I didn't read all of the comments since I last posted but I read a few
I saw some ideas I agreed with for several reasons, and some I didn't

Like some people said in different ways, it is all about perception. My personal experiences and explorations of all information I have currently received on the subject of consciousness and spirituality have been combined in a form that I understand. It makes the most sense to me, it works out the best for everyone, it combines everything that makes sense from this information, and it has been proven through my experiences. I filter everything through it like I used to filter everything through atheism, cynicism, negativity, and "left minded" thinking. It took a lot for me to realize the things I do, but I do so with no doubts at this point. I don't really expect anyone to believe them but I will say how I feel

"Hyperspace" is always there, in different forms. If you are the only reason it turns on, I think that's more egotistical than thinking that there are infinite possibilities of creation that you can manifest. I don't think they all exist all the time somewhere, but you can create them if you choose to. I feel like anything regarding altered states of consciousness is a spiritual experience. You do not have to see it for it not be true. You can take ayahuasca and go to a rave or do a shamanic ceremony. The spirituality will still be there, but you can ignore it or use it. Cannabis is a big example of the common avoidance of the spirituality of a substance. People are raised mostly to use it to get high, when people could be raised to use it in a sacred manner and receive information.

There is no right or wrong. You can do whatever you want with it. If you use a sacred substance in an unsacred way, does that mean it's no longer sacred?
Or is it always there just waiting to be seen?

and I don't think it's 'spiritual in substance' I think it is obviously a material object. You use the material object to reach a spiritual state. A state outside of the physical collective consciousness. Through my beliefs that is instantly spiritual.

In these discussions I see a lot of people try to use science to argue either side. I think that humans are masters of creation. We are fantastic at it.
However, the most common thing we create for ourselves and each other is limitation.
We try and explain something as complex as the universe and when we can't test it in a lab we say something is true or not true. This is a terrible way of proving things for several reasons. The most important I will point out, being a scientific study, is that cells react to our intentions. This has been proven. Science has been 'proven' and disproved since it's creation. Constantly. We can not assume safely that any scientific study actually means anything. It is based on our limitations of understand that we have set up for thousands of years.

The only thing that proves anything to me is personal experience. When personal experiences start to make sense to the theories, books, discussions, I will consider them. I have had a lot of what I will dub as 'personal spiritual experiences' that proved to me without a doubt that some information gathered was real, AND when combined with other information that was proven to me in some way, it made more sense. They always connected and the ideas just grew.

I'm now to the point where I have a pretty complex belief system that when viewed makes a lot of sense. I do admit that the more I feel like I know about anything, the more I realize I don't know. The universe is an incredibly complex thing and I do not want to even attempt to understand it in it's entirety. I feel like that would take a way a lot from this human experience,making it a pointless experience. If I knew everything about the universe, I would be an 11th dimensional being. I obviously don't, so I'm on this planet to learn about it.

We learn best through experiences. We are all extensions of the source, and exist to learn about ourselves, so our higher selves, so we can learn about the source. Being the same through a system of direct connections, the source learns about itself from all experiences.

We are at the center of existence if you look at the fact that we all are one. We are all existence. Every existence effects the other ones some how. This is not egotistical, this is equality. No one thing is divine. Everything is divine. Not all that one imagines will be, unless you choose to make it be. I can think of 10 stories and only write one. The stories I thought of will still exist in the form of information, in the akashic records, the zero point field. The material existence I chose is what makes it. We can chose anything if we take that responsibility

but yeah this is way off topic
I've lurked this board for years and never post much, but I'm happy to see people that can have a serious discussion about these concepts and respect viewpoints
thanks!!

What makes something sacred?

Othering is an interesting phenomena, and psychedelics undoubtedly invoke other.


Science is a method, not an ontology or a set belief or even a set of beliefs.
How can one disprove or prove a method?
Science as a method is experience based, but it takes into account that experience is subjective and seeks to employ a criteria that allows a more objective approach.


That sounds really open minded and insightful!


I did a little scientific study the other day, I had two apples and I ate one and I had one left.

But I can't safely assume that I ate one or had one left?
That is what you are saying right?




So what about the experience of people doing scientific studies?

What you are saying strikes me as incoherent, clearly it makes sense to you.

Have you ever been wrong about something that made sense to you?
Have you ever had an experience that misled you?
I have in both cases, because I am after all only human.

Great Wall of Text


Intention makes something sacred. I intend for this to be sacred. You intend for it to be medicinal. He intends to be a high. Since all of these things exist at once, they are all true. Being sacred does not take away from it being medical. Being a high doesn't take away from the sacredness. It depends, again, what you choose personally. They are all still there.

The way science is conducted is by method, but that does not mean that the outcome is a method?
You disprove or prove science through personal experience. If one scientist comes to one conclusion, and different scientist comes to a different conclusions, are they both true? Are they both false? It depends on the limitations and parameters you perceive as variables. For you something can be right, for me something else can be right. That does not make either correct, it just makes your perceptions different. If the experience is indeed subjective, would it not be better to personally experience it than to just hear someone else's experiences and believe they are the end all be all of the concept?

I am obviously not saying that every scientific experiment is wrong. I'm saying that you can not say that they are all correct all the time. You need to do them yourselves (like yours) to know for sure.



I have been wrong about things that did not make sense to me that I spoke about as if they did. If something really makes sense to me, completely, it is not wrong. If I truly believe in something, with no doubts, it can not, not exist. This is evident if you look at the stories of enlightened people, and you believe them to be true. Being one with everything, we are all masters, Buddhas, Christs, and we can do anything we want to do if decide to retrain ourselves into believing that this is a possibility. It's difficult in a western society to do this because we are at a point where we have limited ourselves more than ever. We are caught in cycles of control and until you realize this and decide to step out it can be difficult to see. Not everyone needs to, and everyone has the choice to do what they want. This is why I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe. We make the choice to see the world how we want to, based on our beliefs, and do so.

I have also had experiences that mislead me. The reason for this is to be aware enough to learn from it, accept it, and improve yourself. Everything happens that needs to happen to you. I've had my skull cracked open and almost spent time in prison for 3 felony charges based off of decisions I chose to make. I did not bleed to death, although I did bleed a lot! The charges were dropped, very serious charges where I am from that could have ruined my life. For some reason things worked out, and I learned my listen and these things will not happen again. I am grateful for these experiences and my mistakes, or I may have made them later. I am grateful for my awareness of the scenarios, so that I could learn from them and grow in a lot of ways.

I have many friends that have been to prison, been on house arrest, or probation. People that will be severely limited in what they can do in the collective consciousness' perception of reality. They had many chances to learn from their first mistake, didn't, and made another. Some of them played this game 5 or more times until they could not leave their house for 4 years. If they would have been aware and learned the lessons presented to them in the first place, they would be in a much better condition. They chose not to. There is a reason for everything, there are no coincidences.

I am not only human. I have chosen to have this human experience, but being one with everything, I am just as much God as I am human. I am just as much a star, a rock, or a thought as I am human. It is all ingrained in me from the dawn of time. When you set up the "I am only human" limitation, you take away a lot of wonderful possibilities from yourself. It's easy to set that up, since you are taught it from before birth by society. It is just as easy to break it down and rebuild something better. It's about responsibility, it's about choice.

This is an important point. Our thoughts are actually events that take place in nature. Even if you imagine them to be purely biochemical processes, this would still be the case.

People tend to act like individuals (and humans as a group) exist outside of nature somehow. We tend to talk about the Universe as something we can observe from the outside without affecting it. This is akin to the idea that a National Geographic team can hide in the bush and film a group of monkeys without them being aware they are being observed. The monkeys may, in fact, behave in basically the same way they would otherwise... but there is no way to know this, because we can't observe them when we are not observing them.

The discussion we are having (including the tangents) rests upon some semantic terminology. This is to be expected in such discussions. However, there is no way to see eye to eye on these issues without some consensus about what the terms we are using mean.

What is spiritual?

What is sacred?

What existence are we talking about?

Infinity, eternity, linear time, non-linear time... these are all concepts that have different meanings to different folk.

I would say that if we are limiting this talk to the 4D known universe, we are thinking too small. The cutting edge of physics talks about multiverses where each universe has different laws of nature. It discusses 10 or 11 dimensions where infinite numbers of parallel universes exist simultaneously. Google the Many Worlds Interpretation and then ask yourself if this theory doesn't insist that everything we could possibly imagine exists somewhere. Note, AlbertKLloyd, that this is not saying that these things exist because we imagine them... this is not placing ourselves at the center of the universe as you have said, metaphorically speaking.

Because... of course, in an infinite space... all points are the center. The fact that the Universe appears equally large in every direction with the same background cosmic radiation... and moving away from us at the same rate... does kind of place us in the center to some degree. No more than any other place, perhaps, but the center nonetheless.

Quote:

"How do I know this? Because this person must have discarded all arbitrary notions of the existence of a personal self, of other people, or of a universal self. Otherwise their minds would still grasp after such relative conceptions. Furthermore, these people must have already discarded all arbitrary notions of the non-existence of a personal self, other people, or a universal self. Otherwise, their minds would still be grasping at such notions. Therefore anyone who seeks total Enlightenment should discard not only all conceptions of their own selfhood, of other selves, or of a universal self, but they should also discard all notions of the non-existence of such concepts."

Only human is a figure of speech, it is just made of words.
It means that we can be mistaken in our assertions and still believe them to be true.

Quote:

Subhuti again asked, "Blessed lord, when you attained complete Enlightenment, did you feel in your mind that nothing had been acquired?"

The Buddha replied:

"That is it exactly, Subhuti. When I attained total Enlightenment, I did not feel, as the mind feels, any arbitrary conception of spiritual truth, not even the slightest. Even the words 'total Enlightenment' are merely words, they are used merely as a figure of speech."...

The lord Buddha continued:

"If any person were to say that the Buddha, in his teachings, has constantly referred to himself, to other selves, to living beings, or to a universal self, what do you think, would that person have understood my meaning?"

Subhuti replied, "No, blessed lord. That person would not have understood the meaning of your teachings. For when you refer to those things, you are not referring to their actual existence, you only use the words as figures of speech, as symbols. Only in that sense can words be used, for conceptions, ideas, limited truths, and spiritual truths have no more reality than have matter or phenomena."

Quote:

"Subhuti, although ordinary people have always grasped after an arbitrary conception of matter and galaxies, the concept has no true basis; it is an illusion of the mortal mind. Even when it is referred to as 'cosmic unity' it is unthinkable and unknowable."

All from the Diamond Sutra.

Can you provide a reference for this? The idea that the universe is infinite is something I'd like to learn more about. Most theories I know of say it has a size and a shape. The idea that it is equally large in every direction is also curious and I would like to learn more about that.

Thanks!

I'd like to see one as well. After the birth of the universe and it's subsequent expansion, at what point did it become infinite? hrmphhhhh

I read a lot about M-theory and multiverses recently.
They are hypothetical notions with no evidence or standardized theory.
They are conjecture that some say is analogous to religious claims.
I cant say I find the theory to be cutting edge, if it was a scientific theory it would be nice, but it is not testable, so it becomes a religious theory as much as anything.

The universe is said to have a shape, though there is some disagreement as to what that shape is. It has according to most accepted theories, a center and an "edge" and at any given moment has a finite size.

It is said that our solar system is itself traveling very quickly as is the part of the galaxy we are in, it is not well accepted that everything is expanding away from everything, rather the theory is that it expands from a center correlated with what we hypothesis is the "big bang"

It is however very fascinating to read of all the far out theories that are being proposed these days, which are not testable and unsupported by evidence other than conjecture.

The idea of infinite dimensions is one such speculative proposition having no root in observable or testable data or fact. It makes a nice new-age concept though.

I'm open to any evidence supporting cosmological theories, but even string theory is not-testable, abstract and no standard theory or consensus exists for it. I love physics.

Sure:

The isotropic distribution of observed red shift in the spectra of distant galaxies, which implies a uniform expansion of space or Hubble flow in all directions, and the cosmic microwave background radiation, the relic radiation released by the expansion and cooling of the early universe, which is constant in all directions to within 1 part in 100,000, are two observable phenomenona which lend credence to the so-called Cosmological Principle.

Of course, the idea of an infinite, homogeneous universe has fallen out of favor. This was the basic conception of cosmology from around Copernicus through to the late 19th century. Despite the fact that most lean towards a finite universe now, the question is still unanswered. http://www4.ncsu.edu/uni.../kenny/papers/cosmo.html As you can read in the 3rd section of this paper, where it says "Right now the evidence seems to favor an infinite universe, but it is not yet conclusive."

To recap, one of the assumptions of the standard big bang model is that the universe is more or less homogeneous—the same everywhere. As far as we can see, which is billions of light years in every direction, this assumption appears to be correct. Under this assumption general relativity says that whether the universe is infinite or finite depends on its density. Measurements of that density reveal that it is close to the critical value. Right now the data seem to point more towards an open (infinite) universe. Even should the density be revealed to be exactly the critical value, it would still be infinite, only it would be termed flat rather than open. (Finite universes are termed closed)

As you can see, and as I said previously, we don't know if the universe is infinite or not... it just seems that way as far as we can tell at the moment. As for your question about every point in an infinite space being the center, this should be obvious. The center of a space is defined as a place that is equidistant from all edges. If the distance to every edge is infinite regardless of where you are... all points are thus technically the center.

Be well friend.

cont. (to address the points in your latter reply)

Actually this is the case for a very large amount of science that people accept and take for granted.

The ideas of multiverses, string theory and the like are not completely untestable... in fact the reason that scientists and mathematicians continue to expound them are that they answer observable statistics we see around us. They were modeled to fit the data no less. As I showed above, the idea of an infinite universe does actually fit the data we have at the moment better than the idea of a finite universe.

These "out there" theories, are actually not much less "proven" than the theory of relativity, the big bang theory, or the theory of evolution... all of which are widely accepted despite not being thoroughly testable because the predictions they make have been consistent with the evidence we have.

I agree that many science types tend to take all this stuff dogmatically and become religious about it.

You will note that I didn't present any of this that way, and left it rather wide open as to what exactly is going on. Even giving multiple possibilities that could explain what we are observing. Who knows? Maybe the universe is infinite, M-Theory is real, AND we have an infinite multiverse of infinite universes... at any rate, speculating in such directions is not "new-age," but rather the province of the greatest minds in modern physics.


I love it too. But as a lover of it, you must realize that it is not chemistry, math, or biology. Much of physics lies beyond our ability to verify readily. The physics of the very large and the physics of the very small are both theoretical in their entirety. The scant bit of evidence we have for such things can be interpreted in many ways. String Theory and Cosmology are two extremes of this... but to say that they are not cutting-edge might be an issue of semantics. I meant the word in the sense that such theories as we are discussing are among the newest and most exciting theories we have rather than being older and more passé. Just as Quantum Mechanics was cutting-edge compared to Newtonian Physics (which dealt poorly with the very small)... so too is String Theory (& M-Theory) "cutting-edge" as there are no newer theories that match the data sets.

From a central point, yes. Not from all points within. There is an edge to the universe, this is why we have "background" radiation, which you mention. The edge cannot be the center, actually what you imply, the idea that all is the center, would negate the theory of the big bang, which is contingent upon the nature of the expansion and background radiation.

I'll admit I don't care much for theories than cannot be tested or evidenced and I do not view abstract maths as evidence.

Nice post!

Many people try to solidify their beliefs with either science or religion. Taken to the extreme, this can be fundamentalism either way. Some people tend to think more with their left brain hemispheres, some more with their right, but ideally we would be analyzing and using science/logic with our left, while intuitively/spiritually grasping it with our right. Now that's personal experience. Sweet synergy!

Welcome to the board.

You seemed to have missed the point in the post. Perhaps you didn't read the link to this paper that explains it. . http://www4.ncsu.edu/uni...kenny/papers/cosmo.html Go to the 3rd section of this paper; it explains the debate on infinite vs. finite universe and talks about the critical value of density that Einstein said will say whether the universe is open (infinite) or closed (finite). You will notice that the current conclusion is that: "Right now the evidence seems to favor an infinite universe, but it is not yet conclusive."

For you to insist that the universe has an edge is a presumption. One that has no evidence, actually. It feels right to your way of thinking, but as I have shown you... physics is still agnostic on the issue. The fact that the universe looks the same in every direction could mean one of a couple things. A) That we really are at the center of a finite universe or B) That the universe is infinite whereby every point is the center.

The fact that we can see the same distance in every direction is likely a product of the limit of our ability to see (i.e. technology). This is borne out by the increases in what we can see every time we increase our technology. Even with our current breed of space telescopes and the drastic improvement that has made into how far away we can see, we still see a homogeneous, isotropic universe which looks basically the same in every direction.

I put it to you that your certainty that the universe has an edge or a shape is unfounded. It may be the case, but there is certainly no evidence to support the hypothesis... and there is clearly no information I know of that would allow one to be certain of this idea.

[We have gone rather far afield here, but that's the nature of the beast, and you did ask for this information.]

My two cents on the infinite vs. finite debate.

According to the big bang theory, a large bang arose out of the null set and began to rapidly expand and cool into matter. Into what exactly was it rapidly expanding into? What was this space the preceded the big bang and should it be considered part of the universe?

Peace

I do not think there was a space before, nor do I think before existed.
As I have written previously here I do not believe that time is linear in the ultimate sense and that there is not problem of ultimate origins.

Hyperspace fool,
I welcome the discussion/debate so as far as we are from the beast so to speak this is still a lovely topic for me and your contribution is most welcome. I am glad it has not devolved into a debate of pure semantics.


I agree insofar as science is never certain, but deals in probability only.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe
The universe is estimated to have both an age (in terms of measurements of the travel of light from it's apex) and a diameter.

Granted that the idea of an edge is not certain, it is accepted theory by many and is supported by observation, just not conclusively so:


There is more about this in the section of the link I provide that is titled "size"

In terms of time/space the big bang is the center of the universe, not the origin. This is the time/field view that does not presuppose that time is linear.

anyway there is good reason to believe that the universe has an edge, a size and a diameter
in my opinion

The expansion did not expand into anything, because space itself was expanding. Even though this is weird to imagine with our limited cognitive abilities, this seems to be the consensus on the issue. The question might not even make sense. Remember also that according to Einsteins general relativity space and time is not the central stage in which the cosmic drama plays out, but that they themselves are central characters in the play.

Perhaps the thread should get back to what it was initially though, and we could continue these questions and this discussion in the science forum? Like a new thread? =)

Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm afraid you have mistaken the Observable Universe with the Universe. The Wikipedia article you link to describes the observable universe, and even itself says this:



By definition we are only observing the observable universe. The fact that it is a perfect sphere around any point in the universe which is both homogeneous and isotropic is pretty solid evidence that the observable universe is a subset of a larger "unobserved" universe of which we have no idea the size... or if it has an edge.

Even should our telescopes become good enough to see all the way back to the big bang... there is no guaruntee that we would be seeing the outer edge as well. That the universe even has a center or inflated from a single point (as per Guth and company) is not assured... and even still, there is no reason to believe that the universe couldn't have an inflationary center and still be infinite.

I put it to you, though, that if the point of inflation or the spot of the big bang was within the the observable universe... we would not see an homogeneous, isotropic universe in every direction as far as we can see. The only way that could be the case, would be if we were the exact center. The fact we see no evidence of the Earth being the source of the big bang leads us to assume that the origin of the expansion does in fact lie outside the observable universe... thus poking a major hole in the idea of an actual edge we will ever be privy to, if it does in fact exist.

As far as Citta's suggestion to get back on topic... I'm game. I suppose a mod could move the tangential discussion to a new thread somewhere and leave a link here. On the other hand, I don't particularly care. The original discussion, while fascinating in its own right is much more about semantics. In a previous post I mentioned that we need to define the basic terms being bandied about the same way to reach any kind of consensus there.

If the universe were expanding into empty space that would be true. But I do not think that is the case.

I am ok with the universe topic becoming a thread all it's own.