Cosmology matters

Let’s discuss the fact, not often mentioned, that the Big Bang (BB) does not support the metaphysics of spirituality, which asserts that consciousness is the causal and operative principle of the cosmos. BB does not support such a view because:

  1. the idea that “something comes from nothing” is irrational.
  2. Science is based on rationality.
  3. Humanity has devoted untold people hours and trillions of dollars to the pursuit of science so we human must think science of value and look to it to provide answers. Humans demand that science (and the arts) strive to have a view of reality that makes sense (is rational).
  4. BB proposes the universe started at an arbitrary moment in time (where is the rationality for that), and will end in universal heat death, i.e., due to the expansion of matter will cool to the point there is not enough heat at any one locality to make life possible. The universe will freeze life out of existence.
  5. Why then if consciousness is the creator of the universe, as many spiritually minded people suspect, would consciousness produce a world which cannot could support itself. Why would consciousness, in essence, commit suicide?
  6. If item 5 is correct, consciousness could not be the causal agent of the cosmos, thereby there is no meaningful spiritual content to the cosmos. Rank materialism is the only conclusion and the universe thereby has no meaning (the atheistic existential position).
  7. The idea that the universe is God and God is the universe is unsupported by BB.
  8. BB is anti-spiritual because it says according to quantum mechanics and chaos theory both of which support BB, the universe is an accident, maybe a spectacular accident, but an accident none the less.  How does it feel to have to think of yourself as an accident, assuming of course, your feelings have any meaning in the big picture of things?
  9. BB leads to the view that i am the only thing that matters, so anything I do to satisfy me is justifiable. Survival of the fittest is perfectly reasonable. My attempts to justify me at the expense of everyone else is supported by BB.

Above are reasons the BB is false, from the Metaphysical point of view. Scientists themselves who are not supporting BB are collecting data to justify their belief BB is wrong.

It is my view, BB is the worst possible operating system for humans to consider using. It is anti-spiritual and unsupportable. It is false, not so much as it that it nullifies spiritually, but that it nullifies itself. There is a growing list, 30 items long at last count, that scientists have advanced that show BB cannot be true. Anyone interested in seeing the evidence can let me know. I will put them in DropBox and send a link. An interesting website on the subject is <> and the “Alternative Cosmology Group” <>

The point I am trying to move forward is that Big Bang (BB) is anti-spiritual because it says the universe is an accident, it will end in universal heat death and if consciousness is in fact responsible for the universe, then consciousness would not produce a self-destructive universe, i.e., commit suicide which the BB insists is the eventual outcome.

Their is another perspective on all this, the Structuralist viewpoint. We’ll save that for another post. Just mentioned it so no one will despair that there is no replacement for BB.

Don Briddell


About DonBriddell

Research theorist into Form and Structure Theory, Structural Skew Topology, and Field Structure Theory (all related). Author, artist, sculptor, speaker. Member of NPA. Founder of the Field Structure Institute


  1. Hi Don , thanks for the very interesting post.
    a bit bluntly just to go the point:
    If BB seems so pointless , what is the purpose of the so called Consciousness and God ( if these can be defined clearly), in creating the weird Universe we know, including the life process on this Earth?
    thanks .

    • Domphi,

      The best analogy I can think of to explain the relationship between physics and metaphysics is the relationship the string (metaphysics) has to a knot (physics) tied on the string. The knot (that which is phyiscal, i.e., the physical universe) exist at the pleasure of the string. The string can exist without the knot, but the knot cannot exist without the string. That should make the string more important to us. If the string is consciousness, then the knot is the stuff of consciousness. Consciousness can manifest form the way a string can create a knot. That means the string is causal and the knot is casual. The knot exists according to the whims of the string. The universe exist according to the whims of consciousness.

      So why isn’t consciousness the overarching, ever present, fore most, front and center experience, while the material, world including our body/mind/intellect, a secondary experience? When you go to a movie theater, do you look at the screen or the movie on the screen? Of course, you look at both, but you “see” only the movie. So it is with consciousness and the world show. The screen is consciousness and the movie, being far more interesting, is where our attention gets fixed. The Yogis teach, see the screen behind the movie. See what happens when you stop looking and following your thoughts and become aware of what is supporting your thoughts. They promise us that what is going on behind the movie of our life is reality. You are the screen and the movie.

      We cannot, they tell us, know reality by watching the movie. Any talk we do at this website or any other website or at an evening of conversation in our living rooms, will be a best the observance of road signs telling us in which direction is Totality. The seeker is moving from locality to Totality. We make the journey because having become familiar with our locality, we yearn to push on for Totality.

      Anyway, that is how I would answer your question.

      Light and delight,


  2. 1975 : well known physicist ( Prigogine) and guru ( Maharishi) speaking about the origin of the Universe …


    almost 40 years later, the debate is continuing…. see this video …. between post modern physicist and “guru” (?), Mlodinow and Chopra ..the tone has evolved but the discussion is still there, between physics and consciousness.. have you read that book?

  4. Thank you Don for your insightful response. Your interesting analogies remind the Vedantic Philosophy.The videos I posted also show discussions on physics and metaphysics, from these various perspectives . The questions one may ask he or herself, at this point, are :

    What would be the nature of that Consciouness ?

    Why would It be in existence ?

    Why and How would It be creating the Reality we are experiencing, and that the modern sciences and in particular physics, are modelling ?

    These are probably impossible to answer, but may be worth being explored.

    • Dear Domphi,

      You ask the most demanding question of all: “What would be the nature of that Consciouness ? ”

      Nobody can answer that question because words are incapable of discribing anything of an absolute nature. Words only work in the relative, as we know. The Vedic sages simple say it is SatChidAnanad and leave it at that. These words are only met as road sign, but not the thingless thing itself.

      I can’t think of, nor have I heard of, why consciousness exists; you second question. Absolutes have no dependencies, need no support and are self justified. Existence is like an axiom. Axioms are statements that are asssumed to be true and it is in the arguments put forward that axioms are justified or collapse for lack of justification. Consciousness is an axiom. Life is the justification.

      Your third question has more hope of answering for that is something the sciences and arts attempt to resolve. Your question is, “Why and How would It be creating the Reality we are experiencing, and that the modern sciences and in particular physics, are modelling ?

      Science has progressively explored reality both micro and macroscopicly looking for the causal agent and principle. At the moment science is stuck at the idea of vibrating strings (String Theory). It’s stuck there because while it seems very evident that string loops vibrate, no one knows why Nature has chosen only a handful of vibrational patterns to build a universe with when they know there is an estimated 10 to the 500th power of ways a string can vibrate.

      My approach to strings is called “Field Structure Theory” because emperical reality isn’t simply that a string or strings vibrate but the fact that the vibration itself comes from string interaction. When strings (which are loop) interact in three-dimemsions they produce a field. A 3-D field produces a field object centered in the field. This field object is the nucleus of the event. By building models, one can see that interacting loops form a three-dimensional knot. The topological properties of a knotted loop set produces a spatial and a temporal form. In other words, interacting loops develops a frequency depending on how many loops are interacting. My work show why every particle, every atom, has a set of interacting loops each with its own unique vibratory pattern that arises only when three or more loops interact. Once you see how that works they you realize that form (particles, atoms, molecules, etc.) are fields of interacting loops of action. Particles). At the atomic scale, the field is the interacting loops of electromagnetic energy electron. To go into the details is beyond the scope of this article.

      All I wish to say is that in answer to your question is that physical reality is the product of fields of energy. What is behind field of energy? In my view, consciousness is behind fields of energy. The truth of this can only be confirmed through the experience of it. That is reason enough to push on toward this enlightened state where we who are conscious beings can interact to produce reality. Who do we interact with to produce this universe? With our field self and with the field selves of others both animate and inanimate. Are we as materials localities separate from energetic Totality? NO, but the proof of that is not possible for the material locality to confirm. It is only possible to confirm in the Totaliize state. The analogy is that which is knotness is not that which is stringness, because a string can exist without there being a knot but a knot cannot exist without there being a string. So the string (consciousness) is causal and the knot (materiality) is casual. That’s my best shot a explaining this to myslef in a short message.

      Did I even come close to answering your questions? How would you answer the questions?


  5. Thank you Don, for your very insightful and elaborated response.
    Nature of the Consciousness :
    Suggest here to discuss a bit around this concept, without providing a firm answer.
    From a semantic point of view, consciousness implies in its very definition, a kind of duality, as It would have to be “”conscious of”” something. This Duality seems to be somehow in contradiction with the Oneness that is referred to, when people are quoting a Universal Consciousness.
    Also, consciousness, as far as we grasp it, seems to be rather contextual. We can speak about the consciousness of a dog, of a bird, maybe of an insect or even a plant, and certainly of a human being, and all of them are different. Even consciousness between human beings seem to be rather different too, otherwise we won’t have this conversation. At lower level of organization of matter, consciousness becomes much less clear too. Would you say, for e.g., that an atom is being conscious (of what? how much? and how?).
    In conclusion, when we are saying that the basic nature of Universe is Consciousness, we could well be the victim of a kind of anthropomorphic projection. Thus, one of the great comparative advantage of human beings seem to hold a higher level of “consciousness” than the other entities /beings generated by the Universe. Are we not projecting this apparent quality (consciousness) to the whole Universe? Could a Cosmic Consciousness be the last illusion and hope of human beings, who are (a bit desperately?) trying to connect to the rest of the Universe?
    Why Consciousness?
    There is some difficulty to relate Consciousness with the reason why it would exist in the first place. If the Universe is already conscious, why is it transforming itself and creating beings (like us), which are struggling so much to understand the universe? If we are part of this conscious universe, should not we be already fully conscious of what is going on?
    You may tell me that enlightened people are indeed claiming to be fully conscious: we may rather say that they feel a strong and holistic connection with everything they can relate to, a sense of Oneness, which is quite different. With all due respect to them, none of them, up-to-date, was able to tell us how the Universe is working, and to provide for example, the ultimate theory of physics, or life, (or even consciousness!). As you know, many kind of theories or interpretations were written in the past by enlightened people. We do not question the quality of their insights and intuitions, but at the end, none of these interpretations could provide clear and direct answers, and could be used directly by modern science.( some very interesting links were made, by F. Capra and others in quantum physics, but not really going far enough, seems to be).
    The Created Universe:
    The physical model you are proposing seems to be very interesting and insightful, and may have some analogies with other theories, like the loop quantum gravity. It is well appreciated that you are proposing to simplify reality. It looks fruitful, and I wonder if you have developped any experiment that would support your theory. Also, have you been looking by chance, at the many enigmas in science and physics, such : dark energy, dark matter, nature of time and space, nature of energy, why mass is curving space-time, origin of life? these are very tough questions again, and we do not expect anwers really .We are still in the unknown..
    Thank you Don, for your openness and sharing.

  6. Dear Domphi,
    As you noted, consciousness in the West does have dependancies. You put words to the same problem I had until encountering field consciousness (in India). By the way, I am sure by now you see that I have been deeply impressed with Indian metaphysics). You stated:

    “From a semantic point of view, consciousness implies in its very definition, a kind of duality, as It would have to be “”conscious of”” something.”

    This statement is so true in the Western context. We Western, or should I say “Moderns” because a whole generation of Eastern intellectuals now have this vie, see consciousness as object dependent. That was my big problem in my physics. I was assuming consciousness is not a stand-alone concept. It always had to be in terms of the field object, an adjective needed to define a noun. It wasn’t until I learned from experience that consciousness is a stand-alone concept, that the world, my studies in physics, my life and all the rest of it, made sense. Repeating an analogy made elsewhere, consciousness is the string, and material, dialectic, manifold reality are knots on the string of consciousness. The knot can dissappear but the string cannot.

    The Vedic culture put it to me this way: “Experience consciousness and then tell us who you are?” Consciousness is not contextual. That means there is no way to experience consciousness within the realms of any body/mind centered point of view. I know Moderns try to do this, but it never works and thus the quest continues.

    Awareness is not the same thing as consciousness. This was a confusion I had. Awareness does imply context and has dependencies. Awareness is a mental thing, a state whereby consciousness is bifurcated as white light bifurcated by a prism separates out into colors. Once colors appear the familiar dialectic world begins. Being aware necessitates being consciousness, but like the string and knot, being consciousness DOES NOT MEAN being aware in the sense of being aware of “something”.

    Consciousness = everything
    Awareness = something
    Sleep = nothing

    That is why when you state,

    “In conclusion, when we are saying that the basic nature of Universe is Consciousness, we could well be the victim of a kind of anthropomorphic projection.”

    Yes, that is the modern view and the view I worked with prior to India, it is not what I now know to be true. It is the knot projecting its knotness onto the string. The string laughs. It is not limited to what the knot thinks. It was very painful to concede to my youthful self that I, invincible me, was not the whole story. Death has a way of destroying the myth of invincibility.

    Please accept that I am only speaking from my humble and extremely limited experience. Your views are so precious they are sacred. What works for me should be regarded as no more official than is a rumor. I just love to hear what others think and feel and enjoy playing with ideas. There is a serious here but not a demand of acceptance. Thanks for lengthy email.


  7. Dear Don,
    so what you called Awareness is what I’m calling Consciousness, and what you call Consciousness is what I would be tempted to call Oneness.
    The sleeping state you are quoting, for me is still aware, but at the subconscious level ( it has the capacity, for example to be conscious again ,at any time, so it must be linked to consciousness)
    It is good to set up definitions first.
    Now the question of the quality of this Oneness remains an issue.
    First ,we suppose it exist, but we are not sure, and secondly we have no clue of its quality and its attributes. Saying that Oneness is “”Conscious” as you say, is not very clear to me what is meant here. You may say that by definition, Oneness being only One and nothing else, must be somehow “Aware of being One Only”, and therefore hold a kind of consciousness of itself. Again we may be projecting a human understanding of reality, on a reality we don’t understand yet, that has nothing to do with our common sense of reality.
    By giving an attribute of Consciousness to the basic reality of the Universe, one may also infer that there is a kind of Cosmic Intention of the Universe to transform itself, as we are seeing it today .
    But contemporary cosmological models tend to tell us that the Universe may slowly extinct itself, in a huge cold space, filled with scattered black holes , planets , white dwarfs…
    What kind of cosmic intention or consciousness is that?
    What is the comparative advantage for the Universe , supposedly conscious , to evolve from an highly energetic hot state, to a cold state filled with scarce compacted matter.
    Like you, I’m also playing with words and ideas.. The floor is open..

    • Dear Domphi,

      Definitions First! Completely agree.

      Concerning the meaning of the word consciousness, my instinctive concern about down-grading consciousness to being limited by the awareness, which is dialectic, is that out using the word ‘consciousness’ there is no word in my vocabulary that carries the meaning of consciousness to its highest form, beyond awareness where the known, the unknown and the unknowable all reside. One might ask, “What is the use of such a state of being?” It may be that such a state is there to provide a unifying context, and leave it at that. Maybe we as finite mortals aren’t interested in such a state. That is fine. As far as I can see, it is a maturation thing. We get to things when we get to things, and we get to the no things when no things matter. All in the course of a evolifetime (evolution of-life-through-time).

      You suggest oneness, but for me the term lacks the quality of beingness that I associate with consciousness. Oneness is correct and yet it feels abstract. Granted, oneness is a quality of consciousness, but consciouness is so much more. Of course, consciousness and beingness are always there while awarenes of consciousness and awareness of being may not be there as you stated, such as in deep sleep or the experience of formless samadhi.

      One problem and its a big one, is that the experience of samadhi (totality, nirvana, cosmic consciousness, God, etc.) changes everything, including one’s definitions of the terms. Once the experience has been had, the issue of “wondering what it means” becomes the “wonder of its meaning”.

      It is as if all of us has to spend time sorting out the language we will be using. As you put it, getting the definitions done first. That was what happened to me. I found on graduation from college, their was a mass of undefined areas of experience I ether could not define for lack of experience or did not know I needed to define something that was yet not within my sack of experiences. I had to go searching for definitions. In India I came upon a class of experiences that I did not know existed, that pertaining to those things metaphysicsal.

      That is where Sanskrit became useful because it is the language of metaphysics. When you say “First , we suppose it exist, but we are not sure, and secondly we have no clue of its quality and its attributes.” You are speaking as a Westerner. While there have been a scattering of westerners down through the ages who know first hand what oneness and the full extent of consciousness is all about, it has been the Eastern peoples who have concentrated for thousands of years on these issues to the exclusion of everything else. We criticize Easterners for doing this as they seem to be turning their back on the material world. Opposite and equally the Easterners dispare at the way the West turns its back on things metaphysical. Having lived in both world views I learned to appreciate them both. I find they are the yin/yang, male/female, of consciousness.

      You bring up the term “common sense”, a term worth investigating in your statement, “Again we may be projecting a human understanding of reality, on a reality we don’t understand yet, that has nothing to do with our common sense of reality.” Common sense traditionally has meant (as I was brought up to us the term) something that is almost axiomatically true, not needing definition, too obviously true to be in need of definition. The subject of common sense got my attention when things that were thought to be common sense were often blatantly wrong. The following is an exert on the subject from my book “The Republic of Crisfield”.

      ‘What had happened to wisdom anyway,’ thought Ben. ‘Colleges
      don’t teach Wisdom 101. The learned are not being taught wisdom any
      more than the commoner. Wisdom, it seems, is not of academic interest,
      or perhaps it’s too elusive to be codified. Why is that? Maybe it’s because
      in every situation that calls for wisdom, a unique situation would be
      required. If everything that happens calls for a one-time solution, the
      industrial age, with its one-solution-fits-all predilection, would have
      never occurred. Things that happen only once are of no interest to
      institutionalized society.
      ‘Wisdom, meanwhile, always consists of the application of the one
      unique response that the particular situation deserves, if it is to find its
      appropriate place in the world. Modern society has been built around
      the desire to find the one response that applies to as many situations
      as possible. The one-size-fits-all mentality is the way modern society
      wants to go, while wisdom and life are actually calling for each action
      to be so totally complete, that it would make repetition unnecessary.
      A wise action is one that does not need to be repeated, because it
      does not leave a hole to be filled, no turbulent wake to crash into
      someone or something else. It leaves no cause that would manifest as
      some future effect. Wisdom has the stand-alone quality of being self-evident.
      Wisdom manifests itself even in a newborn baby, whose simple
      instincts wisely ensure that it will be loved and nurtured. Wisdom is
      the only thing we have abundantly at birth, and yet we find ourselves
      struggling to retain it, as we grow older and lapse into the familiarity
      of repetition.’


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: