:10 am
I’m sorry but you’ve got it backwards. If there is an evil scientists’ conspiracy against religion out there, this isn’t it.
This is entirely too much projection. It's a bit of a non-sequitur, to be honest. What are you talking about? Are you responding to me or making your own new point?
Well, you did start by saying:

That's the thing. Science doesn't know that. When scientists discard agnosticism, science transforms into a religion, and I mean that in exclusively the negative overtones of the term "religion."
And JD went on to discuss further:
There is certainly a camp of people out there who claim to represent naturalistic or scientific thought, who hold some...questionably 'scientific' viewpoints but insist on their primacy anyway.

In no way do I think they represent the viewpoints of most scientists (boy talk about an impossible thing to quantify), but I don't think it's fake at all to assert that this sort of philosophical viewpoint exists. All one needs to read is read one of the New Athiests or similar. There are definitely people out there who claim science has "been there done that" and use absence of a given type of data as proof non-existence, or of some sort of final statement on reality.
...and given the frequency with which this sensitivity manifests on DW, no I don’t think I’m seeing something that isn’t there. But you define what your words mean, not me. So if that’s not what you’re saying that’s not what you’re saying.

User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 10668
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Not like it would come as a suprise but What if The Universe Has No End

Post by Johnny Dangerous » Mon Jan 27, 2020 5:37 am

PeterC wrote:
Mon Jan 27, 2020 4:44 am
Caoimhghín wrote:
Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:20 am
PeterC wrote:
Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:10 am
I’m sorry but you’ve got it backwards. If there is an evil scientists’ conspiracy against religion out there, this isn’t it.
This is entirely too much projection. It's a bit of a non-sequitur, to be honest. What are you talking about? Are you responding to me or making your own new point?
Well, you did start by saying:

That's the thing. Science doesn't know that. When scientists discard agnosticism, science transforms into a religion, and I mean that in exclusively the negative overtones of the term "religion."
And JD went on to discuss further:
There is certainly a camp of people out there who claim to represent naturalistic or scientific thought, who hold some...questionably 'scientific' viewpoints but insist on their primacy anyway.

In no way do I think they represent the viewpoints of most scientists (boy talk about an impossible thing to quantify), but I don't think it's fake at all to assert that this sort of philosophical viewpoint exists. All one needs to read is read one of the New Athiests or similar. There are definitely people out there who claim science has "been there done that" and use absence of a given type of data as proof non-existence, or of some sort of final statement on reality.
...and given the frequency with which this sensitivity manifests on DW, no I don’t think I’m seeing something that isn’t there. But you define what your words mean, not me. So if that’s not what you’re saying that’s not what you’re saying.
I'm not, I don't think there are cadres of evil scientists out there, and I know from experience that most people in the sciences are trying to work within a code of ethics, plenty even have downright altruistic intentions.

That said, it's pretty interesting to observe the arc of the "triumph of science" that began to predicted in late 19th century or thereabouts, when you measure it against the happenings of the 20th and now 21st centuries. There sure is a down side to all that knowledge and progress.

The only conclusions I can draw are: Science is not an ideology, but there is an ideology that claims to be inspired by "science"...which is actually just another ideology. As to who partakes in it, all kinds of people, scientist and otherwise. It's pretty impossible to escape and IMO influences all kinds of assumptions about the world and its inhabitants, including those held by Buddhists.

It's neither good nor bad, but it's notions are quintessentially samsaric - like lots of other philosophies. Science itself if we boil down is pure praxis or method, but there is an ideology of sorts attached to it sometimes with historical roots, that's undeniable.

This is one subject where we have to really do our best to not get doctrinaire, I personally don't want to be some anti-science conspiracy theorist that wants to live in feudal Tibet. Nor do I find the worldview of Daniel Denett etc. particularly convincing, inspiring, or worthy of contemplation. I also think it's undeniable that 'progress' if we want to define it that way has produced some absolutely ghastly things, as well as some amazing and hopeful ones.

Anyway, that's all somewhat outside the scope of the OP anyway, I posted it because (hopefully obvious) this viewpoint tracks with Buddhism, whereas, indeed, the version of the Big Bang I personally learned in school was unconvincing, and seemingly implied a finite universe - it was taught this way. It's of interest to me mainly because one of the first things that interested me about Buddhism was the line from (I think) Turning The Wheel of Dharma Sutta where The Buddha talks about the endless of eons of expansion and contraction.
"...if you think about how many hours, months and years of your life you've spent looking at things, being fascinated by things that have now passed away, then how wonderful to spend even five minutes looking into the nature of your own mind."

-James Low

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 4128
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Not like it would come as a suprise but What if The Universe Has No End

Post by Kim O'Hara » Mon Jan 27, 2020 8:57 am

Johnny Dangerous wrote:
Mon Jan 27, 2020 5:37 am
...That said, it's pretty interesting to observe the arc of the "triumph of science" that began to predicted in late 19th century or thereabouts, when you measure it against the happenings of the 20th and now 21st centuries. There sure is a down side to all that knowledge and progress.

The only conclusions I can draw are: Science is not an ideology, but there is an ideology that claims to be inspired by "science"...which is actually just another ideology. As to who partakes in it, all kinds of people, scientist and otherwise. It's pretty impossible to escape and IMO influences all kinds of assumptions about the world and its inhabitants, including those held by Buddhists.

It's neither good nor bad, but it's notions are quintessentially samsaric - like lots of other philosophies. Science itself if we boil down is pure praxis or method, but there is an ideology of sorts attached to it sometimes with historical roots, that's undeniable.

This is one subject where we have to really do our best to not get doctrinaire, I personally don't want to be some anti-science conspiracy theorist that wants to live in feudal Tibet. Nor do I find the worldview of Daniel Denett etc. particularly convincing, inspiring, or worthy of contemplation. I also think it's undeniable that 'progress' if we want to define it that way has produced some absolutely ghastly things, as well as some amazing and hopeful ones. ...
The "ideology that claims to be inspired by "science" " is materialism - or at least, materialists use science to shoot down anything which is not materialism. It sort of works, too, in the modern world, because all of us are in contact with a dozen mutually contradictory religions and our only uncontested common ground is whatever has been "proved by science".

But science itself does not say, "This is all there is," it says,"This is all we can prove." The gap between those statements is important to us but is denied by materialists.

:namaste:
Kim

Post Reply

Return to “Media”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests