Alan Watts on "Ex nihilo nihil fit"

[godnotgod]

We have been discussing Nothingness mainly from a Western point of view, looking Eastward, but just to offer a glimpse as to just how highly regarded Nothingness is in Eastern thought, here is a famous poem on the subject from a Taoist master:

The Lost Pearl

The Yellow Emperor went wandering
To the north of the Red Water
To the Kwan Lun mountain.
He looked around
Over the edge of the world.

On the way home
He lost his night-colored pearl*.

He sent out Science to seek his pearl, and got nothing.
He sent Analysis to look for his pearl, and got nothing.
He sent out Logic to seek his pearl, and got nothing.

Then he asked Nothingness, and Nothingness had it!

The Yellow Emperor said:

“Strange, indeed: Nothingness
Who was not sent
Who did no work to find it
Had the night-colored pearl!”


from “The Way of Chuang Tzu,” translated by Thomas Merton



*Night-colored pearl: original nature; spiritual enlightenment
****************************************************************************

"This hawk of truth is swift,
and flies with a still cry,
a small sweetmeat for the eyes of night"

 

[godnotgod]

"Once you can accept the universe as matter expanding into nothing that is something, wearing stripes with plaid comes easy."
Albert Einstein

 

[Beyondo]

The following is an interesting excerpt from a lecture by Alan Watts:


Ex nihilo nihil fit?

"If space is essential to solid it's perfectly obvious then that nothing is essential to something. If you can't have something without nothing it means nothing is pretty powerful stuff, because something comes out of it, blpppp, like that. It's a dogma of Western thought expressed in the Latin phrase "ex nihilo nihil fit," "out of nothing comes nothing." But that's not so! Out of nothing comes something!! Now you would say, "Well if something comes out of nothing there must be some kind of mystery inside nothing, it must have a secret structure of some kind. I mean, there must be sort of electrical goings-on." That's the trouble they have about cosmology. How could this world generate, could it just be out of free-floating hydrogen? No, it's a much simpler idea than that: it comes out of real, solid nothing. It's so simple! Look, if you listen, and you live in a world where there's only sound for a moment, you'll hear every sound coming out of silence. Where do these sounds come from? They come out of silence. Suddenly...BOING! And you can accustom yourself to seeing light doing the same thing. You can open your eyes and see all this world emerging out of nothing, BOING!...like that, and fading off into the past. And that's why the future is unknown because the future is zero...."

An expanded discussion by Alan Watts on the topic above can be found here:



NOTHINGNESS




More of his lecture and essay material in text, audio, and video formats can be found here:


Alan Watts Lectures and Essays






"Prophecy is the contamination of the future with the past."
Alan Watts

Alan...SUCKS!

The sound still has a cause, doesn't he get that? BOING! Get it, BOING::tigger:

 

[godnotgod]

Alan...SUCKS!

The sound still has a cause, doesn't he get that? BOING! Get it, BOING::tigger:

There is clapping within silence and a sound is heard. It is all one, simultaneous event. The clapping is not the cause, just as flipping a light switch on is not the cause of light. Hands cannot produce sound, just as a light switch cannot produce light.

The concepts of cause and effect are products of linear thought, and as such, are artificially isolated factors which only seem to be distinct. In reality, cause and effect are related to everything else, and everything else is no particular thing, or no-thing, or, in this case, no-sound.

If sound has a cause, there must be an agent or initiator of the cause. There must be a cause-er. Can you point to such an agent?

The sound comes out of silence. Eliminate the silence, and there is no sound.

However, that is not saying that silence is the cause of sound. Watts is not talking cause and effect. All he is saying is that silence is essential to sound, in the same way that space is to solid, and nothing is to everything.

 

[Beyondo]

The sound comes out of silence. Eliminate the silence, and there is no sound.

However, that is not saying that silence is the cause of sound. Watts is not talking cause and effect. All he is saying is that silence is essential to sound, in the same way that space is to solid, and nothing is to everything.

Sound is a distribution of energy through waves that compress air. Therefore silence is a zero state of sound. Solid requires space and is not the antithesis of a solid. In both the examples neither is the same as something to nothing. Nothing is not an energy state of something, nor is nothing required for something. In effect nothing is actually the brain/mind capacity to compliment terms in logic. In other words in the case of nothing you're actually saying: "Not something". This is very different from the concept of zero which many may think is the equivalent to nothing...

 

[godnotgod]

Sound is a distribution of energy through waves that compress air.

.....all within a total context of silence. You cannot have sound without silence as interval. Silence defines the beginning and end of all sounds. It seems to me that you have two kinds of silence: that which, along with sound, occurs within atmosphere, as you have stated. I would say that this kind of sound/silence relationship is relative. But then there is also silence without atmosphere, which I would see as Absolute Silence. Essentially, there was no Big Bang in terms of sound.

Therefore silence is a zero state of sound.

You have just defined silence in terms of sound. Can you define it without sound as a consideration?

Solid requires space....

Yes. That is exactly what Watts is saying: solid and space are essential to each other, just as nothing is essential to everything.

...and is not the antithesis of a solid.

solid is not the antithesis of a solid???

In both the examples neither is the same as something to nothing. Nothing is not an energy state of something, nor is nothing required for something.

No? The hub of a wheel where there is nothing is not essential to the functioning of the wheel? Openings in a house are not essential to doors and windows? The space within a pot that contains nothing is not essential to the form and function of the pot? Try filling a glass with water where there in no empty space within.

Energy also requires a state of passivity which allows it to flow.

In effect nothing is actually the brain/mind capacity to compliment terms in logic. In other words in the case of nothing you're actually saying: "Not something". This is very different from the concept of zero which many may think is the equivalent to nothing...

Well, there is relative nothing and relative something, but there is also Absolute Nothingness, which is the negation of all negation.

 

[Beyondo]

.....all within a total context of silence. You cannot have sound without silence as interval. Silence defines the beginning and end of all sounds. It seems to me that you have two kinds of silence: that which, along with sound, occurs within atmosphere, as you have stated. I would say that this kind of sound/silence relationship is relative. But then there is also silence without atmosphere, which I would see as Absolute Silence. Essentially, there was no Big Bang in terms of sound.

Again the idea of nothing is merely the negation of something. Nothing doesn't exist! Not even the vacuum of space is empty! Quantum Vacuum energy is a proven fact from the Casimir effect. Nothing is non-sensical, it's equivalent to stating: "I'm going to drink a negative 8 ounces of milk". Not possible in any universe! Trying to force a symmetry of existence/non-existence or something/nothing as a valid logic is flawed.

Yes. That is exactly what Watts is saying: solid and space are essential to each other, just as nothing is essential to everything.


solid is not the antithesis of a solid???

You are confusing the containment of a volume with nothing. A solid requires space because a solid can only be described as a volume. Therefore a solid is not the antithesis of space since you can only describe a solid in terms of spacial dimensions. Without spacial dimensions a solid could not exist. In short; Space is defined as dimensional attributes that menifest a manifold, it is irrelevant if that space is describing a solid or a vaccum.

BTW solids don't really exist, not even as subatomic particles. Experiments demonstrate that one can shoot right through an electron. The effect of solidness comes from the interactions of fields. Its like a computer game, are the walls of Halow, or Doom solid? No the program executes what is called collision detection, which is when two objects in the game come close enough to one another the programs implements a translation of spacial cordinates in a direction that mimicks the physics of a solid wall. Soo too do sub-atomic particles when they absorb a field photon they change their direction accroding to the type of field photon absorbed.

Energy also requires a state of passivity which allows it to flow.

Flow? A photon can convert to a particle/anti-particle distribution. Matter is both a particle and a wave, light and all sub-atomic matter move in all directions simultaneously. Only when subatomic particles interact with one another do we get light or particles moving in a coherent direction(s). Flow of energy only happens as a gauge effect not a quantum effect.

Well, there is relative nothing and relative something, but there is also Absolute Nothingness, which is the negation of all negation.

Nothingness does not exist. In fact the only reason there is existence is because there is something...

 

[Beyondo]

message deleted

 

[godnotgod]

Nothingness does not exist. In fact the only reason there is existence is because there is something...

So by what means are you determining the existence of what you call 'something'?

 

[godnotgod]

Again the idea of nothing is merely the negation of something.

And what is the condition of the negation of negation itself?

 

[godnotgod]

A solid requires space because a solid can only be described as a volume. Therefore a solid is not the antithesis of space since you can only describe a solid in terms of spacial dimensions. Without spacial dimensions a solid could not exist. In short; Space is defined as dimensional attributes that menifest a manifold, it is irrelevant if that space is describing a solid or a vaccum.

You are simply confirming Watts statement, that space is essential to solid; that nothing is essential to something. He said nothing about them being 'antithetical' to each other. In other words, they are one and the same thing, while you are seeing them in dualistic terms.

Beyond the concepts of space/solids....

... solids don't really exist, not even as subatomic particles.

....which not only confirms what Buddhists have said all along*, but also that what we call 'some-thing' is really no-thing.

*"Fundamentally, not one thing exists"
Sixth Zen Patriarch

"Emptiness is form;
form is emptiness;
emptiness does not differ from form;
form does not differ from emptiness"
Heart Sutra

 

[Beyondo]

So by what means are you determining the existence of what you call 'something'?

By my perception, in fact a interpretation of quantum mechanics states that attributes of matter only manifest when measured. The term measured and preception are identical and even sub-atomic particles measure or precieve each other.

 

[Beyondo]

You are simply confirming Watts statement, that space is essential to solid; that nothing is essential to something. He said nothing about them being 'antithetical' to each other. In other words, they are one and the same thing, while you are seeing them in dualistic terms.

No...By this statement:

"Space is defined as dimensional attributes that menifest a manifold, it is irrelevant if that space is describing a solid or a vaccum."

I am clearly stating that space as a solid or a vaccum is still space, but you or Watts have jumped to a conclusion that such a concept of space is equivalent to nothing is essential to something. Put it this way: Space is actually something. In relativity space is something. I however view space a little differently: Space is the dimensional degrees of freedom of matter. I call it "Schrödinger space" Because the Schrödinger equation can be viewed as the spacial foot print of all particles. Each particle's manifold overlaps each other and we therefore get the impression of continous space So even with my view of it space is still something, it is a product of matter.

So here again whether you like Schrödinger space or Enstein's space, nothing doesn't exist.

 

[Beyondo]

....which not only confirms what Buddhists have said all along*, but also that what we call 'some-thing' is really no-thing.

*"Fundamentally, not one thing exists"
Sixth Zen Patriarch

Ah...no. I like to use the analogy of computer games because what the graphic engines like OpenGl and DirectX do is emulate a dimensional manifold. In fact you get even get relativistic effects without having to literally use Enstein's equations! The expcetion of those effects is the speed of light limit for rest mass but time dialation effects are due to geometrical artifacts. With that said, what does it mean? Well given a scenario where there are no objects in the emulated mainfold what exists in this virtual world? According to you nothing, however because the emptiness is a manifold it has geometric properties. So what exists are the geometric rules. So how does this relate to our reality. Well if you use Ensiten's space, where space is the container of all things then the manifold has it rules based on properties of dimensions. If we use Schrödinger space then the manifold engine is matter!

So something is the engine, even if the space is empty...

"Emptiness is form;
form is emptiness;
emptiness does not differ from form;
form does not differ from emptiness"
Heart Sutra

Its funny but I'd say Buddha was a game programmer, cause what this describes is a manifold engine.

 

[godnotgod]

Beyondo, I am afraid you have been reading too many comic books!

You are trying to interpret the nature of reality via of scientific measuring tools and anlaysis. These things cannot give it to you. They can only tell you about their behavior.

They only succeed in nibbling around the edges.

You need to go in deeper.

I will comment on your replies later.

Ciao

 

[godnotgod]

.



Its funny but I'd say Buddha was a game programmer, cause what this describes is a manifold engine.

Nope. What it describes is the true nature of form.

 

[godnotgod]

By my perception....

Yes, of course, but for you to say "this is something", you must have a reference against which your perception is determining that. You know...figure and ground sort of thing....c'mon!

 

[Beyondo]

Nope. What it describes is the true nature of form.

Which are defined by the constrainst of a manifold...

 

[Beyondo]

Yes, of course, but for you to say "this is something", you must have a reference against which your perception is determining that. You know...figure and ground sort of thing....c'mon!

Not at all, perception only requires information, it is cause and effect. At a more fundamental basis a particle senses other particles by virtue of information exchange without the need of a frame of reference!

 

[godnotgod]

Not at all, perception only requires information, it is cause and effect. At a more fundamental basis a particle senses other particles by virtue of information exchange without the need of a frame of reference!

There is always a frame of reference, whether you are aware of it or not.

What I am asking is: what is the background of perception?

You are only giving me a relative view. I want to know the universal view. However, even in a relative view, the frame of reference is the other bit of information. They share a common background, however.

Ever take a paint sample into Home Depot to get a color match? Those computers that scan the chip and come up with a formula are using a neutral color as reference against which to determine actual color.

When you say the word "something", you are automatically using a frame of reference against which you determine that it is, indeed, some-thing. If you did not, you would only have a mass of undifferentiated goo. But 'something' possesses a defining characteristic. What gives it that defining characteristic of shape and form that you are able to make it out as "something"?

Perception does not require information; it requires attention. Information comes afterwards, but any information is seen against a field. That is how your perception is able to distinguish it as such. Spoken words are heard against the background of silence; written text is seen against the background of blank paper; etc.

"Fritjof Capra(1975), a well-known theoretical physicist, has shown how present-day physics has almost completely abolished any solid concepts of our world, with the exception of energy. In a summarizing statement, he says[1], “In modern physics, the universe is thus experienced as a dynamic, inseparable whole which always includes the observer in an essential way. In this experience, the traditional concepts of space and time, of isolating objects, and of cause and effect, lose their meaning. Such an experience, however, is very similar to that of the Eastern mystics.” What we interact with is mostly empty space. The right causes and conditions when present merge a few bits of matter with space to form an object. We label these objects with names like people, tables, cars, birds, etc. Yet the underlying nature of all objects, which appear different, is the same. To the Physicists, there is no longer any single object; everything is one and the same object. My favorite representation of this in eastern terms is Indra’s Net."


http://themiddleway.net/?p=61