This page contains the answers to the questions sent by e-mail.

Latest update : 16 August 2001

 

Questions summary :

NEW * I think of humans… as infinite… (Egle 1)

NEW * I feel as split in two halves: as a "scientist"… (Egle 2)

* I don't think we can say if there is space or no space in the "real world".
Man wants to live forever.
I am a vegetarian … I do it... because I sympathize but not because it is logical.
Pain is nothing but a primitive guide to actions …
I do not like religions …

* What happens if we destroy ourselves one day?

* What is the Real World… ?

* Has there been other big bang? (E-mails between Lu Yi Ling and Bill Stoeger)

* Do… we have an infinite capability of understanding…? (Geoff 1)

* Do… humanity… has an obligation… of spending much more money… in the reasearch…? (Geoff 2)

* My wonder is about evil, …

* You based your distinction on a notion of suffering. (Tim 1)

* ... but there are no pure black or whites in this world. (Tim 2)

* ... I believe the "old" "standard" religions are outdated.

* My question is about returning to the "real world"...

* ...it sounds like you have started a new religion.

* By loving can we at least reach the happiness we used to feel when being one?

* Is it possible that the Bible… is correct?

* Oneness... did not exist before the Big Bang since nature did not exist then.

* … something which will never be proved.

* Comments of Robert Cottrell.

* … why does oneness necessarily bring happiness? (Steve 1)

* … what makes you think this real world exists? (Steve 2)

* … if the real world is unconceivable… how can we possess a desire to find it…(Steve 3)

* ...before the Big Bang there was no time. (Rhian 1)

* ... why you think we actually have a purpose in the universe? (Rhian 2)

* ... why you think the universe needed a cause. (Rhian 2)

* ... I mean truly nothingness, not truly emptiness! (Rhian 3)

* What ... about the ideology of individuality?

* … the "external world" does not exist.

* … history never was the baton-passing race you speak of.

* … Who's to say the Big Bang ever ceased.

* … time doesn't exist in real world.

* … you seem to disinclude the inanimate from any of your concepts.

*… why do you claim to say that there are limits to our universe?

*… a Theory that has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.

* "Time" does not exist in reality…

* Man is a part of all life on earth.

* What is a thing and how does it differ from an idea?

* What if the speed of light had been slowing down from the beginning of time?  

* Since we are part of the universe, could there be any chance of knowing the whole? 

* Where to find an explanation of the Big Bang theory?

 

=================***=================

 

Question of Egle:

Finally I had the chance to go through your site with all the attention it deserves and I enjoyed it every bit! It was not an easy task since daily life usually keeps the wanderings of my mind too much focused on "simple" biology rather than on the difficult and rough paths of our souls and minds. However, thinking it over, biology itself is life, and mysteries and laws that govern life rule biological world as well.

Shall we start? What it is difficult for me to fully understand is the first hypothesis of the Big Bang philosophy, stating reasons for which the universe should be finite. Nevertheless, I reached the same conclusions reached in the following hypothesis and observation just walking a different route. To make my mind clear I had to go ahead in your theories and then backward again, since very often retrospective thoughts work better with me!

1st hypothesis:

THE UNIVERSE IS FINITE
"The universe, finite and intelligible in all its parts, cannot be infinite and unintelligible in its whole. It cannot have two completely different natures simultaneously".
I have some reserve on this point. Human beings are the best example of duplicity of nature: physical and spiritual. Humans are dimensionally finite and intelligible in all their parts, and yet they posses a "soul", infinite and unintelligible. What would be a human being without his spiritual component (that for simplicity I call soul)? A "soul" cannot be set within or outside a physical body but just permeates it in its whole. In this respect I think of humans, as of every form of life, as infinite because infinite are their non-dimensional potentials buried within a dimensional world.

You say: "The infinite is a philosophical concept of the absolute that does not apply to the universe".
If "philosophical" means thinkable but not applicable to physical laws, I agree. Nevertheless, if we can conceive an infinite "soul" to be part of a finite body, the concept of infinite can be applied to the universe as well.

"If the universe came into being 12.000.000.000 years ago, is has not had time to become infinite. Limited time, it is also necessarily limited in space".
Yes, I may agree, but does time apply to the concept of infinite? Unlimited space does not need time.

"If the universe were infinite, it would present particularities so strange as to be absurd. For example, a human being having a finite number of atoms, in an infinite universe every one of us would have an infinite number of doubles living in exactly the same conditions as ourselves".
Or may be there would be an infinite number of atom combinations, giving rise to infinite other forms of life.
What do you know about the anti-material?

So, at the end, is the universe finite or infinite? To me this is still a tough question! I rather fancy to "imagine", as far as my imagination can travel, that the universe is actually infinite, because the Infinite is part of the Universe itself, and the Universe was born from the Infinite. However, at the same time, I agree that it is hard for us to conceptually define, and thus understand, something as "Infinite": three dimensional world inhabitants cannot describe the Infinite. Dimensions have suppressed the infinite capacity of our imagination, thus creating that borderline of understanding you recall later. And here we come to the two following observations. I largely agree with both.

OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSE, DIMENSIONS DO NOT EXIST.
This is true, and for me easier to think of, if we refer at the universe as infinite. If someone got lost in space he would loose the perception of dimensions and will move in a dimensionless universe of a finite universe (may we start thinking of dimensions as mind artifacts?). But is this "new universe" within, outside or inside the Universe? It is hard for me to imagine a finite universe (finite in terms of dimension, shape, time) "floating" in a dimensionless exterior, but I rather see the universe permeated by a dimensionless world.

THE EXTERIOR OF THE UNIVERSE IS NOT THINKABLE NOR CALCULABLE.
We are limited: limited by physiology, by physical and mathematical laws, by our own mental restrains and bonds. Limited nature cannot either give dimensions to the non-dimensional or imagine the unimaginable.

2nd hypothesis:

THE EXTERNAL WORLD IS THE REAL WORLD.
If I start from my assumption that the universe is permeated by a dimensionless world, the universe might be, indeed, the Real World itself, just transformed in a different level of energy. "Nothing is created, nothing is destroyed, but everything is transformed". Moreover, the concept of "external" does not strictly describe something that lies outside: in anatomy, for example, the stomach's or intestine's cavities are referred as "external" to the body because they are created from surface's invagination and are in communication with the outside. In this perspective external can also be inner.

And here we join again: "The external world is therefore every where in us, in every thing. The basis of the universe is in the external world". But since "The universe is also entirely surrounded by the external world at the limits of its large dimensions as well as at each point of space at the limits of its small dimensions" and "The external world in therefore every where in us"
We may think to ourselves as small universes, both finite in their dimensions and infinite in their potentials, blended with a larger universe.

I feel very comfortable with the other hypothesis and observations. Wherever scientific truth relies, human beings (as well as all the living creatures), before humanity in its whole, are on march towards the limits of themselves, to join at the end of each personal path in order to overcome those same limits. We would never be able to do this entirely by ourselves, as separated entities, because our limitations. We need each other. And that's probably when love was born, or simply became conscious! Probably what pushed our ancestors to procreate was just a primordial instinct that had his roots in the hidden and unconscious desire (or task?) to find that common route again. We love our soul mate, we love our children, and we love our family and our friends because this love makes us one in the search of the real world. And the more we evolve our feelings the closer we get to our goal.

Now that I've read the Big Bang philosophy and its moral consequences I better understand the deeper meaning of our rewarding exchange of ideas we had in Florence. In the session evaluating Politics I see how fond you are of Europe's construction. Yet, although I perfectly agree with you, I am sadly convinced times are not ready to see what our (and hope not too far) descendants will. I think that presently the reasons for constructions are not the right ones, not yet. Too many divisions are standing in between individuals; really the Big Bang pushed us quite far away from each other! Anyway we must start someway and sometime!

I agree with your definition of reincarnation, sharing the basic principle with the most known "souls transmigration" (to become closer and closer, through continuous cycles of life, to be ONE again) but infinitely more concrete. From a strictly personal point of view, the idea that my father is living through me his infinite and eternal life and that I live because him makes me feel closer to him than I ever was. From a more general point of view, this is the basis for the real brotherhood.

I realize now that I have taken so much of your time! It has been great approaching the Real World: every moment and every thought we share with other human beings, and hence with ourselves, are a small step ahead.

Wherever we will be in the world, there will be five candles burning together.

Thank you for sharing this path with us,

M. Egle De Stefano
Dip. di Biologia Cellulare e dello Sviluppo
Università "La Sapienza"
Roma

 

Answer to Egle:

You have been very kind to study attentively the big Bang philosophy and to comment it deeply.

I am happy because in fact we share the SAME IDEAS. The Big Bang Philosophy is a tentative to reach the truth without the faith while you have faith. Finally our paths are joining together and that is great. When I say that the universe is finite, I mean the calculable universe, the space-time universe, but I do recognize that the real world, synonymous with God, is infinite. I am not speaking about soul because I don't know what a soul is, but I know that their must be some unknown relations between the real world (God) and the universe. So I agree with you that we are, in a way, infinite. I am proud to propose a reasoning that goes from science to God.

"Does time apply to the concept of infinite?"
Space and time go together according to the relativity theory.

"An infinite number of atoms combinations".
That is not possible, as it is not possible for a die to give unlimited number of possibilities. The anti-matter is part of the universe, as everything calculable.

Thanks for the interest in the Big Bang Philosophy.

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

=================***=================

 

Question of Egle (2) :

It is today's news that the President of the United States will make legal the research on staminal cells from frozen human embryos and will allocate public money for it.

I feel as split in two halves: as a "scientist" (I always feel a little odd defining myself as so!) I see how important this research could be for curing terrible diseases, among which the genetic ones; as a human being, with all my emotional limits, I feel horrified.

Are these embryos, at the stage of few multipotent cells and still not in the form of a human fetus, already human beings or not? That is, from the Big Bang philosophy point of view: is part of the universe already incarnated in these embryos? Or does the incarnation begin when fetuses are actually formed, or even later, at the moment they are born? Is it correct to use "human beings", although still in this primitive form, for scientific research?
Let us also consider that staminal cells can be obtained by the umbilical cord, or bone marrow, or blood, although the limiting factor is their very low amount. Staminal cells are multipotent cells that, if adequately stimulated, could differentiate in any other type of specialized cell (neurons, epithelial cells, muscle cells...) and, in a more organized fashion, in groups of different type of cells in communication with one another.

I cannot stop thinking that those embryos did not ask to be created, and that they are so just because couples, in their infinite egoism, decided to have babies at any cost. But on the other end: is it right to stop the inevitable progress? Where does the right reside? Is it moral? This is an ethical problem that everyone should ask to himself, disregarding religious creeds.

M. Egle De Stefano
Dip. di Biologia Cellulare e dello Sviluppo
Università "La Sapienza"
Roma

 

Answer to Egle:

My position is that we cannot have dogmas, we cannot have clear-cut positions like black and white. We should choose the solution which creates the LEAST SUFFERING.

By using these staminal cells we could cure terrible diseases, this is good.
Are these embryos already human beings? According to me, no.
Are they going to suffer? No.
Is part of the universe already incarnated in these embryos? Absolutely yes, as the universe is also incarnated in all these animals that we are eating!!!

You have probably read that I am in favor of vegetarianism but in the same time I am in favor of experience on animals, provided that everything is made to diminish the suffering.

The same problem happens with abortion and euthanasia. Where is the limit?
Here again, I am in favor of the solution which creates the least suffering, knowing that to find the right solution is difficult. In these two cases, abortion and euthanasia, we have to choose sometimes a solution which we do not like, but the alternative would be even worse. I guess this is part of our human condition.

I also know that people who accept the Big Bang philosophy could have OTHER ideas. If you reject my ideas, don't throw the Big Bang Philosophy away with them.

Thank you for helping me to think about it.

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

=================***=================

 

Question of Andrew:

First off thank you very much for taking the time to post your ideas on philosophy on the web and responding to all your visitors questions. I find my own ideas reflected very much so in your philosophy but here is where I differ:

1) The name, "Big Bang Philosophy." I would disagree with your choice to relate your philosophy so much with a scientific theory that is more then likely correct but not an uncontested scientific truth. There are many other possibilities for the creation of the universe and while I agree that the Big Bang is the most likely I would hate for people to get turned off by your philosophy just because of the name. Plus it's unnecessary. Your philosophy holds up with any number of possible 'creation' theories so even if the Big Bang isn't correct then you cannot discount your philosophy. Any theory that leaves room for a cosmos outside the universe or 'something' outside will work with your philosophy. Personally I got sick of "-ism" so I call my personal creed "hope" because it is on the hope of humanity to reach "meaning" in the (using your term) "real world". I say hope because what if the real world is just as meaningless as the universe, but I hope the "real world" is meaningful because if I am wrong I might as well just kill myself. But if I am right and I killed myself because I lost hope then my contribution to the human race is lost and I miss out on my opportunity to have meaning, to be influential in the "real world."

2) "Outside the universe there is no space, therefore there are no dimensions." Here is another point I diverge with you. I don't think we can say if there is space or no space in the "real world". Who says the real world cannot have some of the same characteristics of our universe or similar ones anyway? Because you believe the universe to be without space you say "While we are all separated by space and time in the universe, we were one in the real world. Our condition was therefore better". I don't think we know if in the real world we where not divided by something other then space or time and I wouldn't even begin to think we have the brain power or data to decide if being "ONE" in the "real world" would be "better." What if the "real world" is a hell? I hope the "real world" is a better place but not because I think we will be all together but because it 'could' be better for any number of reasons. I pursue my goal of reaching (well helping humanity as a whole reach) the "real world" because if the human race doesn't make it there then we all die meaningless. The universe is meaningless unless it has a purpose in the "real world" and we cannot know if the universe has that purpose until we get to the "real world." If we never get to the real world then let us influence the universe as much we can positively on the hope that the universe serves some purpose in the "real world."

3) I believe the human desire to find the "real world" is not that. But simply a need to live on forever... to influence the "real world" is man's ultimate goal. To live on via his deeds and since all man can find in the universe is meaningless he yearns for "something" else (a heaven, a god) and it would seem science has found a place that at least maybe his acts count for something and live on. The universe dies and so will man's influence with it but if man can just escape the universe... to maybe something infinite he will become infinite. Man wants to live forever.

4) "It seems that life appeared and developed until now in order to give the universe the possibility to understand itself and to change itself." It is possible but I don't think it is the only option for the universe's purpose.
I wouldn't say that fact as a given but just a possibility.

5) About death. I agree with you but let me make an addition to what you said. Yes in your death we lose no soul and our flesh is of no real matter but when we die our consciousness is lost. This is important. Everything we have felt, loved, known, experienced is lost unless we record it or pass our essences on to another. I think if I live physically long enough to write a book about my philosophy, life and experiences so my book my influence the human race to head to the "real world" then I will never die. Life isn't anything, it's consciousness that counts and all that our consciousness learns can be recorded for all time and so we may become immortal. When I complete my book it will be no matter to me if I live physically or die because only my matter dies (moves on to create something else) but my consciousness lives on.

6) I am a vegetarian, but I do not think it is a logical action ordered or even implied by the big bang philosophy or even my own "hope" philosophy. I do it... because I sympathize but not because it is logical. (Well actually I do have a logical purpose: I refrain from eating meat because it gives me moral high ground to talk on the subject so no one can say "you are only defending that stance because you like the taste of meat.") I do totally agree that as humans we have reached a stage in evolution that we need not eat or harm animals like lions have to or other lower forms need to. Still I don't really know if I can muster a reason to be a vegetarian... maybe in case I'm wrong? Pain is nothing but a primitive guide to actions, as is pleasure so no philosophical system should factor in happiness or avoidance of pain to be a goal. Pain should only be avoided when it negatively effects man's goals to reach the "real world." Likewise pain should be implemented when it need be to reach the "real world."

7) I think democracy is the best political system to help humanity to its goals but that is not a "must." If democracy hurt man's goals then it should be gotten rid of, but I really cannot think of a probable situation that would hold democracy as a negative.

8) As far a economy goes: I think in an equal distribution of wealth gives everyone more equality and since we really have little evidence for which is the best route for humanity to take (the big bang philosophy is only most probable not a certainty) so everyone should be given the equal opportunity.
This relates to democracy too.

9) What is good for [the universe's purpose] is moral. If that includes man then so be it but it may not... who knows? Maybe we are hurting the universe? That's why everyone should be given equal rights to voice and find their own way.

10) I do not like religions. They have preached morals and justice for ages and they have killed and suppressed for ages. I give Christianity no credit for realizing the universe was finite because it was a random chance they did. Out of 200 some odd religious systems someone had to guess the universe was finite. Think how much closer we would be to the "real world" if scientific thought had been freely accepted long ago or if the Library of Alexandra had not been destroyed. They are free to practice what they believe, as am I, but I hold no respect.

11) Reincarnation: Yes our atoms are reincarnated in others but that is really meaningless. What is of importance is that our knowledge lives on.
The word "life" doesn't deserve the sacred meaning given to it, "consciousness" does.

12) ...well that's about all tonight.

I thank you for spending the time to read over all I have wrote and would be endlessly thankful for a response. All my questions/opinions are over the minor details but our basic philosophy is close to the same. Again your web site is of an endless help and if you ever find a book, or other web site that shares our similar philosophy please post it on your site.

 

Answer to Andrew (composed of 2 E-mails):

"Big Bang philosophy, I would disagree with your choice".
You are right to say that this philosophy is not dependent of the big bang. The big bang made me think that the universe is finite but even if the big bang were proved wrong once, the philosophy would continue. My first idea of a title was "philosophy of the finite universe and of the single being". I was not satisfied with it and when I went on Internet, two years ago, I decided to take something more appealing. I decided to take big bang because it is so well known. So far, marketing wise, it has been a good idea but an idea is never 100% good and it is natural that some people do not like it. Your title of "hope" is of course excellent. I am afraid that it is a bit late to change the title.

"What if the real world is just as meaningless as the universe?".
In that case, dear Andrew, there is nothing to do. If God is bad, we would be in a trap and we could not even pray! But I have a confidence (is it faith or some intuition?) that the real world (God) is not bad. I completely agree with your reasoning. Let us decide freely that this is our way and what will be will be.

"A need to live for ever".
For me this is the human desire to find the real world. We want to become infinite. We agree.

"Universe's purpose".
Yes it is a possibility. I say "hypothesis".

"Death".
During all these years philosophizing, I came to consider that my REAL ME is not my body, or my consciousness, but the WHOLE UNIVERSE.
(The same reasoning can be made for you or any other human being). Since that time, death has lost much of its ugliness for me. I wish you could feel the same but I know that it is not easy. You are right to say that a man like Socrates is still living through his ideas. But what about the billions who never wrote a book? I tell you that even the smallest one can consider the whole universe as his real person.

"I am a vegetarian".
You say you do it because you sympathize. If you sympathize, that means you have some bonds with animals. You recognize them as being somewhat like you or near you. This is exactly what I say "we should love our neighbors because THEY ARE US!" Your action is logical but you do not feel it. You are perfectly right. But I do not share your ideas about pain. Would like your mother or somebody you cherish to suffer horrible pain? Of course no. Avoidance of pain IS a goal.

"Religions".
I am not as severe as you are about religions. At the beginning of each of them there is usually a great idea or a great man or both. But then you have countless of stupid people or nasty persons to destroy most of it. Let us have a filter and take only what is good and reject what is bad. I agree that if there had been no interruption of civilization since the Greeks collapsed, we would be two thousand years more advanced today.
Alas, this is the way it is.

Yes, we agree basically on the most important. This makes me happy.

"I have never found a web site that is similar"
May be yours???

Jean-Pierre Burri

Second E-mail:

While my wife was reading aloud your mail and my answer, during the dinner, I realized that I made many errors (I have a practical excuse: French is my mother tongue and my day to day language) and I became aware that I forgot also one of your questions. (No excuse, here).

" I don't think we can say that there is no space in the real world".
The relativity theory, discovered by Einstein at the beginning of the century, says clearly that time and space were born with the big bang. There is no space and time outside the universe and there were no space and time "before". This is a very important fact which made me think that the real world is dimensionless and consequently totally unthinkable and not calculable. You know that we cannot imagine a fifth dimension but this is not a problem for mathematics with which you can calculate 10 or more dimensions. But there is a problem when there are NO dimensions. I guess that this is the first time a philosophy takes into account the relativity theory.

"Being ONE would be better?"
In the real world, dimensionless and which can be considered infinite, every thing was everywhere at all time. So to speak, was it better?
When I consider that we are now all separated by space and time, I would say YES! But I do realize that this is not easy to understand and even less easy to explain. I am more pushed toward the real world by the horrors of the universe than attracted by its qualities that are so abstract.
May be there is an element of faith here. I am not sure.

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

=================***=================

 

Question of Christian:

I like what your are proposing with your Big Bang philosophy.

My question is the following: your theory proposes that human kind is the only one that can possibly bring the universe back to the real world.
As we advance in all aspects and technology improves, our mathematical chances of destroying ourselves become greater. What happens if we destroy ourselves one day?
Will the universe never reach the real world?

Christian Garcia.

 

Answer to Christian:

The Big Bang philosophy does not exclude the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe. The question is open.

If humanity disappears in a catastrophe, either of its own making or by natural causes, our only hope would be that other intelligent people in the universe do want we wanted to do.

The long-term future of humanity will only be secured when our far away descendants are able to go and live on the planet of another solar system. This should happen in two or three thousands years. This is a short time, considering that the human race "Homo sapiens sapiens" has been around for one hundred thousands years.

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

=================***=================

 

Question of Ricky:

I just read your text on the BigBang.org site, and have some questions.

In the Big Bang, all the atoms and the matter were "in the same place", and after it, all got separated. The Universe was formed, with its galaxies, planets, stars, and us - life.

By reading your text (by the way I loved it) I saw that you wrote that the human being was created by the same Universe (was it intentional?) to understand and change itself. What is the Real World that you said in the text? Was it the state when all matter was unite, or a transcended world close to god?

Thank you
Ricky

 

Answer to Ricky:

The real world is mostly synonymous with God. I prefer these words because the name of God has been associated with a lot of wrong ideas, like being a person. In my opinion God, who is really a very abstract idea, is being better described by the words real world. When you read my text, you can mentally read God each time you see real world.

I t seems that there is an intention in the universe. This intention is to make the universe conscious, through humanity, and able to change itself.

If my answer was not clear or if you have other comments or questions I would be happy to read you again.

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

=================***=================

 

(E-mails between Lu Yi Ling and Bill Stoeger)

Question of Lu Yi Ling to Bill Stoeger:

Has there been other big bang?

Lu Yi Ling

 

Answer of Bill Stoeger to Lu Yi Ling:

I now have a few minutes to answer your questions about cosmology and about multiple Big Bangs. We really do not know if there were other Big Bangs before the one that took place about 15 billion years ago. The reason we do not know, is because there is absolute no possibility of detecting any signals which would give us information about times earlier than the Big Bang from which our observable universe issued. All information about other Big Bangs earlier (if indeed there were any) was wiped out before our Big Bang, and information about possible Big Bangs elsewhere in reality -- outside our universe -- is simply not accessible.

Most cosmologists and specialists in this area of science, however, do now feel that it is somewhat unlikely that our observable universe suffered Big Bangs before the one we know happened. This because the entropy density, or measure of disorder, in our observable universe would probably be higher than it actually is, if other Big Bangs had been part of our history; and even more because it now seems that our universe will expand for ever and not collapse. Evidence is emerging that it does not possess enough matter to slow the expansion rate and induce collapse... in fact the expansion may be gently accelerating! That means it is very hard to imagine how there could have been enough matter and energy have earlier Big Bangs and collapses, if there is not enough now. Finally, we really do not know how the Big Bang itself was initiated -- it could not have been just a single explosion as we normally think of that, and it could not have occurred within a pre-existing space. It itself generated space and time -- and in a sense was a manifold of many events taking place simultaneously.

From this you can see that there is not likely to be an evidence any time soon for earlier Big Bangs. If there is, it would create a real revolution in cosmology. At present it is very difficult to imagine what evidence would demonstrate this -- what to look for.

From a theoretical point of view, it is easy to see that Big Bangs in completely different observable universes could occur. However, it is clear that if they did, there is no scientific possibility -- as we presently understand that -- of every detecting them, or detecting the universes in which they occurred.

What I have given you here is the standard answer most in the cosmological community would give you. I hope it helps a little bit!

Again, all the very best -- and my prayers, especially at the Eucharist!

In Christ,
Bill Stoeger, S. J.

 

=================***=================

 

Question of Geoff Dawson:

 Your philosophy both interests and inspires me, but there are a few questions I should ask.

You state that the universe in finite and that our ultimate goal is to enter the real world. Does this suggest that we have an infinite capability of understanding with prior teaching and knowledge? Do you believe that just because the baton is handed on, that humans will continue to learn either in our present state or more fully evolved? Surely to obtain the technology simply for any number of people to leave our solar system would test the greatest minds, reaching the boundaries of an expanding universe, embracing it all and then leaving it for the real world could perhaps simply be beyond the greatest minds, even with millennia of experience.

Do you believe the conscious mind to be a limitless boundary of intelligence? Is being fully self aware a tool great enough to reach the stars and the real world? I would be greatly interested to hear your thoughts on this matter.

Regards

 

Answer to Geoff Dawson:

Do we have an infinite capability of understanding?
No, nothing in the universe is infinite. But the universe being finite also, with time we will fully understand it.

Humans will continue to learn?
Since a few millions years (from the beginning of the stone age) humanity has progressed. There is no reason to believe that it will stop now or in the future.

Leaving...for the real world could perhaps simply be beyond the greatest minds.
In my opinion the huge air traffic we have today became a possibility when Leonardo da Vinci made a drawing of the first plane five centuries ago. In order for the most fantastic projects to become reality, they have first to be born in the minds of people.
Today the idea of going back to the real world looks creasy. Tomorrow it will seem normal.

Is the conscious mind a limitless boundary of intelligence?
As I say above, nothing in our universe is limitless. But even with limits, the human mind is amazing. Look at what it has done since the time we were like monkeys.

The Big Bang philosophy is a bet on the future made after having looked at the past. What will happen in one thousand years, in one hundred thousand years? Why would the progress, which has been going on for million of years, not go on for other million of years?

Until now we did not think enough about the future of humanity and its capability of changing the universe.

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

=================***=================

 

Question of Geoff Dawson:

Do you feel that humanity as it stands in the present has an obligation to future generations of spending much more money and man-hours in the research of our situation in the universe? The technology, level of civilization and understanding to reach the stars is clearly a fragile and advanced one, but the potential is clearly here, now. Should it be explored as fully as possible in our time, or will our ultimate destiny simply arise through generations of rise and fall of mankinds level of civilization? I feel that we must do as much as possible, whilst we have the conditions in this world to do so.

What can the ordinary thinker such as myself do to advance our discovery of the universe, or is exploration only available to the higher minds of rocket engineers and astronomers.

 

Answer to Geoff Dawson:

I fully agree with you that "we must do as much as possible, whilst we have the conditions in this world to do so". In Geneva there is a giant atoms crusher, the name of which is CERN. Great Britain is a member of that organization. Since about forty years now, the poor devils working there have had to convince an incredulous public that a by-product of their research was to make a better soup, some day! And they did, of course. For instance Internet would not be possible without a discovery made at CERN. But I am looking forward to the day when the general population will know that pure research is NOT a waste of money. For that to happen, people like you and me have to make a huge effort of information.

This consideration leads me to your second question: "Is exploration only available to the higher minds of rocket engineers and astronomers?"

Not at all. ALL of us have a role to play. The physicists and astronomers cannot live by their own. They need food, cloth, housing and all the services which society can produce, even the entertainers because they have to get some amusement also. Everybody is needed even when the honor is not given to everybody. When an army wins the war, it is due in part to the people who made the uniforms but they stay perfectly unknown. There are also the taxes which everybody pay and which are going in part to research and there are there are the multitude of discoveries in all fields which are helping the progress of humanity. The ideal would be that every one contributes to the extent of his capacities in any field.

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

=================***=================

 

Question of Jae:

My wonder is about evil, in every definition of the term what are your thoughts of pure evil, misdirected (confused) evil, I am not talking about it's use but it's reality. Does that make sense? How does it fit into your theory?

 

Answer to Jae:

For me the bad is what me makes me, or others, suffer. The fundamental origin of the bad is space and time because before space and time we were one and our condition was better. Now we are torn by space and time and sometimes we collide against each other, which is also painful. Space and time were born with the universe, we can even say that they are the universe because in the theory of relativity we speak of a space-time universe. So the universe is the bad. Please note that this explanation is not much different from the explanation we find in the Bible which tells us that we are all suffering because of a sin made by Adam and Eva. The difference is that the Big Bang philosophy does not say that anybody is guilty. It just considers that the bad came into being with the birth of the universe.

How can we diminish the bad? By knowledge! If I am really convinced that you are me, and not only you but the whole universe is me, I will behave kindly with you, whoever you are. So knowledge is everything. Let us dream for a minute and think that the whole population of our planet is deeply convinced of that idea. There are no more murders, thefts, rapes and all the horrors that we see at TV. Humanity has become kind to itself. But unfortunately that does not take away the accidents, the diseases, the natural disasters like earthquake, flooding, etc. That means that as long as the universe will exist, suffering will be with us. To get out of all this, we will have to return to the real world, in a very far future. So we have to increase our knowledge and be patient.

As we are speaking about good and evil, I would like to remind you my definition of morality. Everything that is good for me AND for the others is moral.

This a subject on which we could write the equivalent of a complete library...

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

=================***=================

 

Question of Tim T.:

Isaac Asimov concluded in an essay on the definition of life, that the fundamental difference between living organisms and inanimate objects is the presents of enzymes.
If you will allow me this postulate without the need to recreate Asimov's argument, and if you will agree that the action of enzymes is nothing more than organic chemistry, and that all chemistry is governed only by the fundamental laws of physics, I will suggest that life is no more miraculous than say the aura borealis.
Awe inspiring to behold, but certainly not requiring the supernatural or metaphysics to exist. No intelligent, intervening hand of God is necessitated. It is simply "nature".
The distinction between living and not living is therefore arbitrary. It is convenient and has meaning because we humans like to categorize. In the same way, scientists make a distinction between plant and animal.

You too make an arbitrary distinction, between what is appropriate and inappropriate eatable organic material. You based your distinction on a notion of suffering.
To this I must ask you, what is suffering?
I will presume a reply similar to "the sensation of discomfort". Again I must ask, what is discomfort?
A purely clinical response would be something about the release of certain chemicals in a part of the brain that is designed to detect damage to the larger organism to which the brain is a part. If the action of the chemicals, which cause the sensation of pain, is negated by the introduction of additional chemicals, can an organism still be said to suffer?
Does a man with no sensation in his arm suffer more when his finger is broken than a plant when its flesh is masticated?
The consumption of foodstuff, whether plant or animal, results in exactly the same chemical processes, the breakdown (and thus the damage) of cellular material into base proteins and sugars. The only difference between plant and animal is the presents of a brainstem capable of detecting that damage. If I smack my computer hard enough to crash my hard disk, and if my computer detects this condition, can we not say the computer has "suffered" damage?
I don't smack my computer because its damage would cause me to suffer. For reason of conscience, I don't go around killing small animals. I feel nothing upon the demise of a fly or cockroach.
Here we see that suffering is more about what I feel than what the damaged item feels.
Living organisms are not "one" with the universe. Life is not sacred. "Life" is nothing more than a highly organized collection of chemical reactions.
The Universe does not care. Only we humans care, and our care is completely arbitrary. It is based on our experiences, and what we would wish and wish not to endure. "Caring" is an evolved response in a social animal.
We must remember that the consumption of one organism by another is the second (behind sex) most fundamental necessity of life on this planet. A good steak is just that, a good steak.

Let me close by saying that I find your writings to be most compelling.
It is clear to me that they were inspired by your search for truth. But, I fear that the notion of vegetarianism in your Big Bang Philosophy is clearly misplaced.
If you wish to respond, I have other topics of insight I would love to discuss with you.

 

Answer to Tim T.:

One of the fundamentals elements of the Big Bang philosophy is that we were ONE before the birth of the universe. This compels me to consider you, Tim, as well as the whole of the universe as a part of myself. As I consider you as myself I will treat you better than if you were a competitor that I have to smash. Your suffering is becoming my suffering and I will do my utmost so you will not suffer.

Now let us examine your text. I mostly agree with you until you say that "suffering is more about what I feel than what the damaged item feels". Dear Tim, if I plunge a knife onto your flesh, you are really going to feel it! And if I have no guilt feelings about that I will be like an animal and not a human being! This is precisely what distinguishes us from animals. If I oblige a lion to eat only vegetables, he will die very soon because his teeth and digestive track are not made to eat vegetables. Fortunately human beings have evolved beyond that stage and today we can choose what we eat. So for us at least "the consumption of one organism by another is" not "the second most fundamental necessity of life on this planet".

If you accept the Big Bang philosophy reasoning, you are obliged to accept the moral of it. If you refuse the moral, you have to change the reasoning.

I also would love to continue this discussion with you. There is no need to agree on everything to have a friendly discussion.

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

=================***=================

 

Question of Tim T.:

After pondering you response I believe I have begun to understand your reasoning. If I may let me try to reflect back.

You understand that the universe is violent and cruel by its nature.
Animals kill to survive because they have no other choice. Humans, on the other hand, through our intelligence have a choice, and no less an obligation, to choose a path of minimal cruelty. Cruelty in any form, to any entity of this universe is by definition immoral because all things are ultimately of us.
Eating meat is a necessary cruelty performed by the lion because it is necessary to the lion’s survival. Eating meat is a choice for us if fruits and vegetables are plentiful, and therefor an unnecessary cruelty. Likewise, the cruelty humans perform consuming fruits and vegetables is excusable because it is a minimum for our survival.

I will admit that this reasoning is sound and, as a bases for establishing one’s moral plane, respectable. But like all attempts to prescribe moral and ethical behavior, there is a fatal flaw.
The distinction between ethical and unethical demands a sharp line, but there are no pure black or whites in this world. This is where religion fails. It is not possible to prescribe a moral code for even a single human let along a group.

Here is the dilemma. Is your home a necessity to your survival? If it became overrun with termites, could you justify the destruction of the colony to preserve your property, or should you abandon the house and suffer the cost of relocating.
I drive to work everyday, by myself, in an automobile. This act is undoubtedly damaging to my fellow humans, through the destruction of the atmosphere and the extravagant use of precious natural resources.
To what extreme must I go to avoid this practice before I can claim that my survival is threatened?
I have a friend who loves to fish. He would argue that not fishing would cause considerable suffering, in himself and his family. His job performance would likely suffer without the stress relief he receives from his hobby. This would cause his business to suffer which affects all his employees. Which produces more suffering, fishing or not fishing?

Every act, every decision has many consequences, some positive, some negative. The consequences are always grey and depend solely on your point of view.
There is no resolution to this paradox, no moral imperative that will sharpen the line. Society, in lieu of anarchy, has established an imperfect system by which men can live, while attempting to mitigate suffering of the broad majority. We are only obligated to these "morals" of the society to which we belong. This is what we define as law, interpreted in the courts. Any moral value beyond the law is necessarily personal to the individual. We may share similar values but your values are not mine and appear arbitrary to me.
How can your philosophy prescribe general morality? What individual is so omniscient as to be able to see all points of view?

I close by saying that I disagree that one is "obliged to accept the moral of it" any more than one is obligated to the moral implication of Christianity or Islam or Satanism.
One is only obligated to reflect the moral implications of ALL philosophies onto ones life, in an attempt to reach balance and harmony within their conscience.
To preach one moral set over another is to preach religion.

 

Answer to Tim T.:

I agree with you to say that there are no pure black or whites in this world but contrarily to you I think the distinction between ethical and unethical is not always a sharp line but is most of the time fuzzy. Let us take some examples: if my home became overrun by termites, I would use chemicals to kill the termites. I would regret having to do that but I would do it nevertheless because the health of my family is more important to me than the life of the termites. I love gardening around my house and in doing that I kill unintentionally lots of insect and worms. In fact I became aware that simply due to my existence lots of bugs or higher animals were going to die. I am not a perfect vegetarian because it is practically impossible to be a perfect vegetarian in a world of meat eaters (including my wife, my son and the rest of the family). I agree that one is obliged to think about the best outcome. In the case of your fishing friend, he has to balance his suffering with the suffering of the fish. If he ever became convinced that the fish is himself he would act differently.

I am not an absolutist who wants to impose general morality. My ambition is only to make people THINK about how they should behave considering that we were one before and will be one again. Every one has the liberty to be against me and by consulting my mail you will see that they are many. When I say that one is obliged to accept the morality of the Big Bang Philosophy I just want to say that if you are convinced that the reasoning is correct then you are compelled to accept the moral because one can not go without the other.

One more thing about vegetarianism. If we could abstain from any animal product only one day per week, we would have gone a considerable way toward reducing suffering. This is not an extremist idea, isn't it?

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

Conclusion of Tim T.:

It appears to me that we are arguing for the same conclusions!
First let me say, I think you misunderstood me. I believe that morality (ethics) is fuzzy and that it is the attempt to prescribe morality standards that tends to sharpen the line.
I was afraid that by stating the moral consequence that you were demanding a morality standard.
After reading your response, I now feel that you view the moral consequences of the Big Bang Philosophy as a moral implication (to use another word) instead of an ultimatum of morality.
You are willing to place the health and comfort of your family over the health and comfort of the termites. In doing this you have demonstrated the willingness to arbitrary apply morality, with regards to suffering, in a reasonable and logical manner, based on YOUR judgment of what is important.
The problem appears if you (or anybody) attempt to tell me what is the morality of how I treat the termites in my house.
I may choose to be influenced by your example but I am not compelled by it. I may accept the moral consequences of the Big Bang Philosophy, but I am still free to apply them as I see fit.

 

=================***=================

 

Question of L.:

The primary problem I have is that I believe the "old" "standard" religions are outdated. They seem rather naive or the result of manipulation over the centuries and perhaps "lost" in translations... while it seems reasonable to conclude there are profound bases for various religions that have endured over the centuries, I find there are just as many bases to conclude they have been "diluted" (for lack of a better word)... it also seems absurd to me when I hear people say they "know with absolute certainty" things such as "God", "the Son of God", and other profundities...

Peace.

 

Answer to L.:

My personal opinion is that every religion, every philosophy have seen a part of the truth. Unfortunately, like everything in the universe, they age and become not so good with time. So, periodically, one has to shake the tree to make rotten fruit fall down. A very good point of our period is that today many people do not accept blindly the religion of their parents but are thinking and looking elsewhere.

I am like you, I do not have faith. Faith can produce saints... and monsters. For me faith is a mental process by which a person throws away his anxiety by submitting without limits to a superior being. It may also be an intuition by which you understand everything at once without going in a step by step reasoning. I always say that religions and philosophies have two main goals:
a) make people happy by removing the anxiety and
b) make them better. If somebody is both happy and good because of any religion or philosophy, I will not bother him with the Big Bang philosophy.

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

=================***=================

 

Question of Jhy Duet:

My question is about returning to the "real world"... do you mean that a person will find the boundaries of the universe... or a person (being "part of the universe which becomes aware of itself and can act") will finally completely understand the universe and that part of the universe (the person) will return to the real world taking everything else with it?

Thanks for your time...

 

Answer to Jhy Duet:

Concerning our return to the real world, this will most probably be a collective decision taken quasi unanimously, so I hope. But as this will not happen before thousands of years (or may be million!) humanity will have plenty of time to discuss it in depth. Living in 1999, I have not the slightest idea of the details of the operation. I know the goal but I do not know how it will be reached. Each generation will bring its own ideas about it.

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

=================***=================

 

Question of Jay:

… I was reading through past questions and you said that the "real world" was a place where we were all "one" existing in a no dimensional universe. So was this "one" a particle...a molecule...a god-like existence...or an unexplainable phenomenon? Not to discredit any of this idea, but it sounds like you have started a new religion. Almost all religions rely on faith in a "god" to explain the unexplainable. You have put faith in all of us being "one" at some time. This idea can not be proved wrong or right, so you have covered your tracks well. No one can say it is wrong unless conclusive evidence of gods is found in this day of age. You could have just said we were all with god in the beginning, then we were sent out, into our imperfect universe. I am not very religious...if at all any...but I believe the universe has to be explainable because anything else is illogical. Nothing is made to not make sense.

 

Answer to Jay:

When I say we were all one, this is the result of a reasoning which is explained in the summary of the Big Bang philosophy I never had faith myself and I am not going to ask people to have faith in what I say! As you have read my mail, you have seen that there are some good arguments against mine.

My purpose is not to start a new religion it is simply to reach the truth (if possible) by using science and reasoning and not by using faith.

Finally I will say that the universe is potentially fully explainable but unfortunately the real world will stay outside our reach until the end of the world.

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

=================***=================

 

Question of Alexander:

What about love? By loving can we at least reach the happiness we used to feel when being one? (maybe you should call it "singularity happiness")…

Should I consider that making love to someone really offers me part of this initial happiness since I get "one" with that person?

Note that I write making love and not having sex (quite different concepts) and I assume that making love implies not only physical connection but deep mental communication too.

Thanks.

 

Answer to Alexander:

The ancient Greek philosopher Plato already said that love was like recreating a fundamental unity. I agree completely with him. This is the good part but we can not reproduce exactly in the universe the unity of the real world. We can only approach it.

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

=================***=================

 

Question of Tony:

Is it possible that the Bible discounted by scientists for Centuries is correct when it says God created a firmament about the earth?

Thanks.

 

Answer to Tony:

Contrarily to oriental religions like Hinduism and Buddhism and modern physicists like Andrei Linde who are all thinking that the universe is infinite, the Bible says correctly that there has been a beginning and that there will be an end. Since the discovery of the Big Bang, the case of the Bible has become much stronger.

Once you are persuaded that the universe is finite you have to ask yourself what was before and what is beyond now. The Bible says it is God and I say that it is the real world. God and real world are mostly synonymous but not completely. I have a great respect for the farsightedness of those who wrote the Bible more than three thousand years ago.

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

=================***=================

 

Question of George:

You declare in your presentation of your philosophy, inter alia, the following:

"...The big bang philosophy says the contrary: before the big bang, we were not separated by space and time. We were ONE and happy".

Two points I would like to make with regards to the above:

1. The phrase: "We were not separated...", suggests "we", i.e. existence of intelligence and self-awareness, as well as multiplicity, which was by no means the case. In fact, it seems that before the Big Bang nothing existed, neither "we" nor "I".

2. "We were ONE and happy", suggests - again - morality (i.e. the difference between happy and not happy, which is a result of experience and the application of intelligence, neither of which existed before the big bang). The number ONE is also misleading. NOTHING is more apt. Oneness is a concept resulting from the mind, it does not exist in nature external to the mind and it certainly did not exist before the big bang since nature did not exist then.

Thank you.

 

Answer to George:

You are right to say that one can not speak correctly about the real world because there is not a single word that can describe it. So what to do? I solved that problem by saying that we have to use words knowing that they do not describe properly the situation. For instance, when I say that the real world exists, and I am persuaded that this statement is right, I also know that the adjective "real" the word "world" and the verb "exist" can only describe a situation in the universe, not outside it. When I say we were one, that means there was no separation between us like now. Before, we were not separated by space and time. When I say we were happy, I mean that the situation for us was better.

If you accept that the universe is finite, then you have to ask yourself what is beyond. A finite universe needs a cause and it needs a support. The whole Big Bang philosophy is a reasoning about what happens if the universe is finite.

Did I answer to your satisfaction? If not, please come again.

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

=================***=================

 

Question of Paul Chapman:

I am not an expert on these matters and I just read this website by accident; nevertheless, very interesting and thought provoking.

I have a statement.

Humans were formed from evolution; from the Big Bang. We are confined to limitations of our world, in terms of thought and of action. We have our limits and we are not as advanced as we would like to think. It is only twenty years ago that we managed to put one of our own on the moon (next door). Some of own people do not have enough food to eat. We bomb each other.

Therefore I think that we spend too much time and energy into discussing something which will NEVER be proved. You can try to argue until you are blue in the face, but NEVER will anyone be proved right on this matter. So my argument is...what is the point of doing this? Yes, it expands the mind and yes it is good to put your own existence into perspective; but how does it change anything? You still get annoyed in a traffic jam, and you still go to work.

Because we are affected and limited by our world, there is no way we can understand, let alone solve the existence or non-existence of extra-universal things. It may require a level of understanding that we do not have. It may involve some non-physical plane of consciousness which we do not have. I know you are going to give me an answer of people not believing that one person could talk to another on the other side of the earth using a telephone and hey presto, man can communicate across the globe, but I feel that we are so far away from proving anything and so physically incapable of viewing/touching/knowing about the realms of the universe that it is impossible.

And... more importantly, I don’t think we are supposed to know why we are here and the purpose of our life. It may be a bit less of a technical argument, but valid for me nonetheless.

 

Answer to Paul Chapman:

What is the point of doing this? How does it change anything? For me, the most important consequences of philosophy in general and of the Big Bang philosophy in particular are the moral consequences. You can see what I mean by clicking on the top left of the first page. Whether I consider others as competitors that I must beat or whether I consider them as part of myself will make a lot difference in my way of dealing with them. If the Big Bang philosophy makes me better, just a little bit better, I think it is worthwhile.

I am absolutely convinced that we will prove one day that the universe is finite. It will be a theoretical proof first (may be the string theory) and the experimental proof will come much later. At that time, the first hypothesis will become a scientific reality.

There are two ways to look at the universe. Either we are intimidated by what we still do not know, which is huge, or we are impressed by the fabulous progress of humanity since the stone age and the fantastic potential learning of the future. Contrary to your ideas, I think that the universe has an opportunity through us to become aware of its existence and to change itself. By the way, I would like to know more about the idea you develop in your last paragraph. Can you come back?

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

=================***=================

 

Question of Robert Cottrell:

Hello,

I've read some more of the questions and answers on your page with great interest it seems there are a few people in the world who ponder the universe and our place in it. For this reason and of course the very nature of the Big Bang Philosophy I would like to ask if you would allow me to put a link on my site connecting to yours. I'm sorting out my site before I begin to write my book and a link page to other sites is essential. If you know of any other sites which may be of particular interest please let me know.

Best regards,

 

Answer to Robert Cottrell:

Thank you for your kind proposal. You can of course link your site to mine. I do not know of any other similar site. If you read the answers and questions you will have seen that the critics are much more numerous than the compliments! Our ideas are nevertheless progressing.

Kind regards,

Jean-Pierre Burri

Comments of Robert Cottrell:

Don't worry about the critics they don't really understand what you are saying. Most were arguing about semantics. I do understand what you are trying to say and believe me I know you are right. You see, though I try to accentuate the poetic nature of the truth of the universe brought to us by sound scientific investigation, I am first and foremost a scientist. I always have been. I always will be. So it is ingrained in me not to believe anything until it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Your conception of the big bang and the universe compared to human life is correct. It is quite simple.

Onwards and upwards:)
Regards.

 

=================***=================

 

Question of Steve (1):

You say that before space and time, we were all one and all happy. But if life only came about a few billion years ago (at least on Earth), then how was happiness or any other feeling for that matter possible before life?
And why does oneness necessarily bring happiness?

Also, you say that eating animals is wrong since we are all really the same, evolving from the first life on Earth. Then what about eating plants or fungi?
And if death and reincarnation are no big deal, then why is it wrong to kill these animals to eat them?

Thanks.

 

Answer to Steve (1):

Before the universe ever existed, we were in the real world. But the big problem with the real world is that it is beyond our vocabulary. Because of that restriction I did not say that we were happy in it, I just said in the 3rd hypothesis that "our condition was therefore better". It was better because we were one and we were one because there were no dimensions.

And why does oneness necessarily bring happiness? You ask.
Think for a moment that we were one and look around you now. What do you see? People are killed, tortured, robbed, exploited, cheated. They are invaded by a lot of diseases. A few people have mountains of money and millions have practically nothing. Many of us are wounded or killed in accident. Sometimes it seems that every one hates every one. I could continue the list of horrors for a long time. The animals are in the same mess: the big one is eating the small one. So you understand why I regret the time when we were one.

You are making fun of me when I advise not to eat meat and you say: "what about eating plants or fungi?" If I plant a knife in your flesh and later in a salad, I guess that you are going to feel it more than the salad.

Finally you say: "What is wrong to kill these animals to eat them if death and reincarnation are no big deal?" Once again I remind you that we are one. When you eat an animal, you eat yourself. My advice not to kill animals is only to prevent suffering.

Best regards,

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

=================***=================

 

Question of Steve (2):

If this "real world" is beyond our vocabulary and understanding and before any time we could know, what makes you think this real world exists? Also, since there was no life in this real world, how could conditions have been better or worse for anything at all? Inanimate objects don't care of conditions.

Also, you mention that separation is unhappiness because of all the suffering and hatred in the world. However, is it not separation that also gives life its beauty? So much to learn and see from such a vast variety of people and life. Novels I have never read, beautiful art I have never seen, people who I could learn from, and a whole world I've yet to see. Life is a journey, during which we constantly grow. In a world of oneness, there would be no fear or hate, but also no individualism, surprise, excitement, unattained knowledge, or unseen beauty. The class is not simply half-empty; the other half is full.

I had no intention in making fun of you when I talked about eating plants and animals. I was just inquiring that, since all life derived from the same place, isn't eating plants also eating ourselves? Or is it an issue of suffering (since eat salad would indeed not feel your blade)?

Thank you again, as I find your philosophy quite fascinating.

 

Answer to Steve (2):

According to my 1st hypothesis, the universe is not infinite. So what is beyond? The universe needs a cause. So we know there is something which produced the universe, even if we do not have any idea of what this something is. If you return to the second hypothesis, you will see my reasoning. I suggest that you read it very slowly or, alternatively, read it many times. It took me years to write this page and the matter is very condensed, so you will not understand it in three minutes.

My major difficulty is that I have to speak about something for which there are no valid words. The mathematicians are luckier than I am. With algebra, they can describe something, which can not be described in English, like the 5th dimension, for example. So you can not say that in the Real World there are inanimate objects. We can only say that in the Real World there is neither life nor inanimate objects. But there is something and that something is better than what we have.

In your second paragraph, what you are saying is that there is some good in our world. I completely agree. For instance, if there were no sexes there would be no sexual problems but life would be duller. I like surprise, excitement, and myself individualism. What you can not do is to think the Real World with examples taken from here.

Finally you are right to say that eating plants is eating ourselves and not eating meat has only one goal: avoid suffering.

In summary, I can say that I appreciate the enjoyable sides of life but I am not blind to the darker sides. The Big Bang Philosophy is reasoning from the latest discoveries of science. It presents us with some strange discoveries and inescapable conclusions.

Dear Steve, please come back if you have more questions. It helps me to better define ma philosophy.

Best regards,

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

=================***=================

 

Question of Steve (3):

So far, you have done an excellent job of responding to my questions. I have but a few more. :)

If there is neither life nor inanimate objects in the Real World, and it cannot be described by words, why do you believe that the something there is necessarily better?

I realize that the infinity is unconceivable to us, but does that not necessarily mean it could not exist. You say that the infinite could not compose finite things because it could not be fractionated, but again, aren't fractions simple a human invention for dealing with mathematics? If it cannot be fractionated, is it impossible?
We indeed have a borderline understanding, and you say that the finite universe allows us the satisfaction of possibly conceiving the universe. But does this satisfaction justify it, or merely making it easy to swallow?

Finally, if the real world is unconceivable to us, then how can we possess a desire to find it again? How can man be aware of something that he cannot define, describe, or even sense?

Thanks again

 

Answer to Steve (3):

Answering your first question, I will say that I am not so much attracted by the Real World than pushed toward it by the fantastic shortcomings of our universe. Consider the following: we are short of time (philosophically speaking), short of space, short of explanation about our reasons to be here. When we will have completely understood our universe, in the future, we will not know the "why" I say in the second hypothesis "the universe is the superstructure of a whole of which we do not know the infrastructure". I borrow a thought from Buddhism when I say that this universe is the world of illusions.

The Real World is better because it is real and space and time do not limit it. It is also our origin and our final destination. I can add that in the real world there is none of the suffering created by space and time.

You say that what is unconceivable to us does not necessarily mean it could not exist. I completely agree and the physicists who calculate a model of the universe with 15 dimensions give the best example. We can not think of even a fifth dimension but mathematics can describe that without difficulty. That is the reason I say that the real world can not be thought or calculated. For me, we can say that the Real World is infinite, because being without dimensions it does not need limits.

Your third question: "If the Real World is unconceivable to us, then how can we possess the desire to find it again?" Since at least two thousand years, people have hoped that their death would not mean the end of everything for them. So they went to priests who told them that they would continue to live after death as a spirit. What is a spirit? Nobody knows. But million of people were satisfied to know that they would continue to live even in an indescribable form. For me, to know that I will be one again with the whole universe, forever, unlimited by space and time, is appealing enough.

Best regards,

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

=================***=================

 

Question of Rhian (1):

I found your idea interesting and I am interested to hear what you think of this statement. "At the moment before the Big Bang there was no time. So talking of anything such as a creator or creation is a contradiction in terms, as there was no time for any event to occur at all. Therefore, the universe just simply occurred with no intentions or reasons.

Yours.

 

Answer to Rhian (1):

I agree with you and I am even more limiting than you. As there is no time and also no space in the Real World, we can not think about it and consequently we can not speak about it either. So you can not even say that the universe just simply occurred with no intentions or reasons. This is a statement, which goes too far. It gives the impression that we are aimless and that life has no purpose. May be this is a wrong idea. We can only say that we do not know the "why". We know that the universe needs a cause and that it is to be found in the Real World.

Please come back if you are not satisfied by this answer.

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

=================***=================

 

Question of Rhian (2):

Thank you for your fast response to my question. However, I am interested as to why you think we actually have a purpose in the universe? It seems just as likely to me that "we are aimless and that life has no purpose". Realistically, it takes the same laws and constants of nature for a stone to exist as it does for life to exist. Life, whether it be that of a tree, cockroach or a human, just developed in a far more complex and rare way. However I fail to see why this makes life in the universe any more significant than a stone, as significance is a man made ideal - man strives to find meaning and purpose in life only because he eventually developed the means to think. Stones need none of these reasons to exist - they simply exist! If we have a purpose in the universe then surly a stone must have just as much purpose.

Further more, I agree with you that we do not know "why" the universe came to exist, but I struggle to understand why you think the universe needed a cause. "Cause" is something that belongs only within the universe, and as the universe is self-contained, how could anything else cause the universe to exist? As far as I can tell this "Real World", with no space, time or dimensions, is truly nothingness! To me a universe that spawned from absolutely nothing could have no intentions, reason or purpose. Wouldn't this make the "Real World" meaningless? I hope you find the time to reply and look forward to hearing from you!

Best wishes

 

Answer to Rhian (2):

Your questions are very interesting because they go the basis of the Big Bang philosophy.

You certainly heard about the anthropic principle, according to which man is a necessity in a universe like ours. When I look at the history of the universe, then the history of life, then the history of humanity, I see a clear trend: complexity is increasing, culminating today with our brain. Knowledge is increasing since the Stone Age and so is our ability to modify our environment to suit our needs. Through humanity, it is the universe, which is becoming conscious of itself. When the knowledge and power of humanity becomes absolute, it will return by its free will to the Real World.

While the arguments for that view are strong, I agree that they are not compelling. You may think that we are aimless and useless, that we are coming from nothing to go to nothing. For me, the world looks more rational with the anthropic principle.

You could learn more about my views on these matters by clicking on "A few details about the B.B. philosophy" at the top left of my first page.

In the universe, everything has a cause and a consequence. The universe globally is no exception. It needs a cause to explain its existence. Now, outside the universe there are no causes and no consequences, so we have a problem. But it is not a problem of logic; it is a problem of vocabulary. Inside the universe, we can say correctly that the universe needs a cause. Outside, where our brain is useless, we can not say anything but our thinking inside is still valid. It is the same when I say: "The Real World exists". For me it is 100% certain but I admit that the adjective real, the word world and the verb exist can only describe thinks inside the universe. As I do not have other means to express myself, I am obliged to speak English, knowing that it is not the right way to describe the Real World.

At least it is very clear that it is not nothingness, because nothingness is the contrary of fullness and both terms can describe only what is inside the universe.

The Real World is a strange place. We know that it is there but we can not think about it. We are physically and mentally in the universe jail until the end of the world.

This is interesting but difficult matter. I would be happy to continue this discussion with you.

Best regards,

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

=================***=================

 

Question of Rhian (3):

Thanks again for your response. I had a look at "A few details about the B.B. philosophy" and found some very interesting and thought provoking ideas. I also had a good read over your last response to me.

When I wrote you and said - as far as I could tell the Real World, with no space, time or dimensions, is truly nothingness! Your reply was - "It is very clear that the Real World is not nothingness, because nothingness is the contrary of fullness and both terms can describe only what is inside the universe". I have to say that I disagree with you here, because as far as science has found, there is nowhere in the universe where there is "nothingness".

Space is not nothing, but (as Einstein found) is a kind of fabric in which mass & energy reside - it is something, something that is flexible and that can be stretched and altered by mass. Space is a vacuum and is mainly empty, but it is clear that it is not nothing.
If space were nothingness there would be nothing in it, because it would be absolutely nothing (which is unthinkable to us)!
The universe, as a whole, is something. There is only fullness in the universe. Some parts of the universe are much denser than other parts, but there is nowhere in the universe where there is nothing.
This is why I think that we could never comprehend the true meaning of "nothing", as we tend to think of emptiness as nothing, but this is not the case - because emptiness within the universe is still something! So when I say that - as far as I can tell, the Real World, with no space, time or dimensions, is truly nothingness - I mean truly nothingness, not truly emptiness!

I found the section "Reflections on death" very interesting, and agree with you that - "Life is the short span of time during which a tiny part of the universe becomes aware of itself and can act". This is true, but do you think there is a reason behind this? I do not. If life in the universe had not occurred (which is very plausible), the universe would still be here, we just wouldn't know about it. In that case would the universe have purpose? I think it is remarkable that life did develop in the universe, but I don't think this gives the universe purpose, because "purpose" is another man made ideal. Do you?

I am enjoying these very thought-provoking chats with you, and would be happy to get another response.

Best Wishes.

 

Answer to Rhian (3):

I am enjoying also these chats with you.

Philosophers have to agree first on the vocabulary they are using. If humanity had done it, it would have spared countless wars, deaths and miseries, and also a lot of divorces. I am fully in agreement with your paragraph "I have to say that I disagree…" So I also accept your definition of the Real World as "truly nothingness". First I did not like it because it seemed to me that it had a negative connotation.

Your second paragraph demands a longer answer. As you know, I think there is a reason behind the fact that the universe becomes aware of itself and can act. For me, it is impossible that life had not occurred. If it had not been on earth, it would have been elsewhere, which may have happened already. In a universe without life, there would of course be nobody to feel that it would have no purpose. By the way, you will perhaps prefer the word direction rather than purpose. The word direction is more neutral. For me it is obvious that the word has a direction. Since always, humanity has been on a pendulum between certitude and doubts. Most of us are also on the same pendulum during the various stages of our life. Both sides have had their lot of brilliant men.

Lately, there have been many arguments against certitude because life appears to have evolved mostly by chance. That does not disturb me. In Switzerland, there is a lottery, which produces a millionaire every week on average. This lottery has been calculated, planified with well-known mathematics rules. The results are exactly what the promoters wanted. The only thing, which they could not anticipate, was who was going to win. The universe is the same as the lottery. Life had to appear and evolve to where we are. But we got the jackpot by chance and it is not sure that humanity will bring back the universe to the Real World. It may be somebody else somewhere else. That is why I always say that I am sure at 100% of the first three hypothesis but only at 75% of the last one.

Please Rhian, come back if you like it.

Best regards

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

=================***=================

 

Question of Paolo:

What does the Big Bang Philosophy have to say about the ideology of individuality?

And the idea that each and every one of us is different?

And that no two people will ever be identical (implying the infiniteness of personality)?

If we are all part of this oneness of the Universe, is each one of us 'special'? It seems to me that if we are all parts of a machine to serve the whole, where does that leave the human ego?

Also what does the philosophy have to say about artistic creativity?

And the notion those creative ideas are infinite?

 

Answer to Paolo:

We were one before the universe came into being and we will be one again after. In the meantime, we are all separated by space and time, as everybody can see. We have to work according to the rules of the universe.

One of these rules is that the individual is the basis of society. Only an individual can be a genius, an organization or a group can not. So each one of us has to use his special skill to help the society.

I am not promoting a society of ants. I want everybody to be free, free to use his special kind of intelligence for the benefit of everybody. I agree with you that each one of us is special.

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

=================***=================

 

Question of Tom Blackstone:

There are some serious problems with your big bang philosophy.

  1. Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines the Universe as "The whole body of things and phenomena: the totality of material entities." If this definition is accurate it means that the Universe is not limited in time but is in fact eternal. The Big Bang must have been caused by something. But if something existed before the Big Bang then it was certainly part of "the whole body of things and phenomena", and therefore part of the Universe. This means that the Big Bang, although an important event, was not the beginning of the Universe.
  2. What you call the "external world" does not exist. In order for something to exist it would have to be a part of "the whole body of things and phenomena", and therefore a part of the Universe, therefore nothing exists outside the Universe.
  3. The "real" world is the Universe, since the external world does not exist.
  4. There are no grounds to say that we were "one" in the "real world" or that our condition would be better if we were.
  5. There are no grounds for saying that human beings have a desire to find the "real world". Most people do not treat others as themselves. As for moral conduct, many people follow codes of morality because they know that if they don't want to be mistreated they must refrain from mistreating others.
  6. If humanity went back to the real/external world they would go back to nothingness. This would not be good.

 

Answer to Tom Blackstone:

Thank you very much for your comments.

Outside the universe, there is no space and no time. Accordingly, there are not things, phenomena or material entities. The external world is outside the definition of the Webster's Third New International Dictionary. This is the answer to your first three remarks.

In the Real World, space and time did not separate us. This is solid ground to say that we were one. As for our conditions, better in the real world according to me, please refer to my correspondence with Stephen Scharf who asked the same question.

People have always hoped that death would not be the end. They have prayed to get an eternal life. This for me is a desire to find the real world. But I agree with you that only a tiny minority considers others as themselves. The important fact is that at least some of us are doing it.

Einstein shocked the world when he told us that time was not an absolute but flexible. That was right but against all common sense. It is also difficult to understand that the Real World is so different from us that we can not even think of it. We will have to get used to that also.

Please come back if you are not satisfied by my answers.

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

=================***=================

 

Question of Ranji Suresh:

You raise some interesting arguments, but somehow I'm left with some serious questions. I will be brief.

Firstly, you state that an infinite universe would be incomprehensible, and yet afterwards you say that the "external world" is also beyond human understanding. So in reality, both scenarios seem outside the bounds of our minds ability. So who's to say which is actually correct?

Finite time perhaps. But physicists only study which has occurred in this universe since its creation, but really they don't know if there were events before, or if there were other universes, or if there are any now. And if so, that's a contradiction of the entire meaning of the word:
Universe!

My second point is no less important. Your position on humankind and life seems to indicate a belief in a kind of natural progression. That somehow we're destined to reach ever closer to this somewhat metaphysical sounding goal of being one with the external world. But history never was the baton-passing race you speak of. It's never been an orderly development of morality, of technology, of understanding. It simply is. It has rises, and falls, and always there is both positive and negative. When Western Rome fell, the East remained at Byzantium, and when it fell to the Ottomans, and when they fell to the realities of the 20th century... Could we claim this to be a kind of passing of the torch of knowledge? It seems a much more arbitrary, some might say chaotic system, of individuals and entire nations vying for power, for existence in an ever changing world.

But that is simply my opinion. I just thought id share it with you.

Good day.

 

Answer to Ranji Suresh:

First part:
You are right to say that we have a problem of vocabulary. For me the universe is everything that is thinkable or calculable. The external world is what is not thinkable or calculable. The universe is finite and the external world is infinite. The universe will be one day completely understood while the external world will stay outside our reach until the end of the universe.

Second part:
I fully agree with you. Evolution is chaotic. When I say that history is a relay race in which each generation goes as far as it can before passing the stick to the following generation, I am mostly wishing that it happened like that. But we see that among this chaos there is some long-term trend. Knowledge has increased continuously since the Stone Age, as well as our ability to modify our environment to our advantage. Since always, most of parents have tried their best to offer a better life to their children. Today we are all benefiting from the inventions made during thousands of years. We can not deny that there is progress even if it is a bumpy ride.

Do not hesitate to come back if you have some more questions.

Best regards,

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

=================***=================

 

Question of Robert D.:

I was reading a book by John Gribbin the other night. After reading numerous theories in regards to the beginning of the universe, I pondered yet another one of my own.

Do you know of any mathematical or scientific evidence that would prove the place of origin for the universe is not continuing to this very day to putting out more energy?
Who's to say the Big Bang ever ceased.

I look forward to your reply.

 

Answer to Robert D.:

A British physicist, Fred Hoyle, who is now retired and who invented the name "Big Bang", had a theory, which is similar to yours. It is called the steady state theory. It says that as the universe becomes larger, new galaxies are created all the time from nothing. That theory is not taken seriously anymore.

Best regards,

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

=================***=================

 

Question of Igor Sarkisov:

I like your theory very much, and find many interesting points.
Here is what I think about it: You were talking about the Universe as a whole and "everything" beyond the Universe is real. If I am correct, concept of time doesn't exist when object travels at the speed of light, or in other words -- time stops. Another fact is that this so called object increases its mass to infinity.
Lets now assume that the Universe as a whole is that object that travels at the speed of light through so called real world. Fact like: expanding Universe does not contradict my reasoning. Thus, Universe traveling at the speed of light approaches infinity but never really gets there. Just like asymptotes in Calculus. So the concept of time exists only in boundaries of our Universe, time doesn't exist in real world. It might sound like a fairy tale but I just can't stop thinking about this.

Your response will be very helpful. Thanks.

 

Answer to Igor Sarkisov:

 This is an interesting hypothesis, which I never heard before. I agree with you when you say that "the concept of time exists only in boundaries of our universe, time does not exist in real world".

We have known that since the beginning of this century, when Einstein discovered the theory of relativity. He said that if you take all matter and energy out of the universe, time and space would disappear also.

Please come back if you are not satisfied by my answer.
Best regards

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

=================***=================

 

Question of John:

Greetings, I found your page to be quite interesting. I have, however, two points I'd like to approach you with.

One being that you seem to disinclude the inanimate from any of your concepts. This, I believe to be very much contrary to your holistic view of the universe and the real world (being our universe's bearer). We are carbon-based entities, but there are myriad of objects, which contain this essential component to life, which you do not appear to recognize. (This is not to mention the theory that a life form may be constructed of other elements which share the characteristics of carbon. Extra terrestrials?)
I think that in the complete comprehension of these important things, one must definitely realize oneself as being the ancestor of rocks and air and all other inatamacies containing this building block of life.

On this note, I bring into the light my second point. Since we are constantly exchanging our molecules with the world encompassing us, aren't we really one anyway? Sure, our bodies have visibly and touchable boundaries but on an atomic level, the actually line between, say the plastic encasement of my PC monitor, and the desk it sits upon is greatly blurred. Both the plastic and the metal (of the desk) are not whole objects molecularly but a structure, akin to the frame of a building, that contains within it infinitesimal measures of space. When viewing two objects simultaneously with microscopic perspective, it is difficult to differentiate the two.
This, I think, demonstrates a direct kinship with all matter included in space and time. And these are solid objects. Let us consider less stable arrangements.
Gas of any kind has an almost indeterminate definition as different gases can mix freely due to the inferior attraction of individual molecules. Where is the boundary?
Not even among the fundaments (molecules, atoms, protons, electrons, neutrons, quarks and strings) exist boundaries. Electrons are exchanged between objects (as easily and clearly known). Atoms can be smashed broken-down and their components given to other such things.
So, already, I cannot see boundaries in matter and surely I need not explain the continuity of energy as well. Doesn't this make us one already? Unless we (all atomic assemblies) can revert to some currently incomprehensible something, we are all basically one already.

I'm very much anticipating your reply so please, disagree or not, reflect on my message. Thanks for your time!

 

Answer to John:

When I say that we were one before the birth of the universe, that means that the inanimate is also part of me, The rocks and air and everything is I. But this part of me is, how would you say, sleepy, so I am more interested by living organisms. In fact, John, I completely agree with you on that point.

I also agree with your second point: in a sense, we are all basically one already. But this oneness has limits. If somebody is furious against you and punches your nose, you will notice it.

So our job is to make the world aware that we are one and to behave accordingly.

Best regards,

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

=================***=================

 

Question of Grace:

You say there are limits to our universe, but how do you know?

Our technology can only travel a limited distance, which isn't far. How do you know what is our there? For all we know there could be another galaxy just like ours on the other side of the universe trying to find out what we are trying to find out right now.

If you can't tell if there is another galaxy then why do you claim to say that there are limits to our universe?

 

Answer to Grace:

As we can not yet reach the limits of the universe, even with the most powerful telescopes, we have to proceed differently. We must ask ourselves whether an unlimited universe is possible in theory. To that question I say no and I explain the reasons at the beginning of the summary of the Big Bang Philosophy.

So I am sure that the universe is finite, but I do not know where the limits are. The existence of limits, even if we do not know where they are, is enough to justify the Big Bang philosophy.

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

=================***=================

 

Question of Josh Bastian:

I realize that you are philosopher. I guess I am just trying to find out why so many people would put so much thought into a Theory that has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.

Out of curiosity... being a Big Bang Philosopher. Do you not follow the ongoing debate revolving around the theory? Or do you just believe it regardless of what scientists say?

I for one believed it for a time until I found many arguments against it. Arguments that are in direct conflict with the theory. Yet the scientific community who stand by this theory ignore these findings or come up with things like Dark Matter to patch the wholes.

Perpetuating this flawed theory just seems counterproductive to me. What do you think?

Curiously.

 

Answer to Josh Bastian:

  1. I follow attentively the ongoing scientific debate about cosmology.
  2. As I explain in my site "A few details about the Big Bang philosophy", scientific discoveries are the corner stone of my philosophy. I insist on that point.

Being a Swiss, I found your example about the Swiss cheese very good, so I use it again. Cheese may have a lot of holes but it exists nevertheless. It has a shape, a volume, a weight, a taste, a color and it is good for you. I agree that the Big Bang theory has a lot of holes but the arguments in favor of it are stronger than the arguments against it.

As a philosopher, I do not see why I should not take it into consideration. The only honest attitude is to say that a lot is still unknown but what we do have is already impressive. Since 2'500 years, philosophers have tried to explain the world. Today, we know immensely more than just one century ago. So let us exploit this knowledge.

Two more points explained in "A few details about the Big Bang Philosophy":

  1. I do not see anything better today but a scientific discovery could change all that tomorrow.
  2. Even if the Big Bang were not the beginning of space and time, I remain convinced that the universe is not infinite. And this is the basis of my philosophy.

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

=================***=================

 

Question of Qiyu:

I would like to know, since your theory claims that time and space were one before the universe is created, what is "time"?

Isn't time a value given by our own mind?
"Time" does not exist in reality, it is just a concept created through our understanding of nature isn't it? For example, a rock on my table yesterday is the same as it is now.

Our consciousness is the one which tricked us into believing time is another dimension.

 

Answer to Qiyu:

I agree with you that philosophically time does not exist. It is only a measure of the transformation of everything, a measure of the movement.
For physicists, time exists in the sense that it is one of the four dimensions. They speak of a space-time universe.
By the way, the rock on your table today is not the exactly the same as the rock of yesterday. But you would have to go down to the atom level and beyond to see the minute differences.

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

=================***=================

 

Question of Natalie:

I found your site, and I am interested in your views.

Also, I am working on a paper for school, in which I have to argue, that "Man is a part of all life on earth."
I would like to know your opinion on that subject, I would like to use it as a part of my research.

Thank you. 

 

Answer to Natalie:

 Here are a few ideas proving that man is a part of all life on earth.

  1. Before the creation of the universe, there was no space and time to separate us. We were ONE.
    After the end of the universe and consequently the end of space and time, we will be one again.
    In the meantime, it is better for us to act as if we were all in the same family, including animals.
  2. Life began on earth a few billion years ago. All living creatures today are coming from that first speck of life.
    Once again, we are all part of the same family. The difference of value between humanity and animals is entirely our invention.
  3. If you look to the part of my site "A few details about the big bang philosophy" you will see "Reflections on death." It will give you another argument for your paper.

Best regards and good luck.

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

=================***=================

 

Question of Dee:

I was just wondering what your insights or thoughts were on the question.
What is a thing and how does it differ from an idea? I'd love to hear your answer, and it would help me out a great deal.

Thanks.

 

Answer to Dee:

A thing is like an integrated circuit in your computer and an idea is like the result you get after your computer has been working.

In other words, an idea is the result of a process while a thing exists independently of any process.

You could also say, in reference to the brain, that a lot of things (neurons) working together produce an idea.

Best regards.

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

=================***=================

 

Question of Ms. Michaëla:

I am a student majoring in physics at the University of Oregon.
I am only in my first year of this major and therefore cannot really say much in terms of physics yet so I will not try to impress you or sound like I really know what I am talking about.
But I do have a question:

If the speed of light had been slowing down from the beginning of time (whenever that may have been), then how would this effect theories on the Big Bang, evolution of the universe and the species, and the universe ????

I would love to hear an answer to this question and would really appreciate it if you could write back. I hope that you have found this question interesting.

Thank you very much.
Sincerely.

A curious future astronomer.

 

Answer to Ms. Michaëla:

This is a question for a physicist and I am not a physicist. I graduated in political sciences and I have worked all my life in the finance departments of big companies. But I can give you a philosophical answer as philosophy is my real interest in life. According to me, the speed of light, like everything in the universe, can not be infinite. That is what is important.

Now, whatever the speed of light or the eventual fluctuations of that speed, it does not challenge the Big Bang philosophy. I guess the universe would look very different if the speed of light were slowing down and I feel that you have an idea about that, so please give it to me. I am interested by all intellectual speculation and I would love to read your ideas. You are studying an interesting field which I would do myself if I could begin everything again.

Best regards,

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

=================***=================

 

Question of Mr. Henrique Mem Eisenberg:

Congratulations for your Home Page. It is very interesting.
My question is about your last hypothesis (humanity will bring the universe back to the real world), because in my point of view it is a religious approach. I do not know if there is a "real world". Our world is not real?

Since we are part of the universe, could there be any chance of knowing the whole?

There are many more questions, of course, but this is just the beginning.

Congratulations, again.
Henrique Mem Eisenberg
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

 

Answer to Mr. Henrique Mem Eisenberg:

The main difference between religion and philosophy is that in religion you have faith while in philosophy you do not have faith, you use only your reason. Both religion and philosophy can explore the same metaphysical domain but with a different approach.

Our world is not real in the sense that what you see is not the real thing. If you analyze the structure of the matter, you will go down to the quark and may be to the string (the smallest, one dimension object, which gives birth to space and time) and you will realize that these micro objects are temporary and must be explained by something else. As the universe is not infinite, you can not reach the basis of our universe which is the infinite world, the real world.

Being part of the universe is not a problem according to me. I do not share that old philosophical view that being part of the universe is a constraint to know the whole.

Best regards,

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

=================***=================

 

Question of Dave:

Can you please explain the Big Bang Theory in detail? Every website I go to just keeps saying its how the world was created, and then they give evidence why. I actually want to know each step of what happened.

Thank you!

 

Answer to Dave:

To learn the Big Bang theory you can find some interesting information on http://www.fla.net/huboluv/bigbang.html

I have found it on "http://www.yahoo.com" under:
"Science", then "Astronomy", then "Astrophysics", then "Universal Origins", then "Creation of a Cosmology: The Big Bang Theory".

I wish you a good reading.

Jean-Pierre Burri

 

Main page.

Answers to questions asked by French speaking persons. 

Important: The moral consequences of the Big Bang philosophy.

E-mail: info@BigBang.org