- Prev: Re: Zonal Acharya System
- Next: Re: When the Universe was Dark - Hardcore/Punk Thread
- Index: The Sudarsana Archive -- Date Index
- Thread: The Sudarsana Archive -- Topic Index
Date Index | Topic Index
Sudarsana Home madhudvisa@krishna.org
avan@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu (Anthony Paul Van Groningen) wrote:
>Madhudvisa dasa (madhudvisa@krishna.org) wrote:
>:
>: WHEN THE UNIVERSE WAS DARK...
>: =============================
>: The Western scientific view, primarily stemming from the work of
>: Albert Einstein, favours a world developed as a result of a
>: completely random process with no intelligence behind it. His
>: theory that all matter can be turned into energy and all energy
>: turned into matter has formed the basis of all Western ideas on
>: the origins of the universe.
> This is a complete misrepresenation of Einstein's views. Beside
> being an important Jewish activist, Einstein argued to his death that
> "God does not play dice." Implying, 1) that there is a god (hence not
> meaningless), and 2) that it is not "random"(a very ambigious word in
> my opion).
Yes Einstein was a religious man, but this is his theory [it's not my
idea I took it from an elementary science book so argue with the
scientists not me!]
>: One commonly held belief, developed in light of Einstein's theory
>: is the "Big Bang Theory". This theory maintains that a huge
>: explosion about 5 billion years ago created all the material in
> ^^^^^^
> Not Quite true, the matter and energy existed, before the big
> bang, if there was such a time. The bang did not create the matter,
> it only created space as the matter and enrgy expanded into the universe
> of today. Scientist cannot predict what happened in the first 10^-12
> seconds, so this is the only possible place for theology.
Once again, "This is not my idea." I accept Krishna's ideas but,
although there is no agreement among the scientists, there are so many
different "big bang" theories, scientists generally believe the matter
did not exist [as matter] before the "big bang" but was produced as a
result of the big bang. For the record Krishna agrees with you. He says
before the creation matter existed in an unmanifested form, called the
"pradhana". This pradhana was agitated by Krishna's glance and the
creation started. I suppose you could call Krishna's glance a "big
bang" if you really wanted to...
>: the universe. The theory is there, but any good theory should be
>: backed up by practical experience. If it is a fact the universe
>: emerged from a "big bang" then we should see similar things
>: happening in nature. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Why???? Nothing guarentees that.
Look around you. Everywhere things are working in the same way on
different scales.
>: We have recently seen one scientist, Mandelbrot, who stunned the
>: scientific world with his "fractals". He showed complex patterns
>: could be generated from fairly simple mathematical equations if
>: these equations are repeated over and over again. He made a big
>: thing out of similarity at different levels. He noticed in nature
>: things we see on a big scale are repeated on a smaller scale and
>: then on an even smaller scale and so on. There is similarity at
>: every level. He gave two examples: the coastline and the branching
>: structure of a tree. In both cases you can look at any level of
>: magnification and the structure is essentially the same.
>: If we accept this work of Mandelbrot we would expect to see the
>: process of universal creation mirrored on a smaller scale within
>: our experience.
> Again, Why is this neccessary???
It's not necessary but it's Mandelbrot's theory which is fairly well
accepted in scientific circles at the moment. (as for me I just believe
Krishna...)
>: If the hypothesis of similarity at different scales is to hold
>: true we would expect the universal creation to be similar to any
>: other creation we experience in our day-to-day lives, but the
>: Western scientists explanation of creation is completely foreign
>: to us.
>: If the universe was created by a "big bang" then why couldn't a
>: child be created by a "small bang"? A child is essentially a self-
>: contained universe so his creation should be similar to that of
>: the universal creation.
>
> This is silly! Why does everything have to be analogous???
Things do work in similar ways in nature just look around you. If there
was no consistency within the universe none of the scientific
principals would work. So creation should also be consistent no matter
what is being created. A child is a small universe so the conception
of a child is the creation of a small universe. It's not just an
analogy.
>: I challenge the scientists to prove their "big bang" theory by
>: creating anything (They should be able to create a child, but
>: failing that they could create a city, a building or even a
>: motorcar) with an explosion. The idea is actually ludicrous, we
>: have no experience anywhere of an explosion ever creating
>: anything, explosions destroy things. Instead of creating order,
>: they create disorder. This "big bang" theory can't be simply
>: accepted on the basis of sentiment, they have to give us some
>: proof.
> Of course we have never seen an explosion creating anything!
Except the big bang which created the universe???
> That is the very basis of modern physics: Matter and energy can
> neither be created or destroyed. Remember in the intro you refrence
> Einsteins e=mc^2. If you think about what is said, you'll see the flaw
> in this argument. It ask scientists to prove the BBT by creating something
> yet this violates the very principles the theory rests on. In other
> words your asking scientist to prove something by disproving it!!!!
No. Not at all. The big bang theory doesn't violate the laws of physics
as you have said. The idea is it turns energy [where did the energy
come from anyhow?] into mass. So you have plenty of energy stored up in
dynamite or atomic bombs, I'm just asking you to turn it into something
practical using the same process you say produced the universe.
> There is ample support and proof for the BBT theory and its
> various version (and I note that it is not the only theory it does have
> limitations). One for example is the expansion of the universe (Hubble
> theory). Just take some time at the library, and you'll find tons of
> evidence for the BBT. Try reading "A Brief History of Time", by Steven
> Hawkings. It's a good intro into cosomology.
First of all which particular big bang theory do you say there is
"ample support and proof" for?. As you say there are lots of them, at
most only one of them could be correct. There is some apparent evidence
to support an expanding universe (red shifts, etc) but that is subject
to interpretation also.
>: You have probably (like myself before I came to Krishna
>: consciousness) blindly accepted the vague ramblings on the "big
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Yeah?!? Vauge to you maybe, because you more than likely haven't
> taken the time to understand it (in no way do I imply that I understand
> it completey).
No scientist understands the creation. How can they? They weren't there
and it was a long time ago. The evidence is pretty thin now. If it
isn't a vague theory why haven't they been able to formulate it into
something that there is at least some agreement with among the
scientists?
> Physics is a very precise science, expressed in the
> language of math, not english or Sanskrit. Mathematics does not leave
> room for vaugeness. It is your argument that is vauge.
Krishna consciousness is a very precise science but I'm not so sure
about physics, particularly not "new physics". It is very
speculative...
>: bang" without really giving it a second thought, but if you
>: analyse the theory it's not at all plausible. I have since heard
> ^^^^^^^^^
> Perhaps a little more justification would be order here, or
> are you trying to take advantage of reader ignorance?
Of course we have only so much space to explain things and you can't
explain everything in one go. Anyhow I'm not so interested in analysing
the big bang theory in great detail, I'm suggesting you do it to so you
can understand it's not plausible. It's not really a even a theory.
You can explain a good scientific theory in a way that covers all the
observed evidence, but such a statement can't be formed for the big
bang theory.
>: another explanation of the creation of the universe which is at
>: least as amazing as the "big bang" theory but it is completely
>: reasonable and it is mirrored on a smaller scale in our day-to-day
>: experience.
>: The universal knowledge we currently have has come to us through
>: the limited perceptions of scientists who's universal vision is
>: not much more valuable than the vision a frog in a well has of the
>: universe. The frog has spent his whole life at the bottom of a
>: well three feet wide but he has developed so much philosophy, he
>: thinks his universal vision is perfect, but what does he know?
>: Similarly the scientists, with their telescopes and tiny
>: spaceships haven't seen much more of the universe than the frog,
> In fact, with Radio telescopes, we have seen a great deal of
> space (I forget the actual range). Even just looking up with the naked
> eye show's light from stars from great distances. These analogies are
> wearing thin; scientists are not frogs.
Dr. Frog could also install a radio telescope in his well but would it
improve his world view very much?
>: but they have come up with so many "scientific facts". I would
>: like you to, at least theoretically, consider that reality might
>: be completely different from what we accept.
> That is a popular misconception, that science comes up with facts.
> In truth, science only hopes to make models of the universe we live in.
> In the public eye these may be facts, but never to the scientist.
Exactly. Just what I am trying to explain.
>: If we want to understand the cosmic creation we need to get an
>: eyewitness report. If we want to find out the structure of the
>: universe we have to find someone who has seen it, what is the use
>: of a so-called scientist who can only say: "Perhaps it may be like
>: this."
>
> Need I remind you of the computer that you sent this on. That is
> one of the needs. Without those little frogs in a well which you
> ridicule so much, we wouldn't be having this dialog. No light, phone
> tv.... Perhaps, these things are inherently evil or some shit like
> that.
No. I have never said science is evil. If they go to the trouble of
making computers then it's good because we can us them for Krishna.
But life was going on quite nicely before we had tv and computers. You
don't need these things actually but because you have made them we can
use them for Krishna. That makes your effort worthwhile.
>: It is not that the earth is the only planet inhabited by living
>: entities, the living entities are everywhere. If we apply
>: Mandelbrot's theory we would expect to find similar things on all
>: the planets.
> Here you use Mandelbrot's theory both against science, and for
> your own subjective view of the universe. It's not fair, how come
> you get to use it and I don't!
It's a good theory and it works in this particular instance, isn't that
the scientific process?
>: We have eyewitness reports from people who are not tied down to
>: this tiny planet. There are people who can travel freely within
>: the universe at will and one such great soul is Narada Muni.
> Didn't i see this in the Enquirer?
>: Narada Muni is the spiritual master of Srila Vyasadeva and Srila
>: Vyasadeva is the author of all the original Vedic scriptures.
>: Vyasadeva simply wrote down the instructions of his liberated
>: spiritual master Narada Muni. Because Narada has travelled all
>: over the universe and also entered the spiritual world he has
>: first-hand experience of everything, his experience is infinitely
>: more valuable than the scientists who are no better than frogs in
>: a well.
>
> This Narada must be great at parties.
I imagine he would be.
>: The Vedic scriptures written by Vyasadeva contain all knowledge,
>: both material and spiritual, so whatever we want to know can be
>: found in these books. Of all the books written by Vyasadeva one
>: book stands supreme, it is called the Srimad Bhagavatam and it is
>: called "the ripened fruit of the desire-tree of Vedic knowledge."
> I will admit, I have made only a passing glance at this text,
>
>[Some text ommitted]
>: We can see the "Scientific Process" is imperfect by looking at the
>: history of science. Western scientists have continually disproved
>: the theories held by their predecessors, in retrospect Western
>: science can be seen as a collection of incorrect and imperfect
>: guesses. The scientists would generally accept this critique
>: however they would have us believe they are learning from their
>: mistakes and their guesses are becoming more accurate. While there
>: is a glimmer of truth in this, how long will it take? If the
>: perfect knowledge is available from a perfect source why not take
>: advantage of it?
> This show that the scienctific process works, by constantly
> revising the theories as new data is gathered. It works, because
> your car works and your house is warm.
Yes, it works. I haven't said it doesn't work. But it takes a long time
and lots of effort. If you can get everything directly from Krishna why
waste so much time and effort?
> Why not believe anything anyone tells you. If i claim what
> I say is perfect truth, will you believe me? So why do choose to believe
> some guy who's not from around here?? Even if this spirit existed, what
> makes him right? Because he's a different and trendy and far out man?
>
No you have to test it. Guru, sadhu and shastra. Everything has to line
up. The guru, the scriptures and the authorized saintly persons have to
all be consistent. I can only accept what you say is it is in agreement
with these three sources.
>: It is not mystical and unexplainable like a "big bang" which
>: magically creates the universe from "nothing at all". We have seen
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Like I said before, this is where you religions can come in.
This is not religious magic, it's scientific magic!
>: a father impregnate a mother and thus produce a child, a small
>: universe, so why is it surprising that the whole universe is
>: produced as a result of the Supreme Father, Krishna, impregnating
>: the supreme mother, the mahatattva, or the material elements. In
>: the same way the father puts the living entity within the mother
>: and the living entity then develops within the mothers womb,
>: Krishna, the Supreme Father, places the living entities within the
>: womb of mother nature where they develop. It is completely
>: reasonable.
>
> No, it's not. It's devoid of reason. How can you even claim that
> this is reasonable? What kind of logic system is this? Maybe this is
> where we disagree, if so both of our POV's are meaningless. My honest
> opinion is that if a religion gives you peace of mind, etc... then
> great. I'm happy for you. I mean this sincerly. But when you claim
> that science is a bunch of lies, and then replace it with more lies,
> people get misled. It's mindcontrol the easiest way. I gladu clear
> anything up for you.
It is completely reasonable, even from a purely logical point of view,
even if you don't believe in Krishna. I have not claimed "science is a
bunch of lies". Science is a method for gaining knowledge but it is not
perfect and it takes a long time.
How you bring mind control into this debate is beyond me. It is
completely out of context with the whole discussion we have just had!
Thanks for the reply. Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Thank you. Hare Krishna!
Madhudvisa dasa
(madhudvisa@krishna.org) /sudarsana
All glories to His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada!