If "everything is energy" then what does this mean?

[atanu]

That's like saying the math doesn't represent anything real. I find that hard to believe since something is obviously being detected and calculated. Is there anything else to suggest what substance was before matter formed? Energy is the inverse of matter, there is really not much more other han space time. That sums up he universe, space time matter and energy. Anyone have anything else that isn't just a different form of those?

I will make a last attempt. The question of the OP IS "What a statement 'all is energy' means?

Just as Mass is a measure but is not substance, Energy is a computable measure but not a substance. Now to say that everything is energy is actually saying that everything is a comutable quantity. Now, that may be true yet that does not mean that universe is made of a substance called energy. Remember the search for God particle?

Neither you are talking of any religion proper. At least in Veda/vedanta Brahman is the material and efficient cause of universe.

 

[idav]

I will make a last attempt. The question of the OP IS "What a statement 'all is energy' means?

Wow I thought thats what I was explaining.

Just as Mass is a measure but is not substance, Energy is a computable measure but not a substance. Now to say that everything is energy is actually saying that everything is a comutable quantity. Now, that may be true yet that does not mean that universe is made of a substance called energy. Remember the search for God particle?

There is no substance to debate about, that isn't what calling everything energy is trying to say. It has nothing to do with math, energy is as real as gravity and matter, but really just different forms of the same thing.

Neither you are talking of any religion proper. At least in Veda/vedanta Brahman is the material and efficient cause of universe.

Probably cause I'm not talking religiously.

I'm talking about what the universe is made of. What substance its made of is sort of irrelevant. You can call it whatever amounts to the same thing. There is matter and energy and matter is just another form of matter, all "substances" are different form of the same thing.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_matter.html

 

[godnotgod]

So it haven't been debunked you just have some air to do issue with observation being included as a methodology. Seems kinda cheeky.

I don't understand your response, but yes, he did debunk some of the PREMISES science operates upon, one of which is the erroneous information about the speed of light.

 

[godnotgod]

In my opinion, it is not a matter of what the universe is made of because it's not really made of anything....matter is mostly empty space. It is more a question of what is all this percieved "stuff" we see in the universe about. In my opinion it is about interaction. Action/interaction/force is everything. I consider interaction to be more fundamental than energy because the way I see it, some form of interaction was necessary to bring about all the energy in the universe to begin with. Some form of interaction is needed for energy to change form as it does. I believe that one day in the future, science will be able to put together a complete mathematical formula or equation that will basically model everything in the entire universe as a singular, unified Fundamental Force.

You say that it is all about interaction, but what is that supposed to mean? Sounds like the Universe is nothing more than a gyrating stupidity to me.

 

[atanu]

I'm talking about what the universe is made of.

I do not see "It is all energy", in your references. In any case, it is not all energy, as per science. Actually, science is far from fixing it, since what you see depends on mode of seeing.

OTOH, what ultimately universe is made up of is contained in Vedantic "You are That".

"It is all energy" is just a popular phrase. Energy has no consciousness to know "I am".

 

[idav]

I don't understand your response, but yes, he did debunk some of the PREMISES science operates upon, one of which is the erroneous information about the speed of light.

I could barely understand my response too, dumb keyboards. The premise of science is a methodology based on observation is what I meant. Have we debunked observation, I hope not, lol.

 

[idav]

Energy has no consciousness to know "I am".

No consciousness is quite the tall order but it has information and knowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler's_delayed_choice_experiment
Because in the quantum world everything has already happened and is happening.

 

[Runewolf1973]

You say that it is all about interaction, but what is that supposed to mean? Sounds like the Universe is nothing more than a gyrating stupidity to me.

It means this... "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force..." --Max Planck. He doesn't say it originates due to energy, but due to a force.

I believe there to be an animating, unified Fundamental Force by which everything exists, including energy.


Why would it be a stupidity? I am an animist, is that stupid as well?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You want to eliminate the very source of the physical world you live in, and focus only on the gross level.

The "gross level" is what we actually experience. We don't see quarks, and apples fall from trees.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

'Clearly'? Proof?

The proof is throughout the thread. I am not making it up. You are though.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The metaphor is that of rope to The Absolute and snake to The Universe. It says that the rope (ie Absolute) is mistaken for the snake (ie material Universe). It's quite simple. What is there that is misunderstood?

There is no evidence whatsoever for your "Absolute".

 

[Rick O'Shez]

OTOH, the state of unconditioned consciousness just sees things as they are.

There is no such thing as "unconditioned consciousness", there is just seeing things in different ways.

Have you forgotten this Zen teaching?

 

[godnotgod]

There is no such thing as "unconditioned consciousness", there is just seeing things in different ways.

'seeing things in different ways' is self-view. Before self-view is formed, there is no-self-view, which is unconditioned universal view. If you have never experienced it, you will deny its existence, because you are still attached to a personal view, or Identification. Unconditioned view is what Buddhism is all about, and what the Buddha experienced, first-hand. It transcends limited self-view.

What did your face look like before your mother was born?

 

[godnotgod]

There is no evidence whatsoever for your "Absolute".

I'm afraid there is, but since you stubbornly cling to your tunnel vision, you refuse to acknowledge it, and cannot get a glimpse.

The Universe is not only an absolute; it is The Absolute, since it is Everything there can possibly be, and for which no relative 'other' exists to compare it to.

And stop calling it 'my Absolute', as if to say it is purely my own concoction, and no one else's. It's recognition is thousands of years old amongst the learned.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

'seeing things in different ways' is self-view. Before self-view is formed, there is no-self-view, which is unconditioned universal view. If you have never experienced it, you will deny its existence, because you are still attached to a personal view, or Identification. Unconditioned view is what Buddhism is all about, and what the Buddha experienced, first-hand. It transcends limited self-view.
What did your face look like before your mother was born?

It's laughable that you attempt to drag Buddhist teachings into your mangled new-age hot-pot.

 

[godnotgod]

The proof is throughout the thread. I am not making it up. You are though.

You have claimed to be a Zennist, and you are clearly not.

Where is your evidence which proves I am not a Zennist?

You have claimed that Buddhist teachings support your odd pseudo-Hindu new-age muddle, and they clearly don't.

Show me the evidence of what you call 'pseudo-Hindu new-age muddle. There is no such thing, other than the puddle of muddle in the middle of your nuddle.

There is no conflict between Hinduism and Buddhism. You see conflict where I see harmony.

You have claimed that quantum mechanics is somehow relevant to the experience of non-duality or whatever, it clearly is not. You have claimed not to be a new-ager, but you clearly are.

I have zero connection with new age ideas. Show me where you see just one which I have professed. You can't so you won't.

The sea is critically relevant to the experience of the fish, even though the fish is unaware that he is in the sea.

i never claimed any such poppycock about QM. The muddle in thy nuddle is weaving a strange web of deceit.

You continually misrepresent things in a desperate attempt to validate your weird theories, and when challenged you resort to insults and cheap point-scoring. I really wish you would give up this interminable attention-seeking ego-trip and listen to what other people are saying to you.

I don't care what they are saying; I know what I know, and refuse to compromise it for those who are still asleep.

I am unaware of any such 'point-scoring'. That is not my impetus at all.

Provide a single shred of evidence of my misrepresentation of 'things'.

Do you hide inside of Buddhism for security to protect you from things you fear and don't understand, and label as 'weird'? Go ahead. Deny it.

 

[godnotgod]

It's laughable that you attempt to drag Buddhist teachings into your mangled new-age hot-pot.

Laugh all you want, but unconditioned view is the very core of Buddhism. If you don't know that, you cannot call yourself a Buddhist. Buddhism is about just seeing things as they are, without conditioning, or as the Buddhist teachers say: 'no leaning mind'.

Trying to associate me with what you consider to be crackpot ideas is a juvenile attempt to discredit me, so that you can appear bigger than you really are. You have yet to provide evidence of my connection with anything 'new age'.

 

[godnotgod]

There is no such thing as "unconditioned consciousness", there is just seeing things in different ways.

Have you forgotten this Zen teaching?

Ha ha ha.. If you are holding that up as an example, then it is absolute proof that you don't have a clue as to its meaning. That* is not the original Zen teaching, which goes like this:

'When I began my study of Zen, mountains were just mountains, and trees were just trees;
During my study of Zen, mountains were no longer mountains, and trees no longer trees;
When I became enlightened, mountains were once again mountains, and trees once again trees'

I know you do not understand this, though you may think you do. However, I will provide a clue for you, a small sweetmeat for the eyes of night:

'Before Enlightenment, peeling the potatoes;
after Enlightenment, peeling the potatoes'

*Donovan's version sounds like pseudo-new-agey Zennism to me, and a solid misrepresentation of Zen on your part.

 

[godnotgod]

"Fundamentally, our experience as experienced is not different from the Zen master's. Where
we differ is that we place a fog, a particular kind of conceptual overlay onto that experience
and then make an emotional investment in that overlay, taking it to be "real" in and of itself."

http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening101/ZenEnlighten01.html

So what is the Zen master's experience of reality compared to that of the ordinary man? Nothing. Wide open and empty, just seeing things as they arise and fall, without any conceptual overlay as to their arising and falling, and free of any attempts to 'figure it all out'.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

*Donovan's version sounds like pseudo-new-agey Zennism to me, and a solid misrepresentation of Zen on your part.
[/I]

That you didn't get the joke here demonstrates just how far you are up your own bottom. Or down your rabbit hole.