A Universe from Nothing?

[godnotgod]

Pffffft. Spare us the lying non-enlightened facts that run counter to the ongoing enlightened narrative, infidel, science-fawning lapdog.
Pssst. Facts don't matter here in WahooLand! It's all an illusion.

DUH! Read post #598 with scientific references and cease and desist thy Sillinesses!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

(1 raised hand). Ya, but where is this 'something' that came from anything? So far, this 'something' isn't much of anything. As it (seems) to turn out, all those 'particles' are not particles at all, but localized vibrations within their respective energy fields. (see my post/reference above). As I understand it, all of these fields taken together comprise The Unified Field, and I go with John Hagelin, who is telling us that this UF is Pure Abstract Intelligence, or, Brahman. This Brahman, or Ground of All Being, is empty of self-nature, in accord with the principle of Sunyata.

Well yes...particles are not like billiard balls...science does not know precisely what any particle is....I can go with "localized vibrations" but I imagine it is in the form a spherical cloud shape...and arises from the omnipresent zpe which is probably another label for the omnipresent dark energy... This omnipresent dark energy I would have no problem referring to it as aether or spirit energy......the name is not important...the reality of omnipresent energy whose vibrations are beyond detection by science is... The virtual and real particles are made of zpe....they do not come from nothing!

 

[godnotgod]

Well yes...particles are not like billiard balls...science does not know precisely what any particle is....I can go with "localized vibrations" but I imagine it is in the form a spherical cloud shape...and arises from the omnipresent zpe which is probably another label for the omnipresent dark energy... This omnipresent dark energy I would have no problem referring to it as aether or spirit energy......the name is not important...the reality of omnipresent energy whose vibrations are beyond detection by science is... The virtual and real particles are made of zpe....they do not come from nothing!

If you insist, but I am calling Pure Consciousness, or Pure Abstract Intelligence, or as you called it 'Spirit Energy', ' Nothing'. There is no material component involved, as in 'No-Thing'.

The moment we can conceive of 'Everything', we have, in that very moment, also conceived of 'Nothing'.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If you insist, but I am calling Pure Consciousness, or Pure Abstract Intelligence, or as you called it 'Spirit Energy', ' Nothing'. There is no material component involved, as in 'No-Thing'.

The moment we can conceive of 'Everything', we have, in that very moment, also conceived of 'Nothing'.

'No thing; I can accept...but IT is not nothing as the concept is usually understood....a total vacuum... It is better to use a name that does not conjure up the idea of a vacuum....

 

[godnotgod]

'No thing; I can accept...but IT is not nothing as the concept is usually understood....a total vacuum... It is better to use a name that does not conjure up the idea of a vacuum....

It's not even a vacuum. It is not energy. It is the Source of the vacuum, the energy, and Everything else. 'Tao', 'Brahman', 'Pure Abstract Intelligence', 'The Ground of All Being', etc. All else is maya.

http://alangullette.com/essays/philo/nothing.htm

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It's not even a vacuum. It is not energy. It is the Source of the vacuum, the energy, and Everything else. 'Tao', 'Brahman', 'Pure Abstract Intelligence', 'The Ground of All Being', etc. All else is maya.

http://alangullette.com/essays/philo/nothing.htm

There is no vacuum.....some early scientists just imagined space to be a vacuum....then they discovered that atoms were ubiquitous throughout space....but they still thought that the space between the atoms and the intra-atomic space was a vacuum. Now it accepted by most since the Casimir Effect experiments...that space is not only not a vacuum, but the energy is or at least approaches infinite... So yes..it is the 'ground' of all being...

And yes...I understand the Zen position....but the emptiness or nothing spoken of is not in the context of discussion on cosmic mass.....

 

[YmirGF]

All these particles are points, localized vibrations, in a field. It is the field that is all important. The 'particle' cannot exist without the field. Anyway, I'm going with the following description:

"Physicists now use a class of theories called quantum field theories, or QFTs, which were first postulated in the late 1920s and developed over the following decades. QFTs are intriguing, but they take some getting used to. To start, let’s think only about electrons. Everywhere in the universe there is a field called the electron field. A physical electron isn’t the field, but rather a localized vibration in the field. In fact, every electron in the universe is a similar localized vibration of that single field.

Electrons aren’t the only particles to consist of localized vibrations of a field; all particles do. There is a photon field, an up quark field, a gluon field, a muon field; indeed there is a field for every known particle. And, for all of them, the thing that we visualize as a particle is just a localized vibration of that field. Even the recently discovered Higgs boson is like this. The Higgs field interacts with particles and gives them their mass, but it is hard to observe this field directly. Instead, we supply energy to the field in particle collisions and cause it to vibrate. When we say “we’ve discovered the Higgs boson,” you should think “we’ve caused the Higgs field to vibrate and observed the vibrations.”

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2013/08/the-good-vibrations-of-quantum-field-theories/

A rather poor analogy, I am sure, would be the refresh rate of PC monitors, which constantly creates and maintains the image on the screen, making it appear as if it were a single static image.

The assumption that we live in a material world was in place before Quantum Physics found issues with that idea. But the assumption was carried forward and still persists.

The same is true of The Laws, which were inherited from Judeo-Christianity. Science simply dropped the idea of a Law-Maker, and kept the laws. But perhaps these so called 'laws' are more patterns than laws.

That's all very well, and I don't have any issues with what Mr. Lemon is saying. I'm just puzzled why you would think what he is saying supports your narrative.

 

[godnotgod]

That's all very well, and I don't have any issues with what Mr. Lemon is saying. I'm just puzzled why you would think what he is saying supports your narrative.

Because there are no (material) particles as such. Such 'particles' are the basis for the gross world we see, feel, and touch, but it is not real. It is an illusion, or, as the Hindus call it , maya.

 

[YmirGF]

Because there are no (material) particles as such. Such 'particles' are the basis for the gross world we see, feel, and touch, but it is not real. It is an illusion, or, as the Hindus call it , maya.

The good doctor did not say anything about that, gNg. It sounds like you are reading more into what he is saying that what he is intending.

The good Dr. seems like quite an affable fellow. Perhaps you could drop him a line outlining your ideas and extrapolations and see what he thinks. Who knows he might just respond, though I highly doubt he will be very supportive.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The only way to see nothing is to find something smaller beyond our scope of vision and detection.

To actually see an atom, you will need something smaller than one to see it with.

It's "nothing" because we're just too big.

 

[godnotgod]

And yes...I understand the Zen position....but the emptiness or nothing spoken of is not in the context of discussion on cosmic mass.....

If you read more of the reference I posted, I think you will see that it is.

Fundamentally no wisdom-tree exists,
Nor the stand of a mirror bright.
Since all is empty from the beginning,
Where can the dust alight?

Hui Neng, 6th Zen Patriarch

Nothingness (wu-i-wu) is the same as emptiness (sunyata) and is true "purity" for Hui-neng. According to D. T. Suzuki, "It is the negation of all qualities, a state of absolute non-ness"

Existence and nonexistence are only relative to each other and pertain only to the world of the conditioned – absolute (nonrelative) being was thus denied. Still, there is nirvana, absolute reality, the unconditioned, which transcends such relative categories as existence and non-existence. Nirvana is the unmanifest source, yet is not a substance at all – it is only Nothing. Emptiness (sunyata) is not "a stuff out of which all things are," Robinson writes. "Rather, it is the fact that no immutable substance exists and none underlies phenomena." This emptiness is a "descriptive law," not a "substantial entity". It is nothing at all. The world of phenomena (samsara) is a phantom that is conjured up by a phantom (maya). "These phantoms exist" only "insofar as they appear and act, but inexist insofar as they are insubstantial and impermanent." Nirvana is changeless, permanent, yet not "substantial in any sense. It is dependent coarising, sunyata, that is the process of change". Emptiness of all things is the fact of Nirvana, which is itself nothing.

http://alangullette.com/essays/philo/nothing.htm

 

[godnotgod]

The good doctor did not say anything about that, gNg. It sounds like you are reading more into what he is saying that what he is intending.

What did the good Dr. actually say? He said, and I quote:

And, for all of them (ie particles), the thing that we visualize as a particle is just a localized vibration of that field.

IOW, what we call a (material) 'particle' is not only not material, it is not a particle at all, but a 'localized vibration' of the particular energy field it is found in. So all particles are merely effects of their constituent fields. These vibrations, or fluctuations, are what 'create' all of the mass of the atom that is not real, but virtual mass.

My poor analogy, but one from which I think you will get the picture, is that of a pc monitor's refresh rate, which creates and re-creates the image on your screen many times per second, only giving you the impression that you are seeing a single static image.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

In case anyone is curious, the article I presented earlier says virtual particles do not pop in and out of existence but rather become different types of particles. Conservation of energy prevents anything from being able to simply pop out if existence.

Exactly so. There is a lot of BS pseudo-science being presented in this thread.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Fundamentally no wisdom-tree exists,
Nor the stand of a mirror bright.
Since all is empty from the beginning,
Where can the dust alight?

Exactly so, all is empty from the begining, all is sunyata. Such teachings are completely incompatible with your new-age God "cosmic consciousness".

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Who claimed virtual particles pop into existence from nothing....is there anyone here that believes something can come from nothing?

gNg has been claiming that interminably.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Then why is your nuddle all in a muddle?

Buddhist teachings like sunyata are completely incompatible with your new-age God "cosmic consciousness".

Zen practice and Chopra-inspired pretentious waffling are diametrically opposed.

You are the one in a complete muddle.

 

[godnotgod]

Buddhist teachings like sunyata are completely incompatible with your new-age God "cosmic consciousness".

Zen practice and Chopra-inspired pretentious waffling are diametrically opposed.

You are the one in a complete muddle.

"Nothing we see or hear is perfect, and yet there, in the midst of all of the imperfection, lies Perfect Reality!"
Shunryu Suzuki

LOOK! THE MOON!

(Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, Muslim all immediately turn to see the same moon, and then immediately return to their respective views)

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If you read more of the reference I posted, I think you will see that it is.

Fundamentally no wisdom-tree exists,
Nor the stand of a mirror bright.
Since all is empty from the beginning,
Where can the dust alight?

Hui Neng, 6th Zen Patriarch

Nothingness (wu-i-wu) is the same as emptiness (sunyata) and is true "purity" for Hui-neng. According to D. T. Suzuki, "It is the negation of all qualities, a state of absolute non-ness"

Existence and nonexistence are only relative to each other and pertain only to the world of the conditioned – absolute (nonrelative) being was thus denied. Still, there is nirvana, absolute reality, the unconditioned, which transcends such relative categories as existence and non-existence. Nirvana is the unmanifest source, yet is not a substance at all – it is only Nothing. Emptiness (sunyata) is not "a stuff out of which all things are," Robinson writes. "Rather, it is the fact that no immutable substance exists and none underlies phenomena." This emptiness is a "descriptive law," not a "substantial entity". It is nothing at all. The world of phenomena (samsara) is a phantom that is conjured up by a phantom (maya). "These phantoms exist" only "insofar as they appear and act, but inexist insofar as they are insubstantial and impermanent." Nirvana is changeless, permanent, yet not "substantial in any sense. It is dependent coarising, sunyata, that is the process of change". Emptiness of all things is the fact of Nirvana, which is itself nothing.

http://alangullette.com/essays/philo/nothing.htm

I do not know the original language, but I am sure the translator's use of 'nothing' in the context of this material does not mean a vacuum, but rather 'that' which is beyond duality, empty of all concepts... Call it what you will....Tao, Nirvana, God, Brahman, etc., Allah.......IT is the ineffable

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I do not know the original language

That is exactly the problem, you are a jack of all trades and master of none.

You project this air of superiority with your shallow universalism, but it is all based on guesswork, wishful thinking, misrepresentation and misunderstanding.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

(Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, Muslim all immediately turn to see the same moon, and then immediately return to their respective views)[/COLOR]

Woolly syncretic nonsense, people are not looking at the same moon at all, they might as well be on different planets, contradictory beliefs and assumptions. Stop trying to bang square pegs into round holes, you just make a mess which satisfies nobody.