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

[`mud]

 

[Runewolf1973]

Perhaps we are in the very center of one right now and don't even know it. We can call it 'The Octopus's Garden':

"Octopus's Garden"

I'd like to be under the sea
In an octopus's garden in the shade
He'd let us in, knows where we've been
In his octopus's garden in the shade

I'd ask my friends to come and see
An octopus's garden with me
I'd like to be under the sea
In an octopus's garden in the shade

We would be warm below the storm
In our little hideaway beneath the waves
Resting our head on the sea bed
In an octopus's garden near a cave

We would sing and dance around
Because we know we can't be found
I'd like to be under the sea
In an octopus's garden in the shade

We would shout and swim about
The coral that lies beneath the waves
(Lies beneath the ocean waves)
Oh what joy for every girl and boy
Knowing they're happy and they're safe
(Happy and they're safe)

We would be so happy you and me
No one there to tell us what to do
I'd like to be under the sea
In an octopus's garden with you
In an octopus's garden with you
In an octopus's garden with you

The Beatles

Quite possible.

 

[godnotgod]

My saying "interaction is everything" is just my way of seeing or expressing the conventional as merely conventional. I know that "things" or "forms" are not the truth because there is in reality no truth which one can find. There is no Absolute Truth. I simply understand everything as interdependent, empty of self-nature and only conventionally real.

The ordinary man sees the conventional as absolutely real. With what kind of conscious awareness are you seeing the conventional as the conventional?

Funny how you keep changing your mind from the time I first began discussions with you.

But I guess that's a good thing.

I have pointed out to you many times that, from the level of conscious awareness you are on, the world is real; but from the POV of Higher Consciousness, it is an illusion.

Now you are saying that "things" or "forms" are not the truth. Does this mean to say that things and forms are not real?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

My only point was that science and math cannot always be trusted as sources of knowledge. Your description of math about math makes access to knowledge even more distant.

Yes, I surmised as much. The problem is that your example of "where science/math fails", i.e., black holes, is perhaps the worst example you could have used. Black holes were first described by Laplace over 200 years ago. The modern models of black holes were derived from solutions to equations from general relativity, their properties inferred from interpretations of the geometry of metrics in non-Euclidean geometries required by GR. To the extent there exists indirect empirical support for black holes, they can only exist as such because such observations are indicative of entities whose properties are those derived from the mathematics of general relativity and cosmology.
So, your example of a "problem" for scientists consists of a phenomenon predicted mathematically, derived from a successful scientific theory, and which can only be known or detected using the mathematical models employed at least since 1915. Black holes aren't entities which scientists stumbled upon and couldn't account for in existing theories. They were derived from theory via the fundamental equation(s) of general relativity.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Understood. Still, the math and physics fail.

1) Michio Kaku's a kook whose expertise in physics has, for some reason, not stop him from dedicating much time and effort developing theories, writing books, and giving talks on pseudo-science. The guy even wrote a book (which I shouldn't have bought, let alone finished reading, but I did) The Physics of the Impossible, where he categorizes different kinds of "impossible" technologies into three classes from "impossible today" but possible in the near future to "impossible" according to the laws of physics, which he admits are goalposts that have moved as the "laws" have drastically changed since Newton's laws.
2) The presence of infinities in the mathematics of general relativity or physics more generally is not the problem he makes it out to be. Perhaps the most successful theory of all time, quantum electrodynamics, r4equires an arbitrary cut-off ("renormalization") because the formalisms would otherwise require that electrons and photons have infinite energies.
3) Singularities like those underlying black holes or found when integrating functions over an interval that includes a "point" at which we divide by 0 are sometimes interpreted as yielding infinity as a result (such as in Kaku's example). However, like the interpretation of division of a number by 0 as equal to infinity, this is neither a physical nor mathematical result. In particular, in physics outcomes that clearly yield infinite values (such as non-convergent series in the case of QED) must still be interpreted physically, either as a mistake or in many cases (such as spacetime singularities or negative temperatures) as actual physical, and physically realizable states. Kaku's objections are not based upon scientific arguments nor mathematical arguments, but the metaphysical implications of both and his philosophical positions regarding his beliefs concerning these supposed metaphysical implications.
Somehow, despite Kaku's claims, neither physicists nor mathematicians have experienced the crisis he describes (and even if they had, such crises have generally led to the most growth in the history of the natural sciences as well as in mathematics; for the latter, consider the two problems Kelvin identified which led on the one hand to relativistic physics and to quantum mechanics on the other, while for mathematics we have the development of measure theory and Lebesgue integrations over-and-against the inferior integration theories of Newton, Cauchy, Riemann, etc., thanks to the crisis of Fourier's assumptions concerning integrals of infinite series).

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Because things/forms such as that flower are interdependent, there is no such "flower nature" since a flower is not self-rising it does not have that self-nature. All forms/things are universally interconnected, interactive and interdependent. In that way everything is empty of self-nature. There is only universal nature.

You could easily be describing the Buddhist teaching of ( sunyata ) emptiness here. "Things" not existing from their own side, no independent existence, empty of self-nature. And of course the other side of the coin being interdependence and interactivity.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

https://emptinessteachings.com/2014/09/11/the-two-truths-of-buddhism-and-the-emptiness-of-emptiness/
"The emptiness of emptiness refutes ultimate truth as yet another argument for essentialism under the guise of being beyond the conventional or as the foundation of it. To realize emptiness is not to find a transcendent place or truth to land in but to see the conventional as merely conventional. Here lies the key to liberation. For to see the deception is to be free of deception, like a magician who knows the magic trick. When one is no longer fooled by false appearances, phenomena are neither reified nor denied. They are understood interdependently, as ultimately empty and thus, as only conventionally real. This is the Middle Way."

Yes, and this means sunyata is incompatible with ALL absolutes, including "Brahman" and "Cosmic Consciousness", basically all the proper nouns in this thread.

The notion that sunyata is the same as Brahman is absurd.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, and this means sunyata is incompatible with ALL absolutes, including "Brahman" and "Cosmic Consciousness", basically all the proper nouns in this thread.

The notion that sunyata is the same as Brahman is absurd.

Where is your evidence?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There is no Absolute Truth.

These Pretentious Proper Nouns are meaningless, and best discarded.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Where is your evidence?

See the quote that Runewolf provided on "emptiness of emptiness".

Sunyata and Brahman are different ideas from different traditions, chalk and cheese, entirely incompatible. Only woolly syncretists are ignorant or lazy enough to claim an equivalence.

 

[psychoslice]

I feel that we are energy as a being, but our true Source is beyond energy, all arises from the pure Source or Consciousness, or God if you have to use that word, so what is the pure Source if energy arises from that.......well of course we could never know, we can experience it but there is no way to conceptualize it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

See the quote that Runewolf provided on "emptiness of emptiness".

Sunyata and Brahman are different ideas from different traditions, chalk and cheese, entirely incompatible. Only woolly syncretists are ignorant or lazy enough to claim an equivalence.

So what exactly do you understand the reality to be that represents the concept Brahman? And what exactly do you understand the reality to be that is represented by the concept Sunyata?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

And what exactly do you understand the reality to be that is represented by the concept Sunyata?

Your use of the word "reality" here is a further demonstration of your ignorance about sunyata. I would advise you to stick with your pseudo-Hinduism.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Your use of the word "reality" here is a further demonstration of your ignorance about sunyata. I would advise you to stick with your pseudo-Hinduism.

So what do you think the concept 'reality' means?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And Rick....please respond to the other question.... So what exactly do you understand the reality to be that represents the concept Brahman?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So what do you think the concept 'reality' means?

You use "reality" as an absolute, which is completely missing the point of sunyata. Anyway I am not going to re-run the whole sunyata debate again, it's clear that you are more interested in pursuing a syncretist agenda than understanding the real meaning of Buddhist teachings. I am by now very tired of Buddhism being misrepresented by woolly syncretists and new-agers.

I will leave you with an extract from Verse 19 of the Visuddhimagga:

"For here there is no Brahmá God,
Creator of the round of births,
Phenomena alone flow on—
Cause and component their condition."

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And Rick...sorry if my question the first time around was not clear... Could you please explain what you understand Sunyata to mean?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You use "reality" as an absolute, which is completely missing the point of sunyata. Anyway I am not going to re-run the whole sunyata debate again, it's clear that you are more interested in pursuing a syncretist agenda than understanding the real meaning of Buddhist teachings. I am by now very tired of Buddhism being misrepresented by woolly syncretists and new-agers.

I will leave you with an extract from Verse 19 of the Visuddhimagga:

"For here there is no Brahmá God,
Creator of the round of births,
Phenomena alone flow on—
Cause and component their condition."

Rick, I was not using the word "reality" as an absolute.....I could have equally asked what you understand the reality of the concept 'Nebula' to be?

Haha...you don't even know that Brahma God is not the same as Brahman.... Brahman is the absolute...unborn, uncreated, and unevolved....Brahman is beyond space and time, Brahman is beyond knowledge, Brahman is beyond description...

 

[YmirGF]

1) Michio Kaku's a kook whose expertise in physics has, for some reason, not stop him from dedicating much time and effort developing theories, writing books, and giving talks on pseudo-science. The guy even wrote a book (which I shouldn't have bought, let alone finished reading, but I did) The Physics of the Impossible, where he categorizes different kinds of "impossible" technologies into three classes from "impossible today" but possible in the near future to "impossible" according to the laws of physics, which he admits are goalposts that have moved as the "laws" have drastically changed since Newton's laws.
2) The presence of infinities in the mathematics of general relativity or physics more generally is not the problem he makes it out to be. Perhaps the most successful theory of all time, quantum electrodynamics, r4equires an arbitrary cut-off ("renormalization") because the formalisms would otherwise require that electrons and photons have infinite energies.
3) Singularities like those underlying black holes or found when integrating functions over an interval that includes a "point" at which we divide by 0 are sometimes interpreted as yielding infinity as a result (such as in Kaku's example). However, like the interpretation of division of a number by 0 as equal to infinity, this is neither a physical nor mathematical result. In particular, in physics outcomes that clearly yield infinite values (such as non-convergent series in the case of QED) must still be interpreted physically, either as a mistake or in many cases (such as spacetime singularities or negative temperatures) as actual physical, and physically realizable states. Kaku's objections are not based upon scientific arguments nor mathematical arguments, but the metaphysical implications of both and his philosophical positions regarding his beliefs concerning these supposed metaphysical implications.
Somehow, despite Kaku's claims, neither physicists nor mathematicians have experienced the crisis he describes (and even if they had, such crises have generally led to the most growth in the history of the natural sciences as well as in mathematics; for the latter, consider the two problems Kelvin identified which led on the one hand to relativistic physics and to quantum mechanics on the other, while for mathematics we have the development of measure theory and Lebesgue integrations over-and-against the inferior integration theories of Newton, Cauchy, Riemann, etc., thanks to the crisis of Fourier's assumptions concerning integrals of infinite series).

I really doubt that some people are terribly interested in this, Legion. I agree, as should anyone with any real appreciation of the topic(s), but what you are bringing forward goes against the anti-intellectual, pseudo-science, new age quackery promoted as deep insight by some in this thread.

 

[YmirGF]

Rick, I was not using the word "reality" as an absolute.....I could have equally asked what you understand the reality of the concept 'Nebula' to be?

Haha...you don't even know that Brahma God is not the same as Brahman.... Brahman is the absolute...unborn, uncreated, and unevolved....Brahman is beyond space and time, Brahman is beyond knowledge, Brahman is beyond description...

I'm still trying to wrap my head around why some people think that the concept of Brahman is a particularly useful or even a remotely accurate concept. It's not. Get over it, already.