Stephen Hawking Says Universe Not Created by God

[Kiev Communard]

Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God

• Physics, not creator, made Big Bang, new book claims
• Professor had previously referred to 'mind of God'

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/9/2/1283388944706/Stephen-Hawking-006.jpg
Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why we exist, says Stephen Hawking. Photograph: Bruno Vincent/Getty Images


God did not create the universe, the man who is arguably Britain's most famous living scientist says in a forthcoming book.

In the new work, The Grand Design, Professor Stephen Hawking argues that the Big Bang, rather than occurring following the intervention of a divine being, was inevitable due to the law of gravity.

In his 1988 book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking had seemed to accept the role of God in the creation of the universe. But in the new text, co-written with American physicist Leonard Mlodinow, he said new theories showed a creator is "not necessary".

The Grand Design, an extract of which appears in the Times today, sets out to contest Sir Isaac Newton's belief that the universe must have been designed by God as it could not have been created out of chaos.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

In the forthcoming book, published on 9 September, Hawking says that M-theory, a form of string theory, will achieve this goal: "M-theory is the unified theory Einstein was hoping to find," he theorises.

"The fact that we human beings – who are ourselves mere collections of fundamental particles of nature – have been able to come this close to an understanding of the laws governing us and our universe is a great triumph."

Hawking says the first blow to Newton's belief that the universe could not have arisen from chaos was the observation in 1992 of a planet orbiting a star other than our Sun. "That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions – the single sun, the lucky combination of Earth-sun distance and solar mass – far less remarkable, and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings," he writes.

Hawking had previously appeared to accept the role of God in the creation of the universe. Writing in his bestseller A Brief History Of Time in 1988, he said: "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God."

Hawking resigned as Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University last year after 30 years in the position.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/02/stephen-hawking-big-bang-creator


Yet one more blow against Creationism with its constant assertion that "all famous scientists are or were people of faith". On the sidenote, it may be presumed that Hawking has really turned from the agnostic and positivist positions to more atheist and consistently materialist ones, which is much laudable development.

[Revy]

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

I wouldn't use this kind of phrasing, the universe "creating itself" from nothing, "spontaneous creation". If you're arguing against creationism, why use the word creation? They will just ask how could there be creation without a Creator.

First, to say there was "nothing" before the Big Bang, how could there be nothing at all? I would rather go with the idea that the Big Bang was the beginning, not of space, but of time (distance...motion, you get the picture). In order for there to be a bang, something has to go bang, in this case a hot tiny and extremely dense ball of energy. Yes, you still have to deal with how that came into existence as well....but remember if you insist that the Big Bang was the result of the universe coming into existence out of "nothing" then, there needs to be a "prime mover", something transcendant of nothing to create that something.

What's the law of conservation of mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass) and the law of conservation of energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy)? Energy and mass cannot be created nor destroyed.

[x371322]

I read about this this morning. I'm glad to see Hawking move in this direction. Can't wait to read the new book.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I've always been intriqued by the idea that total-nonexistence is an unstable condition for a universe to be in, hence why time passes and space expands.


I wouldn't use this kind of phrasing, the universe "creating itself" from nothing, "spontaneous creation". If you're arguing against creationism, why use the word creation? They will just ask how could there be creation without a Creator.

Just replace it with "self-development".


First, to say there was "nothing" before the Big Bang, how could there be nothing at all? I would rather go with the idea that the Big Bang was the beginning, not of space, but of time (distance...motion, you get the picture). In order for there to be a bang, something has to go bang, in this case a hot tiny and extremely dense ball of energy. Yes, you still have to deal with how that came into existence as well....but remember if you insist that the Big Bang was the result of the universe coming into existence out of "nothing" then, there needs to be a "prime mover", something transcendant of nothing to create that something.

Sez who?


What's the law of conservation of mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass) and the law of conservation of energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy)? Energy and mass cannot be created nor destroyed.

Actually, mass can be created and destroyed, and since the total energy of the universe balances out to zero (at least according to the inflationary theory of the Big Bang), then energy is also conserved.

[Kiev Communard]

I wouldn't use this kind of phrasing, the universe "creating itself" from nothing, "spontaneous creation". If you're arguing against creationism, why use the word creation? They will just ask how could there be creation without a Creator.

First, to say there was "nothing" before the Big Bang, how could there be nothing at all? I would rather go with the idea that the Big Bang was the beginning, not of space, but of time (distance...motion, you get the picture). In order for there to be a bang, something has to go bang, in this case a hot tiny and extremely dense ball of energy. Yes, you still have to deal with how that came into existence as well....but remember if you insist that the Big Bang was the result of the universe coming into existence out of "nothing" then, there needs to be a "prime mover", something transcendant of nothing to create that something.

What's the law of conservation of mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass) and the law of conservation of energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy)? Energy and mass cannot be created nor destroyed.


Actually there is a good article on the web, dated 1991, that uses Big Bang cosmology to proffer argument in favour of Atheism:





I. Introduction

The idea that the big bang theory allows us to infer that the universe began to exist about 15 billion years ago has attracted the attention of many theists. This theory seemed to confirm or at least lend support to the theological doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Indeed, the suggestion of a divine creation seemed so compelling that the notion that 'God created the big bang' has taken a hold on popular consciousness and become a staple in the theistic component of 'educated common sense'. By contrast, the response of atheists and agnostics to this development has been comparatively lame. Whereas the theistic interpretation of the big bang has received both popular endorsement and serious philosophical defence (most notably by William Lane Craig and John Leslie[1]), the nontheistic interpretation remains largely undeveloped and unpromulgated. The task of this article is to fill this lacuna and develop a nontheistic interpretation of the big bang. I shall argue that the nontheistic interpretation is not merely an alternative candidate to the theistic interpretation, but is better justified than the theistic interpretation. In fact, I will argue for the strong claim that big bang cosmology is actually inconsistent with theism.

See more: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/cosmology.html

Here are some important point:




The two theological premises I need are

(1) If God exists and there is an earliest state E of the universe, then God created E,

(2) If God created E, then E is ensured to either contain animate creatures or lead to a subsequent state of the universe that contains animate creatures.

Premise (2) is entailed by two more basic theological premises, viz.,

(3) God is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly benevolent.

(4) An animate universe is better than an inanimate universe.

Given (4), if God created a universe that was not ensured to be animate, then he would have created a universe not ensured to be of the better sort and thereby would be limited in his benevolence, power or wisdom. But this contradicts (3). Therefore, (2) is true.

Some of the scientific ideas articulated in the last section, mainly the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems, provide us with the summary premise

(5) There is an earliest state of the universe and it is the big bang singularity.

(5) requires a terminological clarification regarding 'the universe'. By this phrase I mean the 4D spacetime continuum and any n-dimensional physical state that is earlier or later than the 4D continuum. Since the universe has a zero radius at the singularity, it is not then 4D, but since the singularity is a physical state earlier than the 4D continuum it can be considered to be the first state of the universe (this is discussed further in section VI).

The scientific ideas also give us the premise

(6) The earliest state of the universe is inanimate since the singularity involves the life-hostile conditions of infinite temperature, infinite curvature and infinite density.

Another scientific idea enunciated in the last section, the principle of ignorance, gives us the summary premise

(7) The big bang singularity is inherently unpredictable and lawless and consequently there is no guarantee that it will emit a maximal configuration of particles that will evolve into an animate state of the universe. (A maximal configuration of particulars is a complete state of the universe, the universe as a whole at one time.)

(5) and (7) entail

(8) The earliest state of the universe is not ensured to lead to an animate state of the universe.

We now come to the crux of our argument. Given (2), (6) and (8), we can infer that God could not have created the earliest state of the universe. It then follows, by (1), that God does not exist.






V. Second Objection: God Can Intervene to Ensure an Animate Universe

The second objection is that the lawlessness of the big bang singularity is not logically incompatible with its being ensured by God to emit a life-producing maximal configuration of particles. For God could intervene at the instant of the singularity and supernaturally constrain the singularity to emit a life-producing configuration.

I believe this objection is incompatible with the rationality of God. If God intends to create a universe that contains living beings at some stage in its history, then there is no reason for him to begin the universe with an inherently unpredictable singularity. Indeed, it is positively irrational. It is a sign of incompetent planning to create as the first natural state something that requires immediate supernatural intervention to ensure that it leads to the desired result. The rational thing to do is to create some state that by its own lawful nature leads to a life-producing universe.

This response to the second objection can be developed in the context of a discussion of John Leslie's interpretation of big bang cosmology. Leslie points to data or figures (the 'anthropic coincidences') that suggest it is highly improbable that an animate universe would result from a big bang singularity.14 There are many possible maximal configurations of particles that might be emitted from the singularity and only an extremely small number of these, Leslie suggests, lead towards animate states. But Leslie argues that this improbability tells for rather than against the hypothesis of divine creation. (I should note that Leslie works with a 'Neoplatonic' conception of God [ but that makes no substantive difference to the validity of the arguments I shall examine.) He implies that if we suppose that God constrained the singularity's explosion to be directed away from the more probable alternatives of lifelessness and towards the very narrow range of alternatives that lead to life, then we can 'explain away' the apparent improbability of an animate universe evolving from the singularity. The alleged simplicity of this explanation, the distinctive value of life, and other relevant premises, are regarded as making this explanation a credible one. But this fails to take into account the above-mentioned problem regarding God's rationality and competence, which appears here in an aggravated form. It seems to me that Leslie's premise that it is highly improbable that the big bang singularity would (if left to evolve naturally) lead to an animate universe is inconsistent with the conclusion that God created the singularity. If God created the universe with the aim of making it animate, it is illogical that he would have created as its first state something whose natural evolution would lead with high probability only to inanimate states. It does not agree with the idea of an efficient creation of an animate universe that life is brought about through the first state being created with a natural tendency towards lifelessness and through this tendency being counteracted and overridden by the very agency that endowed it with this tendency. The following two propositions appear to be logically incompatible:

(1) God is a rational and competent creator and he intends to create an animate universe,

(2) God creates as the first state of the universe a singularity whose natural tendency is towards lifelessness.

The problem involved here is essentially a problem of divine interference in or 'correction of' the divine creations. Leslie is 'opposed'16 to the idea of 'divine interference' with natural processes and is unsympathetic to the idea that 'God occasionally intervenes [in the natural universe] with a helpful shove'17 so as to ensure that life evolves. Leslie states that the hypothesis of such intervention involves an unsimple theory and for this reason is to be dispreferred. But such intervention is precisely what is required by his own account of the evolution of the early universe. His account supposes that God not only interferes with the singularity's explosion but also interferes with the subsequent evolution of the maximal configuration of particles that was emitted from the singularity. For example, Leslie mentions the theory that the early universe underwent a number of 'spontaneous symmetry breaking phases' during the first 10-4second after the big bang singularity and that during these phases the four forces (gravitational, strong, weak and electromagnetic) became separated. In the GUT era (from 10-43second after the singularity to 10-35second) the gravitational force is separated from the strong-electroweak force. During the electroweak era (from 10-35second to 10-10second) the strong force is separated from the electroweak force. During the free quark era (from 10-10second to 10-4second) the electromagnetic force is separated from the weak force. Each of these separations is a breaking of a symmetry (the unification of two or more forces) and each symmetry is broken in a random way. This means, in effect, that the strengths of the four forces are determined in random ways at the time they become separated. This is significant, Leslie indicates, since only a small range of the values these forces may possess are consistent with a life-supporting universe. For example, if the actual value of the weak fine structure constant (aw~10-11) were slightly larger, supernovae would have been unable to eject the heavy materials that are necessary for organisms. If this value were slightly smaller, no hydrogen would have formed and consequently no stars and planets would have evolved. Similar considerations hold for the gravitational, electromagnetic and strong forces. Given this, Leslie continues, it is 'exceedingly improbable'18 that these symmetry breaking phases would have resulted in the very narrow range of values required by a life-supporting universe. This improbability could be eliminated if we supposed that these values were not selected by natural random processes but were 'selected by God'. But this requires divine interference on a grand scale in the evolution of the universe. God would have to intervene in his creation at the big bang singularity to ensure that it emitted a maximal configuration of particles capable of undergoing the symmetry breaking phases, then again during the GUT era to ensure that the separating gravitational force acquires the right value, and then once again during the electroweak era to ensure that the separating strong force acquires the right value, and then once more during the free quark era to ensure that the separating electromagnetic and weak forces acquire the right value. And these are only some of the interventions required (I have not even mentioned, for example, the interventions required to ensure that the elementary particles acquire the right masses). But why does Leslie think his theory avoids the implausibly complex theory of repeated divine interventions in natural processes? Because he stipulates that God's fixing of the values of the constants are not instances of such interventions. Interventions he defines as applying to less basic aspects of nature (such as creations of individual animal organisms).19 But this stipulation seems arbitrary and implausible. If God's interference with the singularity's emission of particles and with the several symmetry breaking phases are not examples of God interfering with natural states and processes, then I don't know what is.

Leslie suggests that the notion of divine interference with the processes of nature is implausible because it is less simple than the idea that God lets nature evolve on its own. But it seems to me there is a more fundamental problem with this notion, at least as it applies to Leslie's scenario. This notion, in the context of Leslie's scenario, implies that the universe God created was so bungled that it needed his repeated intervention to steer it away from disaster and towards the desired life-producing states. God created a universe that time and again was probably headed towards the very opposite result than the one he wanted and only through interfering with its natural evolution could he ensure that it would lead to the result he desired. But this contradicts the principle that God is not a bungler ('a competent Creator does not create things he immediately or subsequently needs to set aright').

I should make explicit that the key idea in my argument is not that God is incompetent if he creates a universe whose laws he must violate if his intentions are to be realised, but that he is incompetent if he creates a universe requiring his intervention if his intentions are to be realised. A divine intervention in natural events is entailed by, but does not entail, a divine violation of natural laws, since God may intervene in an event (e.g. the explosion of the singularity) not governed by laws. Thus, the possible objection to my argument that 'if physical laws under-constrain the evolution of the universe, then God can constrain the universe to evolve into animate states without violating his physical laws' misses the point, that intervention, not violation, is the problem. However, if we assume Leslie's scenario, then we can say there are not only interventions but also violations, since in his scenario there are probabilistic laws governing the early evolution of the universe (which includes the symmetry breaking phases) and God suspends (violates) these laws to ensure that the improbable life-producing outcomes result.

My conclusion is this. There are countless logically possible initial states of the universe that lead by a natural and lawlike evolution to animate states and if God had created the universe he would have selected one of these states. Given that the initial state posited by big bang cosmology is not one of these states, it follows that big bang cosmology is inconsistent with the hypothesis of divine creation.[20]

And one more outstanding article about theories on emergence of matter and energy ex nihilo involving the concepts of virtual particles and vacuum fluctuations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle):




Few people are aware of the fact that many modern physicists claim that things - perhaps even the entire universe - can indeed arise from nothing via natural processes. This document is an attempt to compile quotes that explain how all of this is supposed to work.

Eventually, I would like to write an article assessing the value of quantum vacuum fluctuations as a means of producing universes, but for the time being, I will just let the scientists speak for themselves and leave evaluation to the reader.

Vacuum Fluctuations and Virtual Particles

1. In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. (Davies, 1983, 162)

2. The uncertainty principle implies that particles can come into existence for short periods of time even when there is not enough energy to create them. In effect, they are created from uncertainties in energy. One could say that they briefly "borrow" the energy required for their creation, and then, a short time later, they pay the "debt" back and disappear again. Since these particles do not have a permanent existence, they are called virtual particles. (Morris, 1990, 24)

3. Even though we can't see them, we know that these virtual particles are "really there" in empty space because they leave a detectable trace of their activities. One effect of virtual photons, for example, is to produce a tiny shift in the energy levels of atoms. They also cause an equally tiny change in the magnetic moment of electrons. These minute but significant alterations have been very accurately measured using spectroscopic techniques. (Davies, 1994, 32)

4. [Virtual particle pairs] are predicted to have a calculable effect upon the energy levels of atoms. The effect expected is minute - only a change of one part in a billion, but it has been confirmed by experimenters.

In 1953 Willis Lamb measured this excited energy state for a hydrogen atom. This is now called the Lamb shift. The energy difference predicted by the effects of the vacuum on atoms is so small that it is only detectable as a transition at microwave frequencies. The precision of microwave measurements is so great that Lamb was able to measure the shift to five significant figures. He subsequently received the Nobel Prize for his work. No doubt remains that virtual particles are really there. (Barrow & Silk, 1993, 65-66)

5. In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing." Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy. (Morris, 1990, 25)

Vacuum Fluctuations and the Origin of the Universe

1. There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. (Hawking, 1988, 129) [thanks to Ross King for this quote]

2. There is a still more remarkable possibility, which is the creation of matter from a state of zero energy. This possibility arises because energy can be both positive and negative. The energy of motion or the energy of mass is always positive, but the energy of attraction, such as that due to certain types of gravitational or electromagnetic field, is negative. Circumstances can arise in which the positive energy that goes to make up the mass of newly-created particles of matter is exactly offset by the negative energy of gravity of electromagnetism. For example, in the vicinity of an atomic nucleus the electric field is intense. If a nucleus containing 200 protons could be made (possible but difficult), then the system becomes unstable against the spontaneous production of electron-positron pairs, without any energy input at all. The reason is that the negative electric energy can exactly offset the energy of their masses.

In the gravitational case the situation is still more bizarre, for the gravitational field is only a spacewarp - curved space. The energy locked up in a spacewarp can be converted into particles of matter and antimatter. This occurs, for example, near a black hole, and was probably also the most important source of particles in the big bang. Thus, matter appears spontaneously out of empty space. The question then arises, did the primeval bang possess energy, or is the entire universe a state of zero energy, with the energy of all the material offset by negative energy of gravitational attraction?

It is possible to settle the issue by a simple calculation. Astronomers can measure the masses of galaxies, their average separation, and their speeds of recession. Putting these numbers into a formula yields a quantity which some physicists have interpreted as the total energy of the universe. The answer does indeed come out to be zero wihin the observational accuracy. The reason for this distinctive result has long been a source of puzzlement to cosmologists. Some have suggested that there is a deep cosmic principle at work which requires the universe to have exactly zero energy. If that is so the cosmos can follow the path of least resistance, coming into existence without requiring any input of matter or energy at all. (Davies, 1983, 31-32)

3. Once our minds accept the mutability of matter and the new idea of the vacuum, we can speculate on the origin of the biggest thing we know - the universe. Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness - a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility. (Pagels, 1982, 247)

4. In general relativity, spacetime can be empty of matter or radiation and still contain energy stored in its curvature. Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature. This is called the "spacetime foam" and the regions are called "bubbles of false vacuum." Wherever the curvature is positive a bubble of false vacuum will, according to Einstein's equations, exponentially inflate. In 10-42 seconds the bubble will expand to the size of a proton and the energy within will be sufficient to produce all the mass of the universe.

The bubbles start out with no matter, radiation, or force fields and maximum entropy. They contain energy in their curvature, and so are a "false vacuum." As they expand, the energy within increases exponentially. This does not violate energy conservation since the false vacuum has a negative pressure (believe me, this is all follows from the equations that Einstein wrote down in 1916) so the expanding bubble does work on itself.

As the bubble universe expands, a kind of friction occurs in which energy is converted into particles. The temperature then drops and a series of spontaneous symmetry breaking processes occurs, as in a magnet cooled below the Curie point and a essentially random structure of the particles and forces appears. Inflation stops and we move into the more familiar big bang.

The forces and particles that appear are more-or-less random, governed only by symmetry principles (like the conservation principles of energy and momentum) that are also not the product of design but exactly what one has in the absence of design.

The so-called "anthropic coincidences," in which the particles and forces of physics seem to be "fine-tuned" for the production of Carbon-based life are explained by the fact that the spacetime foam has an infinite number of universes popping off, each different. We just happen to be in the one where the forces and particles lent themselves to the generation of carbon and other atoms with the complexity necessary to evolve living and thinking organisms. (Stenger, 1996)

5. Where did all the matter and radiation in the universe come from in the first place? Recent intriguing theoretical research by physicists such as Steven Weinberg of Harvard and Ya. B. Zel'dovich in Moscow suggest that the universe began as a perfect vacuum and that all the particles of the material world were created from the expansion of space...

Think about the universe immediately after the Big Bang. Space is violently expanding with explosive vigor. Yet, as we have seen, all space is seething with virtual pairs of particles and antiparticles. Normally, a particle and anti-particle have no trouble getting back together in a time interval...short enough so that the conservation of mass is satisfied under the uncertainty principle. During the Big Bang, however, space was expanding so fast that particles were rapidly pulled away from their corresponding antiparticles. Deprived of the opportunity to recombine, these virtual particles had to become real particles in the real world. Where did the energy come from to achieve this materialization?

Recall that the Big Bang was like the center of a black hole. A vast supply of gravitational energy was therefore associated with the intense gravity of this cosmic singularity. This resource provided ample energy to completely fill the universe with all conceivable kinds of particles and antiparticles. Thus, immediately after the Planck time, the universe was flooded with particles and antiparticles created by the violent expansion of space. (Kaufmann, 1985, 529-532)
...the idea of a First Cause sounds somewhat fishy in light of the modern theory of quantum mechanics. According to the most commonly accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics, individual subatomic particles can behave in unpredictable ways and there are numerous random, uncaused events. (Morris, 1997, 19)

References

Barrow, John D. & Silk, Joseph. 1993. Left Hand of Creation. London: J.M. Dent & Sons.

Davies, Paul. 1983. God and the New Physics. London: J.M. Dent & Sons.

Davies, Paul. 1994. The Last Three Minutes. New York: BasicBooks.

Hawking, Steven. 1988. A Brief History of Time. Toronto: Bantam.

Kaufmann, William J. 1985. Universe. New York: W.H. Freeman & Co.

Morris, Richard. 1990. The Edges of Science. New York: Prentice Hall.

Morris, Richard. 1997. Achilles in the Quantum World. New York: Henry Holt & Co.

Pagels, Heinz. 1982. The Cosmic Code. Toronto: Bantam.

Stenger, Victor. 1996. Posting on DEBATE list (19 Mar)

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
I hope I have provided answers to your concerns.

[The Vegan Marxist]

To me, I merely ask "why can't there be something that never had a beginning, nor an end? Sure, it's a bit past our way of thinking, though our way of thinking is flawed as well. To state that there was a beginning, one could ask, "then what created that beginning, & then that beginning, & then that beginning?" A never-ending line of monotonous questions. It becomes illogical in itself. And so, to me, one has to ask themselves now, does there really have to be a beginning in something for it to exist?

[Adi Shankara]

Interestingly enough, this doesn't compromise any belief in Dharmic beliefs of creation (Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism) at all; in fact, it might even reinforce the position of us, seeing as the cosmic egg can be comparable to the big bang, and creator gods in Hinduism aren't all powerful nor did they create the universe like god does in abrahamic faith.

[Adi Shankara]

Neither being (sat) nor non-being was as yet. What was concealed? And where? And in whose protection?…Who really knows? Who can declare it? Whence was it born, and whence came this creation? The devas were born later than this world's creation, so who knows from where it came into existence? None can know from where creation has arisen, and whether he has or has not produced it. He who surveys it in the highest heavens, he alone knows-or perhaps does not know.

--Rig Veda 10. 129

[Kiev Communard]

Interestingly enough, this doesn't compromise any belief in Dharmic beliefs of creation (Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism) at all; in fact, it might even reinforce the position of us, seeing as the cosmic egg can be comparable to the big bang, and creator gods in Hinduism aren't all powerful nor did they create the universe like god does in abrahamic faith.

Well, see this for refutation of 'Dharmic Atheism" argument: http://nirmukta.com/2009/11/28/is-hindu-atheism-valid-a-rationalist-critique-of-the-hindu-identitys-usurpation-of-indian-culture/

And this for Buddhist one: http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/buddhism_criticism.html (http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/buddhism_criticism.html)

As to whether the Dharmic mythology is more compatible with the modern scientific viewpoint than the Abrahamic one, I would answer: "Definitely not!". In Vedic myths there are still typical myths of creation reminiscent of the other Indo-European religions. For instance here is the myth of "Primeval Sacrifice" that is quite close to Germanic myth of Ymir the Giant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ymir):




DISMEMBERMENT: THE PRIMEVAL MAN
IS SACRIFICED

One cosmogonic myth is the subject of an entire Rg Vedic hymn, which explains original creation as the result of a primeval sacrifice -- not a true blood sacrifice, but a dismemberment and distribution; not an actual creation of something out of nothing, but rather a rearrangement, another instance of order out of chaos. The primeval Man is not changed into the various forms of life; rather, he is those forms, always. It is worthy of note that creation produces not only the physical elements of the universe but also the social order, the basis of life in the Hindu view, as well as the seasons and the parts of the very sacrifice from which creation proceeds.

2. FROM THE Rg Veda (10.90)

The Man (Purusha) has a thousand heads, a thousand eyes, a thousand feet. He pervades the earth everywhere and extends beyond for ten fingers' breadth. The Man himself is all this, whatever has been and whatever is to be. He is the lord of immortality and also lord of that which grows on food. Such is his greatness, and the Man is yet greater than this. All creatures make up a quarter of him; three quarters are the immortal in heaven. With three quarters the Man has risen above, and one quarter of him still remains here, whence he spread out everywhere, pervading that which eats and that which does not eat. From him Virj (1) was born, and from Virj came the Man, who, having been born, ranged beyond the earth before and behind. When the gods spread the sacrifice, using the Man as the offering, spring was the clarified butter, summer the fuel, autumn the oblation. They anointed the Man, the sacrifice, born at the beginning, upon the sacred grass. With him the gods, Sdhyas, and sages sacrificed. From that sacrifice in which everything was offered, the clarified butter was obtained, and they made it into those beasts who live in the air, in the forest, and in villages. From that sacrifice in which everything was offered, the verses and the chants were born, the metres were born, and the formulas (2) were born. From it horses were born, and those other animals which have a double set of incisors; cows were born from it, and goats and sheep were born from it.

When they divided the Man, into how many parts did they disperse him? What became of his mouth, what of his arms, what were his two thighs and his two feet called? His mouth was the brahmin, his arms were made into the nobles, his two thighs were the populace, and from his feet the servants (3) were born. The moon was born from his mind; the sun was born from his eye. From his mouth came Indra (4) and Agni, and from his vital breath the wind (Vyu) was born. From his navel the atmosphere was born; from his head the heaven appeared. From his two feet came the earth, and the regions of the sky from his ear. Thus they fashioned the worlds. There were seven, enclosing fire-sticks for him, and thrice seven fire-sticks when the gods, spreading the sacrifice, bound down the Man as the sacrificial beast. With this sacrifice the gods sacrificed; these were the first dharmas. (5) And these powers reached the dome of heaven where dwell the ancient Sdhyas and gods.

Home Page: Girardian Reflections on the Lectionary

Notes

1. 'He who Rules afar', a primeval being.

2. The three Vedas consist of verses (Rg Veda), chants (Sma Veda) and formulas (Yajur Veda).

3. The four classes (varnas) of ancient Indian society were the priests (brahmins), nobles or warriors (ksatriyas), the 'all' -- i.e. the general populace (vi or vaiyas), and servants (dras).

4. Indra is the king of the gods.

5. Dharma designates social order, the social norm, the ideal order of the world.

Some more reflections on the deeply reactionary nature of Hindy creation myths:




Cultural Analysis: Ancient India’s Creation Myths and Caste System Influence


Located in Southern Asia, India is known for more than its traditional fashions we perceive today. There is more to its mere modern society. India is an ancient city with a very captivating background. From social, religious, to historical aspects, ancient India has been created on a foundation that stands strong in its beliefs. There were countless steps taken in order to instill a value in its large society. History and religion play the most important role in doing so. Having a powerful structure will insure any society of their chance at gaining an advantage in understanding the value of the society’s beliefs. This has allowed the caste system to stamp its position in India’s ancient history. The caste system is a division of society based on differences of wealth, inherited rank or privilege, profession, occupation, or race.[1] The creation myth is also an important aspect in creating ancient India’s norms. The caste system of 200 C.E. and creation myth of 500 B.C.E goes hand in hand. As we uncover the numerous explanations of why society is in its present condition, we will gain a detailed understanding of its many influences. While referring to the Rig Veda and Aryan influence, it is evident that the Hindu creation myth has helped established society’s caste system.

The influence of Aryans around 1500 B.C.E. in the Indian society influenced the Indian caste system drastically. The Aryans had a system of cosmic and social order.[2] When the Aryans arrived in India they disregarded the local cultures.[3] They began conquering and taking control over regions in north India and at the same time pushed the local people southwards or towards the jungles and mountains in north India.[4] This prompted the society to create a system of class. As the influence of a class system hardened in Ancient India, the idea of varna’s had become so deeply embedded in the Indian mind that its terminology was even used, for the classification of precious commodities.[5]

In correspondence with the Hindu creation myth, Vedas are the basis of understanding the Hindu society. A Veda is any of four canonical collections of hymns, prayers, and liturgical formulas that comprise the earliest Hindu sacred writings.[6] “Around 500 B.C.E Indians began to record their extensive oral religious traditions in what became known as Vedic literature.”[7] The Rig Veda, one of the oldest serves as significance because the Hindu creation myth and caste system can be found in it. Chapter five of the Rig Veda introduces the Varna.

There are four main class levels or Varna’s in the caste system, Brahmans, Kshatrias, Vaishias, and Sundras. According to the religious aspect of the ancient creation myth, each level of class was created from each body part of Purush. In reference to the ancient Hindu book, Purush was the primal man.[8] The body parts of Purush play a significant part in establishing boundaries of the caste system. It is understood that Purush destroyed himself in order to create human society.[9] Each part of the body determined a level class based on its order from the top to the bottom. The Brahmans which were created from Purush’s head were acknowledged as the highest level of the caste system. Following Brahmans were the Kshatrias created from his hands, Vaishias (thighs), and its lowest class, Sundras (feet). As things progressed including the Aryan invasion, ancient India’s system of class became more sophisticated. This is evident in the creation myth of Rig Veda. Lines eleven and twelve of the Rig Veda simply stated, “When they divided Purusha how many portions did they make? What do they call his mouth, his arms? What do they call his thighs and feet? The Brahman was his mouth, of both his arms was the Rajanya made. His thighs became the Vaisya; from his feet the Sudra was produced.”[10]

The Aryan’s distinguished different classes and brought attention to a system known as the caste system. Understanding where you came from and why was now more important than any time before. This prompted the difference in gender and the role it played on levels of class as well. Men were more dominate in the caste system. Women were born into their varna and it could not be changed. “Relations between classes and social groups in later Hinduism were governed by rules of endogamy (marriage was only legitimate within the group).”[11] If a man wanted to marry outside his class he had the option to marry and descend to a lower class but there was no moving of the woman to a higher one. “The natural reproductive role of child-bearing and nursing was at one time thought to be the factor that constrained the “economic” activities of women, being translated, for instance, into restriction to such activities as gathering, rather than hunting.”[12] The Hindu creation myth did provide a basis for a caste system, with this in mind, the conclusion drawn was that, the caste system was not a fair system nor was it moral. The caste system could have easily been thrown out to make ancient India a more prosperous and justified society. Yet, with the impact that the creation myth played on society it was not.

The Hindu creation myth and Aryans worked hand in hand. The Aryans powerful influence impacted the ancient Indian society’s caste system. As stated earlier, with the help of Aryan influence the Hindu creation myth influenced the creation of the caste system. According to this system of class, being a priest, warrior, trader, or laborer determined your status in ancient India. The Brahmans, Kshatrias, Vaishias, and Sundras were more than a mere comparison with Purush’s body parts. Each level also served as a social standing. Brahmans were considered the priest, Kshatrias were warriors, Vaishias (traders), and Sundras serves as laborers. Without the creation myth there would be no beginning to the caste system. The Hindu creation myth serves as the caste systems fundamentals to enriching the society. It has allowed the ancient Indian society to stand in firm belief of its system. Every culture has influenced one another with great impact. The ancient Indian civilization has allowed people to compare and contrast many events that take place in society today. While comparing the significance of things today it also allows one to reflect back to religious aspects of other beliefs. This helps determine how many creation stories are similar.

The legacy of the Ancient Indian civilization is marked in a way by the Hindu Creation Myth. The Hindu Creation myth established society and government in ancient India in a remarkable way. It is apparent that the myth has had the most influence based on many different laws and rules of the civilization. In referencing to the creation myth, as Purush developed a system of social class from the parts of his body, while the Aryan invasion is what prompted the major change is establishing the social system of class. When thinking about the effects of many different influences in ancient societies the question is often proposed, how does or has this effected today’s society? Everything taken place in the past has led up to the norms of today’s society. From ancient civilizations to modern cultural aspects everything has derived from the beginning. The attributes of ancient India can be related to the modern American society today. The American class system, upper, middle and lower class is in close comparison with ancient India’s caste system. Although there are many aspects that differ, the concept is much of the same. Understanding the past of ancient India is a contribution itself. Being knowledgeable about ancient India allows one to put several religious and cultural influences in somewhat of a timeline to better understand why society has led up to where it is today. This again goes back to the point made earlier, from ancient civilizations to modern cultural aspects; everything has derived from the beginning. The explanation of the Hindu Creation myth and its influence on Ancient India’s caste system has been proven remarkable.
[1] Veda. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/veda (accessed October 7, 2009).


2 Religion and Ethics. 2009. http://www.abc.net.au/religion/stories/s790133.htm (accessed October 7, 2009).

[3] Aharon, Daniel, “The Beginning of the Caste System,” avalible from http://adaniel.tripod.com/origin.htm, Internet (accessed October 7, 2009).

[4] Ibid

[5] Basham, A. L, The Wonder That Was India (Great Britain: Williams Clowes and Sons, 1954), 137-138

[6] Veda. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/veda (accessed October 7, 2009).

[7] WebCT, “Hindu Creation Myth and Caste System,” available from http://cauwebct.cau.edu/webct/urw/lc5122001.tp0/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct

[8]Aharon, Daniel, “The Beginning of the Caste System,” avalible from http://adaniel.tripod.com/origin.htm, Internet (accessed October 7, 2009).

[9] Ibid

[10] Griffin, Ralph T.H, “The Rig Veda” available from http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/workbook/ralprs5b.htm (accessed October 7, 2009)

[11] Basham, A. L, The Wonder That Was India (Great Britain: Williams Clowes and Sons, 1954), 147

[12] Kelkar, Govind, and Dev Nathan, Gender and Tribe: Women, Land, and Forest in Jharkhand (New Delhi: Kali for Women, 1991), 1

I fail to see how such crude and deeply reactionary cosmogonic myth has anything to do with the modern science.

As for the "quantum consciousness" idea that is derived from Vedanta Brahman concept, it is pseudo-scientific and completely unsubstantiated notion.

[AK]

Interestingly enough, this doesn't compromise any belief in Dharmic beliefs of creation (Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism) at all; in fact, it might even reinforce the position of us, seeing as the cosmic egg can be comparable to the big bang, and creator gods in Hinduism aren't all powerful nor did they create the universe like god does in abrahamic faith.
Shut up. Fucking hell.

[#FF0000]

Interestingly enough, this doesn't compromise any belief in Dharmic beliefs of creation (Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism) at all; in fact, it might even reinforce the position of us, seeing as the cosmic egg can be comparable to the big bang, and creator gods in Hinduism aren't all powerful nor did they create the universe like god does in abrahamic faith.

Broken clocks, twice a day.

But, yeah this is pretty interesting, though I thought "string theory" was something that wasn't really taken seriously in the scientific world?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Broken clocks, twice a day.

But, yeah this is pretty interesting, though I thought "string theory" was something that wasn't really taken seriously in the scientific world?

Well, vacuum energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy) appears to be real.

[Invincible Summer]

And this for Buddhist one: http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/buddhism_criticism.html (http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/buddhism_criticism.html)


The author of the article has some fairly naive views on the world though:


Higher Buddhism caters for those who are already on a higher level, just like scholarly Christianity suits the intelligent and elitist Satanism suits the naturally strong and mature,



Buddhism doesn't offer much insight into how the masses may improve themselves beyond offering the same social programs that socially aware governments offer.


In an age where the UN and many secular multinational organisations have more strength and much willpower, social Buddhism has passed its hey-day as a useful tool of humanitarianism and global welfare

So Satanism (I'm assuming the author refers to LaVeyan Satanism) is for "strong and mature" people, and bourgeois governments and institutions like the UN are positive forces in the world with no other agendas?

Hmmmmm...


I mean (at least ideally) a Buddhist of the Mahayana tradition will do social good in order to relieve the suffering of others, but the UN or "socially aware governments" always have strings attached.

The criticism made about "Western Buddhism" as really just "repackaged new Age mysticism" isn't really a criticism of Buddhism at all, but more of the yuppie practitioners.

As for the "inhumane dismissal of suffering," to my understanding, the Eightfold Path is meant to instigate the elimination of dukkha (suffering). Also, IIRC, Mahayana Buddhists are basically supposed to reject attaining Enlightenment only for themselves, but help others attain it and eliminate dukkha

[Kiev Communard]

The author of the article has some fairly naive views on the world though:







So Satanism (I'm assuming the author refers to LaVeyan Satanism) is for "strong and mature" people, and bourgeois governments and institutions like the UN are positive forces in the world with no other agendas?

Hmmmmm...


I mean (at least ideally) a Buddhist of the Mahayana tradition will do social good in order to relieve the suffering of others, but the UN or "socially aware governments" always have strings attached.

The criticism made about "Western Buddhism" as really just "repackaged new Age mysticism" isn't really a criticism of Buddhism at all, but more of the yuppie practitioners.

As for the "inhumane dismissal of suffering," to my understanding, the Eightfold Path is meant to instigate the elimination of dukkha (suffering). Also, IIRC, Mahayana Buddhists are basically supposed to reject attaining Enlightenment only for themselves, but help others attain it and eliminate dukkha

Of course, the author is some sort of left-liberal "humanist" but I used this article as the reference mainly because of this:


But nonetheless, various forms of Buddhism in various times have been instruments of war and violence. Buddhist sects have argued and fought over doctrine, over populations and methods, over pride and national independence.

"Conze has argued [...] that 'some of the success of the [Tibetan Buddhist] Gelug-pa [sect] was due to the military support of the Mongols, who, during the seventeenth century, frequently devastated the monasteries of the rival Red sects. The long association of Japanese Zen Buddhism with military prowess and aggressive imperialism has already been noted... [...] and Trevor Ling has argued that South-East Asian Buddhist kingdoms were as militarily aggressive and self-seeking as any others. Walpola Rahula [describes] a war of national independence in Sri Lanka in the second century BC conducted under the slogan 'Not for kingdom, but for Buddhism'"

"The Social Face of Buddhism" by Ken H Jones, p285-286

Buddhism has integrated itself with governments and found itself manipulating the populace just as many other religions have done.

"After the Meiji Restoration feudalism was replaced by a State dedicated to overseas expansion, and the Zen establishment found a new role in nurturing absolute obedience to it and supporting imperial wars of conquest. In the 1930s Zen Masters occupied themselves more and more with giving military men Zen training [...]. The events of this military epoch in the history of Zen have been chronicled by Ichikawa Hakugen, a Zen priest and professor at Kyoto's Hanazono University, who in books like The War Responsibility of Buddhists, condemned Zen's (and his own) collaboration with Japanese fascism."

"The Social Face of Buddhism" by Ken H Jones, p212

Buddhism in Japan and the USA has seen the emergence of "training" for corporate employees designed to quell dissatisfaction and discord, in short, of covering up the symptoms of illness and bad practice rather than tackling the problems of social malaise and industry work standards. Buddhism, despite its highly socially-centered morality frequently slips into individual remedies when in order to be consistent and true to its own teachings it should be engaging in wider social work.

For more information on Zen Buddhists' (which is one of Mahayana offshoots) involvement with Japanese militarism before and during World War II, see this book - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War, http://books.google.com.ua/books?id=qhMLAAAAYAAJ&q=Zen+at+War&dq=Zen+at+War&hl=uk&ei=djiBTKCUMMLLswbBv-ynBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA

[Adi Shankara]

Shut up. Fucking hell.

no; quit acting childish.

[Invincible Summer]

O


For more information on Zen Buddhists' (which is one of Mahayana offshoots) involvement with Japanese militarism before and during World War II, see this book - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War, http://books.google.com.ua/books?id=qhMLAAAAYAAJ&q=Zen+at+War&dq=Zen+at+War&hl=uk&ei=djiBTKCUMMLLswbBv-ynBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA

How did Zen teachings inform militarism and nationalism? Also, how does this have bearing on how Zen is practiced today? What does this have to do with creationism?

[AK]

no; quit acting childish.
In most sciences and environment threads you make a point of it to try to use science to reinforce your religious beliefs. Science and creation mythology stand in direct opposition to each other.

[NGNM85]

But, yeah this is pretty interesting, though I thought "string theory" was something that wasn't really taken seriously in the scientific world?

It went out of vogue, then it came back as new discoveries were made.The problem is that it is presently impossible to verify. Even if it makes a lot of sense and is strongly implied by the rest of the evidence we have, science fundamentally rests on material evidence. However, it's very possible we may one day be able to prove it, perhaps even in the relatively near future.

[Kiev Communard]

How did Zen teachings inform militarism and nationalism? Also, how does this have bearing on how Zen is practiced today? What does this have to do with creationism?

I brought up this subject simply to dispel the illusions that Buddhism is somehow "peaceful", "tolerant" (the Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka expelled by the Buddhist Nationalist regime is the best counter-proof to this claim), and even "scientific". As to Zen Buddhism's role in shaping the culture of militarism in Japan, one has to bear in mind that bushi-do code was actually highly influenced by Zen teachings and Zen itself for centuries was a preferred religion for Samurai feudal class. The book Zen At War deals with the subject of Zen influence upon the modern (1868-1945) Japanese Militarism in more detail. Unfortunately, I could find only the fragments of it on Google Books, but here is a review of it by the Buddhism scholar:




The Buddhist discourse of the time seems to have been animated by two major features, mentioned only in passing by the author despite their importance. These were, respectively, the decision to promote loyalty to the throne, patriotism, and national unity (pp. 12-13), and the sense of a "Japanese spiritual burden," according to the expression of Anesaki Masaharu (p.15). Such a "burden," which was unquestionably based on a feeling of spiritualand moral superiority, referred to the project to unify Eastern and Western thought and the advancement of the East. Loyalty to the throne and patriotism were expressed by a rhetoric of filial piety and self-sacrifice, whereas Japan's "spiritual burden" was clearly connected to militarism and colonialism. As the book explains, Buddhist institutions were directly engaged in various activities for the support of state military and colonial policies: the establishment of missions as part of the Japanese colonial administration, the performance of rituals for the protection of the state and the defeat of its enemies, fund raising, and training of soldiers (pp. 139-144).

Japanese Buddhist institutions and leading intellectuals produced a theology/ideology for the whole spectrum of right-wing Japanese politics. However, there were several attempts to develop alternate discourses, of a democratic and socialist nature, through an original and creative reinterpretation of Buddhist doctrines. One of the merits of the book is to give voice to these minority positions. The Zen priest Uchiyama Gudoo (1874-1911), executed by the government for his supposed involvement in a plot to kill the emperor, was an active member of the anarcho-socialist movement (pp. 38-48).

The Youth League for the Revitalization of Buddhism (Shinkoo Bukkyoo Seinen Doomei) was another democratic movement that challenged the authoritarian tendencies of the Buddhist world (pp. 66-73). It was inexorably isolated by institutional Buddhism and repressed and disbanded by the police. The book also suggests that there was individual, non-organized resistance to Japan's wartime policies, even though it is obviously difficult to trace it. Victoria mentions a few notable examples (pp. 73-78).

The numerous examples and quotations in the book are quite effective in showing the overall intellectual bankruptcy of Buddhism at the time. What is particularly interesting, and is unfortunately lacking in the book, is an analysis of the discursive strategies employed by the intellectuals of the Buddhist establishment. Buddhist attitudes toward the war were mainly shaped by unquestioned adherence to state ideology and policies. It seems to me that most of the Buddhist world in Japan from 1868 to 1945 was engaged in a rhetorical exercise to adjust traditional Buddhist concepts and doctrines to dominant political ideas. Almost never was Buddhism capable of an original, innovative contribution to politics; all it did was to follow supinely the lead of the regime and give the dominant ideology the support of Buddhist exegesis. Paramount was the justification of war, perhaps because it was the least justifiable action in Buddhist terms. We find statements like the following: " vigorously supports such wars [fought for good purposes] to the point of being a war enthusiast," wrote Hayashiya Tomojiroo and Shimakage Chikai (p. 88); "without plunging into the war arena, it is totally impossible to know the Buddha Dharma," wrote the well-known Zen master Harada Daiun Soogaku (p.137).

Traditional notions were deployed for the politico-theological purpose of justifying state policies in Buddhist terms. Particularly important in this respect were Buddhism's historical role as a protector of the country (chingo kokka or gokoku bukkyoo), the Zen connections to the samuraii deals (and here the newly invented notion of bushidoo played an important role) and its related spirit of self-sacrifice, in turn glossed as a result of the traditional Buddhist idea of selflessness (muga). Even the notion of compassion was mobilized. Lieutenant colonel Sugimoto Goroo, a famous Zen follower, wrote: "The wars of the empire . . . are the [Buddhist]practice (gyoo) of great compassion (daijihishin)" (quoted on p. 119). Even the style at times resembled that typical of a Zen kooan (perhaps mediated by fascist Futurism): "[If ordered to] march: tramp,tramp, or shoot: bang, bang. This is the manifestation of the highest Wisdom[of Enlightenment]," wrote again Daiun (quoted on p. 137). It is interesting to notice how the apparent variety of the Buddhist ideological discourse (in which each sect mobilized its own vocabulary to reaffirm the same dominant positions), actually hid its stunning simplicity, as a mere commentary to a few sonorous state slogans.

Particularly relevant, and deserving of an in-depth study in itself, is the role of notions such as nondualism and the twofold truth, as they were subjected to aberrant readings that yielded stunning authoritarian and militaristic interpretations. It is the twofold truth, in particular, that grounded the reversal of common-sense knowledge about Buddhist doctrines. In other words, what appeared as an obvious violation of Buddhist tenets against killing, for example, was described as a superficial interpretation based on limited understanding. Only the wisdom of enlightenment could give one access to the real significance of war and other apparent immoral acts. The book relates several cases, such as that of Kurebayashi Koodoo:"Wherever the imperial military advances there is only charity and love. They could never act in the barbarous and cruel way in which the Chinese soldiers act" (p. 133); D.T. Suzuki: "it is really not he [the soldier] but the sword itself that does the killing. He had no desire to do harm to anybody, but the enemy appears and makes himself a victim" (p. 110),which is in turn connected to the popular theme of the "sword that gives life" by killing; Sawaki Koodoo: "Whether one kills or does not kill, the precept forbidding killing . It is the precept forbidding killing that wields the sword. It is this precept that throws the bomb"(p. 36).

[B]Also the principles of non-dualism (funi) and no-self (muga) were used, mostly in order to emphasize the citizen's subjection to the totalitarian state represented by the emperor and to authority in general. The famed scholar Shimaji Mokurai, for example, "maintained that distinctionin social standing and wealth were as permanent as differences in age,sex, and language. Socialism, in his view, was flawed because it emphasized only social and economic equality. That is to say, socialists failed to understand the basic Buddhist teaching that 'differentiation is identical with equality' (sabetsu soku byoodoo)" (p. 41-42). At the same time, individual citizens are "of one body and mind with the state," therefore "they cannot exist without the state" (Hayashiya and Shimakage, quoted on p. 89). Again, it is interesting to notice how the entire Buddhist conceptual apparatus was simplified and reduced to a discourse that was most of the time symbiotic with official propaganda. Also, epistemological notions were used to support right-wing ideology.

The book does not limit itself to presenting the ideology of the leading Buddhists until 1945. It also addresses the reactions of the Buddhist establishment in the post-war period. Despite Buddhism's active and massive engagement in war-time ideology, it is surprising that declarations of war responsibility by Japanese Buddhist sects were issued more than forty years after the end of World War II, and only by branches of the Shin, Sootoo, and Tendai sects (pp. 152-157). Yet, as Victoria writes, such statements "almost totally ignore . . . the question of the doctrinal and historical relationship between Buddhism and the state" (pp. 156-157). D.T. Suzuki, for example, chose to blame Shintoo for the war crimes (p. 150) and, like many other Buddhist writers, kept trying to find positive aspects in the Japanese war.

This was, of course, digression from the main theme of thread, but here is some information on the elements of creation typical for Vajrayana (and for some schools of Mahayana) Buddhism:




Primordial Buddhas
Main article: [I]Eternal Buddha

Theories regarding a self-existent "ground of being" were common in India prior to the Buddha, and were rejected by him: "The Buddha, however, refusing to admit any metaphysical principle as a common thread holding the moments of encountered phenomena together, rejects the Upanishadic notion of an immutable substance or principle underlying the world and the person and producing phenomena out of its inherent power, be it 'being', atman, brahman, or 'god.'"[41]

In later Mahayana literature, however, the idea of an eternal, all-pervading, all-knowing, immaculate, uncreated and deathless Ground of Being (the dharmadhatu, inherently linked to the sattvadhatu, the realm of beings), which is the Awakened Mind (bodhicitta) or Dharmakaya ("body of Truth") of the Buddha himself, is attributed to the Buddha in a number of Mahayana sutras, and is found in various tantras as well. In some Mahayana texts, such a principle is occasionally presented as manifesting in a more personalised form as a primordial buddha, such as Samantabhadra, Vajradhara, Vairochana, and Adi-Buddha, among others.

In some Buddhist tantric and Dzogchen scriptures, too, this immanent and transcendent Dharmakaya (the ultimate essence of the Buddha’s being) is portrayed as the primordial Buddha, Samantabhadra, worshipped as the primordial lord. In a study of Dzogchen, Dr. Sam van Schaik mentions how Samantabhadra Buddha is indeed seen as ‘the heart essence of all buddhas, the Primordial Lord, the noble Victorious One, Samantabhadra’[42]. Dr. Schaik indicates that Samantabhadra is not to be viewed as some kind of separate mindstream, apart from the mindstreams of sentient beings, but should be known as a universal nirvanic principle termed the Awakened Mind (bodhi-citta) and present in all.[43] Dr. Schaik quotes from the tantric texts, Experiencing the Enlightened Mind of Samantabhadra and The Subsequent Tantra of Great Perfection Instruction to portray Samantabhadra as an uncreated, reflexive, radiant, pure and vital Knowing (gnosis) which is present in all things:

‘The essence of all phenomena is the awakened mind; the mind of all buddhas is the awakened mind; and the life-force of all sentient beings is the awakened mind, too … This unfabricated gnosis of the present moment is the reflexive luminosity, naked and stainless, the Primordial Lord himself.’[44]

The Shingon Buddhist monk, Dohan, regarded the two great Buddhas, Amida and Vairocana, as one and the same Dharmakaya Buddha and as the true nature at the core of all beings and phenomena. There are several realisations that can accrue to the Shingon practitioner of which Dohan speaks in this connection, as Dr. James Sanford points out: there is the realisation that Amida is the Dharmakaya Buddha, Vairocana; then there is the realisation that Amida as Vairocana is eternally manifest within this universe of time and space; and finally there is the innermost realisation that Amida is the true nature, material and spiritual, of all beings, that he is 'the omnivalent wisdom-body, that he is the unborn, unmanifest, unchanging reality that rests quietly at the core of all phenomena'.[45]

Similar God-like descriptions are encountered in the All-Creating King Tantra (Kunjed Gyalpo Tantra), where the universal Mind of Awakening (in its mode as "Samantabhadra Buddha") declares of itself:[46]

I am the core of all that exists. I am the seed of all that exists. I am the cause of all that exists. I am the trunk of all that exists. I am the foundation of all that exists. I am the root of existence. I am "the core" because I contain all phenomena. I am "the seed" because I give birth to everything. I am "the cause" because all comes from me. I am "the trunk" because the ramifications of every event sprout from me. I am "the foundation" because all abides in me. I am called "the root" because I am everything.

The Karandavyuha Sutra presents the great bodhisattva, Avalokitesvara, as a kind of supreme lord of the cosmos. A striking feature of Avalokitesvara in this sutra is his creative power, as he is said to be the progenitor of various heavenly bodies and divinities. Dr. Alexander Studholme, in his monograph on the sutra, writes:

'The sun and moon are said to be born from the bodhisattva's eyes, Mahesvara [Siva] from his brow, Brahma from his shoulders, Narayana [Vishnu] from his heart, Sarasvati from his teeth, the winds from his mouth, the earth from his feet and the sky from his stomach.'[47]

Avalokitesvara himself is linked in the versified version of the sutra to the first Buddha, the Adi Buddha, who is 'svayambhu' (self-existent, not born from anything or anyone). Dr. Studholme comments: "Avalokitesvara himself, the verse sutra adds, is an emanation of the Adibuddha, or 'primordial Buddha', a term that is explicitly said to be synoymous with Svayambhu and Adinatha, 'primordial lord'."[48]


The Eternal Buddha of Shin Buddhism

In Shin Buddhism, Amida Buddha is viewed as the eternal Buddha who manifested as Shakyamuni in India and who is the personification of Nirvana itself. The Shin Buddhist priest, John Paraskevopoulos, in his monograph on Shin Buddhism, writes:

'In Shin Buddhism, Nirvana or Ultimate Reality (also known as the "Dharma-Body" or Dharmakaya in the original Sanskrit) has assumed a more concrete form as (a) the Buddha of Infinite Light (Amitabha) and Infinite Life (Amitayus)and (b) the "Pure Land" or "Land of Utmost Bliss" (Sukhavati), the realm over which this Buddha is said to preside ... Amida is the Eternal Buddha who is said to have taken form as Shakyamuni and his teachings in order to become known to us in ways we can readily comprehend.'[49]

John Paraskevopoulos elucidates the notion of Nirvana, of which Amida is an embodiment, in the following terms:

'... [Nirvana's] more positive connotation is that of a higher state of being, the dispelling of illusion and the corresponding joy of liberation. An early Buddhist scripture describes Nirvana as: ... the far shore, the subtle, the very difficult to see, the undisintegrating, the unmanifest, the peaceful, the deathless, the sublime, the auspicious, the secure, the destruction of craving, the wonderful, the amazing, the unailing, the unafflicted, dispassion, purity, freedom, the island, the shelter, the asylum, the refuge ... (Samyutta Nikaya)'[50]

This Nirvana is seen as eternal and of one nature, indeed as the essence of all things. Paraskevopoulos tells of how the Mahaparinirvana Sutra speaks of Nirvana as eternal, pure, blissful and true self:

'In Mahayana Buddhism it is taught that there is fundamentally one reality which, in its highest and purest dimension, is experienced as Nirvana. It is also known, as we have seen, as the Dharma-Body (considered as the ultimate form of Being) or "Suchness" (Tathata in Sanskrit) when viewed as the essence of all things ... "The Dharma-Body is eternity, bliss, true self and purity. It is forever free of all birth, ageing, sickness and death" (Nirvana Sutra)'[51]

To attain this Self, however, it is needful to transcend the 'small self' and its pettiness with the help of an 'external' agency, Amida Buddha. This is the view promulgated by the Jodo Shinshu founding Buddhist master, Shinran Shonin. John Paraskevopoulos comments on this:

'Shinran's great insight was that we cannot conquer the self by the self. Some kind of external agency is required: (a) to help us to shed light on our ego as it really is in all its petty and baneful guises; and (b) to enable us to subdue the small 'self' with a view to realising the Great Self by awakening to Amida's light.'[52]

When that Great Self of Amida's light is realised, Shin Buddhism is able to see the Infinite which transcends the care-worn mundane. John Paraskevopoulos concludes his monograph on Shin Buddhism thus:

'It is time we discarded the tired view of Buddhism as a dry and forensic rationalism , lacking in warmth and devotion ... By hearing the call of Amida Buddha we become awakened to true reality and its unfathomable working ... to live a life that dances jubilantly in the resplendent light of the Infinite.'[53]

As one can see, the images of Avalokiteshvara and Great Amida have much in common with "traditional" creator deities of more "theistic" religion, while "the Awakened Mind", even though not a personal God of Abrahamic religions, is considered to be "the seed of all that exists", because it "gives birth to everything" - quite implicit notion of Creationism, I suppose.

[Commiechu]

This is good news I suppose, but as a dialectical materialist I cannot readily accept the big bang as a realistic explanation of the universes beginning (Not that it really needs one).

[Kiev Communard]

This is good news I suppose, but as a dialectical materialist I cannot readily accept the big bang as a realistic explanation of the universes beginning (Not that it really needs one).

Well, the Soviet school of cosmology definitely accepted the idea of the Big Bang, considering it to be "the singular state", before which the matter "passed through the infinite number of the other forms". Therefore the Big Bang was conceived by the Soviet cosmologists to be precisely the dialectical transition from one of these states of matter to the present one, which is in no way contradicts the basic tenets of Dialectical Materialism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This is good news I suppose, but as a dialectical materialist I cannot readily accept the big bang as a realistic explanation of the universes beginning (Not that it really needs one).

Who cares if it contradicts dialectical materialism? The proper way to do science is to build the theories around the evidence, not to torture or ignore the evidence so that it fits a pre-conceived notion of the world. That's what separates scientific thinking from magical thinking.

[Adi Shankara]

Who cares if it contradicts dialectical materialism? The proper way to do science is to build the theories around the evidence, not to torture or ignore the evidence so that it fits a pre-conceived notion of the world. That's what separates scientific thinking from magical thinking.

No offense, but what Christopher does is what most atheists do when it comes to religion and science. I'm sure you're not that way, but the vast majority of atheists I've met are just as dogmatic as the most religious of people.

also, interesting note, but the Big Bang theory was first conceived by a jesuit priest who came to the conclusion that it proved the existence of god. I might've mentioned that elsewhere, but it's ironic.v

[Kiev Communard]

No offense, but what Christopher does is what most atheists do when it comes to religion and science. I'm sure you're not that way, but the vast majority of atheists I've met are just as dogmatic as the most religious of people.

also, interesting note, but the Big Bang theory was first conceived by a jesuit priest who came to the conclusion that it proved the existence of god. I might've mentioned that elsewhere, but it's ironic.v

Well, the Soviet scientists found a way to reconcile the Big Bang theory with the Dialectical Materialism, so your criticism is off the mark.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No offense, but what Christopher does is what most atheists do when it comes to religion and science. I'm sure you're not that way, but the vast majority of atheists I've met are just as dogmatic as the most religious of people.

Unless you think dialectics is a religion, I'm not sure why you think this is relevant.

In any case, I see your anecdote and raise you mine; most of the smartest and freethinking people I've come across have been atheists.


also, interesting note, but the Big Bang theory was first conceived by a jesuit priest who came to the conclusion that it proved the existence of god. I might've mentioned that elsewhere, but it's ironic.v

It's no more ironic than Newton believing that God's responsibility was to keep the universe from collapsing on itself.


Well, the Soviet scientists found a way to reconcile the Big Bang theory with the Dialectical Materialism, so your crticism is off the mark.

My point was that they needn't have bothered; the fact that Soviet scientists could basically talk their way around the problem is a testament to DM's intellectual vapidity.

[28350]

Broken clocks, twice a day.

But, yeah this is pretty interesting, though I thought "string theory" was something that wasn't really taken seriously in the scientific world?

Quite the opposite. It's just a matter of which string theory (or M-theory, by extent).

Researchers Discover How to Conduct First Test of 'Untestable' String Theory (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100901091938.htm)

[Commiechu]

My main problem is that it relies on too many hypothetical entities for its existence - those being Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and Inflation. Not to mention that it violates the law of conservation of energy. You also have to keep in mind that there is matter in the universe which is older than the maximum time allowed for the beginning of the universe by the big bang.

[28350]

My main problem is that it relies on too many hypothetical entities for its existence - those being Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and Inflation.

Dark matter is not hypothesized because the "theory doesn't fit," it's hypothesized because observed discrepancies. Wikipedia:


In astronomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy) and cosmology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology), dark matter is matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter) that is inferred to exist from gravitational (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity) effects on visible matter and background radiation, but is undetectable by emitted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbody_spectrum) or scattered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scattering) electromagnetic radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#cite_note-0) Its existence was hypothesized to account for discrepancies between measurements of the mass of galaxies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy), clusters of galaxies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_cluster) and the entire universe made through dynamical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamics_%28mechanics%29) and general relativistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity) means, and measurements based on the mass of the visible "luminous" matter these objects contain: stars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star) and the gas and dust of the interstellar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium) and intergalactic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space#Intergalactic) media.

Dark energy was hypothesized for a similar reason:

In physical cosmology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology), astronomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy) and celestial mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_mechanics), dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy) that permeates all of space and tends to increase the rate of expansion of the universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#cite_note-peebles-0) Dark energy is the most popular way to explain recent observations and experiments that the universe appears to be expanding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space) at an accelerating rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceleration_parameter). In the standard model of cosmology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model), dark energy currently accounts for 74% of the total mass-energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence) of the universe.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#cite_note-Wmap_5_Year-1)

And as for inflation, it's backed up pretty well mathematically.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

My main problem is that it relies on too many hypothetical entities for its existence - those being Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and Inflation. Not to mention that it violates the law of conservation of energy.

Firstly, conservation of energy is only a "law" because no exceptions have been found, which does not rule out exceptions being found later. Secondly, if energy is conserved by all cosmogenic processes, then it suggests the existence of either some kind of multiverse from which our universe aqcuired its mass-energy or some form of negative energy to keep the energy budget balanced.


You also have to keep in mind that there is matter in the universe which is older than the maximum time allowed for the beginning of the universe by the big bang.

Citation? Because while I'm aware the existence of objects apparently older than the universe has resulted in revisions of previous estimations of the age of the universe, I don't recall that happening recently, nor have I seen it used as credible evidfence against the big bang theory.

[Commiechu]

Dark matter is not hypothesized because the "theory doesn't fit," it's hypothesized because observed discrepancies. Wikipedia:


Dark energy was hypothesized for a similar reason:


And as for inflation, it's backed up pretty well mathematically.

The discrepancy is with the theory, not the material reality. There is already enough matter in the universe to account for the calculations Dark Matter is meant to explain. Recent discovery of white dwarf stars in our galaxy and hot plasma clouds in nearby galaxies seems to show that there is quite a bit more matter in the universe than was previously thought. Inflation is backed up ONLY by mathematics, the scientists responsible (mostly Alan Guth) took measurements of a certain section of the universe and used this to claim that the universe is expanding, the problem being that this seriously confuses the observable universe with the entire universe.


Citation? Because while I'm aware the existence of objects apparently older than the universe has resulted in revisions of previous estimations of the age of the universe, I don't recall that happening recently, nor have I seen it used as credible evidfence against the big bang theory.

According to the most accepted theory there can be nothing in the universe older than 15 billion years. This is contradicted by the discovery of Superclusters measuring 100 Million x 100 Million light years, by currently accepted measurements this would have taken 80-100 billion years to form. Here is one of the more accessible writings - http://www.marxist.com/science-old/bigbang.html#Constant Headaches or Hubble Trouble

[pranabjyoti]

As per this big bang theory (to be more specific as per Stephen Hawking), the universe expanded to a few thousand light year in radius in just 10 minutes after the big bang, that means its rate of inflation is much more faster than light during that time. Slowly the rate of expansion slowed but now recent observation said that its increasing. The big bang theory can not explain why and how universe slowed and accelerated its expansion. Moreover, how can the rate of expansion exceed the speed limit of light, this clearly goes against the theory of relativity.

[mikelepore]

I don't understand Hawking's comment about gravity. When mass is present, gravity acts on it. Gravity produces worlds out of dust. This assumes the prior existence of the particles. The religious believer will just say that God made the particles and then permitted forces to act on them mechanically. Most religious people, being in constant retreat to reside in the gaps, will just reply that, even if the 6-day creation is a fable, you still need God to explain the sudden appearance of a fountain of quarks and leptons. I didn't see Hawking's newest book, but the short answer excerpted in these newspaper articles isn't very convincing.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The discrepancy is with the theory, not the material reality. There is already enough matter in the universe to account for the calculations Dark Matter is meant to explain. Recent discovery of white dwarf stars in our galaxy and hot plasma clouds in nearby galaxies seems to show that there is quite a bit more matter in the universe than was previously thought.

Whatever dark matter is, there is certainly evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Matter#Observational_evidence) for it's existence.


Inflation is backed up ONLY by mathematics, the scientists responsible (mostly Alan Guth) took measurements of a certain section of the universe and used this to claim that the universe is expanding, the problem being that this seriously confuses the observable universe with the entire universe.

Do we have reason to believe there may be non-homogeneous areas elsewhere in the universe?


According to the most accepted theory there can be nothing in the universe older than 15 billion years. This is contradicted by the discovery of Superclusters measuring 100 Million x 100 Million light years, by currently accepted measurements this would have taken 80-100 billion years to form. Here is one of the more accessible writings - http://www.marxist.com/science-old/bigbang.html#Constant Headaches or Hubble Trouble

Stuff like that makes inflation more likely, not less.


I don't understand Hawking's comment about gravity. When mass is present, gravity acts on it. Gravity produces worlds out of dust. This assumes the prior existence of the particles. The religious believer will just say that God made the particles and then permitted forces to act on them mechanically. Most religious people, being in constant retreat to reside in the gaps, will just reply that, even if the 6-day creation is a fable, you still need God to explain the sudden appearance of a fountain of quarks and leptons. I didn't see Hawking's newest book, but the short answer excerpted in these newspaper articles isn't very convincing.

Probably because newspaper reporting is incredibly shitty when it comes to science and religion?

[Adi Shankara]

In most sciences and environment threads you make a point of it to try to use science to reinforce your religious beliefs. Science and creation mythology stand in direct opposition to each other.

except that Hinduism isn't creation mythology, rather, it simply says that there is no knowledge of what began the universe, and that the world came into being through a big bang? How is that even a religious belief?

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

Well, see this for refutation of 'Dharmic Atheism" argument: http://nirmukta.com/2009/11/28/is-hindu-atheism-valid-a-rationalist-critique-of-the-hindu-identitys-usurpation-of-indian-culture/[/quot

And this for Buddhist one: http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/buddhism_criticism.html (http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/buddhism_criticism.html)

The first article reads less like an argument against the rationale of dharmic philosophy and more like a polemic against Hindu cultural and political identity. My personal philosophy is very dharmic, arguably even similar to Vedic orthodoxy, yet I still think it would be a victory for humanity if Hindu political identity was forgotten.

The second article is too poorly researched to merit any comment.


As to whether the Dharmic mythology is more compatible with the modern scientific viewpoint than the Abrahamic one, I would answer: "Definitely not!". In Vedic myths there are still typical myths of creation reminiscent of the other Indo-European religions. For instance here is the myth of "Primeval Sacrifice" that is quite close to Germanic myth of Ymir the Giant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ymir): Similarity between Vedic and Germanic myths is not a substantial critique of dharmic cosmology. We have a lot to learn from classical Norse philosophy as well...


I fail to see how such crude and deeply reactionary cosmogonic myth has anything to do with the modern science. Calling traditional mythology "crude and deeply reactionary" is itself crude and deeply reactionary. But have fun smashing Beethoven records.


Vedanta [...] is a pseudo-scientific and completely unsubstantiated notion. Assertion without proof


Science and creation mythology stand in direct opposition to each other.

Science cannot be separated from other human arts such as poetry, primitive people used poetry and story-telling to explain scientific phenomena.


the Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka expelled by the Buddhist Nationalist regime [...] Zen Buddhism's role in shaping the culture of militarism in Japan, one has to bear in mind that bushi-do code was actually highly influenced by Zen teachings and Zen itself for centuries was a preferred religion for Samurai feudal classThe book Zen At War deals with the subject of Zen influence upon the modern (1868-1945) Japanese Militarism in more detail.

The fact that abusive assholes have masqueraded as Buddhists is not a refutation of classical Buddhist cosmology or ethics.


while "the Awakened Mind", even though not a personal God of Abrahamic religions, is considered to be "the seed of all that exists", because it "gives birth to everything" - quite implicit notion of Creationism, I suppose.And western intellectuals such as Einstein and Hawking also illustrate the likelihood of a "seed of all that exists"

[NGNM85]

Sean Carroll on Stephen Hawking's latest pronouncement;

GCVqJw7T1WU

BTW; Carroll's "From Eternity to Here" is great, I highly recommend it.

[Commiechu]

Whatever dark matter is, there is certainly evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Matter#Observational_evidence) for it's existence.


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18839-dark-matter-claims-thrown-into-doubt-by-new-data.html



Do we have reason to believe there may be non-homogeneous areas elsewhere in the universe?



All evidence shows that the universe is not uniform in shape or make up.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18839-dark-matter-claims-thrown-into-doubt-by-new-data.html

Here's an interesting comment on that article (since "The ramblings of any Belleville chibani contain more wisdom than all the declarations of our so-called leaders.")


I am sure that scientists running experiments such as DAMA are not going to find Dark Matter because they labour under the misapprehension that they will find a new exotic particle. Dark Matter is most probably antimatter protected from ordinary matter since Big Bang, by a process of Partition. The reason why Dark Matter appears to be so much more abundant than ordinary matter, is because it has far higher relativistic velocity than ordinary matter and Mass increases with velocities approaching the speed of light. You can also add in the Higgs Particle and the Graviton to the basket of undetectable particles, because they do not exist either. All that is required is to complete the Big Bang model properly, allowing for survival of antimatter and recognising that Quantum Mechanics does not function in "Classical Time" and most of Cosmology and Physics is easily explained.

I'm not against challenging scientific orthodoxy but the fringe campaigns against the Big Bang, Dark Matter, String Theory and so on just strike me as being motivated more by reactionary vulgar materialist bigotry than empirical observation.

[Kiev Communard]

Here's an interesting comment on that article (since "The ramblings of any Belleville chibani contain more wisdom than all the declarations of our so-called leaders.")



I'm not against challenging scientific orthodoxy but the fringe campaigns against the Big Bang, Dark Matter, String Theory and so on just strike me as being motivated more by reactionary vulgar materialist bigotry than empirical observation.

That's true. Here in Ukraine there quite a lot of fringe "scientists" who debunk Einstein's Relativity as un-scientific while championing the Theory of Ether, disproved almost 100 years ago, as the new word in science.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

And this has its origins in anti-Semitic attacks on Einstein by the Nazi intelligentsia.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18839-dark-matter-claims-thrown-into-doubt-by-new-data.html

They failed to find exotic dark matter particles, but there is still the question of what's causing the anomalous galactic rotation curves, gravitational lensing, and similar observations that indirectly suggest the presence of non-luminous matter.


All evidence shows that the universe is not uniform in shape or make up.

Actually on the very largest of observable scales the universe is remarkably homogeneous; that's what was so surprising about observations of the CMB. I believe inflation is an attempt to explain the observed uniformity.

[Kiev Communard]

They failed to find exotic dark matter particles, but there is still the question of what's causing the anomalous galactic rotation curves, gravitational lensing, and similar observations that indirectly suggest the presence of non-luminous matter.

Actually some proponents of Superstring/M-Theory cosmologies propose a hypothesis according to which multi-dimensional forces from outside the visible universe have gravitational effects on the visible universe meaning that dark matter is not necessary for a unified theory of cosmology, while Loop Quantum Gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_Quantum_Gravity) cosmology advocates claim that the assumption of the existence of dark matter is unnecessary, as the spacetime itself consists of the specific "spacetime quanta" that combine in various twists with adjacent particles of spacetime to create all of the matter and energy we see in the Universe today. In this sense, if matter is just crumpled up spacetime, then even the empty untwisted space near a large body of matter would be put under more tension than empty untwisted space far away from matter; this can be compared to long chain crumpled up in the middle, the uncrumpled chainlinks near the crumpled up portion would still feel a large tension. This can be thought of as exhibiting the same effect as dark matter would cause.

Of course, there is still no empiric support for these musings - at least, yet, - so the concept of dark matter still holds true.

[Kiev Communard]

I have just found this article. It seems that the M-Theory can now be tested empirically, not merely speculated upon:




Scientists Say They Can Now Test String Theory

The idea of the “Theory of Everything” is enticing – that we could somehow explain all that is. String theory has been proposed since the 1960’s as a way to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity into such an explanation. However, the biggest criticism of String Theory is that it isn't testable. But now, a research team led by scientists from the Imperial College London unexpectedly discovered that that string theory also seems to predict the behavior of entangled quantum particles. As this prediction can be tested in the laboratory, the researchers say they can now test string theory.

"If experiments prove that our predictions about quantum entanglement are correct, this will demonstrate that string theory 'works' to predict the behavior of entangled quantum systems," said Professor Mike Duff, lead author of the study.

String theory was originally developed to describe the fundamental particles and forces that make up our universe, and has a been a favorite contender among physicists to allow us to reconcile what we know about the incredibly small from particle physics with our understanding of the very large from our studies of cosmology. Using the theory to predict how entangled quantum particles behave provides the first opportunity to test string theory by experiment.

But – at least for now – the scientists won’t be able to confirm that String Theory is actually the way to explain all that is, just if it actually works.

"This will not be proof that string theory is the right 'theory of everything' that is being sought by cosmologists and particle physicists,” said Duff. “However, it will be very important to theoreticians because it will demonstrate whether or not string theory works, even if its application is in an unexpected and unrelated area of physics."

String theory is a theory of gravity, an extension of General Relativity, and the classical interpretation of strings and branes is that they are quantum mechanical vibrating, extended charged black holes.The theory hypothesizes that the electrons and quarks within an atom are not 0-dimensional objects, but 1-dimensional strings. These strings can move and vibrate, giving the observed particles their flavor, charge, mass and spin. The strings make closed loops unless they encounter surfaces, called D-branes, where they can open up into 1-dimensional lines. The endpoints of the string cannot break off the D-brane, but they can slide around on it.

Duff said he was sitting in a conference in Tasmania where a colleague was presenting the mathematical formulae that describe quantum entanglement when he realized something. "I suddenly recognized his formulae as similar to some I had developed a few years earlier while using string theory to describe black holes. When I returned to the UK I checked my notebooks and confirmed that the maths from these very different areas was indeed identical."

Duff and his colleagues realized that the mathematical description of the pattern of entanglement between three qubits resembles the mathematical description, in string theory, of a particular class of black holes. Thus, by combining their knowledge of two of the strangest phenomena in the universe, black holes and quantum entanglement, they realized they could use string theory to produce a prediction that could be tested. Using the string theory mathematics that describes black holes, they predicted the pattern of entanglement that will occur when four qubits are entangled with one another. (The answer to this problem has not been calculated before.) Although it is technically difficult to do, the pattern of entanglement between four entangled qubits could be measured in the laboratory and the accuracy of this prediction tested.

The discovery that string theory seems to make predictions about quantum entanglement is completely unexpected, but because quantum entanglement can be measured in the lab, it does mean that there is way – finally – researchers can test predictions based on string theory.

But, Duff said, there is no obvious connection to explain why a theory that is being developed to describe the fundamental workings of our universe is useful for predicting the behavior of entangled quantum systems. "This may be telling us something very deep about the world we live in, or it may be no more than a quirky coincidence", said Duff. "Either way, it's useful."

Of course, this doesn't mean it has been "proved", simply that it may be proved (or disproved) empirically.