Wow... seeing this video melts my worldy ambition

[Ceisiwr]

The big bang isn't necessarily "ex nihilo," so to speak. There are asymmetries in the cosmic background radiation that suggest we are expanding "into something," perhaps the remnants of the last cosmos(!). This is obviously speculative. Artifacts like the "great attractor" suggest that a) reality is not uniform, like many find intuitive, and b) the "universe" is not expanding out in all directions equally into a void, among other possibilities.

Well space itself is expanding, so it’s not the case the universe is expanding into something. Ex nihilo isn’t necessarily the only option, but it’s a possible one. As I say our physics is incomplete at the moment, hence why we have singularities in the Big Bang and black holes. It’s also not my area of science and it’s been an age since I read anything recent in cosmology so I’m not claiming to be an expert here.

[Coëmgenu]

I am just citing YouTube videos from PBS likely meant for children but that I love all the same. PBS Spacetime on YouTube. I'll find the video in a few.

[Ceisiwr]

I am just citing YouTube videos from PBS likely meant for children but that I love all the same. PBS Spacetime on YouTube. I'll find the video in a few.

I used to love those lol. Interestingly another threat to most Buddhist schools bar one is Einstein’s theory of relativity and it’s strong support for the Block Theory of time. Perhaps the Sarvāstivādins were right after all?

[Coëmgenu]

At the level of the electron, there is no deep difference between material and empty space, and below that at the level of the quark, there is no difference at all between what we see as "matter" versus what we see as "empty space." Via conformation bias, I see this as "soft hard" evidence for a number of Buddhist proposals.

[Ceisiwr]

At the level of the electron, there is no deep difference between material and empty space, and below that at the level of the quark, there is no difference at all between what we see as "matter" versus what we see as "empty space." Via conformation bias, I see this as "soft hard" evidence for a number of Buddhist proposals.

Such as?

[Coëmgenu]

For one, that what appear as solid objects are not solid objects, also that what appears intuitively to be existence (i.e. materials) and what appears intuitively to be nonexistence (i.e. void) are not so different.

[Ceisiwr]

For one, that what appear as solid objects are not solid objects, also that what appears intuitively to be existence (i.e. materials) and what appears intuitively to be nonexistence (i.e. void) are not so different.

Sounds like turning Nāgārjuna into an ontologist

[Coëmgenu]

TBH, I don't think Medieval Buddhists even had a notion of ontology vs cosmology vs metaphysics. They are Western divisions of knowledge, not invalid, but IMO likely foreign and imposed upon what they are being made to apply to.

[coconut]

One of the reasons why living forever in this universe is unattractive. Eventually you will be just sat on a barren planet in the cold, dark nothingness of space for all eternity unable to escape. That is of course unless dark energy keeps on accelerating the rate of expansion of the universe to the point where even atoms themselves are ripped apart, The Big Rip, leaving nothing but an eternal sea of sub-atomic particles floating in the darkness of space.

So I take it you don't believe the universe will contract like the suttas say?

Btw, a recent noble prize physics winner discovered that a universe existed before the big bang.

From a strictly scientific point of view, based on the current scientific theory this universe isn’t cyclical.

Btw, a recent noble prize physics winner discovered that a universe existed before the big bang.

Unlikely since that isn’t part of the standard cosmological theory. We haven’t been able to see past the Big Bang yet. Our physics is incomplete and so the laws as we know them break down at the singularity. It’s called a singularity because we don’t know anything about it, like the centre of black holes. That’s of course if there even was something before the Big Bang.

Unlikely? lol. Roger Penrose is on the same level as Einstein and Hawking, there are scientific theories and formulas named after him because of his discoveries. I wouldn't easily dismiss his theories.

In 2010, Penrose reported possible evidence, based on concentric circles found in Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe data of the cosmic microwave background sky, of an earlier universe existing before the Big Bang of our own present universe.[45]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose


Here is his model, which shows several expansions



Anyways, according to the suttas the Buddha was able to look far back several aeons, which to me seems like way further back than what modern scientific instruments can look as far back, thus the Buddha had a larger sample size of data to draw conclusions from.

Yes, the big rip can happen, but also a long time after that, the universe may contract. There's plenty of possible theories.

[Ceisiwr]

In 2010, Penrose reported possible evidence

Roger Penrose is on the same level as Einstein and Hawking, there are scientific theories and formulas named after him because of his discoveries.

Sounds like the logical fallacy of argument from authority.

Anyways, according to the suttas the Buddha was able to look far back several aeons, which to me seems like way further back than what modern scientific instruments can look as far back, thus the Buddha had a larger sample size of data to draw conclusions from.

I never disputed that.

Yes, the big rip can happen, but also a long time after that, the universe may contract. There's plenty of possible theories.

Indeed, but the current theory is not cyclic.

[coconut]

In 2010, Penrose reported possible evidence

Roger Penrose is on the same level as Einstein and Hawking, there are scientific theories and formulas named after him because of his discoveries.

Sounds like the logical fallacy of argument from authority.

Anyways, according to the suttas the Buddha was able to look far back several aeons, which to me seems like way further back than what modern scientific instruments can look as far back, thus the Buddha had a larger sample size of data to draw conclusions from.

I never disputed that.

Yes, the big rip can happen, but also a long time after that, the universe may contract. There's plenty of possible theories.

Indeed, but the current theory is not cyclic.

Argument from Authority would be if I said his theory was true because of his status, I simply said do not easily dismiss him.

And your fallacy is Ad Populum, just because something is the current popular belief, doesn't make it true.

[Ceisiwr]

And your fallacy is Ad Populum, just because something is the current popular belief, doesn't make it true.

No, its the best current hypothesis with supporting evidence. If another theory comes along to falsify it then it will be replaced but of course never actually verified, for that is how science works. Nothing is ever verified as being "true" in science, for that would make it irrational. Penrose has offered a hypothesis, but nothing to the level of displacing the current theory.

[coconut]

And your fallacy is Ad Populum, just because something is the current popular belief, doesn't make it true.

No, its the best current hypothesis with supporting evidence. If another theory comes along to falsify it then it will be replaced but of course never actually verified, for that is how science works. Nothing is ever verified as being "true" in science, for that would make it irrational. Penrose has offered a hypothesis, but nothing to the level of displacing the current theory.

Everything is the best current hypothesis in a given time, including when Einstein hyposthesized the theory of relativity and was unpopular himself. I'm just saying don't easily dismiss it.

[Ceisiwr]

And your fallacy is Ad Populum, just because something is the current popular belief, doesn't make it true.

No, its the best current hypothesis with supporting evidence. If another theory comes along to falsify it then it will be replaced but of course never actually verified, for that is how science works. Nothing is ever verified as being "true" in science, for that would make it irrational. Penrose has offered a hypothesis, but nothing to the level of displacing the current theory.

Everything is the best current hypothesis in a given time, including when Einstein hyposthesized the theory of relativity and was unpopular himself. I'm just saying don't easily dismiss it.

I'm not dismissing it. I was already aware of it prior and it sounds attractive. So do other theories, such as Brane cosmology. I actually prefer Brane cosmology myself. Still, being the scientist that I am I can't assent to it simply because I like it. I have to wait for evidence to come which supports it and so falsifies the current theory. Being that physics isn't my area of science I leave that to the physicists. When they tell me they have modified or replaced their theories I'll accept them instead, but of course only as the best possible hypothesis and never something actually claimed to be verified as certain and so true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology

[coconut]

No, its the best current hypothesis with supporting evidence. If another theory comes along to falsify it then it will be replaced but of course never actually verified, for that is how science works. Nothing is ever verified as being "true" in science, for that would make it irrational. Penrose has offered a hypothesis, but nothing to the level of displacing the current theory.

Everything is the best current hypothesis in a given time, including when Einstein hyposthesized the theory of relativity and was unpopular himself. I'm just saying don't easily dismiss it.

I'm not dismissing it. I was already aware of it prior and it sounds attractive. So do other theories, such as Brane cosmology. I actually prefer Brane cosmology myself. Still, being the scientist that I am I can't assent to it simply because I like it. I have to wait for evidence to come which supports it and so falsifies the current theory. Being that physics isn't my area of science I leave that to the physicists. When they tell me they have modified or replaced their theories I'll accept them instead, but of course only as the best possible hypothesis and never something actually claimed to be verified as certain and so true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology

That seems like it has even less evidence than penrose's theory.

From the wiki link

As of now, no experimental or observational evidence of large extra dimensions, as required by the Randall–Sundrum models, has been reported.