The Debate of God.

[godnotgod]

You are proposing that we abandon science and thinking as a way of learning about reality?

Science is a very useful tool. Unfortunately, it is understood in a distorted way in terms of what it can do. It can provide knowledge of our world, which we can then apply, as in nuclear medicine, for example, but it cannot provide an understanding of the nature of things. For that we need to follow an intuitive pathway, not one of logic and analysis. It is this pathway which then places science and thinking in the correct context. It shows us that what we think we see is not what we see at all, as the current discussion about past and present reveals. Call it vision correction, if you wish.

And no, I haven't had a chance to watch that video yet, in fact, I completely missed you posting it. Must have something to do with the fact that I've been busy working and only snatching a bit of time here and there to get on the net at all, what with my 5 and 6 am starts.

Here is the short version: [youtube]G4j6cUwCRmI[/youtube]
Alan Watts - Living in the present (boat analogy) - YouTube

and here the long: http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLB7ACB978D0547717&feature=player_detailpage&v=15QW2lTAZmA

 

[godnotgod]

I'm a full blown athiest, and you are pretty reasonable. At first when i read your last replies, i thought you were just writing nonsense. But i as i read more and more, i finally hit rock bottom... I'll watch your video to get a better idea.

Well you show yourself to be an astute observer, and display a clear mind. Hitting bottom is exactly what we would want to do. You've led yourself to the right place. This is how Zen works. It exhausts the rational mind in frustration many times, but it is out of this very exhaustion and frustration that we begin to finally see, as our real (unconditioned) consciousness decides to kick in. In Zen we call this 'other' consciousness 'Big Mind', but requires a certain amount of humility for it to come into play.

Thank you.

 

[PolyHedral]

Science is a very useful tool. Unfortunately, it is understood in a distorted way in terms of what it can do. It can provide knowledge of our world, which we can then apply, as in nuclear medicine, for example, but it cannot provide an understanding of the nature of things. For that we need to follow an intuitive pathway, not one of logic and analysis. It is this pathway which then places science and thinking in the correct context. It shows us that what we think we see is not what we see at all, as the current discussion about past and present reveals. Call it vision correction, if you wish.

Your intuition was obsoleted in 1905.

If you want to assume that time is linear (the reality is more complex) then the past, future and the present are equally real. "10 seconds ago" is just as much a place as "5 metres over there." (Although the former is a lot further away than the latter.) Not only that, but the passage of time can be manipulated trivially: a moving clock will run slower than an identical one which stays still.

Furthermore, events usually take up a single point in time. You got dressed this morning, which is a different place than now. Similarly, we dropped the pebble into the water a few seconds ago, which is a different place than now. It's therefore completely wrong to say "Both dropping the pebble and ripples occur in the present, as all events do." If you want, you can say that some events take up a span of time, but that still means that the pebble and the ripples occur in different places.

 

[Orias]

Things do not exist just because there is a label for it.

Exactly.

A duck is a duck even if there are no people to call it one.

You just contradicted yourself.

You labeled what you perceive as a duck, if there was no one to call it a duck then it wouldn't be a duck. The "duck" may still exist, but if there was no one to call it a duck then it would just be what it is by itself without us.

Its a duck because we agree on it, but labels define what already exists, so if there was no one to define a label then the label wouldn't exist because ducks don't go around calling themselves ducks.

So then if you don't have a label for something then what it is?

 

[godnotgod]

Your intuition was obsoleted in 1905.

If you want to assume that time is linear (the reality is more complex) then the past, future and the present are equally real. "10 seconds ago" is just as much a place as "5 metres over there." (Although the former is a lot further away than the latter.) Not only that, but the passage of time can be manipulated trivially: a moving clock will run slower than an identical one which stays still.

Furthermore, events usually take up a single point in time. You got dressed this morning, which is a different place than now. Similarly, we dropped the pebble into the water a few seconds ago, which is a different place than now. It's therefore completely wrong to say "Both dropping the pebble and ripples occur in the present, as all events do." If you want, you can say that some events take up a span of time, but that still means that the pebble and the ripples occur in different places.[/QUOTE]

OK, so you are implying that Time is a component embedded into reality. If that is so, please take away the measurement system we use to record time, namely 'ten seconds ago', 'span of time', 'clock', and even the concept of 'past' (since that is related to a concept of measurement), and show me that the pebble and the ripples occurred in 'different places'. If you cannot demonstrate the validity of your argument without any system of measurement, then we shall have to conclude that linear Time is not real, (ie; embedded) but merely and totally conceptual.

re: 'You got dressed this morning, which is a different place than now.'

Excuse me, but I don't think you can refute the FACT that at the moment you got dressed, it was, indeed, NOW. Otherwise, show me that you can get dressed 'THEN', LOL.

re: 'the passage of time can be manipulated trivially: a moving clock will run slower than an identical one which stays still.'

You're fooling yourself here: you're not manipulating 'the passage of time' whatsoever, but are, instead, manipulating the instrument you use to measure what you call Time. A ticking clock is not Time; it is merely a ticking clock, ticking, as it were, in the present moment, where it can ONLY tick.



BTW, there is no distance either, ala '5 meters over there', and 'a lot further away'. 'A lot further away' is actually right here, right now. Again, you are talking about a system of measurement, and not actual reality.

"The universe is the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Swami Vivikenanda

Did you bother to watch the provided video, above?

 

[Tiberius]

You just contradicted yourself.

You labeled what you perceive as a duck, if there was no one to call it a duck then it wouldn't be a duck. The "duck" may still exist, but if there was no one to call it a duck then it would just be what it is by itself without us.

Its a duck because we agree on it, but labels define what already exists, so if there was no one to define a label then the label wouldn't exist because ducks don't go around calling themselves ducks.

So then if you don't have a label for something then what it is?

No.

Ducks would still exist. The LABEL duck would not exist.

The label for a thing and the thing itself are very different to each other.

Right now, in the heart of the Amazon rainforest, there are insects that no one has ever seen. These insects have no name. Do they exist? Of course. They still exist despite the fact that there is no label for them.

 

[Tiberius]

Excuse me, but I don't think you can refute the FACT that at the moment you got dressed, it was, indeed, NOW. Otherwise, show me that you can get dressed 'THEN', LOL.

Are you being born right now?

BTW, have you got any actual EVIDENCE that all systems of measurement are just illusions (especially considering that everyone seems to be able to use them the same way, which would be impossible with some subjective illusion, yes?) besides your unsupported claims?

 

[godnotgod]

Are you being born right now?

I was born in the Now, as everyone was. What time was it when YOU were born?

BTW, have you got any actual EVIDENCE that all systems of measurement are just illusions (especially considering that everyone seems to be able to use them the same way, which would be impossible with some subjective illusion, yes?) besides your unsupported claims?

The system of measurements are real, but they are not Time. Because of standardization, we all agree that a minute is 60 seconds in duration, but again, '60 seconds of duration' is not a measurement of Time, but increments of the measuring device itself. Such a device could have 75 increments, or any other arbitrary set of increments.

So this answers your question about subjective illusion. The illusion of Time is confused with a standardized measurement system.

The question of Time seems to center around whether Time is a reality that is embedded into the universe, or whether it is merely conceptual. 'Time', however, can only exist when we have a system of measurement to apply. Please remove all systems of measurement from the discussion, and then show me where/how Time exists as a concrete reality. Without such a system of measurement, Time ceases to exist.

 

[Tiberius]

I was born in the Now, as everyone was. What time was it when YOU were born?

7:38 pm on Jan 9, 1979.

When you were born, it wasn't now, it was then.

All you are doing is saying that in the moment that we experience something, we call that moment "Now". But once that moment has gone, it ceases to be now. All you're saying is "The moment we experience something is the moment we call 'now'. We live our lives in a series of 'nows'."

Ultimately, you end up repeating yourself, in saying that the moment we experience something is always 'now' to us. You don't seem to realise that time passes, and what is currently NOW will, in five minutes time, be "THEN."

You aren't being born in the NOW. You didn't say your first word in the NOW. At the moment you said your first word, it was NOW to you, but time has moved on, you are no longer saying your first word, and thus the point where you said your first is currently a THEN. And it will always be a THEN unless you discover time travel.

The system of measurements are real, but they are not Time. Because of standardization, we all agree that a minute is 60 seconds in duration, but again, '60 seconds of duration' is not a measurement of Time, but increments of the measuring device itself. Such a device could have 75 increments, or any other arbitrary set of increments.

Then what is it measuring?

Yes, a second is an arbitrary unit, but then again, "duck" is an arbitrary label. We could call a duck a faschnoozle, and it would change absolutely none of the qualities the duck itself has. Likewise, we could choose any arbitrary period to measure time in, but time would still exist. It would just be a different label.

So this answers your question about subjective illusion. The illusion of Time is confused with a standardized measurement system.

No it doesn't. All it does is show that you are confusing the arbitrary nature of the units we use to measure time with the actual thing being measured.

I could make exactly the same argument about distance, but would you say that your height is an illusion?

The question of Time seems to center around whether Time is a reality that is embedded into the universe, or whether it is merely conceptual. 'Time', however, can only exist when we have a system of measurement to apply. Please remove all systems of measurement from the discussion, and then show me where/how Time exists as a concrete reality. Without such a system of measurement, Time ceases to exist.

So are you saying that no time passed before there were Humans who measured it?

 

[godnotgod]

7:38 pm on Jan 9, 1979.

When you were born, it wasn't now, it was then.

All you are doing is saying that in the moment that we experience something, we call that moment "Now". But once that moment has gone, it ceases to be now. All you're saying is "The moment we experience something is the moment we call 'now'. We live our lives in a series of 'nows'."

No. There is only one Now, seamless and whole. What ceases to be is not Now, but the event itself. Think of Now as a static condition through which events seemingly pass. Now is still and timeless. It is the background against which you perceive events as occurring.

Ultimately, you end up repeating yourself, in saying that the moment we experience something is always 'now' to us. You don't seem to realise that time passes, and what is currently NOW will, in five minutes time, be "THEN."

What you perceive as 'passing' is not Time, but the progression of increments of the measuring device you are employing. Time does not 'pass'. The present moment is absolutely still. All that passes are the workings of your mind. Remove the measuring device, and all events occur in this still, timeless present moment.

You aren't being born in the NOW. You didn't say your first word in the NOW. At the moment you said your first word, it was NOW to you, but time has moved on, you are no longer saying your first word, and thus the point where you said your first is currently a THEN. And it will always be a THEN unless you discover time travel.

...except that 'THEN' does not exist as a concrete reality apart from your MEMORY of it. 'THEN' is ONLY what you REMEMBER.

I think your basic problem in trying to understand this is that you see 'Now' as the elusive and fleeting single tick of the clock: here now, gone forever. But you are still using the clock as a reference, rather than reality itself. You're trying to figure it out conceptually via thinking, rather than seeing directly into the nature of reality itself.

What you are failing to grasp, because you see this issue in terms of increments, is that the NOW that existed THEN is the SAME NOW that exists NOW. It is one single Present Moment, undivided, and Timeless. That you cannot see this is an indication of just how indoctrinated you (we) are. In other words, there is only a single Present Moment, and not the fleeting series of divided 'moments' you associate with linear time ala ticking clock. This single Present Moment is eternal and timeless and non-linear. The events of the universe are not a chronological series of events, but rather an unfolding all-at-once.

Then what is it measuring?

A concept you call 'Time', which is a description of reality, but not reality itself.

Yes, a second is an arbitrary unit, but then again, "duck" is an arbitrary label. We could call a duck a faschnoozle, and it would change absolutely none of the qualities the duck itself has. Likewise, we could choose any arbitrary period to measure time in, but time would still exist. It would just be a different label.

To place a label on something is to point to its characteristics, but not to its nature. In other words, a duck is not a duck, because it does not tell us what the true nature of 'duck' actually is. The description is NOT that which it describes. In addition, a label is merely a symbol for the actual thing; it is not the actual thing itself. In the same manner, a second is a label for one increment of the movement of a clock, but is not Time itself. '5 seconds' is a grid that can be superimposed over any event, but you are talking about the grid and not the event itself. All events occur within this present moment, which is Timeless.

Here is a little exercise based on a Chinese version. Take a second and halve it. Now halve the result. Then continue halving each subsequent result. You will never reach the end. The same is true if you go in the opposite direction, doubling each value. What does this tell you?

No it doesn't. All it does is show that you are confusing the arbitrary nature of the units we use to measure time with the actual thing being measured.

Ah, now you're getting somewhere!

I could make exactly the same argument about distance, but would you say that your height is an illusion?

Distance and Height, like Time, is all relative. I am tall compared to a blade of grass, but short compared to a redwood tree. In feet, I am six, but in the metric system I am some other value. In both systems, I remain the same.

So are you saying that no time passed before there were Humans who measured it?

There is no such thing as Time, so it never passed before or after humans measured anything. The nature of the universe is Timeless, Purposeless, Causeless and Eternal.

You are conditioned and asleep, and that is why you see things the way you do.

 

[Orias]

No.

Ducks would still exist. The LABEL duck would not exist.

I think what you mean what we label as ducks would still exist, but ducks themselves would not.

The label for a thing and the thing itself are very different to each other.

Exactly, you say duck I say goose. Like I said, ducks don't go around calling themselves ducks, we do.

Right now, in the heart of the Amazon rainforest, there are insects that no one has ever seen. These insects have no name. Do they exist? Of course.

Do they exist?

If no one has ever seen them, then how can you be convinced that they exist?

They still exist despite the fact that there is no label for them.

Your example is fine, the only flaw is that it is subject to what has yet to be seen

"Duck" is a label, not necessarily entailing all of what a duck is therefore not necessarily making it a duck because not all water fowl that have beaks are duck and not all fly. Though in the end, the duck still belongs to categories in which define and entail something other than what the "duck" as itself is.

We are on the same page, just reading different lines.

Labels define existences outside of us, but labels also come from within us, therefore making what we define in totality something that is not completely defined simply because we are the only ones doing the defining.

Sorry if this is a bit confusing, perhaps I could try and clarify a little more...

 

[PolyHedral]

OK, so you are implying that Time is a component embedded into reality. If that is so, please take away the measurement system we use to record time, namely 'ten seconds ago', 'span of time', 'clock', and even the concept of 'past' (since that is related to a concept of measurement), and show me that the pebble and the ripples occurred in 'different places'.

The past is a place, and all observers will agree on what is in, and when is the past. It has nothing to do with the measurement system being used.

If you cannot demonstrate the validity of your argument without any system of measurement, then we shall have to conclude that linear Time is not real, (ie; embedded) but merely and totally conceptual.

Is height an illusion? Because height and duration are equivalent, apart from the units used.

Excuse me, but I don't think you can refute the FACT that at the moment you got dressed, it was, indeed, NOW

"Now" then did not refer to the same place as now now. That's basic English.

You're fooling yourself here: you're not manipulating 'the passage of time' whatsoever, but are, instead, manipulating the instrument you use to measure what you call Time. A ticking clock is not Time; it is merely a ticking clock, ticking, as it were, in the present moment, where it can ONLY tick.

All phenomenon are slowed down, regardless of purpose, origin, or form. There's no actual way to say that time doesn't slow down.

BTW, there is no distance either, ala '5 meters over there', and 'a lot further away'. 'A lot further away' is actually right here, right now. Again, you are talking about a system of measurement, and not actual reality.

"A lot further away" is a part of reality.

Did you bother to watch the provided video, above?

He contradicts Relativity right off the bat. He's also pretty much opposite to most science; explaining the past explains everything.
Remember, the change in thinking required to "escape karma" is in turn dictated by the past...

No. There is only one Now, seamless and whole. What ceases to be is not Now, but the event itself. Think of Now as a static condition through which events seemingly pass. Now is still and timeless. It is the background against which you perceive events as occurring.

Like I said, your intuition is obsolete. Whether or not two things happen "now" changes depending on whether you are moving. There is no way to make that make sense unless the past is also in some way existing.

What you perceive as 'passing' is not Time, but the progression of increments of the measuring device you are employing. Time does not 'pass'. The present moment is absolutely still. All that passes are the workings of your mind. Remove the measuring device, and all events occur in this still, timeless present moment.

Any physical phenomenon at all counts as a measuring device.

I think your basic problem in trying to understand this is that you see 'Now' as the elusive and fleeting single tick of the clock: here now, gone forever. But you are still using the clock as a reference, rather than reality itself.

My clock happens to be built of reality.

You're trying to figure it out conceptually via thinking, rather than seeing directly into the nature of reality itself.

The engineers responsible for the GPS system back me. Reality says that Einstein is right; the past and future are other locations.

The events of the universe are not a chronological series of events, but rather an unfolding all-at-once.

According to Quantum Mechanics, which is essentially an upgrade from the linear time of Relativity, you are still wrong. Instead time is non-linear, but the past still exists. More specifically, every moment in time has a very small possibility of transitioning to every other one, and all of them "exist" in some form.

A concept you call 'Time', which is a description of reality, but not reality itself.

The most accurate description of reality is indistinguishable from reality.

To place a label on something is to point to its characteristics, but not to its nature. [...] The description is NOT that which it describes.

This is true in the case of natural language; not in math. Naming a mathematical thing describes its properties.

All events occur within this present moment, which is Timeless.

[citation needed]

Here is a little exercise based on a Chinese version. Take a second and halve it. Now halve the result. Then continue halving each subsequent result. You will never reach the end. The same is true if you go in the opposite direction, doubling each value. What does this tell you?

The 300th halving gives you an amount of time that is not physically meaningful. (Because you're not sure whether or not the universe exists over that time scale.) Time is not infinitely divisible.

Distance and Height, like Time, is all relative. I am tall compared to a blade of grass, but short compared to a redwood tree. In feet, I am six, but in the metric system I am some other value. In both systems, I remain the same.

I shall measure your height in terms of the speed of light, which is not relative at all! (Since the speed of light is an unvarying universal constant.)
...unless I start moving around.

You are conditioned and asleep, and that is why you see things the way you do.

Oh knowledgeable one, please tell us how you've described quantum-mechanical phase space so intuitively.

 

[Tiberius]

No. There is only one Now, seamless and whole. What ceases to be is not Now, but the event itself. Think of Now as a static condition through which events seemingly pass. Now is still and timeless. It is the background against which you perceive events as occurring.

No there isn't. Time is a series of instants that occur one following the other.

It's like when you go for a drive. You pass over a series of points on the road's surface. Is there just one point on the road's surface? Of course not. As you drive you are on Point A but not point B. Later one, you get to point B, and you are no longer over point A.

What you perceive as 'passing' is not Time, but the progression of increments of the measuring device you are employing. Time does not 'pass'. The present moment is absolutely still. All that passes are the workings of your mind. Remove the measuring device, and all events occur in this still, timeless present moment.

Care to prove this? All you've done is state your opinion.

...except that 'THEN' does not exist as a concrete reality apart from your MEMORY of it. 'THEN' is ONLY what you REMEMBER.

So I don't exist in that moment in time, just as you aren't sitting on the same stretch of road you were back when you started driving.

I think your basic problem in trying to understand this is that you see 'Now' as the elusive and fleeting single tick of the clock: here now, gone forever. But you are still using the clock as a reference, rather than reality itself. You're trying to figure it out conceptually via thinking, rather than seeing directly into the nature of reality itself.

Yeah, coz you obviously think that abandoning thinking is the right way to go...

What you are failing to grasp, because you see this issue in terms of increments, is that the NOW that existed THEN is the SAME NOW that exists NOW. It is one single Present Moment, undivided, and Timeless. That you cannot see this is an indication of just how indoctrinated you (we) are. In other words, there is only a single Present Moment, and not the fleeting series of divided 'moments' you associate with linear time ala ticking clock. This single Present Moment is eternal and timeless and non-linear. The events of the universe are not a chronological series of events, but rather an unfolding all-at-once.

It's the same now? Then why aren't I having sex? The "now" I experienced when I last had sex should be the same "now" that I am experiencing right now, and (truth be told) I'd rather be getting laid than trying to explain this to you. So why aren't I?

A concept you call 'Time', which is a description of reality, but not reality itself.

Prove it.

To place a label on something is to point to its characteristics, but not to its nature. In other words, a duck is not a duck, because it does not tell us what the true nature of 'duck' actually is. The description is NOT that which it describes. In addition, a label is merely a symbol for the actual thing; it is not the actual thing itself. In the same manner, a second is a label for one increment of the movement of a clock, but is not Time itself. '5 seconds' is a grid that can be superimposed over any event, but you are talking about the grid and not the event itself. All events occur within this present moment, which is Timeless.

What is the nature of something other than its characteristics?

And Time is the fabric of the universe in which events happen.

Here is a little exercise based on a Chinese version. Take a second and halve it. Now halve the result. Then continue halving each subsequent result. You will never reach the end. The same is true if you go in the opposite direction, doubling each value. What does this tell you?

You are wrong.

Ah, now you're getting somewhere!

Yes I am! I'm showing that you confuse a thing with the label we give that thing.

Distance and Height, like Time, is all relative. I am tall compared to a blade of grass, but short compared to a redwood tree. In feet, I am six, but in the metric system I am some other value. In both systems, I remain the same.

Different ways of saying the same thing. You can't be short to a mouse but tall to an elephant. Because it's not subjective.

There is no such thing as Time, so it never passed before or after humans measured anything. The nature of the universe is Timeless, Purposeless, Causeless and Eternal.

Prove it.

You are conditioned and asleep, and that is why you see things the way you do.

You are ignorant and blind, and so you don't know that you lack knowledge of reality, and thus don't know what to look for in order that you might learn. And yet, when someone comes along with actual verifiable evidence for reality, you ignore it so that you can hold onto your delusion.

 

[Tiberius]

I think what you mean what we label as ducks would still exist, but ducks themselves would not.

Almost. let me correct it for you.

I think what you mean what we label as ducks would still exist, but the arbitrary label "ducks" would not.

Exactly, you say duck I say goose. Like I said, ducks don't go around calling themselves ducks, we do.

Yep.

Do they exist?

If no one has ever seen them, then how can you be convinced that they exist?

An educated guess, but a safe one. But one could have made a similar argument for anything that had not yet been discovered. Back in 1900, Pluto had not been discovered. That didn't mean it didn't exist. The actual physical body that orbits the sun was still out there, and our lack of knowledge about it didn't make any difference at all to it. It still orbited the sun. It's gravity still affected that of Charon (or the body we would come to call Charon). The only thing that ever changed was our knowledge of it. Nothing about IT actually changed at all.

Your example is fine, the only flaw is that it is subject to what has yet to be seen

How so? I'm simply saying that the existence of a thing does not depend on that thing having a label. Things existed long before there were any labels for them.

"Duck" is a label, not necessarily entailing all of what a duck is therefore not necessarily making it a duck because not all water fowl that have beaks are duck and not all fly. Though in the end, the duck still belongs to categories in which define and entail something other than what the "duck" as itself is.

True, and as I said the label duck is an arbitrary one. We could have called them anything at all, but that would not change any of the qualities the life forms we call "ducks" have.

We are on the same page, just reading different lines.

Seems likely.

Labels define existences outside of us, but labels also come from within us, therefore making what we define in totality something that is not completely defined simply because we are the only ones doing the defining.

But we are capable of expressing ourselves to others using abstract terms, so that makes it easy for one person to say, "See that thing in the water that is swimming around? I'm going to call that a duck."

Sorry if this is a bit confusing, perhaps I could try and clarify a little more...

Not too confusing.

 

[godnotgod]

The past is a place, and all observers will agree on what is in, and when is the past. It has nothing to do with the measurement system being used.

No? Then what will all your observers use to find that 'place' if not with a system of measurement? So now the past is a 'place', is it, rather than a time? And if it is a 'place', can we travel there?

I am afraid the only 'place' the past exists is within your head!:biglaugh:

...every moment in time has a very small possibility of transitioning to every other one, and all of them "exist" in some form.

Yes, they exist as the one singular and seamless Now.

Oh knowledgeable one, please tell us how you've described quantum-mechanical phase space so intuitively.

You're a little late, I am afraid. The 'discovery' of Quantum Mechanics only confirms what Buddhism has been saying for centuries, and still Holy Science is just nibbling around the edges, while Buddhism has it nailed totally and completely, a feather in the Buddha's cap. Science, for all its techno-glitter, appears as a fossil next to the totally vibrant and alive Buddhist view that is always NOW.

Leave your silly obsolete monkey techno-toys you call 'advanced' and get real.

"Phenomena as they appear and resound
Are neither established nor real
Since they keep changing in all possible and various manners
Just like appearances in magical illusions."
-Asvaghosa

Dancing in Emptiness

"...is the first comprehensive and detailed exposition of the remarkable meeting of Western Science and Buddhist thought. Many of the dramatic parallels and interconnections outlined in spectacular detail have not been described before.

Modern science has overturned its own foundations and now presents a picture of reality which is in accord with that proposed by Buddhist sages of two thousand years ago. The Madhyamika philosophers developed a rigorous and razor sharp method of philosophical analysis which, together with meditation investigation, penetrated into the ultimate nature of reality.:rainbow1:

Emptiness, the core view which is propounded by the Madhyamaka, is the insight that there is nothing in the universe which exists as an independent entity in its own right. It follows that nothing exists as a fully independent feature of reality as was always thought by Western science up until the advent of quantum physics. Indeed, an understanding of Emptiness can throw new perspectives onto problems of quantum interpretation.

The search for the ultimate TOE (a theory of everything) has become a central concern for modern physicists. But it is seldom appreciated that without integrating the phenomenon of consciousness within the 'physical' worldview any such TOE will not have a leg to stand on. This fact is unaviodable because consciousness is implicated at the quantum level. As the physicists Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner have recently indicated:"

"Consciousness and the quantum enigma are not just two mysteries; they are the two mysteries; first, our physical demonstration of the quantum enigma, faces us with the fundamental mystery of the objective world `out there` the second, conscious awareness, faces us with the fundamental mystery of the subjective, mental world `in here`. Quantum mechanics seems to connect the two."

Quantum Buddhism

 

[Orias]

Almost. let me correct it for you.

I think what you mean what we label as ducks would still exist, but the arbitrary label "ducks" would not.

Well arbitrary always plays a role, simply because labels in themselves are despotic. With that being said, the majority holds the power.

The conjecture about the duck is a prime example , and so is my reference about a lack of a label concluding a lack of any existential evidence, they are in essence, the same.

Yep.

I'm glad you agree.

An educated guess, but a safe one. But one could have made a similar argument for anything that had not yet been discovered. Back in 1900, Pluto had not been discovered. That didn't mean it didn't exist. The actual physical body that orbits the sun was still out there, and our lack of knowledge about it didn't make any difference at all to it. It still orbited the sun. It's gravity still affected that of Charon (or the body we would come to call Charon). The only thing that ever changed was our knowledge of it. Nothing about IT actually changed at all.

Of course, pluto didn't exist until we discovered it, but before we discovered pluto we discovered planets.

If there is one, there might be more.

How so? I'm simply saying that the existence of a thing does not depend on that thing having a label. Things existed long before there were any labels for them.

It doesn't depend on anything as long as you are alive to be aware or unaware of it.

How much would it change though, if you knew absolutely nothing at all. Then how much would the existence of things exist without you?

True, and as I said the label duck is an arbitrary one. We could have called them anything at all, but that would not change any of the qualities the life forms we call "ducks" have.

Thats well understood. But the point is every point is essentially brought out by an existential scope, simply because all we know is what we exist "with".

Seems likely.

Well, in terms of being able to agree with me I think you have to read a bit faster

But we are capable of expressing ourselves to others using abstract terms, so that makes it easy for one person to say, "See that thing in the water that is swimming around? I'm going to call that a duck."

Yes, yes, we do agree!

But does the duck?

Not too confusing.

Well I did agree with pretty much everything you said.

I just wanted to point that I said if there was no one around to call a duck a "duck" then a "duck" would not exist. You understood that obviously so any argument we seemed to have had was just out of arbitrary usage

 

[godnotgod]

No there isn't. Time is a series of instants that occur one following the other.

It's like when you go for a drive. You pass over a series of points on the road's surface. Is there just one point on the road's surface? Of course not. As you drive you are on Point A but not point B. Later one, you get to point B, and you are no longer over point A.

Don't be silly! There is but ONE ROAD, and it is a continuum, just as this eternal Present Moment is! Any 'points' you see are in your head, and ONLY in your head. Such 'points' only come into being when you think. Stop the chatter in your head, and there are no such points. There is only one single, continuous road.

All events in the universe are occurring simultaneously as they unfold in this Present Moment, all-at-once, not in a linear point by point manner. The flow of life is not a film with frames; there are no dividing points. If there are, show them to me.

Care to prove this? All you've done is state your opinion.

Better than I proving it to you, you can prove it to yourself via meditation.

So I don't exist in that moment in time, just as you aren't sitting on the same stretch of road you were back when you started driving.

....which is just another way of saying that the past is not real. Those moments in time you reference are points on the clock, not real things.

Yeah, coz you obviously think that abandoning thinking is the right way to go...

Seeing is far superior and more direct than thinking, which only leads you astray via its own machinations.

It's the same now? Then why aren't I having sex? The "now" I experienced when I last had sex should be the same "now" that I am experiencing right now, and (truth be told) I'd rather be getting laid than trying to explain this to you. So why aren't I?

Because you're not, but there's no reason on earth that you cannot have sex while providing explanations for phenomena. For that matter, you are allowed to do all that you can muster, within the laws of the universe, all within the Present Moment. A one man show can play harmonica, juggle, and ride monocycle all at once, right now.

The point is that the eternal Present Moment is like a vast vessel within which everything is occurring all at once, like the Big Bang and all that ensued and is ensuing even as we speak. It is still all just One Big Moment, just as the Sun gives us just One Long Day, instead of how we think of it, as 365 night/day increments per orbit.

Prove it.

You know, this is like talking to a fundamentalist Christian, where they are the ones who first advance the belief in God, and then challenge you to prove He does'nt exist! You and your science are the ones advancing the idea that Time is a reality, so it is incumbent upon YOU to do the proving. You can say it exists until you turn blue, and show me the clock you measure it with, but even your Holy Science admits they actually do not know what Time is. Not only do they not know what Time is, they don't know what Space is either, and I'll tell you why: BECAUSE NEITHER EXIST AS REAL THINGS!

What is the nature of something other than its characteristics?

If I say 'The sun is a star composed of such and such gases and burns at such and such a temperature, etc., etc., I am describing its characteristics that identify it as a star. If I tell you what the sun actually is, other than its mere facts, I am telling you what its nature is.

If I call something a 'mountain', the label 'mountain' is not the mountain itself. To understand what 'mountain' really is, one must remove the label to see into it's intrinsic nature. This is where thinking ends and seeing begins.

And Time is the fabric of the universe in which events happen.

Really? Wool or Polyester?:biglaugh:

Your clocks measure the duration of events, so, by your statement, Time and Events are one and the same. I think you're confusing Events with the clock. You might say: 'my clock ticked 16 times for the duration of this particular event; therefore, I am measuring Time.", but in fact, you are merely counting the number of ticks of your measuring device during which the event occurred. The event itself occurs independent of the workings of your clock, and therefore, Time is not embedded into the nature of reality, as you imply ala 'fabric of the universe'.

Yes I am! I'm showing that you confuse a thing with the label we give that thing.

You are showing nothing of the sort. You and your Holy Science are the ones claiming that the label 'Time' is real, not I.

Prove it.

Meditate!

You are ignorant and blind, and so you don't know that you lack knowledge of reality, and thus don't know what to look for in order that you might learn. And yet, when someone comes along with actual verifiable evidence for reality, you ignore it so that you can hold onto your delusion.[/QUOTE]

Facts are not reality. For all your 'facts' and your 'learning', you know nothing. You are no closer to an understanding of the nature of the universe than cavemen and apes. In fact, they were probably closer than you are, since you have all that scientific baggage stuffing up the works.

Today's 'verifiable evidence' finds its way into the trash bin of history tomorrow as recent scientific discoveries have turned previous 'knowledge' on its pointed little head.

You have the cart before the horse in trying to 'figure it out' via of gathering facts and 'verifiable evidence' which you imagine will lead you to some epiphany about the universe, when all it will do is to lead you on and on and on. That's because you are looking at the outward appearances of reality, rather than piercing to the heart of reality itself. In getting to the true nature of things FIRST, the facts and evidence will fall into their proper place.

Science, by its own methodology, begins by dissecting things into parts, and then attempts to 'understand' by studying its parts. It is based on an old way of looking at the world, and that is what we call the Artifact View, in which the world is a created THING, an ARTIFACT, like a pot created by a potter. Such a view is DEAD. It does not realize that what it is dealing with is alive and intelligent to begin with, and should be trying to apprehend reality directly and whole.

Science is a very useful tool, but understanding the nature of reality is not within its grasp.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Hey, I think you're getting close!

If you missed the video I provided, here it is again:

The present creates the past....

[youtube]G4j6cUwCRmI[/youtube]
Alan Watts - Living in the present (boat analogy) - YouTube

If you find this topic fascinating, you can check out the expanded 6-part video here:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...t-creates-present-vice-versa.html#post2847707

Appreciate it, but no, thank you. I was simply trying to offer an outside attempt at translating what I thought was simply a word problem between the two of you.

 

[godnotgod]

Appreciate it, but no, thank you. I was simply trying to offer an outside attempt at translating what I thought was simply a word problem between the two of you.

Oooookaaaay!

 

[Daviso452]

quack.