A Universe from Nothing?

[ArtieE]

That's not the point, which is that observer and observed merge as one reality when seen correctly. It is then that you will see the laptop not as real materiality, but as possibility.

The laptop is not a "possibility", it's a real laptop whether I observe it or not.

 

[godnotgod]

Nothing is verified by me having the same experience as somebody else. It requires independent objective confirmation.

We're back to square one, because the nature of reality cannot be verified by independent objective confirmation. There is no such thing, since the observer is part of the observation itself. All you can verify by such means are the behaviour of phenomena and how to predict that behavior, which does not tell you what the phenomena actually IS.

 

[godnotgod]

The laptop is not a "possibility", it's a real laptop whether I observe it or not.

It is a real laptop to you via your sensory perception, but what is it to a bat?

 

[ArtieE]

We're back to square one, because the nature of reality cannot be verified by independent objective confirmation. There is no such thing, since the observer is part of the observation itself.

The observer is the one making the observation and he observes the real laptop.

 

[ArtieE]

It is a real laptop to you via your sensory perception, but what is it to a bat?

The same laptop of course. Me and the bat are observing the same laptop.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

When someone isn't thinking before they post, I may start with 'Duh!', or even refer to them as a dolt, which you can be at times. You should see it as an opportunity to learn something, as you are so enamored of learning.

If you were being honest you would say something like this: "When somebody doesn't agree with me I patronise and lecture them, if they still don't agree I abuse and insult them."

It is clear you are only here to preach, you have not the slightest interest in what others say, you think you know it all and only care about showing off. You only are only here to promote your bizarre new-age beliefs, and you think everyone else must be stupid for not agreeing with them. You are one of the most egocentric and arrogant characters I have come across on discussion forums.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You don't want a discussion.

I would love to have a proper discussion, but that is impossible when you hijack threads and start preaching. All you do is lecture and patronise, you are not here to explore ideas or have a genuine discussion.

You are on an attention-seeking ego-trip, but you are so self-absorbed that you don't even realise it. You have no mindfulness or awareness whatsoever.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You just want to denigrate because you lack intuitive insight into the true nature of things, and that includes even the Heart Sutra, which you only see in black and white terms.

Nonsense. I am intuitive enough to recognise the extent of your BS, and far less dogmatic than you are. As for the Heart Sutra, people can do their own research, and check that I have given an authentic description of the theory and practice.

What I hope is clear to everyone by now is that you are not a trustworthy source on Buddhism, and that your only concern is twisting authentic teachings in a vain attempt to support your Chopra-inspired new-age dogma. Vain in both senses of the word.

 

[`mud]

You're both full of it......but

~
'mud

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The same laptop of course. Me and the bat are observing the same laptop.

I don't think it's that straightforward. What we actually experience through the senses is a set of phenomena, which we perceive and recognise in a particular way, based on our conditioning and experience.

Philosophically the distinction between phenomena and noumena is relevant here, which roughly speaking is the distinction between the characteristics and the assumed essence of an object. So for example we experience an object with the characteristics of roundness, redness and hardness, and assume an essence of "apple" beneath those characteristics.

So coming back to our laptop, a bat would experience a different set of phenomena to a human, as would a space alien with non-human physiology and senses. The space-alien might see in infra-red for example, and probably would have no idea what that flat rectangular boxy thing was.

 

[ArtieE]

So coming back to our laptop, a bat would experience a different set of phenomena to a human, as would a space alien with non-human physiology and senses. The space-alien might see in infra-red for example, and probably would have no idea what that flat rectangular boxy thing was.

It's still a laptop...

 

[ArtieE]

Philosophically the distinction between phenomena and noumena is relevant here, which roughly speaking is the distinction between the characteristics and the assumed essence of an object. So for example we experience an object with the characteristics of roundness, redness and hardness, and assume an essence of "apple" beneath those characteristics.

"Essence of an object"? "Apple" is just a name we give certain collections of atoms and molecules that satisfy the criteria we have decided they would have to fulfill in order to be called "apple".

 

[godnotgod]

What I hope is clear to everyone by now is that you are not a trustworthy source *snip*

What is clear is that you bald faced lied that I made a claim to enlightenment, and when I called you on it, you just pushed it to the side, as you do everything else when you see that what I am saying is true, and then continued your silly diatribe. You now want to prop yourself up as trustworthy while denigrating me as full of BS. So until you make good on your stupid claim, your word can no longer be trusted.

Go ahead. Deny it.

 

[godnotgod]

It's still a laptop...

Only to you, but not in the absolute sense, which is how you are attempting to portray it.

 

[godnotgod]

I would love to have a proper discussion, but that is impossible when you hijack threads...*snip*..

You are the one who has hijacked this thread.....several times. You are a LIAR. You said I claimed enlightenment many times, but when asked for the evidence, you have come up with nada. So go to your room without dinner.

 

[godnotgod]

If you were being honest you would say something like this: "When somebody doesn't agree with me I patronise and lecture them, if they still don't agree I abuse and insult them."

.

more like: "When somebody doesn't think before they post, and says something illogical, I attack the content of the post. When they continue with their erroneous logic, I let them know there is something wrong with the poster. For example, when you persist in your idiotic position that I made a claim to enlightenment, and then cannot produce evidence to that effect, I refer to you as a 'dolt'. Not just a dolt, but a liar to boot, and even a thread hijacker.

 

[godnotgod]

The observer is the one making the observation and he observes the real laptop.

In the Newtonian world, yes, but not in the Quantum view:

Read:

10. A PHYSICS OF POSSIBILITIES

Quantum entities exist in a realm of potentiality, in what is called a state of “superposition,” which is to say they hover in a ghostly state between existence and nonexistence, existing in all possible states up until the moment they are observed. Not existing in space-time, their appearance in space-time at the moment of observation is a quantum event in which an atemporal process manifests in time. Wheeler expresses the central point of quantum theory in a single, simple sentence when he says, “No elementary phenomenon is a (real) phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.”[68] The necessity for this demarcation is the most mysterious feature of the quantum, for it holds the clue to the central principle of the construction of everything out of nothing. This tenet changes our traditional view that something has happened before we observe it; as Heisenberg writes, “The term ‘happens’ is restricted to the observation.”[69] At the moment of being observed, the wavefunction collapses in no time at all into a particular manifestation, while all of the other potentialities vaporize as if they had never existed.[70] From the quantum point of view, everything that might have happened influences what actually does happen. In a quantum universe such as ours, everything ultimately exists in a state of open-ended potential, what Heisenberg calls “transcendent potentia.” Quantum theory implies that the whole universe─including ourselves─is recreated and recreating itself anew every nano-second based on how we are dreaming it up. Wheeler comments in his own inimitable style, “We may someday have to enlarge the scope of what we mean by a ‘who.’”[71]

continued here:

http://www.awakeninthedream.com/quantum-physics-the-physics-of-dreaming/#apop

 

[godnotgod]

"Essence of an object"? "Apple" is just a name we give certain collections of atoms and molecules that satisfy the criteria we have decided they would have to fulfill in order to be called "apple".

The point is that there is no inherent 'apple nature' to what we call 'apple'. We just assume there is based on its characteristics.

 

[ak.yonathan]

In the Newtonian world, yes, but not in the Quantum view:

Read:

10. A PHYSICS OF POSSIBILITIES

Quantum entities exist in a realm of potentiality, in what is called a state of “superposition,” which is to say they hover in a ghostly state between existence and nonexistence, existing in all possible states up until the moment they are observed. Not existing in space-time, their appearance in space-time at the moment of observation is a quantum event in which an atemporal process manifests in time. Wheeler expresses the central point of quantum theory in a single, simple sentence when he says, “No elementary phenomenon is a (real) phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.”[68] The necessity for this demarcation is the most mysterious feature of the quantum, for it holds the clue to the central principle of the construction of everything out of nothing. This tenet changes our traditional view that something has happened before we observe it; as Heisenberg writes, “The term ‘happens’ is restricted to the observation.”[69] At the moment of being observed, the wavefunction collapses in no time at all into a particular manifestation, while all of the other potentialities vaporize as if they had never existed.[70] From the quantum point of view, everything that might have happened influences what actually does happen. In a quantum universe such as ours, everything ultimately exists in a state of open-ended potential, what Heisenberg calls “transcendent potentia.” Quantum theory implies that the whole universe─including ourselves─is recreated and recreating itself anew every nano-second based on how we are dreaming it up. Wheeler comments in his own inimitable style, “We may someday have to enlarge the scope of what we mean by a ‘who.’”[71]

continued here:

http://www.awakeninthedream.com/quantum-physics-the-physics-of-dreaming/#apop

Look, I've said this before and now I'll repeat myself, that is the wave-particle duality. It's not that objects don't exist until we observe them, but rather objects have both wave and particle-like properties. I know this goes against our everyday logic, but it could be that quantum entities are really both particle and wave at the same time.

 

[godnotgod]

Look, I've said this before and now I'll repeat myself, that is the wave-particle duality. It's not that objects don't exist until we observe them, but rather objects have both wave and particle-like properties. I know this goes against our everyday logic, but it could be that quantum entities are really both particle and wave at the same time.

Or it could be that both states are illusions, in the dream-play of maya and lila.

When you awaken to the next higher level of Consciousness, this 'material' world is now seen and understood as pure fiction, and true Reality as being That which is manifesting it.