Scientific knowledge as a projection of Spiritual Knowledge

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

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 ± 0.037billion 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?

I will answer the puzzle part. The light years mentioned is a unit of distance and not time. A light year is the distance traveled by light in one year. For example if the distance of the light originating from the big bang to the earth is more than what the light could travel in 93 billion years then we can still not observe what happened close to big bang even though the universe is only 14 billion years old.

 

[sravna]

The final aspect that needs to be considered is whether the knowledge acquired in the physical world is derived from the energy from which space and time emerged. That would be the case because knowledge is acquired by analysis of facts and then the synthesis. Since the energy out of which space and time emerged obviously transcends space and time it should already contain all the knowledge in a quintessentially synthesized way. This is because it contains a non space-time version of knowledge and so knowledge cannot be present in discrete parts but as a completely synthesized whole. This knowledge is what is discovered by analysis and synthesis in the physical world.

Dear Folks,

The first part of my hypothesis is done with.

To sum up, the argument is

1) Space and time had a beginning
2) Space and time emerged out of a non physical energy
3) All the knowledge derivable out of the physical world is contained in the above energy and so it is the source of all the knowledge discovered by Science.

 

[sangom]

I will answer the puzzle part. The light years mentioned is a unit of distance and not time. A light year is the distance traveled by light in one year. For example if the distance of the light originating from the big bang to the earth is more than what the light could travel in 93 billion years then we can still not observe what happened close to big bang even though the universe is only 14 billion years old.

I would like some learned members to point out (to Shri Sravna) whether this explanation is correct.

Let us suppose light particles from the original big bang are there at a distance of 93 billion LY away from us. First of all they will be getting away from us and not coming towards us.

Second, if the light has emanated from a source which is now 93 billion light years away from the earth, then that light should have taken 93 billion years to reach us. That means we are now seeing what happened there 93 billion years ago, and not what is happening there just now, in real time, as they say. Thus the 93 billion LY is a measure of both distance and time as well.

So if we can see something that happened 93 billion years ago, that is something before the Big Bang. But according to Sravna "It is said that at the time of the big bang universe was confined to a single point.". How to reconcile these two?

 

[sravna]

I would like some learned members to point out (to Shri Sravna) whether this explanation is correct.

Let us suppose light particles from the original big bang are there at a distance of 93 billion LY away from us. First of all they will be getting away from us and not coming towards us.

Second, if the light has emanated from a source which is now 93 billion light years away from the earth, then that light should have taken 93 billion years to reach us. That means we are now seeing what happened there 93 billion years ago, and not what is happening there just now, in real time, as they say. Thus the 93 billion LY is a measure of both distance and time as well.

So if we can see something that happened 93 billion years ago, that is something before the Big Bang. But according to Sravna "It is said that at the time of the big bang universe was confined to a single point.". How to reconcile these two?

Dear Shri sangom,

In 14 billion years space has tremendously expanded and the farthest distance from us would be 100 or more billion light years from us. So if you can see something that is 93 billion light years away it doesn't mean we are seeing something before the big bang. We are not seeing with our naked eyes remember.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri sangom,

In 14 billion years space has tremendously expanded and the farthest distance from us would be 100 or more billion light years from us. So if you can see something that is 93 billion light years away it doesn't mean we are seeing something before the big bang. We are not seeing with our naked eyes remember.

re. sentence in bold - what difference does it make pl.?

 

[prasad1]

I believe time is an axis spanning from -Infinity to +Infinity. Events happen on this axis that may span for a period of time. Time itself does not flow.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom,

With naked eyes you cannot see as farther as a Hubble can. Basically the most distant galaxies are at a far greater distance than 13.7 billion light years because of the expansion of the universe and you are able to see this distance because of the power of the telescopes. But you simply cannot see what happened before big bang.

 

[sravna]

I would like to provide one clarification about space and time. Even though I mentioned space and time should have a beginning , the real case is space, time, matter and energy come into and go out of existence . So according to me it would seem strange and even illogical that if the universe has a timeless basis it is created only once.

 

[renuka]

But you simply cannot see what happened before big bang.

Dear Sravna,

Isn't that understood that we can not "see" what we did not see or in this case what we do not know.

So how do you suggest that we can find out what happened before the "Big Wham Bam..I still don't know what happened Maam"(big bang)?

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

Isn't that understood that we can not "see" what we did not see or in this case what we do not know.

So how do you suggest that we can find out what happened before the "Big Wham Bam..I still don't know what happened Maam"(big bang)?

Dear Renuka,

I was talking about "seeing" only and not about what we can know.

 

[sravna]

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)?

I think I am not confused about the concept of infinity. Assume there is a beginningless past and assume according to you that the present may be reached. Then you have to conclude that the time span of the past is finite. You have to conclude this because a definite period of time has elapsed but the fact is past has no beginning or it goes back indefinitely and the time span of the past cannot be finite.

So if the past is infinite present cannot be reached.

Therefore infinite past is not possible or time had a beginning.

But I agree with the cyclical model of Hinduism with universe being created and destroyed constantly.

 

[sravna]

Scientific knowledge will remain shallow till it gets riddled with paradoxes which consequently will compel scientists to consider spiritual energy as a reality. That will help them to see through the guises that cover the worldly knowledge and truly unravel the mysteries of the universe.

Hypothesis: The laws of science are not timeless

This is when Science considers only the physical world to be real. Even the universal laws may be falsified when spiritual energy becomes the more predominant energy in the universe.

 

[auh]

Dear Shri sangom,

In 14 billion years space has tremendously expanded and the farthest distance from us would be 100 or more billion light years from us. So if you can see something that is 93 billion light years away it doesn't mean we are seeing something before the big bang. We are not seeing with our naked eyes remember.

The reasoning in post 51 seems to be correct unless, as you say, the solar system is not in the same position from the point of the "bang" and has travelled tremendously.

 

[auh]

The final aspect that needs to be considered is whether the knowledge acquired in the physical world is derived from the energy from which space and time emerged. That would be the case because knowledge is acquired by analysis of facts and then the synthesis. Since the energy out of which space and time emerged obviously transcends space and time it should already contain all the knowledge in a quintessentially synthesized way. This is because it contains a non space-time version of knowledge and so knowledge cannot be present in discrete parts but as a completely synthesized whole. This knowledge is what is discovered by analysis and synthesis in the physical world.


Dear Folks,

The first part of my hypothesis is done with.

To sum up, the argument is

1) Space and time had a beginning
2) Space and time emerged out of a non physical energy
3) All the knowledge derivable out of the physical world is contained in the above energy and so it is the source of all the knowledge discovered by Science.

We have not yet started but you have come to the final aspect ! . The assumptions in your above para:

1) Space and time have emerged out of an energy. How can space and time "emerge"? & where was this energy before space and time emerged?
2) Energy containes all the knowledge. How can energy contain knowledge? What is the nature of energy and knowledge and what is meant by "contain" here?
3) Knowledge that is contained in a non space-time version can be discovered by analysis and systhesis in a space-time version. How? They are mutually exclusive, are they not?

I am sorry, I am not well versed in physics to debate on an academic level on the above points, but leaning on my common sense, I find that these are not universal truths and at best can be said to be your unproved hypothesis. Can we agree on that?

Or are you going to offer proof of the above?

 

[auh]

I would like to provide one clarification about space and time. Even though I mentioned space and time should have a beginning , the real case is space, time, matter and energy come into and go out of existence . So according to me it would seem strange and even illogical that if the universe has a timeless basis it is created only once.

Why should there be a first creation?

Earlier you said that space and time came out of energy, but now it seems that space, time, matter and energy (STME) come and go out of existence. What is this existence? Whence comes these STME and go?

 

[auh]

I think I am not confused about the concept of infinity. Assume there is a beginningless past and assume according to you that the present may be reached. Then you have to conclude that the time span of the past is finite. You have to conclude this because a definite period of time has elapsed but the fact is past has no beginning or it goes back indefinitely and the time span of the past cannot be finite.

So if the past is infinite present cannot be reached.

Therefore infinite past is not possible or time had a beginning.

But I agree with the cyclical model of Hinduism with universe being created and destroyed constantly.

I am totally lost on this one !

 

[auh]

This is your OP

I have long held that knowledge gained through scientific enquiry need not be at odds with what we know as spiritual truths.

In post 60

Hypothesis: The laws of science are not timeless

&

Even the universal laws may be falsified when spiritual energy becomes the more predominant energy in the universe.

Are they not contradictory?

 

[sravna]

This is your OP

In post 60 &

Are they not contradictory?

Dear Shri Auh,

I mentioned that if spiritual truths are seen as the basis of scientific knowledge there is no problem. But the problem is when you hold scientific knowledge as supreme and refuse to see the spiritual reality. That belief will be falsified i.e., laws of science as the supreme will not hold.

The point is creating laws in isolation from the spiritual reality according to me will be proven to be incorrect because you start with different premises.

 

[sravna]

I am totally lost on this one !

Dear Shri Auh,

I have tried to be as plain as possible. What is it you are finding difficult to grasp? the language or the logic?

 

[sravna]

Why should there be a first creation?

Earlier you said that space and time came out of energy, but now it seems that space, time, matter and energy (STME) come and go out of existence. What is this existence? Whence comes these STME and go?

Dear Shri Auh,

If you go back to my arguments you would find that I was alluding to the spiritual energy when I talked about the energy out of which space and time emerged. Space and time are associated with the physical reality. Along with space and time physical energy and then matter came into existence.

It is my view that the above creation keeps happening for the reason I have mentioned

 

[sravna]

We have not yet started but you have come to the final aspect ! . The assumptions in your above para:

1) Space and time have emerged out of an energy. How can space and time "emerge"? & where was this energy before space and time emerged?
2) Energy containes all the knowledge. How can energy contain knowledge? What is the nature of energy and knowledge and what is meant by "contain" here?
3) Knowledge that is contained in a non space-time version can be discovered by analysis and systhesis in a space-time version. How? They are mutually exclusive, are they not?

Dear Shri Auh,

I am glad you are asking these questions.

1. If you are uncomfortable with the word "emerge" let us say they came into existence. I understand getting the semantics right is important
2.The energy is something that transcends space and time. So it is like saying it is eternal and everywhere.
3. Strictly speaking energy cannot contain knowledge especially if you are thinking of some physical energy.
I used the word energy because the choice of words is limited to describe such a thing.You can call it god, you can call it spiritual reality or come up with something appropriate. But the point is I thought I would be able to get across my point.
4. I do not understand your question. Can you elaborate?

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Auh,

I mentioned that if spiritual truths are seen as the basis of scientific knowledge there is no problem. But the problem is when you hold scientific knowledge as supreme and refuse to see the spiritual reality. That belief will be falsified i.e., laws of science as the supreme will not hold.

The point is creating laws in isolation from the spiritual reality according to me will be proven to be incorrect because you start with different premises.

To all the members who read,

The idea of "spiritual" does not and will not lead us humans anywhere. Whatever may be the ultimate truth of the universe/s, we humans are merely trying to gauge, observe, understand, codify the laws by which that ultimate truth manifests to us as universe/s and have been exploiting this tiny planet earth for the last 500 years or so, in an extreme manner; we are now taking the toddler's steps to exploit our nearby globes like moon and mars.

Ultimately, human ability or intellectual prowess need not be unlimited. Hence it is quite possible that whether we go breaking down matter (super-string theory) or explore the heavens (multiverses) we are struck dumb in some way and what little can be done at both these levels is by applying abstract mathematics.

Therefore, even if there are some "spiritual laws", human ability will not be able to comprehend them and hence, human beings have to work with their available intelligence, unravel nature's laws and try to make best use of it.

 

[sravna]

To all the members who read,

The idea of "spiritual" does not and will not lead us humans anywhere. Whatever may be the ultimate truth of the universe/s, we humans are merely trying to gauge, observe, understand, codify the laws by which that ultimate truth manifests to us as universe/s and have been exploiting this tiny planet earth for the last 500 years or so, in an extreme manner; we are now taking the toddler's steps to exploit our nearby globes like moon and mars.

Ultimately, human ability or intellectual prowess need not be unlimited. Hence it is quite possible that whether we go breaking down matter (super-string theory) or explore the heavens (multiverses) we are struck dumb in some way and what little can be done at both these levels is by applying abstract mathematics.

Therefore, even if there are some "spiritual laws", human ability will not be able to comprehend them and hence, human beings have to work with their available intelligence, unravel nature's laws and try to make best use of it.

Dear Shri Sangom,

I think you are not taking an unbiased position. Merely trying to use abstract mathematics to solve our problems or to improve the quality of our life without recourse to spirituality will prove counterproductive.

Science cannot elevate the mind only spirituality can.

 

[tks]

I usually do not bother to read such threads - people make things up without bothering to understand what is already well established and taught. I guess it must be fun to blabber and a forum like this one provides storage space and even sincere audience


I accidentally clicked and saw a thoughtful and legitimate question in my view by Sri Sangom. That is worth answering. I will share what I know later.

One final point.

There are two topics - teachings of Upanishads and teachings of what we call 'Science'. They both come under the umbrella of learning and are subject to understanding and not tied to belief systems.

In the case of former topic (Upanishads) people make things up using words borrowed from scriptures. Given the difficulty for most people to find a legitimate teacher or even describe what characteristics may make a legitimate teacher it is understandable to make things up.

For someone to make things about science topics without taking time to understand what is taught only reflects the nature of a person in my view.

Without intending to offend any sincere audience a old saying in Tamil comes to my mind and I may not be stating that correctly.
ஊமை வாயனுக்கு ஊளறு வாயன் சண்டப்ரசண்டன்

 

[sravna]

I usually do not bother to read such threads - people make things up without bothering to understand what is already well established and taught. I guess it must be fun to blabber and a forum like this one provides storage space and even sincere audience


I accidentally clicked and saw a thoughtful and legitimate question in my view by Sri Sangom. That is worth answering. I will share what I know later.

One final point.

There are two topics - teachings of Upanishads and teachings of what we call 'Science'. They both come under the umbrella of learning and are subject to understanding and not tied to belief systems.

In the case of former topic (Upanishads) people make things up using words borrowed from scriptures. Given the difficulty for most people to find a legitimate teacher or even describe what characteristics may make a legitimate teacher it is understandable to make things up.

For someone to make things about science topics without taking time to understand what is taught only reflects the nature of a person in my view.

Without intending to offend any sincere audience a old saying in Tamil comes to my mind and I may not be stating that correctly.
ஊமை வாயனுக்கு ஊளறு வாயன் சண்டப்ரசண்டன்

The fact that it is easy to make comments such as above is why some choose that easy option rather than attempting to make a rational response. I don't understand why people should get so offended when nothing that is offensive has been said.