Is Buddhist cosmology disproved by science?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Vanda
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:56 am

Re: Is Buddhist cosmology disproved by science?

Post by Vanda » Wed Aug 26, 2015 11:58 pm

No_Mind:
Who were indigenous Indians do you know? If so you will be the first person to solve a great anthropological mystery.
Adivasis, as their name reflects, are the earliest inhabitants of the subcontinent and once inhabited much larger areas than they do at present. … Officially Adivasis are termed scheduled tribes ...
http://www.minorityrights.org/5659/india/adivasis.html

Aboriginal Groups in India
The aboriginal ethnic groups of India are called "scheduled tribes" ... the scheduled tribes are the earliest inhabitants of India. The English called them aborigines ...
http://www.culturalsurvival.org/publica ... oups-india

Invasion of the Genes: Genetic Heritage of India, page 55
http://www.amazon.com/Invasion-Genes-Ge ... bc?ie=UTF8


Glad to be of some help.
“Don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted and carried out, lead to welfare and to happiness’ — then you should enter and remain in them.”
- Kalama Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya

User avatar
No_Mind
Posts: 1911
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:12 pm
Location: India

Re: Is Buddhist cosmology disproved by science?

Post by No_Mind » Thu Aug 27, 2015 12:05 am

Vanda wrote:No_Mind:
Who were indigenous Indians do you know? If so you will be the first person to solve a great anthropological mystery.
Adivasis, as their name reflects, are the earliest inhabitants of the subcontinent and once inhabited much larger areas than they do at present. Little is known of their history, although it appears that many were pushed into the hill areas after the invasions of the Indo-Aryan tribes 3,000 years ago. …
http://www.minorityrights.org/5659/india/adivasis.html

Aboriginal Groups in India
http://www.culturalsurvival.org/publica ... oups-india

Invasion of the Genes: Genetic Heritage of India, page 55
http://www.amazon.com/Invasion-Genes-Ge ... bc?ie=UTF8


Glad to be of some help.
Did adivasis live in North India? Did Aryans come into contact with them in first few centuries? Adivasis live in Central and South India.

The question is whether those who built Indus Valley civilization (3,000 BC) were a different racial stock from migrating Aryans. If there was another non Aryan race living in Indus Valley region or they were actually Aryans who migrated before Vedic Age, is the mystery I was referring to. Who were the people who built Indus Valley civilization is the greatest mystery of ancient India.

Aryan-Dravidian divide is an almost defunct theory.
I know one thing: that I know nothing

User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6438
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California

Re: Is Buddhist cosmology disproved by science?

Post by Mkoll » Thu Aug 27, 2015 12:28 am

Keith wrote:
Mkoll wrote:Why couldn't we still be in the stage of the initial impulse?
Because we can use Hubble's law to figure out how long ago the universe stated expanding, and looking back in time (at distant galaxies with greater red shift), we can measure the speed of expansion at different stages since the universe was transparent. Putting the pieces together, the rapid expansion period would have happened right at the beginning. One proposal put forward is that gravitation becomes repulsive at great distances, which is interesting but there isn't a framework of explain it yet. Another is that spacetime itself (treated like a field in general relativity) has another component we cannot detect in the lab, which manifests as work being done at great distances. Regardless, the expansion of the universe decelerated already, then started to accelerate again. We have observations to back this up.
Thanks for explaining that, Keith.
Keith wrote:
Mkoll wrote:New observations change theories...
Only if the new theory can also explain the old observations. The predictions of what could be observed in a cyclic universe as shown in posts here (i.e. curvature of spacetime on the cosmological scale) have been shown to be false. Ergo, the 'theory' doesn't work. Other theories do, and the observations match what we expect. As we make more observations, they won't suddenly undo what we've already seen.
I think that the finer resolution of newer observations may change the interpretation of some older observations and thus change the theory that's based on them.

But I take your point.
Keith wrote:
Mkoll wrote:AFAIK, all of the theories you've described are still open to debate. There is no scientific consensus regarding the fate of the universe.
Open for debate doesn't mean 'anybody's guess' and the lack of scientific consensus is on the finer details. We'll get there. Maybe it is a periodically repeating universe, but certainly not in the ways shown in this thread. They've been disproven with enough certainty that they are not now part of the debates.

I'm not a cosmologist, I'm a humble physics teacher with a measly masters degree in physics. I've never specialised in cosmology. I get my latest news from articles and journals, not original research. Feel free to contact an astrophysicist, like Brian Koberlein, for more details. He's usually very happy doing public outreach, and he'll know more than me.

The wrong place to search for answers to cosmological questions is a religious forum.
Thanks for the reference.

I agree with that last sentence. And I don't think the more rational among us are seriously looking for those answers here. ;)
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa

User avatar
Vanda
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:56 am

Re: Is Buddhist cosmology disproved by science?

Post by Vanda » Thu Aug 27, 2015 1:38 am

No_Mind,

I honestly don't care one way or another. Any religion that puts forth or embraces a caste system needs to start over again from scratch.
“Don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted and carried out, lead to welfare and to happiness’ — then you should enter and remain in them.”
- Kalama Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya

User avatar
No_Mind
Posts: 1911
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:12 pm
Location: India

Re: Is Buddhist cosmology disproved by science?

Post by No_Mind » Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:12 am

Vanda wrote:No_Mind,

I honestly don't care one way or another. Any religion that puts forth or embraces a caste system needs to start over again from scratch.
As I wrote before, I honestly don't care about any religion (stress on the word any.)

But our tête-à-tête is off topic so I suggest we conclude our discussion at this point.

:anjali:
I know one thing: that I know nothing

User avatar
samseva
Posts: 2116
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Is Buddhist cosmology disproved by science?

Post by samseva » Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:20 am

Keith wrote:Not sure I'd describe it as cyclical, certainly not analogous to breathing in and out! More like breathing out until you can breath out no more, then starting a new out breath from there.
I would say the latter is more accurate than the former. Something similar to the universe "extinguishing" and then starting anew, at inconsistent intervals of time.

User avatar
Vanda
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:56 am

Re: Is Buddhist cosmology disproved by science?

Post by Vanda » Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:26 am

No_Mind,

Agreed ~
Revenons a nos moutons
;)
“Don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted and carried out, lead to welfare and to happiness’ — then you should enter and remain in them.”
- Kalama Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya

User avatar
dhammacoustic
Posts: 858
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:30 am
Location: Dhammaville

Re: Is Buddhist cosmology disproved by science?

Post by dhammacoustic » Thu Aug 27, 2015 1:30 pm

Keith wrote:Except observations of nearly-isotropic CMBR rule out non-euclidean geometry on a cosmological scale.
According to Friedmann equations (which suggest that the universe is spatially closed), if the density of the universe is higher than its critical density (which is highly likely, since the universe has a finite age), the universe will definitely collapse. So you seem to be jumping to your own conclusions, as there is no certain concensus on these things as of yet. We are not even sure if the universe is expanding at all, there are lots of problems with it, like the discovery that quasars do not show time dilation, or the baryon assymetry, there's plenty more, or there is the plasma model which suggests that there was never a big bang at all.

Nevertheless, to me, a torus shaped self-sustaining universe is what makes the most sense, at least philosophically.
Wikipedia wrote:The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) was launched in 2001 as NASA’s second explorer satellite intended to map the precise distribution of CMB across the universe. Improving on the design of COBE, WMAP was able to represent an extremely accurate, fine resolution map of the universe’s CMB.[4] Such accuracy of WMAP’s CMB charts provided cosmologists with new data to analyze. Its analysis in “A high resolution foreground cleaned CMB map” by Max Tegmark, Angélica de Oliveira-Costa, and Andrew J. S. Hamilton of University of Colorado provides fresh evidence supporting a torus-shaped universe. By largely eliminating the radiation from stars and our own galaxy, the CMB of the universe appears more concentrated (intense) across one plane of the universe than all others. This concentration of CMB forms a straight line in the universe and may indicate a compact, finite universe.
Uppādā vā tathagātanaṃ anuppādā vā tathagātanaṃ, ṭhitāva sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā idappaccayatā. Taṃ tathagāto abhisam­buj­jhati abhisameti. Abhisam­bujjhitvā abhisametvā ācikkhati deseti paññāpeti paṭṭhapeti vivarati vibhajati uttānīkaroti. ‘Passathā’ti cāha; ‘avijjāpaccayā, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā’. Iti kho, bhikkhave, yā tatra tathatā avitathatā anaññathatā idappaccayatā-ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, paṭiccasamup­pādo.
:heart: namō tassa bhagavatō, arahatō, sammā sambuddhassā

User avatar
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Is Buddhist cosmology disproved by science?

Post by daverupa » Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:08 pm

dhammacoustic wrote:there is no certain concensus on these things as of yet... Nevertheless, to me...
An ongoing frontier of scientific assertions, and either an amorphous & idiosyncratic description of what lies in the gaps of those assertions or else a Traditional one of some flavor: that's everyone's cosmological speculation in a nutshell.

Some people strongly value their cultural cosmologies, and many take up these descriptions and traditions with zeal. Others adhere with equal strength to physicalist and atheist assertions... again, each group tending to place conjectured preferences into any gaps in cosmological knowledge.

Awareness of the given scientific/physical cosmos is a requisite modern step; no ancient people looked at a sunrise and knew that the longer wavelengths of light rays (!) from the star (!!) were striking the atmosphere (!!!) and causing the deep reds and golds. No ancient person knew about bacteria or neutrinos, and so our entire cosmos here in modernity is nothing at all like the cosmos of ancient peoples.

This indicates a problem: due to the completely different cultures & circumstances which obtain for modern folk, it's very likely that we don't actually understand the way that ancient peoples spoke about their experiences: they spoke of spirits and gods and energies where we speak of natural events and psychology and phenomenology.

But the ancient idea that cosmology recapitulates psychology is today a baroque & ungainly assertion; one ends up arguing at the edges of knowledge, diving into speculations about consciousness & the universe that are simply off-target.

---

There are many Buddhist cosmologies; I don't think there are any Dhammic cosmologies, however, only various ways that this & that cultural cosmology came to be used to indicate Dhammic teachings. To take up such pedagogical frameworks as though they were factual descriptions is altogether troublesome.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

User avatar
Keith
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 3:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Is Buddhist cosmology disproved by science?

Post by Keith » Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:08 pm

dhammacoustic wrote:you seem to be jumping to your own conclusions, as there is no certain concensus on these things as of yet.
I am not jumping to my own conclusion and there are certain things where the scientific community has come to an agreement. The expansion of the universe is one of them. The diminishing belief of a 'big crunch' is fairly well founded in observational evidence. As I've said before, I'm a simple teacher. Perhaps discuss your understanding with working cosmologists.


Here's a brief summary of current ideas using pretty easy to understand language.
This astrophysicist is able to explain things even more simply. He's written articles on his own website about current theories of the fate of the universe.

I've no particular attachment to any of the currently accepted possible models; but scientists (including Brian Koberlein and Carolin Crawford, who I've had the good fortune of discussing this with in person) say the cyclic universe as shared in this thread is no longer a contender.

That's all I have to say about that.

User avatar
samseva
Posts: 2116
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Is Buddhist cosmology disproved by science?

Post by samseva » Thu Aug 27, 2015 9:54 pm

Much of the new discoveries are very recent and hastily arriving at conclusions isn't wise. Even if the discoveries are conclusive, there are many accepted discoveries which were then disproved.

User avatar
pilgrim
Posts: 1531
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: Is Buddhist cosmology disproved by science?

Post by pilgrim » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:17 am

Opinions are beginning to change.
http://www.newsweek.com/big-bang-physic ... rse-724849
"Neves’s group presents an alternative explanation. Challenging the idea that “time had a beginning,” they suggest that the state of expansion in the universe came after a state of contraction.

“There comes a time, bhikkhus, when after the lapse of a long period this world contracts. While the world is contracting, beings for the most part are reborn in the Ābhassara Brahma-world. .............
“But sooner or later, bhikkhus, after the lapse of a long period, there comes a time when this world begins to expand once again. "
~ Brahmajala sutta

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], binocular, Bundokji, Garrib, Goofaholix, Sam Vara, SDC, Seven77 and 84 guests