The Watchmaker Revisited

[exchemist]

Nice try, but I already mentioned to you that I came to see the Universe as illusory via another pathway, namely via mysticism. I'm really just playing with the factual knowledge which confirms what I already know.

As I said, Mr. Borg has, in two email responses, addressed every single one of your points.

What you fail to grasp is that physics and math are already highly altered states of consciousness, which see reality in a very conditioned manner. The mystic's view, in it's ideal state, is an unconditioned view of reality. IOW, it just sees things as they actually are. Science is dealing with reality only in terms of behavior, characteristics, and prediction, but is unable to actually understand what the nature of reality actually is, and it never will, and that is because it is limited via its own methodology. So science is really about 'alternative facts'. And as Mr. Alan Watts once commented: "The dead man [of cold logic and reason] gives us all the facts, but tells us NOTHING" But those questions are for another thread. The problem is that that science has set itself up as The Gold Standard of all knowledge by which all others are to be judged. In doing so, it has become a dogma, from which many highly respected scientists have jumped ship. Mr. Borg is just one of them, and is paying the price by apparently being labeled as a crank. This has happened to Amit Goswami, Roger Penrose, Deepak Chopra, John Hagelin, and many many others. The pattern of condemnation and dismissal of ideas which employ consciousness as the fundamental reality by the established scientific community as 'woo' is clear. Science has a problem.

But to cut to the chase, I provided you a video which essentially takes the position that there are no particles; there are only fields. Did you have a look? Bottom line is that both Quantum Physics and the mystical view converge on this point: there is no material reality. You are still espousing the old materialist paradigm.

I post below once again the video about Quantum Fields as the building blocks of the Universe, and NOT particles, as we thought to be the case. Take a look. Maybe you'll unlearn something. Once it dawns on you that reality is not about the particle, but about the field, you may have an epiphany. Cheers.

Aha, I wondered when Deepak Chopra, that 8 cylinder charlatan*, would come up. I didn't want to be the first to mention him, but you have confirmed my suspicions.You really have bought the whole quantum woo package. But now at least your avatar makes sense. The light of reason has gone out, evidently.


* From Wiki article on Chopra: " Reviewing Susan Jacoby's book, The Age of American Unreason, Wendy Kaminer sees Chopra's popular reception in the USA as being symptomatic of many Americans' historical inability (as Jacoby puts it) "to distinguish between real scientists and those who peddled theories in the guise of science". Chopra's "nonsensical references to quantum physics" are placed in a lineage of American religious pseudoscience, extending back through Scientologyto Christian Science.[19] Physics professor Chad Orzel has written that "to a physicist, Chopra's babble about 'energy fields' and 'congealing quantum soup' presents as utter gibberish", but that Chopra makes enough references to technical terminology to convince non-scientists that he understands physics.[130] English professor George O'Har writes that Chopra is as an exemplification of the fact that human beings need "magic" in their lives, and places "the sophistries of Chopra" alongside the emotivism of Oprah Winfrey, the special effects and logic of Star Trek, and the magic of Harry Potter.[131]"

 

[atanu]

And it will seldom align wi tut h previous observations.

Btw, I very seldom recall dreaming. It is not something I do much. I assume I do dream, but dont remember. Which is fine for me.

Ha ha. My original request remains. Claim in a dream that the current dream does not align with previous dream.

 

[atanu]

So you mean the consciousness of just "some observer", is that it? If so I don't have too much of a problem with that.

However it is equally impossible to disprove the existence of said object on this basis.

I did not say that you can disprove using the usual tools of the intellect. I am a chemist-geochemist-scientist. So, I understand you. Yet, you can prove for yourself the truth of 'consciousness first' by diligently following Patanjali's (or the Buddha's) meditative methods.

In science we avoid this problem by the simple expedient of relying on evidence instead of proof. We have no "proof" the sun will rise tomorrow, but a lot of evidence that it should. This pragmatic approach to existence seems to work fine for most of us.

I am a scientist. But I believe, not without reason, that intellect is limited and it cannot know its own source.

 

[exchemist]

I did not say that you can disprove using the usual tools of the intellect. I am a chemist-geochemist-scientist. So, I understand you. Yet, you can prove for yourself the truth of 'consciousness first' by diligently following Patanjali's (or the Buddha's) meditative methods.




I am a scientist. But I believe, not without reason, that intellect is limited and it cannot know its own source.

I agree, but you are addressing a point other than the one I was making, which was that "proof" of existence of something is not we rely on much, so it is something of a red herring.

 

[atanu]

I agree, but you are addressing a point other than the one I was making, which was that "proof" of existence of something is not we rely on much, so it is something of a red herring.

But I am saying that 'proof' is possible.

 

[Polymath257]

Ha ha. My original request remains. Claim in a dream that the current dream does not align with previous dream.

And it doesn't. And it doesnt align between dreams. Nor is there predictability in dteams.

Sorry, total failure.

 

[atanu]

And it doesn't. And it doesnt align between dreams. Nor is there predictability in dteams.

Sorry, total failure.

It may or may not align between dream. But within dream you cannot claim that. Dream orgasms are also real.

 

[godnotgod]

Can I just ask you how many diseases have been cured with mysticism?

Countless. The disease of the mind known as ignorance can only be cured via Enlightenment.

 

[godnotgod]

Aha, I wondered when Deepak Chopra, that 8 cylinder charlatan*, would come up. I didn't want to be the first to mention him, but you have confirmed my suspicions.You really have bought the whole quantum woo package. But now at least your avatar makes sense. The light of reason has gone out, evidently.


* From Wiki article on Chopra: " Reviewing Susan Jacoby's book, The Age of American Unreason, Wendy Kaminer sees Chopra's popular reception in the USA as being symptomatic of many Americans' historical inability (as Jacoby puts it) "to distinguish between real scientists and those who peddled theories in the guise of science". Chopra's "nonsensical references to quantum physics" are placed in a lineage of American religious pseudoscience, extending back through Scientologyto Christian Science.[19] Physics professor Chad Orzel has written that "to a physicist, Chopra's babble about 'energy fields' and 'congealing quantum soup' presents as utter gibberish", but that Chopra makes enough references to technical terminology to convince non-scientists that he understands physics.[130] English professor George O'Har writes that Chopra is as an exemplification of the fact that human beings need "magic" in their lives, and places "the sophistries of Chopra" alongside the emotivism of Oprah Winfrey, the special effects and logic of Star Trek, and the magic of Harry Potter.[131]"

Quantum Physics says that what we call 'the material world' is, in reality, 'a superposition of possibilities'. 'Possibilities' are many, and not yet materialized. They exist only in POTENTIAL. So Chopra's allusion to a 'Quantum soup' makes perfect sense.

re: 'energy fields', I already pointed out the reality of that phenomenon.

See how easy Quantum Physics is? You uptight science types want to claim exclusive rights to it, and you use your math and other tools to put up a barrier to ensure those 'rights'. But what you guys fail to realize is that mystics have known what you guys are just beginning to scratch the surface of for centuries. Now, at last, with the discovery of fields being the source of 'particles', which do not exist, we are beginning to see where these two disciplines come together. But that still won't be sufficient. The mystical view is the big picture, which includes the scientific view, but the scientific view cannot, as it currently exists, contain the mystical view. And so, with your noses pressed up against the window pane, you only see 'woo' through the filter of the conditioned mind. A pity, really.

One of the primary reason you outsiders haven't a clue about geniuses like Chopra, who sound to you like cranks, is because the mystical experience cannot be found within the confines of Logic, Reason, and Analysis. Those are the tools of the thinking mind. But behind the thinking mind is pure consciousness, which does not think, but only SEES, what is the case. But you guys are all wound up in the chatter of the discursive mind, and are unable to hold the mind perfectly still so that you CAN see things as they actually are, rather than how the discursive mind (ie 'monkey mind') only THINKS they are with your conceptual frameworks superimposed over Reality.

You have no idea what my avatar signifies. Stop the incessant mind chatter and you may get a glimpse.

Funny that you glommed onto just Chopra, and ignored the countless others, many of whom are highly esteemed scientists. You have a thing about Chopra, do you? And yes, that's 'Sir' Roger Penrose to you.

 

[exchemist]

Quantum Physics says that what we call 'the material world' is, in reality, 'a superposition of possibilities'. 'Possibilities' are many, and not yet materialized. They exist only in POTENTIAL. So Chopra's allusion to a 'Quantum soup' makes perfect sense.

re: 'energy fields', I already pointed out the reality of that phenomenon.

See how easy Quantum Physics is? You uptight science types want to claim exclusive rights to it, and you use your math and other tools to put up a barrier to ensure those 'rights'. But what you guys fail to realize is that mystics have known what you guys are just beginning to scratch the surface of for centuries. Now, at last, with the discovery of fields being the source of 'particles', which do not exist, we are beginning to see where these two disciplines come together. But that still won't be sufficient. The mystical view is the big picture, which includes the scientific view, but the scientific view cannot, as it currently exists, contain the mystical view. And so, with your noses pressed up against the window pane, you only see 'woo' through the filter of the conditioned mind. A pity, really.

One of the primary reason you outsiders haven't a clue about geniuses like Chopra, who sound to you like cranks, is because the mystical experience cannot be found within the confines of Logic, Reason, and Analysis. Those are the tools of the thinking mind. But behind the thinking mind is pure consciousness, which does not think, but only SEES, what is the case. But you guys are all wound up in the chatter of the discursive mind, and are unable to hold the mind perfectly still so that you CAN see things as they actually are, rather than how the discursive mind (ie 'monkey mind') only THINKS they are with your conceptual frameworks superimposed over Reality.

You have no idea what my avatar signifies. Stop the incessant mind chatter and you may get a glimpse.

Funny that you glommed onto just Chopra, and ignored the countless others, many of whom are highly esteemed scientists. And yes, that's 'Sir' Roger Penrose to you.

Have a nice day.

 

[Polymath257]

It may or may not align between dream. But within dream you cannot claim that. Dream orgasms are also real.

Yes, dream experiences are real experiences, but of non-real things

 

[ecco]

Nice try, but I already mentioned to you that I came to see the Universe as illusory via another pathway, namely via mysticism.

OK.

What you fail to grasp is that physics and math are already highly altered states of consciousness, which see reality in a very conditioned manner. The mystic's view, in it's ideal state, is an unconditioned view of reality. IOW, it just sees things as they actually are.

In the opinion of you and other followers of mysticism.

The problem is that that science has set itself up as The Gold Standard of all knowledge by which all others are to be judged. In doing so, it has become a dogma,

To the contrary, if you watched and understood the video you linked (below) you would know that science realizes that it does not have all the answers.

Mr. Borg is just one of them, and is paying the price by apparently being labeled as a crank. This has happened to Amit Goswami, Roger Penrose, Deepak Chopra, John Hagelin, and many many others. The pattern of condemnation and dismissal of ideas which employ consciousness as the fundamental reality by the established scientific community as 'woo' is clear.

The ideas which employ consciousness as the fundamental reality by the established scientific community as 'woo' is clear.

It is labeled as "woo" because it is "woo". Your above listed practitioners are labeled as cranks because they are cranks.

But to cut to the chase, I provided you a video which essentially takes the position that there are no particles; there are only fields.

Did you have a look?

I watched and carefully listened to the entire 1 hour lecture. He makes the point that science today recognizes that fields are the building blocks of particles. That is something that has been recognized for some years.

Bottom line is that both Quantum Physics and the mystical view converge on this point: there is no material reality.

And this is the point where you descend deeply into woo. Your method of doing this is not new. You, and the people you named above, and countless other woomeisters have done this for as long as there has been science. You take a bit of fact and stretch it and twist it until it no longer has any resemblance to the actual science.

The other thing some folks like to do is make an argument and then post a link to a lengthy article or a long video implying it supports their argument. The hope is no one will ever read the article or watch the video. Sometimes we do. I did. It does not support your views in any way whatsoever.

post below once again the video about Quantum Fields as the building blocks of the Universe.

It's too bad you really didn't understand the video. Actually, I doubt you even watched it. There is no mention of consciousness. There is no mention of material reality. There is no mention of the woo you are trying to sell.

We both know why you posted it.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, dream experiences are real experiences, but of non-real things

Ah, but on the dream level, when in that experience, 'non-real' things ARE real, aren't they? So when we awaken, we think we are now in reality, but we really do not know if this 'awakened' state is just another level of the dream, do we? Oh, we can test this and that with science and get repetitive results, but we are still on the level of perception. Perhaps, as the East has been telling us for centuries, there is yet a higher level of awakening that is the real McCoy. From the POV of the level of true awakening beyond perception, we see that the world of perceptual reality is illusory, in the same way that we see the dream as illusory upon the first level of 'awakening'. And so, on this first level of awakening, we firmly believe it to be real, because, unlike the dream state which vanishes upon awakening, nothing vanishes upon a further awakening. We call this further state of awakening 'Self-Transcendence', or 'Self-Remembering'. From this vantage point we understand our ordinary lives to be a fiction, and the material world to be illusory.
*****

“Once upon a time, I dreamt I was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, to all intents and purposes a butterfly. I was conscious only of my happiness as a butterfly, unaware that I was myself. Soon I awaked, and there I was, veritably myself again. Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man.”

― Zhuangzi, The Butterfly as Companion: Meditations on the First Three Chapters of the Chuang-Tzu

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/255807-once-upon-a-time-i-dreamt-i-was-a-butterfly

 

[godnotgod]

In the opinion of you and other followers of mysticism.

What do you mean 'followers of mysticism'? The mystical experience is not a doctrine or belief system one 'follows'. One cannot entertain an opinion where there is no thought occurring. Can they? Not sure what you think mysticism is, but it is the merging of one's consciousness with the entire Universe. It is not a thought event. As the great yogi tells us in his Yoga Sutras: "divine union is the cessation of all of the activities of the mind".

To the contrary, if you watched and understood the video you linked (below) you would know that science realizes that it does not have all the answers.

But that does not mean it does not consider itself the Gold Standard of Knowledge, and by that I mean its methodology, whose tools of the trade are Reason, Logic, and Analysis. It does not need to know everything to consider itself the only valid pathway.

It is labeled as "woo" because it is "woo". Your above listed practitioners are labeled as cranks because they are cranks.

Right, and the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says it is the word of God.

I watched and carefully listened to the entire 1 hour lecture. He makes the point that science today recognizes that fields are the building blocks of particles. .

No. That is NOT what he said. He said:

"There are no particles in the world. The basic fundamental building blocks of our Universe, are these fluid-like substances that we call 'fields'." (21:07 to 21:35)

That is something that has been recognized for some years.

Not many. And you are putting words in his mouth to change the meaning of what he actually said. But the point, which you apparently missed, is what David Tong said about particles:

"There are fields that underlie everything, and what we think of as 'particles' aren't really particles at all...they're waves of these fields, tied up into little bundles of energy." (20:47 to 20.59)

So fields are not the 'building blocks of particles'; there ARE no particles. What we call 'particles' are none other than the field itself, like bumps of energy IN the field. There are no 'material' particles. The world is non-material in nature; it is all energy in motion at different rates. The big problem of man is that he sees form as material 'things'. This energy appearing as form is consciousness. Get it?

And this is the point where you descend deeply into woo. Your method of doing this is not new. You, and the people you named above, and countless other woomeisters have done this for as long as there has been science. You take a bit of fact and stretch it and twist it until it no longer has any resemblance to the actual science.

No, it is YOU that is creating 'woo' out of whole cloth. Did you hear what Tong said? '

There are no particles'.

The 'material' world is only thought to be composed of 'particles' because we verify it's 'realness' as being 'material' via our senses, which are fooling us. The mystical view says that what we see as a 'material' world is consciousness playing itself as 'the material world'. In both cases, there is no such 'material' world, which is why I made the statement that at a particular point, both views converge. Science, however, stops short of saying the 'material' world is an illusion, but if there are no such particles, what else can it be?

So where have I or any 'woomeister' deviated from the facts? All we are doing is to put the facts into the correct context of Reality itself, and it frightens you because you are on unfamiliar ground without your blankee called 'thienthe'. You have it backwards; You want to force Reality to fit your conceptual frameworks.

The other thing some folks like to do is make an argument and then post a link to a lengthy article or a long video implying it supports their argument. The hope is no one will ever read the article or watch the video. Sometimes we do. I did. It does not support your views in any way whatsoever.

I am saying: 'there is no material reality'.
The video is saying: 'there are no [material] particles.

Do you see a difference between what the video is saying and what I am saying? I am simply trying to show you that what I am saying and what the video is saying are in reality the same thing, but from differing perspectives. The view of science is via dissection and clinical analysis; the mystic's view is simply to see things as they are, without the conceptual mind deciding what it is seeing.

It's too bad you really didn't understand the video. Actually, I doubt you even watched it. There is no mention of consciousness. There is no mention of material reality. There is no mention of the woo you are trying to sell.

Oh, cut it out! I watched the video three times already! So take your foot from your mouth and learn to listen without coloring everything you disagree with as 'woo'. You haven't a clue.

I never said the video was about consciousness, did I?

Once again, and for the last time, Tong said that:

'THERE ARE NO PARTICLES!'

What we think of as 'material reality' is (was) thought to be made up of particles. It isn't. It is none other than the field, or collection of fields, appearing as material reality. It's all about energy.

We both know why you posted it.

Oh, really? So you think yourself clever, do you? You're not paying attention. Watch the video again and pay strict attention this time, and get the woo out of your brain. It's muddling up your thinking.

Try again.

 

[godnotgod]

Have a nice day.

No worries. And so glad to know that you finally have had an epiphany.

 

[exchemist]

It is labeled as "woo" because it is "woo". Your above listed practitioners are labeled as cranks because they are cranks.



.

Good post. On one point of detail, godnotgod performs a bit of a devious trick here, by mixing charlatans like Chopra and cranks like Borg in with people like Penrose who, while having minority views on consciousness, are by no means cranks or charlatans.

Penrose does not say what godnotgod likes to pretend he does, of course. As I understand it, Penrose claims to derive - from applying Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem to theories of how the brain thinks - the conclusion that human thought cannot be accounted for by the known laws of physics. (Most other workers in the field do not agree, but it is not a crank argument.) Penrose makes no claim at all that reality is an illusion, or that some kind of cosmic "consciousness" lies behind everything. That is where the woo comes in - inserted by godnotgod.

(As an aside, I wouldn't mind godnotgod advancing his notions of cosmic consciousness half so much if he did not bend over backwards to defend a manifest fraud like Borg. Contrary to godnotgod's accusation that I am just one of the science establishment sheeple, trotting out the party line, I spotted for myself that Borg's supposed "proof" about waves and classical electron radius (which I presume godnotgod copy/pasted to impress me with maths) was stupid and fraudulent. The other things I found out about Borg subsequently are simply evidence that others who know some physics have rapidly reached the same conclusion as I did.)

Where I do think there is an interesting discussion to be had is about the nature of fields in physics, in view of the fact that current theories of matter are largely field-based. What they are - or what they represent - and the degree to which they can be said to be "material", strikes me as a worthwhile topic. However this thread is now so contaminated with dross that I think a new thread would be needed. I have suggested this a couple of times to Polymath but he is not biting. Maybe I'll do it - if I have the time and energy before I go off for my summer hols. (As a chemist rather than a physicist I am not an expert on field theories.)

 

[atanu]

Yes, dream experiences are real experiences, but of non-real things

Yeah. And since no waking experience is independent of the consciousness that experiences, we can never prove objectivity of the objects experienced.

We come back full circle.

 

[sayak83]

Ha ha. My original request remains. Claim in a dream that the current dream does not align with previous dream.

I have done it quite often. In most dreams I am also a director and often I say "cut cut" and "redo".

 

[godnotgod]

Good post. On one point of detail, godnotgod performs a bit of a devious trick here, by mixing charlatans like Chopra and cranks like Borg in with people like Penrose who, while having minority views on consciousness, are by no means cranks or charlatans.

Penrose does not say what godnotgod likes to pretend he does, of course. As I understand it, Penrose claims to derive - from applying Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem to theories of how the brain thinks - the conclusion that human thought cannot be accounted for by the known laws of physics. (Most other workers in the field do not agree, but it is not a crank argument.) Penrose makes no claim at all that reality is an illusion, or that some kind of cosmic "consciousness" lies behind everything. That is where the woo comes in - inserted by godnotgod.

WOW! What a piece of slanted and contrived crap! The Truth is truly bent to fit your teeth!

In today's world, most of the people who label some as mouthing 'woo', like yourself along with ecco's idiotic rumblings, are those whom they see as attempting to somehow associate Quantum Mechanics with consciousness. That is all that is required to earn such a label, but, and contrary to the way you have pictured Penrose's view, that is exactly what Penrose is doing, and for that reason, is included in my list. FYI, the reason he is not so readily sent to the woomeister chopping block like the others on that list, is because of his elevated level of prestige and respectability.

"Penrose believes that consciousness is not computational. Our awareness is not simply a mechanistic byproduct, like something you can make a machine do. And to understand consciousness, you need to revolutionize our understanding of the physical world. In particular, Penrose thinks the answer to consciousness may lie in a deeper knowledge of quantum mechanics.

In an interview with Nautilus’s Steve Paulson, Penrose uses an example from quantum computing to explain that qubits of information remain in multiple states until coming together into an instantaneous calculation, called “quantum coherence,” making a large number of things act together in one quantum state."

https://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/wh...consciousness-originates-at-the-quantum-level

"Once you start poking around in the muck of consciousness studies, you will soon encounter the specter of Sir Roger Penrose, the renowned Oxford physicist with an audacious—and quite possibly crackpot—theory about the quantum origins of consciousness. He believes we must go beyond neuroscience and into the mysterious world of quantum mechanics to explain our rich mental life. No one quite knows what to make of this theory, developed with the American anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff, but conventional wisdom goes something like this: Their theory is almost certainly wrong, but since Penrose is so brilliant (“One of the very few people I’ve met in my life who, without reservation, I call a genius,” physicist Lee Smolin has said), we’d be foolish to dismiss their theory out of hand."

http://nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness/roger-penrose-on-why-consciousness-does-not-compute

"According to Penrose-Hameroff''s Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR) Model, "Consciousness is a process in the structure of the Universe, connected to the brain via quantum computations in microtubules". Consciousness, or at least proto-consciousness, is theorized by them to be a fundamental, intrinsic property of the Universe, present even at the first moment of the Universe during the Big Bang.

This quantum computational, holoinformational view of consciousness shows us directions toward a unified theory of consciousness. Once information is understood as an irreducible principle of the Universe with a status more fundamental than energy, matter, space and time, it becomes the unifying principle, capable of connecting consciousness to the Universe as a whole, to the totality of space and time."

https://www.ecstadelic.net/ecstadelic/the-unified-field-and-the-quantum-nature-of-consciousness

IOW, "Cosmic Consciousness"

(As an aside, I wouldn't mind godnotgod advancing his notions of cosmic consciousness half so much if he did not bend over backwards to defend a manifest fraud like Borg.

You don't seem to understand that we're done with that issue. It's quite simple. All you can do is yell 'crank!', on a third grade ad hominem level, while our illustrious Mr. Borg, a maverick in his own right, intelligently and perfectly addressed every single one of your points in a way that even a math moron like myself gets the gist of. He wins. You lose. Game over. Next!

Contrary to godnotgod's accusation that I am just one of the science establishment sheeple, trotting out the party line, I spotted for myself that Borg's supposed "proof" about waves and classical electron radius (which I presume godnotgod copy/pasted to impress me with maths) was stupid and fraudulent. The other things I found out about Borg subsequently are simply evidence that others who know some physics have rapidly reached the same conclusion as I did.)

Borg intelligently explained his proof. Story over. You and those 'others' are simply unable to see any other way than the standard pablum you've been spoon-fed all these years, just as Borg pointed out. Are you so naive to not understand that Borg has already 'been there, seen that', which is the very reason he has sought another path? This path is called 'free mind', something you have not yet achieved, still locked into the materialist paradigm as you are, safe and secure in your little cubicle. Throughout history, it has been the mavericks, like Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein, Schrodinger, Capra, and many others who have paved the way onto new ground, some who have paid dearly for their positions.

Where I do think there is an interesting discussion to be had is about the nature of fields in physics, in view of the fact that current theories of matter are largely field-based. What they are - or what they represent - and the degree to which they can be said to be "material", strikes me as a worthwhile topic.

There is no such degree of 'materiality'. Watch my posted video re: Quantum Fields, in which David Tong makes clear that 'there are no [material] particles in the world', and then goes on to tell us that in a pure vacuum of absolutely empty space, the field is still present. IOW, 'Everything comes out of Nothing'. How can it be any other way? Think about it. I am with John Hagelin on this one, who equates Consciousness with The Unified Field:

"Not only celebrated physicists of the 20th century such as Max Plank, John Wheeler, David Bohm, Niel Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger argued that consciousness is a fundamental property of our Universe but the new pleiad of scientists such as John Hagelin, Sir Roger Penrose, Stuart Hameroff, Guilio Tononi, Christof Koch, Donald Hoffman, Robert Lanza embarked on their quest to put consciousness on the new solid scientific footing and dimensionality."

https://www.ecstadelic.net/ecstadelic/the-unified-field-and-the-quantum-nature-of-consciousness

 

[Polymath257]

Ah, but on the dream level, when in that experience, 'non-real' things ARE real, aren't they?

Um, no? They are NOT real. That's what it means to be a dream.

So when we awaken, we think we are now in reality, but we really do not know if this 'awakened' state is just another level of the dream, do we? Oh, we can test this and that with science and get repetitive results, but we are still on the level of perception.

Yes, we do know it isn't just another level of dream *because* we can test and do predictions.

Perhaps, as the East has been telling us for centuries, there is yet a higher level of awakening that is the real McCoy. From the POV of the level of true awakening beyond perception, we see that the world of perceptual reality is illusory, in the same way that we see the dream as illusory upon the first level of 'awakening'. And so, on this first level of awakening, we firmly believe it to be real, because, unlike the dream state which vanishes upon awakening, nothing vanishes upon a further awakening. We call this further state of awakening 'Self-Transcendence', or 'Self-Remembering'. From this vantage point we understand our ordinary lives to be a fiction, and the material world to be illusory.
*****

And perhaps not. In fact, most certainly not.