I think it changes but, slowly. Though time would mean nothing to it.
gib
Stop it! Stop it right now, I say. Stop projecting. Have courage and see the real you gib - evil I say, just plain evil you are. 
You’re the awesome side. Trixie’s the uh… uh… the other awesome side.
[/quote]
I greatly admire a person who has the capcity for such diplomacy - not political correctness - but intelligent diplomacy.
“Timelessness” occurs within the brain somehow. We’ve all experienced it.
Is ILP timeless? No at some point it too will go the way of the dinosaur and perhaps almost for the same reason - of course, the asteroid here is simply a metaphor for something else.
Time is a human constuct so I can’t know how to answer that question - “no time before the BB”.
There had to be something before the big bang right - the BB was the effect of something, to my way of thinking, though it also became the cause of something else - OUR universe as we know it. As a cause and effect, it didn’t happen overnight.
What, are you a christian or something, gib? 
If we don’t take responsibilty for ourselves and the world we live in, and just leave things in the hands of a god, we’re dead in the water.
Oh, come on, I’m not plain evil. 
Political correctness has never been my strong point.
Yeah, I suppose it’s too much of a stretch to say ILP is timeless. Timelessness is a very hard concept to articulate. Now what if the universe is temporally cyclical? They say that the universe may end in a Big Crunch–that makes it seem like the end and the beginning are the same, conjoining at the same point in a ring of time. Then the BB is not really the beginning, but perhaps a focal point, or a highlight, in the universe’s cycles, and there is always time before and time after that point. I’ve imagined this scenario before calling it “God’s heart-beat”–you know, expand, collapse, expand, collapse–ba-boom, ba-boom, ba-boom.
Yeah, I suppose, if you think of the BB as a mechanical process. But the way it’s conceived by the scientific community is a little different than that. Don’t think of it as just an explosion. It’s more like a balloon inflating. If you can imagine taking a marker and drawing little galaxies and stars and stuff on the surface of that balloon, and then inflating it, you kind of get the idea of what the “expansion” of the universe is all about. The galaxies and stars and stuff don’t actually move from their positions where you drew them. They do get farther apart as you inflate the balloon but that’s because the material of the balloon is stretching, not because the galaxies and such are moving across it’s surface. They say that the main oomph of the BB was space expanding–more space being created–and the reason the stars and dust and galaxies moved farther apart is not because they were moving through space (like debris from an explosion) but because there was more space being created between everything. Everything kept its original position in space and there was just more space added between them. Now, they say the same thing about time. They say that space and time are intertwined, all dimensions of a 4D spacetime continuum. So whereas the BB was really an expansion of space from a singularity, so was time. Time stretched out, was born, from that singularity.
Before that, everything was a timeless metaphysical reality–not necessarily a nothingness (but it could be that)–just something that didn’t have an expression in time or space (one could say it’s still there, in a timeless, spaceless state, serving as the foundation on which all existence rests, time and space too).
Ok, but the BB wasn’t my fault.
AD is right in saying that time is only a human construct. It does not exist in reality.
Time is a measurement for delay, in the same way, space is measurement for displacement. In other words, both of time and space are measurements of different verticals of change.
If you want to stop the time, or be in timeless zone ( becoming eternal), you have to stop all changes.
Religious explanation of creation is more closer to logic than BB.
Basically, all major religions have classified all existence into two categories; Changeable and Unchangeable. The unchangeable portion is creator (the God), while the changeable one is creation. Thus, in a way, it answers why there was no time before creation, yet there was something in existence.
It (the unchangeable portion, the God) existed before creation too. As it was/is not open to any change, and cannot be destroyed (changed) either, thus it is eternal by defintion by both accounts.
But, going by that, the God cannot be omniscient from the word go, but omnipotent only. Omniscience needs omnipotence to be played out completely before the God becoming an omniscient. That is Enlightenment or Nirvana.
It is said that Buddha reached that very first stage ( omnipotence before omniscience ), and realized that it is useless to be there, because being there, he has to unlearn all that he had been learned through his journey. In other words, he has to discard his omniscience to stay there. That would make him naive and vulnerable to fell in trap of Maya/Samsara ( change) again. So, he decided to settle just a step below than the highest/pureset stage, in order to retain his omniscience forever.
That is precisely why the whole stress of Buddhism is on conrol. While Sufism and Vedanta take the very first stage as an ultimate goal. That is why you can find singing and dancing in Sufism and many sects of conventional Hinduism but Buddhist monks are not supposed to engage in any such activity.
With love,
Sanjay
“The only constant is change”—Heraclitus. But is this because we are trapped in time and space? Can we even imagine what it would be like to be timeless or uninvolved in the duration we see as clockwork? Eastern philosophies appear to me to ask more of us than we are able to see or be.
Depends on what you mean by “imagine”. I don’t think we can visualize a timeless, spaceless state, but I don’t find anything conceptually incoherent about the idea.
Both the religious and “science” explanations of the Big Bang are RIDICULOUS!
Number one, a balloon inflating is no different than an explosion, both are translations of particles through space. -_- Second, if we were on a balloon, why are not atomic particles gaining in size after the big bang?
Second, how was Buddha ominpotent? If he was omnipotent why didn’t he save the world? So what do you mean when you say he is omnipotent, because he didn’t sound omnipotent to me. And second why is omniscience needed for omnipotence? If samsara is change, and omniscience is the lack of change, that means omniscience is the opposite of existence, because without change there is no existence. So you are litterally saying that omniscience is non-existence, even though omniscience is the opposite of non-existence. You are saying omniscience is the opposite of omniscience.
Honestly, the only rational [size=85]s[/size]explanation is that Arcturus birthed the universe (thanks to Trixie).
So you see wreckage, carnage, and flame every time someone inflates a balloon?
Because the parts of particles and atoms and such are not stuck to their positions in space. Their inner structural integrity is maintained. Just imagine a penny stuck to the balloon surface. You think it will stretch with the balloon?
Now I gotta know what you guys were doing in the Heavens.
That is a horse of a different colour.
One planet has us on it and the rest have nothing at all so what do you think ?
Do you think that that constitutes meaning or purpose now in all seriousness ?
Did you know there will be nothing left of us when the planet gets atomised ?
Did you know that it is not simply worth worrying about for even one second ?
So you have been to these other planets? Why must life be as we know it? Why can there not be life unknown to us?
Forgive me but I was taking a few liberties there in order to make my point about the uselessness of it all in the grand scheme of things
Now I have no idea about life on other planets but even if there is life on them there is still no point to any of this and never was either
If you wanted to create life in a petri dish, and you started by added a tiny spec of bacteria in some random isolated corner, would that make the act meaningless and purposeless?
The nature of life is not confined to a limited corner of the universe. Life will arise wherever there is water, the right amount of heat, and other protective factors. Although this may be rare for planets in the universe, you could probably conceptualize it quite accurately by picturing a map of the entire universe speckled with a few random dots here and there, dots representing where life has arisen in the universe. This seems more realistic to me that the idea that life arose only in our small corner of the universe. And though these speckled dots may seem tiny and rare, if the nature of life in general is anything like life here on Earth, such life will strive to multiply itself and spread, and if per chance it develops intelligence, it will eventually be able to do so beyond its planet of origin. What this means, in the long run, is that life may end up spreading plentifully throughout the universe, like mold will eventually do on a loaf of bread (not to paint a unappealing picture of life in general). When that happens, will you be able to say the same thing about life?
surreptitious57
The rest have 'nothing" at all? Nothing? By nothing, you mean as opposed to human life?
Still, what does your response mean in light of the fact that many DO NOT think of the universe or our own planet and us being a part of it as having meaning and purpose?
Stop to consider that you are walking in space as you are walking outside or inside. Earth is in space, you are not simply walking somewhere on Earth on some sidewalk or swimming in some river or ocean. Thanks to gravity, you’re not floating around somewhere but still you are in space, walking and swimming. Just think of that. As you look up at the stars, you are like them, somewhere out there. Isn’t that thought enough to give you a sense of meaning? It amazes me. It makes me want to cry.
Are you being facetious here?
I suppose that it just depends on someone’s own perspective. I’m unsure as to think of that in terms of "purpose’ --but insofar as meaning goes – giving your statement thought can fill me with a sense of wonder and questioning as to why that happened. Forget the fact that Earth is probably the only planet suitable for life as we know it.
How and why did it happen to be that way? How could Earth have evolved as a process to contain life, all life as we know it - whereas the other planets haven’t (we think). Why Earth and not the other planets?
The meaning is in the scientific and philosophical questioning of it.
I realize that that could someday be the reality but I’m not a complete pessimist. It could happen but why dwell on it except in allowing that notion to enable us to live a more full, passionate and grateful life.
I quite agree with you there. Of course, that’s not to say that we can’t work at trying keep that from happening. We’re not that pre-determined a bunch, are we?
Evolving is a meaning. Life evolves , we are evolving. If life forms or planets or solar systems never changed one iota, then you would be right. We play games because we do not know who will win. If we knew the winner then there would be no point in playing. Life is not about you or me, it is about life and changing, becoming more or less. We can’t know that all life needs what we need in order to live, our world proves that. What is poison to us can be nutritional to another creature, even if it is just an insect. We do not know the outcome of life.
How could we ever know what the grand scheme of things actually IS, surreptitious, if we focus on the “uselessness of it all”?
Aside from that, if there IS a grand scheme of things, then how can you see anything or all of it as being useless? Well, some things are of course. At least to me, your statement is contradictory.
What to you IS the grand scheme of things? We’re born and then we die? 
IF that is what you were referring to.
Does anything give you pause to wonder and to be amazed? I would hope that at least your nihilism might.
Unless i am totally misunderstanding your meaning.
Before biology there was chemistry. Before chemistry there was physics. Before physics there was mathematics. Before mathematics there was nothing. That is
what is currently known. Now in none of that is this woo word called meaning or purpose. That is because that did not come about until we evolved and started
to think in abstract terms wondering about our place in it all beyond the merely physical. Now I cannot prove this but I know for an absolute fact that when the
Big Bang occurred just under fourteen billion years ago it was not thinking about meaning or purpose now. For it was just a physical process doing what physical processes do. And so nothing profound about it at all. At least from its own perspective. We may find it profound of course but that is an entirely separate issue
Most people probably have an internal clock running till the end of their life. My internal clock runs a bit longer till the end of time. This is why I cannot stop at
my death but carry on literally for ever. The fact that I shall not be aware of that once I am dead is irrelevant. Since this is how I am thinking now. There is not
much I can do about it short of committing suicide. It is therefore a coping mechanism to help me overcome my fear of death. Because as any psychologist shall
tell you the best way to over come fear is to confront it. So I made my peace with death and now talk about it as often as possible. I am now as free as I can be without actually being dead. Before I was born I was in a state of non existence for all of time up until then. It was free from pain and after I die I will return to
that state once again. No one in the entire history of human existence has ever complained about being dead. They only complain about being alive. So there is nothing to be afraid of in being dead forever. Apart from anything else there is not much that one can do about it and so the sooner one accepts that the better
Up until mathematics, you words speak in terms of science. Once you bring mathematics into the picture, you are speaking philosophically (specifically, Pythagorean). What you are speaking of is the abstract, static infrastructure of the universe that I tried to explain earlier. It is very Pythagorean and Platonic. It is a description of an existence beyond time and space. Saying that before biology and chemistry, there was physics, makes sense in a temporal context, but to say before physics, there was mathematics only makes sense if “before” means “underlying”–underlying physics, there is mathematics. Things can still underlie, depend on, be rooted in, other things even in a static, abstract context devoid of time and space. To say that nothing comes before mathematics is to say that mathematics is the ultimate foundation of everything, and therefore nothing can be deeper.
While I appreciate your insight into the role that something as abstract as mathematics can play in the structure of the universe, I prefer to think of the ultimate foundations of the universe as experience (i.e. mind, consciousness, etc.), which itself finds many expressions in mathematics.
The singularity which the Big Bang was at the beginning of time is a physical representation of a universal consciousness. It is how that which the universe is aware of is represented when put in terms of a singular, homogeneous, uniform thing. That one thing, that one principle of existence, can be expressed in a multitude of complex forms–like white light being split into a rainbow of colors, or like the number 1 being split into fractions; going with the mathematical analogy, I like to think of the ultimate experience of the universe–the ultimate principle of existence of which it is ultimately aware–as signified by the number 1. That is the singularity of the Big Bang. The expansion of the universe after that is how the number 1 gets expressed in terms of fractions: 1/2 + 1/2… 1/4 + 1/4 + 1/4 + 1/4… 1/8 + 1/8 + …
There is no time here. The number 1 just does equal 1/2 + 1/2, and that in turn just does equal 1/4 + 1/4 + 1/4 + 1/4, and so on. You don’t need time for that equation to hold. I believe it is the same for experience–at least the kinds that are represented by the early universe and other non-human experiences. Physics is just a material representation of that put into spatial and temporal terms so as to be intelligible to the human mind.
Note that you can continue to expand the expressions of the number 1 into smaller and smaller fractions–you can go so far as to express it in terms of one over a million plus one over a million plus… but at a certain point, you no longer need to divide the fractions up into even even smaller fractions. Instead you can simply allow them to go through changes in value which preserve the overall equation. Take, for example, the equation: 1 = 0.1 + 0.2 + 0.3 + 0.4; the values of each term can be altered as follows: 0.25 + 0.25 + 0.25 + 0.25. ← What we have here are the components of the system continuing to go through change without any expansion, so long as the change in one component is compensated for by a matching change in another component, such that the overall value of 1 is preserved. This might be said to represent a universe that continues to go through flux without the expansion (the compensating changes in each term representing the laws of physics). Of course, our universe is constantly expanding (they say it has never stopped, and in fact is accelerating); but the current inflationary model of the Big Bang states that the rate of expansion is not a constant–at some points in the universe’s history, it was inflating faster than at other rates. All I would say, in terms of this mathematical analogy, is that at some points in the history of the universe, a faster rate at which the terms divide up into smaller fractions is the best mathematical expression, but at other points in the history of the universe, a slower rate of dividing up of terms accompanied by a faster rate of term changes is the best mathematical expression.
Mathematics itself, however, is an expression of the deeper inner nature of things, which I believe to be experience (mind, consciousness, etc.), and as I said above, the singularity from which the Big Bang sprung (the number 1) is the ultimate awareness on the part of existence of what itself is (which happens to justify itself as existence), and this awareness can be expressed in multifaceted ways, eventually in terms of physics in the human way of experiencing things. Mind as we know it is multifaceted–it is not a singular experience, but a multitudinous conglomeration of qualities–colors, sounds, pains and pleasures, thoughts, emotions, dreams, memories, cold and hot, soft and hard, sweet, bitter, etc., etc., etc. Human conscious is capable of experiencing these things because this is a tiny fraction of what the universe has expressed itself as in its ongoing transmutation through the multivariate forms of its own identity. Time is only required in order to express this identity (partially) in terms of human subjective experience. Ultimately, though, time is not needed. The singular experience represented by the singularity at the moment of the BB just is the equivalent of its multivariet and heterogeneous forms of experience some of which are found in the human subjective experience. Time, if anything, is just one of the terms, not a medium in which the terms are expressed. The universe says to us: I am this… and I am also that, and that, and that–for these expression, when given to human empirical experience, must be put in temporal terms, but ultimately, it is the same as saying: I am 1… and I am also 1/2 + 1/2, and also 1/4 + 1/4 + 1/4 + 1/4… ← time is irrelevant here. The only reason there seems to be a beginning to time is because there happens to be an ultimate, unified, singular way for the universe to express its awareness, a singular way beyond which there is no more simplified way. ← That’s what makes it special–not that it is the beginning of time (at least, not in human terms)–but that it is the ultimate expression of what the universe is.
Yet the universe for the overwhelming majority of its existence had no intelligent life in it at all as far as is known
As human beings only came along at the very end and after we become extinct the universe will carry on as before
Why do you assume you need intelligent life or human beings in order to have consciousness? And how do you recognize intelligent life when you see it?