Can\'t avoid a creation (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, January 14, 2012, 00:31 (4676 days ago) @ David Turell

Just as a paper I quoted in my book from 2001, Valenkin is back with another presentation saying thre must have been a beginning for this universe:

Heh. Trivial: The Big Bang.

More difficult: How did the singularity get there?

Science clearly takes us up to that point: But there's no possible way we could say with surety that that is all there is to the universe.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328474.400-why-physicists-cant-avoid-a-creation...

Sign up to read this!!! There is no harm to you.

After having read it, this doesn't really move the problem.

The Higgs-Field by itself directly suggests that there are more layers to our onion: If you do some digging, you realize that we already use Higgs-fields to solve many problems in physics--the fact that we haven't found the particle--let's just say that if for some reason we don't find the particle, it would be like looking at the periodic table and saying that there exists an element in Group I that does not contain only one outer valence electron. Finding the particle completes the "proof" of the standard model, but doesn't prevent us from using the mathematics to solve real problems.

If that preceding paragraph seems out of place, it won't now.

If it is even possible to prove that the universe must have a beginning, you still don't have a good recourse to say when exactly that was.

I bring this up because there's been more than one theology in existence (Hindu) that states all things are manifestations of God. (They're... closer to your panentheism.)

My more recent dive into eastern theology answers a question... well, meditation answered the question.

I've spoken before about the non-existence of time, that the only reason we can have time is because we can see things move.

Buddhist meditation--focusing on the present moment--actually helps me think a little more clearly about our old problem of cause and effect. I stumbled across an old post of mine and I discussed "cause and effect" being illusory in the idea that they are necessarily distinct. "Two sides of the same event," is a paraphrase of what I had said.

The uncreated is conceivable.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"