The Big Bang and Consciousness

[Busby]

If we describe consciousness as that which all sentient beings have then we have to do some serious thinking when we talk about the BB.

We know from all that we have seen and read how the BB is described as being extremely loud, with massive explosions, great searing flames of fire (presumably oxygen was on hand), collisions of masses of chaotic energy, then eventually colliding galaxies, planets crashing into each other, the moon being torn out of what is now the Med. and so on...

BUT

if there were no consciousnesses at that time then all of those billions of years would have passed in darkness and in silence. Without eyes to see, ears to hear, nothing to feel heat nor cold, nothing to smell the fire and brimstone... So it's a wee bit of a problem for us beings who rely upon our senses to tell us how the world around us is.

So when did the universe really start? Was it when something became sentient or can it be explained in another fashion????????

[MicroMacro]

Originally Posted by Busby

BUT

if there were no consciousnesses at that time then all of those billions of years would have passed in darkness and in silence. Without eyes to see, ears to hear, nothing to feel heat nor cold, nothing to smell the fire and brimstone... So it's a wee bit of a problem for us beings who rely upon our senses to tell us how the world around us is.

So when did the universe really start? Was it when something became sentient or can it be explained in another fashion????????

Doesn't that presume that humans are/were the only forms of consciousness in the Universe?
Why is it a wee problem for me to rely on my senses to tell me it smokey outside due to wildfires in the south?
What makes you think the Universe may have started at a time other than when we think it did? Or - why do you think - since you weren't there - that we've pegged the BB's beginning wrong?
Do you think science is faulty?

[Busby]

Originally Posted by MicroMacro

Doesn't that presume that humans are/were the only forms of consciousness in the Universe?
Why is it a wee problem for me to rely on my senses to tell me it smokey outside due to wildfires in the south?
What makes you think the Universe may have started at a time other than when we think it did? Or - why do you think - since you weren't there - that we've pegged the BB's beginning wrong?
Do you think science is faulty?

No, it presumes nothing. Maybe consciousness formed 10 million light years away. Maybe in a plant. For instance.

Only your senses can tell you anything.

I accept the 13.5 billion year age of the universe - but that's not what I'm talking about.

No, science isn't faulty but would have to admit that without consciousness the universe would not be tangible. Which is what I'm talking about.

[MicroMacro]

Originally Posted by Busby

No, science isn't faulty but would have to admit that without consciousness the universe would not be tangible. Which is what I'm talking about.

Okay, but who is to say - or not - that the BB wasn't an explosion of consciousness? It's kind of hard to peg - exactly - what consciousness is. We can't exactly manhandle it under a microscope.

Humans evolved so - you can research and decide for yourself when you think we first became aware of the stars. But if there's life out there - it's anyone's guess when they became conscious of the stars. But whose to say consciousness doesn't reside in every little thing? Rocks. Sand. Fibers. You name it.

Consciousness is a heavy topic. What about NDEs? What happens to us when we're sleeping and dreaming? Are we UNconscious then? Some would say we're more conscious then than we are while "awake".

I think consciousness is probably bigger than my capacity to grasp. Especially since there are numerous different levels of it. My senses or being awake constitutes a fraction of the available consciousness that likely exists in the Universe. Meditation is for developing the capacity to move into deeper consciousness.

I think a few folks might say that most of humanity is UNconscious. They walk about day after day like robots, doing what they're told and playing little to no active role in the lives they live. They don't think for themselves and they don't ask a lot of questions (like you have here).

I'm surprised no one else has jumped into your thread. This is a great topic! I think that the Universe is part of us and we're part of it. We're made up OF it. And due to this, I think it explains how we know stuff sometimes that we can't explain how we know. Especially when it comes to love and things not of the mind/thinking. It's a different kind of consciousness at work.

I like to think that as humanity evolves - consciously/spiritually - so does the Universe. It is literally expanding - hopefully not for naught. And if there is other life out there - well, then their evolution is also contributing to the evolution of the Universe.

[Silver]

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" is a philosophical thought experiment that raises questions regarding observation and perception.

Can something exist without being perceived? – e.g. "is sound only sound if a person hears it?" The most immediate philosophical topic that the riddle introduces involves the existence of the tree (and the sound it produces) outside of human perception. If no one is around to see, hear, touch or smell the tree, how could it be said to exist? What is it to say that it exists when such an existence is unknown? Of course, from a scientific viewpoint, it exists.[7] It is human beings that are able to perceive it.[7] George Berkeley in the 18th century developed subjective idealism, a metaphysical theory to respond to these questions, coined famously as "to be is to be perceived". Today meta-physicists are split. According to substance theory, a substance is distinct from its properties, while according to bundle theory, an object is merely its sense data. The definition of sound, simplified, is a hearable noise. The tree will make a sound, even if nobody heard it. The definition states that sound is a hearable noise. So the tree could have been heard, though nobody was around to do so."

I don't think we can assume, that the Universe was created or just simply something that happened via the Big Bang (BB).

[To read more, go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_t...s_in_a_forest]

[MicroMacro]

Originally Posted by Silver

[To read more, go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_t...s_in_a_forest]

That link doesn't work. Would you put it in again?

[Silver]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_t...ls_in_a_forest

[r6r6]

Originally Posted by Busby

If we describe consciousness as that which all sentient beings have then we have to do some serious thinking when we talk about the BB.

More patriarchal ...'Big Bang'.....

More matriarchal.... 'Big Grunt'{ birthing }.....

Fullers interpretation the next .....'Wow!'........

My interpretation ...'Wholy Wow!'....

r6

r6

[Silver]

Ha ha, r6, I can see you're taking this really seriously.

[r6r6]

Originally Posted by Silver

Ha ha, r6, I can see you're taking this really seriously.

https://www.newsy.com/stories/what-e...-the-big-bang/

..."Scientists currently don't have a way to test any of these proposals; today's telescopes can't even see as far back as the Big Bang, let alone what came before it."....

r6