Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[Runewolf1973]

No.

The problem is that you are presenting both ideas, and they contradict each other. You aren't presenting ''neither''. You are ok with your contradictional idea, that's fine.

Is there being two distinct ends of a stick or two distinct sides to a coin contradictory to the fact that there is only one stick or one coin? Or is that just the way things are? Perhaps there are two distinct sides to the universe as well, but the universe is still one. The word interaction symbolizes such a union...the two are one. A grand unifiication.

 

[godnotgod]

I equate material with tangible existence and something such as electromagnetism is quite tangible is it not?

We now know that what we perceive as 'tangible' is the sensation of atoms pushing back. The atom is well over 99% empty space, as you well know, so there is not much 'material' that you can call yourself a 'materialist' about. Add to this the fact that all of the mass of the atom is now understood as virtual mass. You should actually call yourself a 'space-ist' if anything.

 

[godnotgod]

Is there being two distinct ends of a stick or two distinct sides to a coin contradictory to the fact that there is only one stick or one coin? Or is that just the way things are? Perhaps there are two distinct sides to the universe as well, but the universe is still one. The word interaction symbolizes such a union...the two are one. A grand unifiication.

But then there is actually nothing that goes through the process of unification, since nothing has ever been separated that is in need of unification. Interaction cannot symbolize union; it symbolizes separation, which is an illusion.

 

[godnotgod]

The kind that makes sense.

And what kind is that?

If you ask me how plants photosynthesize, and I answer 'via photosynthesis', you haven't given me any new information. Interaction is not an explanation as to how things work or what they are in actuality; it only describes a generalized behavior. Besides this, you are completely ignoring the background against which all of this interaction is occurring. It's like saying there is only 'ON' and no 'OFF', since you 'explain' the background as just more interaction. All movement can only be discerned as such against a background of no-movement.

 

[godnotgod]

The Fundamental Forces by which matter originates are interactions...Fundamental Interactions.

What is the nature of the Fundamental Interactions?

As for Max Planck's continuation of that quote, I do believe he was speculating and not making a scientific statement. It seems he was pointing more towards a unified interactive field of sorts.

He very clearly said that it is conscious and intelligent:

"We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”

So you see that he is going deeper than the Fundamental Forces to say that there is something intelligent and conscious behind them. This something is the fundamental Reality, and not just the manifestation of that Reality, which are forces and the material world.

Interaction is neither a one way street, nor is it a two way street. It is every street and no street all at the same time. It is neither truly two, nor is it truly one. It is All. It is everything, not one thing, not two things.

Can you see that if it is everything, then the net effect is that there is no interaction taking place? You finally admitted that the FF create the illusion of solid matter and form, and if that is the case, then there is no solid matter or form that interacts. It's just a Grand Illusion.

 

[Runewolf1973]

We now know that what we perceive as 'tangible' is the sensation of atoms pushing back. The atom is well over 99% empty space, as you well know, so there is not much 'material' that you can call yourself a 'materialist' about. Add to this the fact that all of the mass of the atom is now understood as virtual mass. You should actually call yourself a 'space-ist' if anything.

Meh... Could care less.

 

[Runewolf1973]

But then there is actually nothing that goes through the process of unification, since nothing has ever been separated that is in need of unification. Interaction cannot symbolize union; it symbolizes separation, which is an illusion.

Well for me it symbolizes both.

 

[Runewolf1973]

And what kind is that?

If you ask me how plants photosynthesize, and I answer 'via photosynthesis', you haven't given me any new information. Interaction is not an explanation as to how things work or what they are in actuality; it only describes a generalized behavior. Besides this, you are completely ignoring the background against which all of this interaction is occurring. It's like saying there is only 'ON' and no 'OFF', since you 'explain' the background as just more interaction. All movement can only be discerned as such against a background of no-movement.

There is only change and interaction which is seen against itself.

 

[Runewolf1973]

What is the nature of the Fundamental Interactions?



He very clearly said that it is conscious and intelligent:

"We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”

So you see that he is going deeper than the Fundamental Forces to say that there is something intelligent and conscious behind them. This something is the fundamental Reality, and not just the manifestation of that Reality, which are forces and the material world.



Can you see that if it is everything, then the net effect is that there is no interaction taking place? You finally admitted that the FF create the illusion of solid matter and form, and if that is the case, then there is no solid matter or form that interacts. It's just a Grand Illusion.

Grand illusion? Sure, but what you are referring to (everything coming out of pure nothingness) is more akin to a grand delusion which I cannot accept.

 

[godnotgod]

Grand illusion? Sure, but what you are referring to (everything coming out of pure nothingness) is more akin to a grand delusion which I cannot accept.

Well if form and solid material are illusions, where else could they have come from?

 

[godnotgod]

There is only change and interaction which is seen against itself.

What is it that is changing and interacting?

 

[godnotgod]

Well for me it symbolizes both.

It can't. Only unity is real.

 

[godnotgod]

Meh... Could care less.

and...form and solid material being what they are, illusions, means that the label 'materialist' is meaningless.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Well if form and solid material are illusions, where else could they have come from?

The Fundamental Forces.

 

[Runewolf1973]

What is it that is changing and interacting?

Everything.

 

[Runewolf1973]

It can't. Only unity is real.

Interaction is the reason why there is that unity to begin with.

 

[Runewolf1973]

and...form and solid material being what they are, illusions, means that the label 'materialist' is meaningless.

I am an animist more so than I am a materialist anyway. Animism to me is about the forces of nature, not the supernatural. That form and solid material are a type of illusion brought about by the forces of nature doesn't mean they are not real or nonexistant in some way. They are real in a different sort of way. I don't accept your Grand Hallucination view which is what it really amounts to. The idea that everything we experience is pure nothingness or nonexistent.

You know I believe modern day physicists are animists in a way too. They also believe there are forces (interactive forces) of nature which animate, shape and change everything in our universe.

 

[godnotgod]

Everything.

All 'things' are illusions. We agreed on that, right?

 

[godnotgod]

The Fundamental Forces.

Ff being non-material in nature, correct?

 

[godnotgod]

Interaction is the reason why there is that unity to begin with.

Think about what you are saying, which is that the unity did not exist until interaction occurred. IOW, separation is the fundamental reality. But this makes no sense, since, according to you, interaction has always been the case, and if that is so, then unity must also have been the case. Your logic sux.