Is Buddhist cosmology disproved by science?

[samseva]

Without any scientific knowledge at the time of the Buddha's life, having taught the Big Bang and the Big Crunch and also mentioning the lengthy time period, is nothing short of miraculous.

[DNS]

Without any scientific knowledge at the time of the Buddha's life, having taught the Big Bang and the Big Crunch and also mentioning the lengthy time period, is nothing short of miraculous.

"He recalls to mind his various temporary states in days gone by – one birth, or two or three or four or five births, 10 or 20, 30 or 50, a 100 or a 1,000 or a 100,000 births, through many cycles of cosmic contraction and cosmic expansion . . . Now there comes a time, when sooner or later, after the lapse of a long, long period of contraction, this world-system passes away. And when this happens beings have mostly been re-born in the World of Radiance, and there they dwell made of mind, feeding on joy, radiating light from themselves, traversing the air, dwelling in glory; and thus they remain for a long, long period of time. Now there comes also a time, friends, when sooner or later, this universe begins to re-evolve by expansion.”
(Digha Nikaya, Brahmajala Sutta)

[Vanda]

Germanic cosmology is much more impressive, and inline with the modern scientific view. Ginnungagap, "fire" and "ice", etc. The Hindus, not impressed, the Vedic period isn't so old, lucky for them the Aryan tribes added to the culture.

[No_Mind]

Germanic cosmology is much more impressive, and inline with the modern scientific view. Ginnungagap, "fire" and "ice", etc. The Hindus, not impressed, the Vedic period isn't so old, lucky for them the Aryan tribes added to the culture.

Vedic period is not old !! The start of the Vedic period is at least 1,000 years before Buddha. Even the earliest Upanishads were written in 800 BC.

What do you mean by "The Hindus, not impressed, the Vedic period isn't so old, lucky for them the Aryan tribes added to the culture."

If you say you are not impressed by Hindus do you mean you are not impressed by Aryans who migrated to India? There was no Hinduism at that time to begin with .. it was Brahmanism and Brahmanism arose AFTER Aryan migration (whether it was invasion or not, it was in any case a migration). So how can you say Aryans improved Hindus. There were no Hindus to improve

I am not a Hindu* so I hold no brief for them but one should try and be as accurate as possible (I felt the need to write this post since as an Indian it is my duty to ensure that history of my country is correctly represented)

*nor am I a Buddhist or Christian or Jew (I dislike being clubbed in an "ism".) I like to read teachings of a wise man called Buddha and find many of his teachings resonate with me (definitely not 31 planes.) I also like to read the Bible, books on Hinduism and works of Western philosophers in general along with Eckhart Tolle, Jiddu Krishnamurti and other similar people.

[Keith]

Latest evidence strongly suggests the expansion of the universe is accelerating, hence dark energy. That observational evidence rules out a cyclic universe as it's been described here.

Edit: but there are attempts to describe a different type of repeating universe that is consistent with observations here. 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.

[Mkoll]

Latest evidence strongly suggests the expansion of the universe is accelerating, hence dark energy. That observational evidence rules out a cyclic universe as it's been described here.

Not necessarily I think. We may still be in the initial phase of the expansion of the universe which may last for who knows how long. There may be a time in the far future where it stops and then begins contracting due to gravity, leading to the Big Crunch. A rough analogy would be an explosion: we're in the initial stages of the explosion so the energy is accelerating outwards (accelerating expanding universe), but there comes a point when it stops accelerating due to other forces (gravity). And in the case of the universe unlike an explosion, gravity makes the whole thing collapse. Maybe if our species sticks around long enough, we'll see this happen.

Of course I'm not a physicist and this is just speculation.

[dhammacoustic]

Latest evidence strongly suggests the expansion of the universe is accelerating, hence dark energy. That observational evidence rules out a cyclic universe as it's been described here.

The expansion might be accelerating due to a gravitational pull (or as you say; dark energy, which some physicists call 'anti-gravity'). It would actually support the cyclic model.

phpBB .

And perhaps there are answers in understanding some important geometrical properties as well;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuboctahedron" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmic_spiral" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

phpBB .

[Keith]

A rough analogy would be an explosion

After the initial impulse, the universe expansion by that argument would decelerate due to gravitation, not accelerate. We've observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe.

[Keith]

phpBB .

Except observations of nearly-isotropic CMBR rule out non-euclidean geometry on a cosmological scale.

[Keith]

Really, people, it isn't worth trying to tweak the standard model to fit an interpretation of a story in an ancient text in contradiction to observational evidence. Scientists have decades of education before pursuing research on the frontiers of our understanding. A quick YouTube video that intuitively seems to make sense and fits a religious viewpoint does not compare.

I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm just encouraging people to either stop wasting their time and focus on their practice or to pursue a career in science themselves. Maybe even do both, but a career in science takes a long time to cultivate.

[Mkoll]

A rough analogy would be an explosion

After the initial impulse, the universe expansion by that argument would decelerate due to gravitation, not accelerate. We've observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe.

Why couldn't we still be in the stage of the initial impulse? That is, not enough time has passed between the impulse and the deceleration for us to be able to observe the deceleration. We can only observe the acceleration because the deceleration hasn't started yet. New observations change theories...

And like I said at the beginning of this thread:

AFAIK, all of the theories you've described are still open to debate. There is no scientific consensus regarding the fate of the universe.

Has this changed? Are physicists now certain of the fate of the universe? Or are you just supporting one of many competing theories?

[Vanda]

No Mind:

Vedic period is not old !! The start of the Vedic period is at least 1,000 years before Buddha. Even the earliest Upanishads were written in 800 BC.

Comparatively, yes, the Vedic period is not that old.

2600 Sumerian texts from Abu Salabikh - the Instructions of Shuruppak, the Kesh temple hymn
2600 Akkadian Legend of Etana
2400 Egyptian Pyramid Texts - including the Cannibal Hymn
2400 Sumerian Code of Urukagina
2400 Egyptian Palermo stone
2350 Egyptian The Maxims of Ptahhotep
2270 Sumerian Enheduanna's Hymns
2250-2000 Sumerian earliest stories in the Epic of Gilgamesh
2100 Sumerian Curse of Agade
2100 Sumerian Debate between Bird and Fish
2050 Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu
2000 Egyptian Coffin Texts
2000 Sumerian Lament for Ur
2000 Sumerian Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta
Etc.

No Mind:

If you say you are not impressed by Hindus do you mean you are not impressed by Aryans who migrated to India? There was no Hinduism at that time to begin with .. it was Brahmanism and Brahmanism arose AFTER Aryan migration (whether it was invasion or not, it was in any case a migration).

The indigenous Indians owe much to the Aryan tribes. As you say, such things arose AFTER the Aryan migration. Hindu ideas in general, I am not that impressed by.

[santa100]

“But you can’t be a scientist if you’re uncomfortable with ignorance, because scientists live at the boundary between what is known and unknown in the cosmos. This is very different from the way journalists portray us. So many articles begin, “Scientists now have to go back to the drawing board.” It’s as though we’re sitting in our offices, feet up on our desks—masters of the universe—and suddenly say, “Oops, somebody discovered something!”

No. We’re always at the drawing board. If you’re not at the drawing board, you’re not making discoveries. You’re not a scientist; you’re something else. The public, on the other hand, seems to demand conclusive explanations as they leap without hesitation from statements of abject ignorance to statements of absolute certainty.”

-- Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, Space Chronicles: Facing the Ultimate Frontier --

[Keith]

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.

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.

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.

[No_Mind]

No Mind:

Vedic period is not old !! The start of the Vedic period is at least 1,000 years before Buddha. Even the earliest Upanishads were written in 800 BC.

Comparatively, yes, the Vedic period is not that old.

2600 Sumerian texts from Abu Salabikh - the Instructions of Shuruppak, the Kesh temple hymn
2600 Akkadian Legend of Etana
...........................

No Mind:

If you say you are not impressed by Hindus do you mean you are not impressed by Aryans who migrated to India? There was no Hinduism at that time to begin with .. it was Brahmanism and Brahmanism arose AFTER Aryan migration (whether it was invasion or not, it was in any case a migration).

The indigenous Indians owe much to the Aryan tribes. As you say, such things arose AFTER the Aryan migration. Hindu ideas in general, I am not that impressed by.

The word "old" has to be seen in context. Vedic Age is old (1500 BC onwards) in that sense. If you wish to speak about Egypt being old .. why not go back to Old Stone Age or better still to Cro-Magnon man. I used the word "old" about a society with knowledge to create philosophy and maths .. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad dates back to 800-600 BC. Since there is no mention of iron in early Vedas there is some conjecture it may date back to Bronze age (I repeat it is a conjecture.)

Who were indigenous Indians do you know? If so you will be the first person to solve a great anthropological mystery. Known Indian history begins with Indo-Aryans. Vedic Age is history of Indo-Aryans.

But this conversation is going no where. It is a Russell's teapot. We cannot determine if there is a teapot orbiting the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars. In same way we cannot know for sure who were the original inhabitants of India (if any), what were their achievements and in what way "Aryan tribes added to the culture."

All I had said was the concept of universe growing and decaying was a common theme on the subcontinent and not a part of Buddhism alone but also Hinduism (or what later came to be called Hinduism.)