Big Bang or Big Build?

by Jayhawk

Hi Fr. E.S.Q.S.,

I was impressed with your explanation of "What is involvation" that you provided to Dick. So here’s a question for you...

“When our scientists look back 14 billion years or so into the cosmos, what they think they are seeing (the residue of the Big Bang) is actually the beginning of the “big build” since as Laurency says the cosmos begins very small and grows from the inside out (being supplied with an endless supply of primordial atoms), is it not?” And so the process of involvation begins! Of course this is a massive oversimplification (but just for fun) what do you think?

Jayhawk

Comments for Big Bang or Big Build?

Click here to add your own comments

Mar 06, 2016
 To Anonymous
by: Anonymous

Thank you for your advice.Your reply was of considerable value to me.
I failed to take into consideration that our Cosmos is a fully built out one so it's expansion is complete, unlike a new Cosmos which expands until filled up with primordial atoms.
I am most interested in what might determine it's size of expansion...
Feb 24, 2016
 RE: The Big Bang
by: Anonymous

Seeing as no one has responded as of yet, I will do so now. Admittedly, I would have responded sooner; however, I have been quite busy the past while. That being said, I will address your post now.

First and foremost, my dear brother, I would advise you – if you care to listen, of course – to refrain from comparing Esoteric and Exoteric theories or systems prematurely. It is far better to master the system of Pythagorean Hylozoics first and make comparisons later. When we try to compare Esoteric and Exoteric theories or systems prematurely, we inevitably make mistakes – the worst of all being that we end up mixing Esoterics and Exoterics. Mixing Esoterics and Exoterics, information we have received from higher kingdoms and the speculations of ignorance, can only produce more balderdash – and we already have more than enough of that. Comparing Esoteric and Exoteric theories or systems has a certain merit, true; however, the first step must necessarily be a mastery of the system of Pythagorean Hylozoics – after all, how can we effectively compare theories and systems if we have not mastered them? We get into a lot of trouble that way.

As such, I will address your response directly now and point out a number of flaws which indicate that you still have a bit of work to do before you can effectively compare Esoteric and Exoteric theories or systems:

"This in itself has some merit to it...imo... if we compare it to Esoterics which says the Cosmos is filled with primordial atoms(monads)... which, once consciously active 'expand' consciously, and at the point of evolution play no more part in involvation and evolvation...and thus, as the cycle continues, and as new primordial matter is sucked into the cosmos to replace these primordial atoms, we see expansion of the cosmos"

Most of what you say here, if I understand you correctly, is quite right; however, there are a few points that are not. For example: saying that the primordial atoms, at the point of evolution, no longer have a part to play in the processes of involvation and evolvation is false. The processes of involvation and evolvation are fairly constant processes. The confusion here is, I suspect, that you are reading the material far too literally; when HTL and LA talk about involvation and evolvation as being two processes out of four (or five), they are not meaning to say that it only ever happens once. In fact, involvation and evolvation are continuous; the coagulation and dissolution of material forms. The processes of involution and evolution, properly understood are like specialized kinds of involvation and evolvation, but have different names indicating categorically different stages of conscious development (potential, actualized, passive, and active), material coagulation (i.e.: the capability to form complex material aggregates, envelopes of molecular matter [elementals]), and motion.

Another example is when you say that more "primordial matter" (correctly, primordial atoms and not primordial matter) is being sucked into the cosmos and is causing the cosmos to expand. Whether or not this actually happens in the way that we imagine, I personally cannot say. Admittedly, I do not know what happens at the highest levels beyond what I am given to know in the system of Pythagorean Hylozoics which says very little about how that all works, mind you - nor will I venture to speculate on a topic of that nature. After all, I am well aware of the fact that I have a 0% of getting it right by way of speculation. We have enough work to do just to try to comprehend and understand the worlds of man, let alone the intricacies of Cosmogenesis (of which we have no hope to really grasp beyond a few rudimentary principles). That being said, I am not aware of any place in the literature that says that the cosmos is expanding – in fact, it seems to say that the cosmos is already a perfect organization and has long since reached its maximum capacity; "not even space for one more primordial atom". If primordial atoms are still entering the cosmos, then they are entering in direct proportion to those that are leaving. I suspect that everything is measured, my dear brother – and that is about all that I can say on that matter without further information from the hierarchy. I do not expect that information will be forthcoming, seeing as it is not necessary.

"The next thing to consider is that light does not travel in waves...in other words a photon which is at the source of the light does not end up at the place which it illuminates after travelling at the speed of light...we also know that light is synonymous with matter...light is matter in a state of radiation...we know that a primordial atom is a potential sun.

Therefore it makes little sense to me that based on the speed of light we can say that what is 'out there' was once 'here'...but I may be misunderstanding that part of science and so I put this as a hypothesis only…

I have found light to be a most fascinating subject if you consider that everything we see is not a reflection of the light from the source but the radiation of the object depending on it's stimulation from the source…I hope that makes some sense to others as well"

Unfortunately, this does not make all that much sense – that might explain why no one has responded as of yet. Admittedly, I am not altogether sure just what you are on about and, as such, I would encourage you to make an effort to explain yourself in as clear and concise a manner as possible. That being said, I would also remind you: refrain from mixing Esoterics and Exoterics. Referring to "light as matter" and "primordial atoms as potential suns" is not making anything clearer.

P.S. - Before I go, I also forgot to mention the fact that just because the UCLA has said it - as with any other panel of experts - is no proof of infallibility. In fact, they make the same mistakes as all the others supporting the Big Bang Theory of Cosmogenesis. See above.

Thanks for your time,

Sincerely,

Anonymous
Feb 08, 2016
 The Big Bang
by: Finefeather

From UCLA I found the following:
"Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualised as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell. "

This in itself has some merit to it...imo... if we compare it to Esoterics which says the Cosmos is filled with primordial atoms(monads)... which, once consciously active 'expand' consciously, and at the point of evolution play no more part in involvation and evolvation...and thus, as the cycle continues, and as new primordial matter is sucked into the cosmos to replace these primordial atoms, we see expansion of the cosmos.

The next thing to consider is that light does not travel in waves...in other words a photon which is at the source of the light does not end up at the place which it illuminates after travelling at the speed of light...we also know that light is synonymous with matter...light is matter in a state of radiation...we know that a primordial atom is a potential sun.

Therefore it makes little sense to me that based on the speed of light we can say that what is 'out there' was once 'here'...but I may be misunderstanding that part of science and so I put this as a hypothesis only…

I have found light to be a most fascinating subject if you consider that everything we see is not a reflection of the light from the source but the radiation of the object depending on it's stimulation from the source…I hope that makes some sense to others as well :)
Dec 22, 2015
 RE: Big Bang or Big Build
by: Fr. E.S.Q.S.

What follows are my personal opinions on the matter of the Big Bang Theory of Cosmogenesis.

Opinions on the Big Bang Theory of Cosmogenesis

What do I think of the Big Bang Theory of Cosmogenesis? Well, to be perfectly frank with you, not much. I tend to take the theory with a grain of salt - or rather, the whole box of salt. It is, as it currently stands, just a little bit more reliable than Creationist Theories. The reason for my doubtfulness is this: I do not think that we are, in any way, capable of accurately assessing the processes of Cosmogenesis at this point in time. The capabilities of science - and scientists, mind you - are far too limited to accurately assess such matters. Our tools - and minds - are sub-par. I mean, let's be honest with ourselves here: we can't even predict the weather accurately from one day to the next. As such, what hope do we really have in accurately assessing the processes of Cosmogenesis? We need to remember that what we have here is a theory - and a theory that is, more or less, in it's infancy. Just because many people accept it, doesn't mean that it's true. In fact, I think it's fair to say that, after Creationist Theories, many people are willing to accept almost any other theory besides Creationist Theories. It has a big following, true, but it has a big following because the only other theories in the public domain are really not much better.

The evidences for the Big Bang Theory of Cosmogenesis are, in my opinion, not really all that good. All they tend to show us is something, but not what it is. The scientists cannot tell us what it is. The scientists can tell us what they - think - it is, but not what it - actually - is. The difference is huge. The fact is that there is something, but the rest of the Big Bang Theory of Cosmogenesis is pure speculation. The facts in the theory are scant and hardly prove anything at all when examined carefully. The problem is that the scientists - and the many people who follow their lead - want to believe they know. As such, they tend to delude themselves: they start accepting the speculations as facts, when - in fact - those speculations have yet to be fully proven beyond a doubt. This is, of course, a recipe for disaster in the long-run. It is the same-old song and dance that has occurred throughout the ages.

It probably isn't too inaccurate to say that about 99% of the Big Bang Theory of Cosmogenesis is wrong.

That being said, I will now address your question specifically.

Question

I'd like to point out this particular thought:

"When our scientists look back 14 billion years or so into the cosmos, what they think they are seeing (the residue of the Big Bang) is actually the beginning of the 'big build' since as Laurency says the cosmos begins very small and grows from the inside out (being supplied with an endless supply of primordial atoms), is it not?"

I would, then, emphasize the following part:

"...what they think they are seeing..."

In short: even you, yourself, recognize - to some degree - that they have no clue about what they are seeing. They are seeing something, that is for sure - but what? That is where the facts end and the speculations begin. Do - I - know what they are seeing? No. I do not. What I do know, however, is the difference between facts and speculations.

Thanks for your time,

Sincerely,

Fr. E.S.Q.S.

Click here to add your own comments

Join in and write your own page! It's easy to do. How? Simply click here to return to Your Pythagorean Hylozoics (Esoteric) forum.