Scientific knowledge as a projection of Spiritual Knowledge

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

If space had a definite beginning then universe would have emerged out of something that is not space. What is it that defines space? Two different points in space represent two different energies because we know that when two points exist at the same energy they exist at the same point in space.

It is now needed to follow the argument carefully. If all the points in space, let us assume have the same energy they are at one single point. So in this single point the energy is uniform which is unlike the fundamental property of space where any two points differ in energy.

Thus universe would have emerged out of this single point which cannot be considered space in accordance with the big bang theory. This is in accordance with my definition of the spiritual which is energy that transcends space and time. In other words it means spiritual energy is characterized by uniform energy across space and time which is akin to that of the "single point" out of which the universe emerged.

 

[sravna]

If time is infinite, then we will not be able to reach the beginning of time (beginning of the universe) - not the other way around.

Possibly, you are at the beginning point of time and are unable to reach to the present. LOL!!

Dear Shri Sangom,

Time flows forward and not backward

 

[renuka]

Even this may be a probability. He may know but yet He may not know.

Again LOL!!

Dear Sangom ji,

You are right once more! or shall I say you are probably right!

 

[renuka]

Dear Sravna,

I am a bit confused about your concept of time...I dont get it when you say :

"For example universe cannot be said to be without beginning because if time stretches infinitely back we could not have reached the present point in time"


Ok lets get simple..just say I want to system restore my lap top..go to accessories..then sytem tools..then systems restore..then key in the date I want my laptop backdated to.

Ok see my laptop goes back in time but I do not go back into time.I am here and right here as I am.


Ok next example... a person can be hypnotized to go back into past memories including childhood...his mind went back in time but his body did not.

So it is possible to go back into time relatively speaking without disturbing the present..so going by that why do you say" if time stretches infinitely back we could not have reached the present point in time?"

 

[prasad1]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Time flows forward and not backward

Time is dimension, just like the X, Y, Z coordinates. One travels back and forth on all dimensions. We may not be able to travel in Time at this present moment.

 

[sravna]

Time is dimension, just like the X, Y, Z coordinates. One travels back and forth on all dimensions. We may not be able to travel in Time at this present moment.

Dear Shri Prasad,

I was not talking about time travel which I incidentally think is not possible at least physically. I was only saying that time progresses only in one direction i.e., towards the future.

 

[prasad1]

Dear Shri Prasad,

I was not talking about time travel which I incidentally think is not possible at least physically. I was only saying that time progresses only in one direction i.e., towards the future.

Do we understand enough about time?

Time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Time is a dimension in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future, and also the measure of durations of events and the intervals between them. Time has long been a major subject of study in religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a manner applicable to all fields without circularity has consistently eluded scholars. Nevertheless, diverse fields such as business, industry, sports, the sciences, and the performing arts all incorporate some notion of time into their respective measuring systems. Some simple, relatively uncontroversial definitions of time include "time is what clocks measure" and "time is what keeps everything from happening at once".
Two contrasting viewpoints on time divide many prominent philosophers. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe — a dimension independent of events, in which events occur in sequence. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time. The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant, holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled.


Ancient cultures such as Incan, Mayan, Hopi, and other Native American Tribes, plus the Babylonians, Ancient Greeks, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and others have a concept of a wheel of time, that regards time as cyclical and quantic consisting of repeating ages that happen to every being of the Universe between birth and extinction.
In general, the Judeo-Christian concept, based on the Bible, is that time is linear, beginning with the act of creation by God.

 

[sravna]

Do we understand enough about time?

Time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Time is a dimension in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future, and also the measure of durations of events and the intervals between them. Time has long been a major subject of study in religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a manner applicable to all fields without circularity has consistently eluded scholars. Nevertheless, diverse fields such as business, industry, sports, the sciences, and the performing arts all incorporate some notion of time into their respective measuring systems. Some simple, relatively uncontroversial definitions of time include "time is what clocks measure" and "time is what keeps everything from happening at once".
Two contrasting viewpoints on time divide many prominent philosophers. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe — a dimension independent of events, in which events occur in sequence. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time. The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant, holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled.


Ancient cultures such as Incan, Mayan, Hopi, and other Native American Tribes, plus the Babylonians, Ancient Greeks, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and others have a concept of a wheel of time, that regards time as cyclical and quantic consisting of repeating ages that happen to every being of the Universe between birth and extinction.
In general, the Judeo-Christian concept, based on the Bible, is that time is linear, beginning with the act of creation by God.

Dear Shri Prasad,

I am only saying that time moves from events that have happened to those whose occurrence is uncertain.and not the other way around. We call the former as the past and the latter as the future. So time moves towards the future and not the past. Nothing profound, right?

 

[prasad1]

Dear Shri Prasad,

I am only saying that time moves from events that have happened to those whose occurrence is uncertain.and not the other way around. We call the former as the past and the latter as the future. So time moves towards the future and not the past. Nothing profound, right?

So you believe that time is:

Judeo-Christian concept, based on the Bible, is that time is linear

Taking you Advaita philosophy background Time is also unreal. I existed before Time and I will exist after Time too. In modern scientific world
Physicist Stephen Hawking has been an expert in science predictions for many years, and one of his latest predictions is that Black Holes can be used as a Time Machine. I know it sounds unreal, but it's something he's been doing a lot of research on.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Prasad,

I am only saying that time moves from events that have happened to those whose occurrence is uncertain.and not the other way around. We call the former as the past and the latter as the future. So time moves towards the future and not the past. Nothing profound, right?

Can it not be viewed that it is not time which actually moves, but it is we, with some faulty faculties and/or notions who consider-erroneously-that time is always moving from the present into the future? A simile though not very elegant, may be a still pond in which a person is swimming without creating even the smallest ripple, and touches posts marked as 1,2,3,4,5, etc. Such a person may believe that the water in the pond is moving so that he meets the poles in the ascending order.

 

[sravna]

Can it not be viewed that it is not time which actually moves, but it is we, with some faulty faculties and/or notions who consider-erroneously-that time is always moving from the present into the future? A simile though not very elegant, may be a still pond in which a person is swimming without creating even the smallest ripple, and touches posts marked as 1,2,3,4,5, etc. Such a person may believe that the water in the pond is moving so that he meets the poles in the ascending order.

Dear Shri Sangom,

Only if it were the reverse i.e., if what is uncertain is perceived before what has happened then our faculties or notions are said to be faulty. This is because as intelligent beings we are supposed to learn and learning happens only when we encounter something new, learn and retain the learnt information. If it is the reverse i.e., the way you are saying then what is certainly known or learnt will be in the future and we will be unlearning it later. Decide for yourself which way is faulty.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

I am a bit confused about your concept of time...I dont get it when you say :

"For example universe cannot be said to be without beginning because if time stretches infinitely back we could not have reached the present point in time"


Ok lets get simple..just say I want to system restore my lap top..go to accessories..then sytem tools..then systems restore..then key in the date I want my laptop backdated to.

Ok see my laptop goes back in time but I do not go back into time.I am here and right here as I am.


Ok next example... a person can be hypnotized to go back into past memories including childhood...his mind went back in time but his body did not.

So it is possible to go back into time relatively speaking without disturbing the present..so going by that why do you say" if time stretches infinitely back we could not have reached the present point in time?"

Dear Renuka,

Your examples are fine. What I am saying is that if universe began infinite years ago how could time have reached the present ?

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

Your examples are fine. What I am saying is that if universe began infinite years ago how could time have reached the present ?

Dear Sravna,

Your questions sounds just like this:

Just say you were born in 1968...how could time reach 2013?

 

[sravna]

So you believe that time is:


Taking you Advaita philosophy background Time is also unreal. I existed before Time and I will exist after Time too. In modern scientific world
Physicist Stephen Hawking has been an expert in science predictions for many years, and one of his latest predictions is that Black Holes can be used as a Time Machine. I know it sounds unreal, but it's something he's been doing a lot of research on.

According to advaita time is not totally unreal but relatively real. Maya both projects the spiritual as the physical world as well as veils the spiritual. The projection accounts for the reality part.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

Your questions sounds just like this:

Just say you were born in 1968...how could time reach 2013?

This is fine if there is a beginning i.e., you start from 0 and keep progressing forward. But what if the start is infinite numbers before 0? However much you progress you will still be infinite numbers before 0.

 

[renuka]

This is fine if there is a beginning i.e., you start from 0 and keep progressing forward. But what if the start is infinite numbers before 0? However much you progress you will still be infinite numbers before 0.

Dear Sravna,

Not really...just like temperature..just say its minus 10 C eventually when the sun shines it reaches 15 C....so as time progresses it crosses 0 eventually.

BTW Sravna..I don't see the relevance of this infinite and 0 in spiritual knowledge..can you please elaborate??

Spirituality always talks about even the apparent nothingness as ONE.

Sunya is actually One not perceived by the human mind.

Just like how some say they can't see God..hence they think He is Void and does not exists.

I would like to quote the Sunyavada here which says 'Beyond this phenomenal world there is a reality that is not describable by any character,mental or non mental that we perceive.Being devoid of phenomenal characters it is called Sunya.
Sunyata or void ness is the name for this indeterminable,indescribable real nature of things"

http://www.preservearticles.com/2011082311372/notes-on-the-madhyamika-school-of-sunya-vada.html


To me I feel this appears a lot like Advaita.

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

what is -infinity + a finite number? It is -infinity. Are you progressing?

BTW Renuka, I could have used any number other than 0 as a reference.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

what is -infinity + a finite number? It is -infinity. Are you progressing?

BTW Renuka, I could have used any number other than 0 as a reference.

Ok Sravna,

Going by that explanation then can you explain to me how yesterday progressed into today?

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

I was only pointing out the contradiction in the case when time has no beginning since time would seem to stop. But it is my view that time itself had a beginning and so there is no problem in time progressing.

 

[auh]

Hi Sravna,

Time does not travel. In fact the concept of time itself is relative, don't you think? It is only the relative movement of bodies that is measured by us as time. It is only a tool for us to gauge the world around us, just like our senses.

So the terms like "time has no beginning" and "time would seem to stop" would not seem to fit in the scope of your topic, but yes it seems fascinating to discuss.

 

[sravna]

Hi Sravna,

Time does not travel. In fact the concept of time itself is relative, don't you think? It is only the relative movement of bodies that is measured by us as time. It is only a tool for us to gauge the world around us, just like our senses.

So the terms like "time has no beginning" and "time would seem to stop" would not seem to fit in the scope of your topic, but yes it seems fascinating to discuss.

Dear Shri Auh,

I think you are espousing Einstein's concept of time and in fact I am in agreement with that. I was only talking in a different language.

 

[auh]

Dear Shri Auh,

I think you are espousing Einstein's concept of time and in fact I am in agreement with that. I was only talking in a different language.

When I was about to finish my 12th, my parents/elders in the family, etc etc all urged me to take up engineering, but I had such a disllike for the subject that I was literally a mule in rejecting it. After many twists and turns I finally ended up in commerce.

As such I have absolutely no clue as to what Einstein's concept of time was, so there.

And I think that the view affects the proposition - so there could be a sea change in the way we see things, even though the subject is the same.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Only if it were the reverse i.e., if what is uncertain is perceived before what has happened then our faculties or notions are said to be faulty. This is because as intelligent beings we are supposed to learn and learning happens only when we encounter something new, learn and retain the learnt information. If it is the reverse i.e., the way you are saying then what is certainly known or learnt will be in the future and we will be unlearning it later. Decide for yourself which way is faulty.

Dear Sravna,

I am of the view that one cannot be sure that human faculties are all developed to perfection. For example, we cannot see outside the visible spectrum of frequencies (wavelengths) nor can we hear ultrasonic or subsonic sounds. Similar "limits" may be there for our brain and it may be that we are blissfully unaware.

It is also not theoretically correct to say that humans do not perceive the future; just the simple matter of sending an arrow right on to the dead spot is an example of the human intelligence knowing where the arrow will go and hit.

We tend - as a matter of habit - to count our journey in units of time because, in life, we are generally in one small circle and are not on an inter-stellar voyage. In the latter case, ceteris paribus, it would have been possible to measure such a journey in terms of 'milestones' like "star-x, star-y, star-z, etc.," instead of "july 2013 ED (earth date), august 2013 ED, etc., with suitable mechanisms to aid us in our voyage.

Hence, it is not at all necessary that time should be "flowing". It is quite possible that the universe itself is getting regenerated at very minute intervals and it finds itself in a new location in time after each such regeneration. (This is akin to Lord Buddha's teachings.)

I think you are possibly confused by the concept of infinity. Even if the universe emerged infinite time ago, or a few hundred billion years ago, is it not possible that all those time periods from that 'infinite past' has elapsed, somehow and now we are in the present? Secondly, if there is cyclical regeneration of time/universe as in hindu model, is it not possible that this universe is anAdyanta (without a beginning or an end)?

FYI, the following seems to be a puzzle to me:

"The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development of the Universe, which is calculated to have begun 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago."

"The farthest distance that it is theoretically possible for humans to see, called the observable universe, is about 93 billion light years in diameter." (Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

So, if we can observe up to 93 billion years, can we not see what happened before the Big Bang which is only 14 billion years old?

 

[Ckmum]

I have slightly different point here:

1. Our traditions talk of cycle of births and re-births [form changes but the essence / soul remains] which has been rubbished by many as superstition. Many of us know of energy conservation theory. As per astrophysicists, stars have this cycle. Then why not human lives?
imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/teachers/lifecycles/stars.html [external Website]
Using this, we can also co-relate "Yugas" to some of these cycles. Does it answer about "time" or "space"? Probably not.

2. Our traditions talk of Ganges being sacred and important. They say it cures many diseases. Here's why - a scientific outlook: npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=17134270 [external Website]

And the list goes on

 

[Ckmum]

Dear Sravna,

"The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development of the Universe, which is calculated to have begun 13.798 ± 0.037billion years ago."

"The farthest distance that it is theoretically possible for humans to see, called the observable universe, is about 93 billion light years in diameter." (Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

So, if we can observe up to 93 billion years, can we not see what happened before the Big Bang which is only 14 billion years old?

1. Earthlings (Humans) can record 14 billion light years only by radio waves and indirect measurements using far too many theories and variables. So, even if one or two variables digress due to human limitations in understanding, the values could get skewed very fast.

2. If there was no radio wave before 14 billion light years, it does not necessarily mean absence of matter. It only means absence of signal that could have been co-related to matter. What if the matter existed at zero kelvin before big bang? At that temperature, you would have neither had vibrations nor any radio wave.