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

[Aupmanyav]

Sea is energy, waves/particles.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Sea is energy, waves/particles.

Or sea could refer to that field or background from which that energy or those waves and particles emerge.

 

[`mud]

Ahhhhhh.......waves and waves of protons, some on, some off.
None moving.........................hear the tide come and go ?
The 'soup' of the Cosmos where the 'seas' congregate,
and the particles form.
~
'mud

 

[idav]

Ahhhhhh.......waves and waves of protons, some on, some off.
None moving.........................hear the tide come and go ?
The 'soup' of the Cosmos where the 'seas' congregate,
and the particles form.
~
'mud

As Einstein wrote: "It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality

 

[godnotgod]

Ahhhhhh.......waves and waves of protons, some on, some off.
None moving.........................hear the tide come and go ?
The 'soup' of the Cosmos where the 'seas' congregate,
and the particles form.
~
'mud

'tis all in thy head, mate
believe it.

 

[godnotgod]

Sea is energy, waves/particles.

LOM referred to the vacuum as a 'sea of particles'. IOW, the particles are in this 'sea', which I am sure is a metaphor for what the particles are contained or swim in. You say it is energy. But then, what does energy function within? Could all of it be 'contained' within the Void?

When energy waves are depicted graphically, they are determined to be waves against some background that is 'not-wave'. What is that background?

And is not energy just other types of particles?

 

[Runewolf1973]

What is that background?

That which does not change.

 

[godnotgod]

That which does not change.

Oh? And what is it that does not change?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Oh? And what is it that does not change?

Nothing...nonexistence.

You see, I find your views quite rational and I actually agree with them to an extent. The only thing I dislike are the terms used...Consciousness, Absolute, Ultimate Reality, etc...but they're all just labels anyway. However illusory it may be, I consider somethingness and change to be real versus nothingness and no-change which I consider to be no reality at all. The Changeless as you call it does not exist...it is nothing. The only thing that can be said to exist or can be considered "real" in any sense of the word is interaction and that which changes and has energy...even Zero Point Energy. Interaction is everything. That which you call “Nothingness” is only seemingly nothingness. The vacuum of space only seems empty, it is not, it is interactive and full of potential.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

In the analogous way the seas constitute the ocean and are not discontinuous with it, and with the water, and the molecules, and the atoms, etc., that constitute it, and the waves and the foam and the fish, and the coral, etc., it is just one ocean....the same goes for the universal space vacuum, the sea, the field, constituted of particles, real and virtual, energy, zero point energy, dark energy, dark matter, the electromagnetic waves, density....it is all one discontinuous ocean or field or sea...a unity which is not discontinuous with the one existence...

 

[godnotgod]

In the analogous way the seas constitute the ocean and are not discontinuous with it, and with the water, and the molecules, and the atoms, etc., that constitute it, and the waves and the foam and the fish, and the coral, etc., it is just one ocean....the same goes for the universal space vacuum, the sea, the field, constituted of particles, real and virtual, energy, zero point energy, dark energy, dark matter, the electromagnetic waves, density....it is all one discontinuous ocean or field or sea...a unity which is not discontinuous with the one existence...

So is the 'universal space vacuum', as you call it, the same as The Unified Field?

 

[godnotgod]

Nothing...nonexistence.

You see, I find your views quite rational and I actually agree with them to an extent. The only thing I dislike are the terms used...Consciousness, Absolute, Ultimate Reality, etc...but they're all just labels anyway. However illusory it may be, I consider somethingness and change to be real versus nothingness and no-change which I consider to be no reality at all. The Changeless as you call it does not exist...it is nothing. The only thing that can be said to exist or can be considered "real" in any sense of the word is interaction and that which changes and has energy...even Zero Point Energy. Interaction is everything. That which you call “Nothingness” is only seemingly nothingness. The vacuum of space only seems empty, it is not, it is interactive and full of potential.

If nothing is the sea, or background, against which all change occurs, then it must be real, since without it, no change is possible.

In describing 'somethingness/change' vs 'nothingness/no-change', we have a duality. Essentially, this is RELATIVE something vs RELATIVE nothing, which are dependent one upon the other a la Yin/Yang. But encompassing both is an absolute, that of Absolute Nothingness, beyond all duality, and dependent upon, well...nothing. It has no opposite since there can be no Absolute Something, as 'things' arise and subside, whereas Nothing does not come and go. It is always present as the background.

If the vacuum of space is 'full of potential', then it must be empty to in order to contains such potential. Actually, 'potential' is non-material, so in this case, the potential and the background are one and the same. And this makes sense in terms of Quantum Physics, which says that this 'material' world is not material, but possibility.

Of course, your position that interaction is real is only an assumption. And if, as you agreed, this interaction occurs against a background, or sea, of nothingness, then how can nothingness not also be real? The opposite is usually the case, is it not, where the unreal comes out of the real, as in 'illusion'?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So is the 'universal space vacuum', as you call it, the same as The Unified Field?

Yes...in an analogous way that the underlying unity referred to in Islamic, Christian, Taoist, Buddhist, etc., religions is the same oneness...but conceive of it differently...the different scientific ways of conceiving of the universe is still dealing with the same oneness....whether it be particle physics, quantum physics, astronomy, cosmology, etc...

 

[Aupmanyav]

Or sea could refer to that field or background from which that energy or those waves and particles emerge.

. We really do not know about things that far.

That which does not change.

Brahman.

 

[Runewolf1973]

If nothing is the sea, or background, against which all change occurs, then it must be real, since without it, no change is possible.

In describing 'somethingness/change' vs 'nothingness/no-change', we have a duality. Essentially, this is RELATIVE something vs RELATIVE nothing, which are dependent one upon the other a la Yin/Yang. But encompassing both is an absolute, that of Absolute Nothingness, beyond all duality, and dependent upon, well...nothing. It has no opposite since there can be no Absolute Something, as 'things' arise and subside, whereas Nothing does not come and go. It is always present as the background.

If the vacuum of space is 'full of potential', then it must be empty to in order to contains such potential. Actually, 'potential' is non-material, so in this case, the potential and the background are one and the same. And this makes sense in terms of Quantum Physics, which says that this 'material' world is not material, but possibility.

Of course, your position that interaction is real is only an assumption. And if, as you agreed, this interaction occurs against a background, or sea, of nothingness, then how can nothingness not also be real? The opposite is usually the case, is it not, where the unreal comes out of the real, as in 'illusion'?

That background is potential, but in order for it to be potential, it must possess the ability or capacity to BE or DO something. Pure nothingness would not have the capacity to be or do anything (would not have potential) because it would mean the complete lack of any of the energy required to bring about any new activity. Therefore, I suggest that this background is not Absolute Nothingness, rather it is what I would call Pure Interactive Potential.

 

[godnotgod]

That background is potential, but in order for it to be potential, it must possess the ability or capacity to BE or DO something. Pure nothingness would not have the capacity to be or do anything (would not have potential) because it would mean the complete lack of any of the energy required to bring about any new activity. Therefore, I suggest that this background is not Absolute Nothingness, rather it is what I would call Pure Interactive Potential.

Pure Consciousness is Pure Potential.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Pure Consciousness is Pure Potential.

Pure Potential is something we can both agree on.

 

[godnotgod]

Pure Potential is something we can both agree on.

Think about it: the greatest potential lies in Absolute Nothingness, as it is infinitely allowing. This Absolute Nothingness is The Infinite itself.

 

[godnotgod]

Brahman.

Brahman (Sanskrit: ब्रह्म, "the Supreme Being; the Absolute Reality; Godhead"), from the verb brh, "to grow", and connotes "immensity" — is the impersonal and immanent, infinite cause and support of the universe that has no form or attributes. The uncaused cause of the Universe; satchidānanda (Existence-Consciousness-Bliss Absolute), The Eternal Changeless Reality, not conditioned by time, space and causation.

http://veda.wikidot.com/brahman

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. that has no form or attributes.

But I see attributes.