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

[godnotgod]

Semantics. There is nothing virtual about reality, thats why it would be called reality.

According to you the brain can tap into the ultimate reality so why would you say our senses can't be trusted? You only trust good feelings from your solar plexus? The argument of solipsism is self defeating.

The center is the hara, just below the navel, and it is not just a 'good feeling'. You want to dismiss the experience as insignificant. Far from that.

"With the mind in the hara, narrow and egocentric thinking is superseded by a broadness of outlook and a magnanimity of spirit. This is because thinking from the vital hara center, being free of mediation by the limited discursive intellect [of the brain center] , is spontaneous and all embracing. Perception from the hara tends toward integration and unity rather than division and fragmentation. In short, it is thinking which sees things steadily and whole."

http://reikihelp.com/blog/2010/06/hara/

No, I never said the brain can tap into Ultimate Reality. I said that the chatter of the brain, called 'monkey mind', must be subdued before Ultimate Reality, or, as Zennists call it, 'Big Mind', can come into play. Ultimate Reality is beyond the senses.

No, it is (was) called 'reality' because, prior to the revelations of Quantum Physics, it was believed to possess some sort of indivisible material solidity. But now, Quantum Physics has demonstrated that this so-called 'material reality' has no such material to it; that what we thought was real material, is actually the result of Higgs/Quantum fluctuations that create all of the mass of the atom, mass that is virtual, rather than real, which means that all 'material reality' is actually a virtual reality. The ordinary mind cannot understand how this can be, because it is conditioned to think that when it sees, feels, tastes, touches, hears, measures 'solidity' and form, he still imagines the created 'material' but now virtual form as real. The Buddha had this nailed down 2500 years ago, when he realized that:

"form is emptiness;
emptiness is form"

which means that nothing has any real inherent self-nature. This is true on the macro and micro scales. A rock has no such 'rock' nature, and an atom no such 'atom' nature. A rock is simply a manifested form of The Absolute, as the mystic sees it, while an atom is a manifested form of the Unified Field, as Quantum Physics sees it, and which then calls the world built upon such virtual mass a 'possibility', rather than a material reality.

 

[godnotgod]

Semantics. There is nothing virtual about reality, thats why it would be called reality.

If, in fact, a virtual particle is the same thing as a real particle, then there would have been no need to launch new terminology to describe it. Fact is that a virtual particle is one which behaves AS IF it were real, but is not.

 

[Aupmanyav]

For me Brahman is like the primary driving force behind all physical energy, all matter and all material existence. It is even the driving force behind those quantum field excitations. Therefore Brahman is the as of yet unidentified Absolute Fundamental Force or Absolute Fundamental Interaction (I guess it could be called that) from which all other secondary forces and interactions arise.

Physical energy itself will do everything. Why do you require another force to guide it, and guide it to what? Does it have a purpose in its "mind'? No, IMHO it is theist/mystic talk and illusion.

 

[Aupmanyav]

EPR Paradox - http://www.deanradin.com/FOC2014/Grinberg1994.pdf

"Acceptable theories" and the experiment:
According to the present view of the situation, quantum mechanics flatly contradicts Einstein's philosophical postulate that any acceptable physical theory must fulfill "local realism".

In the EPR paper (1935), the authors realised that quantum mechanics was inconsistent with their assumptions, but Einstein nevertheless thought that quantum mechanics might simply be augmented by hidden variables (i.e., variables which were, at that point, still obscure to him), without any other change, to achieve an acceptable theory. He pursued these ideas for over twenty years until the end of his life, in 1955.

In contrast, John Bell, in his 1964 paper, showed that quantum mechanics and the class of hidden variable theories Einstein favored would lead to different experimental results: different by a factor of 3⁄2 for certain correlations. So the issue of "acceptability", up to that time mainly concerning theory, finally became experimentally decidable.
There are many Bell test experiments, e.g., those of Alain Aspect and others. They support the predictions of quantum mechanics rather than the class of hidden variable theories supported by Einstein.

Implications for quantum mechanics:
Most physicists today believe that quantum mechanics is correct, and that the EPR paradox is a "paradox" only because classical intuitions do not correspond to physical reality."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox#.22Acceptable_theories.22_and_the_experiment

Yes, Einstein failed to understand and appreciate Quantum theories, that is a well-known fact.

 

[godnotgod]

"Acceptable theories" and the experiment:
According to the present view of the situation, quantum mechanics flatly contradicts Einstein's philosophical postulate that any acceptable physical theory must fulfill "local realism".

In the EPR paper (1935), the authors realised that quantum mechanics was inconsistent with their assumptions, but Einstein nevertheless thought that quantum mechanics might simply be augmented by hidden variables (i.e., variables which were, at that point, still obscure to him), without any other change, to achieve an acceptable theory. He pursued these ideas for over twenty years until the end of his life, in 1955.

In contrast, John Bell, in his 1964 paper, showed that quantum mechanics and the class of hidden variable theories Einstein favored would lead to different experimental results: different by a factor of 3⁄2 for certain correlations. So the issue of "acceptability", up to that time mainly concerning theory, finally became experimentally decidable.
There are many Bell test experiments, e.g., those of Alain Aspect and others. They support the predictions of quantum mechanics rather than the class of hidden variable theories supported by Einstein.

Implications for quantum mechanics:
Most physicists today believe that quantum mechanics is correct, and that the EPR paradox is a "paradox" only because classical intuitions do not correspond to physical reality."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox#.22Acceptable_theories.22_and_the_experiment

Yes, Einstein failed to understand and appreciate Quantum theories, that is a well-known fact.

But what about the evidence for brain non-locality derived from the experiment by Jacobo-Grinberg Zylberbaum, and which since has been verified by several other independent researchers? Also did you notice the name of now-famous physicist Amit Goswami attached to the researcher list? He was called in to verify the integrity of the experiment's setup.

 

[godnotgod]

Physical energy itself will do everything. Why do you require another force to guide it, and guide it to what? Does it have a purpose in its "mind'? No, IMHO it is theist/mystic talk and illusion.

Is it? How does 'physical energy' (whatever that is), 'know' what to do in photosynthesis, for example, where a blade of grass, or even less, algae, which has no brain, can convert sunlight into food, something an intelligent human with a brain cannot even come close to executing?

 

[godnotgod]

Where Godnotgod?....*snip*

OK, here is a site listing synopses of not just the Jacobo-Grinberg Zylberbaum experiment, but subsequent similar experiments confirming the non-locality of the brain, with references:

http://www.iawaketechnologies.com/connecting-matrix/

 

[Sorry Copernicus]

No, everything is not energy, empty space is not energy, however everything that is not empty space is energy. Personally I like to think of it as there being a dualism in reality, there exists empty space and energy, kind of like the yin-yang philosophy.

Howdy,
I literally just joined, I don't claim to be super intelligent, just a huge fan of science. I have to strongly disagree with you here. What most consider as empty space, which is the vast portion of the universe, is not empty at all. What we thought was just the void of space is actually occupied by dark matter and dark energy and where the majority of energy comes from. More than all the stars, nebulae, etc. It's super mysterious and eluding, but literally the fabric of space could not be held together without energy.

 

[godnotgod]

Physical energy itself will do everything. Why do you require another force to guide it, and guide it to what? Does it have a purpose in its "mind'? No, IMHO it is theist/mystic talk and illusion.

That is like saying that the television itself will do everything, even though the required TV signal is in reality non-local. Or that the film will do everything, even though it requires the projector lamp to make it come to life.

What is behind every local phenomena in the Universe is the non-local Universe itself. Nothing can be separated from it as an isolated activity. Each wave on the surface of the ocean is the result of the total action of the ocean. You are a result of the total action of the Universe. There is not a single aspect of your being that is not intimately connected to the Universe, and that includes especially your consciousness. It's just that the ego has dictated that it is unique and separate from everything else.

 

[Sorry Copernicus]

I've often heard people say that in some sense or another "everything" (whatever that is) is "energy". This confuses me, to put it bluntly. I often work with "energy" as it is "defined" (exists? described?) in modern physics, and this has not helped me understand the assertion that everything is energy. So if any members believe this and would be willing to describe what this belief means (or if any members are more knowledgeable about what this means than I) I would be grateful for an explanation as to what "everything is energy" means (e.g., what is the nature of this "energy"? why ought we to believe that everything is indeed a form of or made out of this "energy"? etc.). Thanks!

I'm pretty sure that the most familiar interpretation of this has to do with all matter that we can see is made up of particles, and all of these particles have energy and are all held together by energy. Our planet and every Element came from the massive explosion of energy from dying stars. When this planet and solar system no longer exists as it is now, its energy will be redistributed throughout our galaxy. The energy is recycled. We were born of energy, sustained by energy, and will pass on our energy.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Physical energy itself will do everything. Why do you require another force to guide it, and guide it to what? Does it have a purpose in its "mind'? No, IMHO it is theist/mystic talk and illusion.

I'm not referring to any "mystical" type of force here. They have already found a way to combine electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force into the electroweak. I simply believe that one day they will be able to combine all the forces into a single grand unified theory. It's not going to be a new force necessarily, but simply a new way of looking at what is already present. Why would it have a "mind"? No Fundamental Force is conscious.

 

[`mud]

Ahhhhhh.......................Brahman
The virtual sum of all cognizence !
Imaginary.................. but effective !
~
'mud

 

[atanu]

Good question.

Then why is there no 'Like'?

 

[Aupmanyav]

But what about the evidence for brain non-locality derived from the experiment by Jacobo-Grinberg Zylberbaum, and which since has been verified by several other independent researchers? Also did you notice the name of now-famous physicist Amit Goswami attached to the researcher list? He was called in to verify the integrity of the experiment's setup.

How does it matter if an Indian scientist (?) was involved. And then, Jacobo came to India, lecturered at Ramakrishna/Vivekananda Mission, and reportedly disappeared, CIA abducted him. I find it extremely amusing and also tells me of the mental make-up of this Indian scientist (?). Funny man.
https://books.google.co.in/books?id...n-locality Jacobo-Grinberg Zylberbaum&f=false

What is behind every local phenomena in the Universe is the non-local Universe itself. .. Each wave on the surface of the ocean is the result of the total action of the ocean.

I agree to this: "Each wave on the surface of the ocean is the result of the total action of the ocean." But your non-locality reeks of mysticism/woo: "What is behind every local phenomena in the Universe is the non-local Universe itself."

Is it? How does 'physical energy' (whatever that is), 'know' what to do in photosynthesis, for example, where a blade of grass, or even less, algae, which has no brain, can convert sunlight into food, something an intelligent human with a brain cannot even come close to executing?

You forget that a blade of grass, or even less (if it is so), Algae, too is physical energy, Brahman. Even stones are, if you go by 'Advaita'.

http://www.iawaketechnologies.com/connecting-matrix/

This is woo, mystic/theistic sheet, and there is lots of it on internet.

 

[godnotgod]

How does it matter if an Indian scientist (?) was involved. And then, Jacobo came to India, lecturered at Ramakrishna/Vivekananda Mission, and reportedly disappeared, CIA abducted him. I find it extremely amusing and also tells me of the mental make-up of this Indian scientist (?). Funny man.

You are completely missing the point. The neurologists called in a physicist to check the physical setup/integrity of the experiment. What you point out has nothing to do with the actual experiment, which proves the non-locality of the brain.

I agree to this: "Each wave on the surface of the ocean is the result of the total action of the ocean." But your non-locality reeks of mysticism/woo: "What is behind every local phenomena in the Universe is the non-local Universe itself."

I think you have been infected with Spiney's Knee Jerk Syndrome, which can be fatal.

C'mon, Aupmanyav! You're smarter than that! Use your head and the logic you cherish so highly. Pay attention to what is being said and not what you have been infected to automatically react to. Does logic show you that the analogy is a valid one, or not? If not, please point out the flaw instead of slapping the statement with a label.

You forget that a blade of grass, or even less (if it is so), Algae, too is physical energy, Brahman. Even stones are, if you go by 'Advaita'.

Do you realize that you have just made my point?

You and I, with brains, are completely embedded in Brahman, just as algae and blades of grass are. You, I, algae, and grass do what they do because of the greater Reality that is Brahman, just as the wave does what it does because of the greater Reality of the ocean.

This is woo, mystic/theistic sheet, and there is lots of it on internet.

Now you've gone off the deep end, and I don't know if I can save you!

READ: The link I posted is a synopses of various scientific studies verifying the non-local behavior of the brain. This is not woo, but science. Why are you selective, accepting what agrees with your atheistic view while dismissing that which challenges it? If you were truly clear-headed, you would never choose the dual position of atheist vs. theist. When the Buddha came onto the scene in India, there were two schools of thought: the eternalists, who held that there was an immortal soul that survived death, and the materialists, who held that their existence ended with physical death. The Buddha saw both as extreme views, and developed his Middle Way. The true guru will stand squarely on the line between all dualities, never attached to either, while encompassing everything. Do you see the wisdom here?

Take breath. Calm down. Re-focus.

 

[Runewolf1973]

You are completely missing the point. The neurologists called in a physicist to check the physical setup/integrity of the experiment. What you point out has nothing to do with the actual experiment, which proves the non-locality of the brain.



I think you have been infected with Spiney's Knee Jerk Syndrome, which can be fatal.

C'mon, Aupmanyav! You're smarter than that! Use your head and the logic you cherish so highly. Pay attention to what is being said and not what you have been infected to automatically react to. Does logic show you that the analogy is a valid one, or not? If not, please point out the flaw instead of slapping the statement with a label.




Do you realize that you have just made my point?

You and I, with brains, are completely embedded in Brahman, just as algae and blades of grass are. You, I, algae, and grass do what they do because of the greater Reality that is Brahman, just as the wave does what it does because of the greater Reality of the ocean.



Now you've gone off the deep end, and I don't know if I can save you!

READ: The link I posted is a synopses of various scientific studies verifying the non-local behavior of the brain. This is not woo, but science. Why are you selective, accepting what agrees with your atheistic view while dismissing that which challenges it? If you were truly clear-headed, you would never choose the dual position of atheist vs. theist. When the Buddha came onto the scene in India, there were two schools of thought: the eternalists, who held that there was an immortal soul that survived death, and the materialists, who held that their existence ended with physical death. The Buddha saw both as extreme views, and developed his Middle Way. The true guru will stand squarely on the line between all dualities, never attached to either, while encompassing everything. Do you see the wisdom here?

Take breath. Calm down. Re-focus.

I'm actually somewhat of an eternalist myself. There is no end to that which has no beginning.

 

[idav]

If, in fact, a virtual particle is the same thing as a real particle, then there would have been no need to launch new terminology to describe it. Fact is that a virtual particle is one which behaves AS IF it were real, but is not.

That virtual particle terminology is a conceptualization for mathmeticians trying to explain a particle that is never at one single point. It certainly is real. Who ever said that a virtual particle is not real, do you have a scientific reference?

 

[idav]

"Acceptable theories" and the experiment:
According to the present view of the situation, quantum mechanics flatly contradicts Einstein's philosophical postulate that any acceptable physical theory must fulfill "local realism".

In the EPR paper (1935), the authors realised that quantum mechanics was inconsistent with their assumptions, but Einstein nevertheless thought that quantum mechanics might simply be augmented by hidden variables (i.e., variables which were, at that point, still obscure to him), without any other change, to achieve an acceptable theory. He pursued these ideas for over twenty years until the end of his life, in 1955.

In contrast, John Bell, in his 1964 paper, showed that quantum mechanics and the class of hidden variable theories Einstein favored would lead to different experimental results: different by a factor of 3⁄2 for certain correlations. So the issue of "acceptability", up to that time mainly concerning theory, finally became experimentally decidable.
There are many Bell test experiments, e.g., those of Alain Aspect and others. They support the predictions of quantum mechanics rather than the class of hidden variable theories supported by Einstein.

Implications for quantum mechanics:
Most physicists today believe that quantum mechanics is correct, and that the EPR paradox is a "paradox" only because classical intuitions do not correspond to physical reality."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox#.22Acceptable_theories.22_and_the_experiment

Yes, Einstein failed to understand and appreciate Quantum theories, that is a well-known fact.

Einstein is one of the ones to conceptualize the epr paradox because Einstein indeed understood the implications of Quantum Theory. He may not have liked it but he understood it.

 

[idav]

In contrast, John Bell, in his 1964 paper, showed that quantum mechanics and the class of hidden variable theories Einstein favored would lead to different experimental results: different by a factor of 3⁄2 for certain correlations. So the issue of "acceptability", up to that time mainly concerning theory, finally became experimentally decidable.
There are many Bell test experiments, e.g., those of Alain Aspect and others. They support the predictions of quantum mechanics rather than the class of hidden variable theories supported by Einstein.

The many worlds interpretation takes care of the issue for Einstein while the "orthodox" Copenhagen interpretation is mysticism.

Reading further in the article you referenced.

Implications for quantum mechanics (implications of the epr paradox)
Most physicists today believe that quantum mechanics is correct, and that the EPR paradox is a "paradox" only because classical intuitions do not correspond to physical reality. How EPR is interpreted regarding locality depends on the interpretation of quantum mechanics one uses. In the Copenhagen interpretation, it is usually understood that instantaneous wave function collapse does occur. However, the view that there is no causal instantaneous effect has also been proposed within the Copenhagen interpretation: in this alternate view, measurement affects our ability to define (and measure) quantities in the physical system, not the system itself. In the many-worlds interpretation, locality is strictly preserved, since the effects of operations such as measurement affect only the state of the particle that is measured.[19] However, the results of the measurement are not unique—every possible result is obtained.

The EPR paradox has deepened our understanding of quantum mechanics by exposing the fundamentally non-classical characteristics of the measurement process. Before the publication of the EPR paper, a measurement was often visualized as a physical disturbance inflicted directly upon the measured system. For instance, when measuring the position of an electron, one imagines shining a light on it, thus disturbing the electron and producing the quantum mechanical uncertainties in its position. Such explanations, which are still encountered in popular expositions of quantum mechanics, are debunked by the EPR paradox, which shows that a "measurement" can be performed on a particle without disturbing it directly, by performing a measurement on a distant entangled particle. In fact, Yakir Aharonov and his collaborators have developed a whole theory of so-called Weak measurement.[17]:181–184

Technologies relying on quantum entanglement are now being developed. In quantum cryptography, entangled particles are used to transmit signals that cannot be eavesdropped upon without leaving a trace. In quantum computation, entangled quantum states are used to perform computations in parallel, which may allow certain calculations to be performed much more quickly than they ever could be with classical computers.[25]:83–100

Those scientists know what it is doing just disagree on how exactly until the day everyones maths fit in a eloquant theory of everything without getting rid of GR or QM cause neither can be debunked, they test positive just as suspected in every single experiment anyone does.

 

[godnotgod]

That virtual particle terminology is a conceptualization for mathmeticians trying to explain a particle that is never at one single point. It certainly is real. Who ever said that a virtual particle is not real, do you have a scientific reference?

"(Thus) virtual particles exist only in the mathematics of the model used to describe the measurements of real particles . To coin a word virtual particles are particlemorphic, having a form like particle but [is] not a particle."

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/185110/do-virtual-particles-actually-physically-exist
*****

"The Higgs field is also thought to make a small contribution, giving mass to individual quarks as well as to electrons and some other particles. The Higgs field creates mass out of the quantum vacuum too, in the form of virtual Higgs bosons. So if the LHC confirms that the Higgs exists, [which it has] it will mean all reality is virtual."

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations/