The Watchmaker Revisited

[gnostic]

Another poster, ben d pointed this out as well in discussions with him.

Ah yes, Ben d.

Now I remember, that he is the one who keep posting that pseudoscience trash YouTube video, on “remote viewing”, but you are the one who keep bringing up the quack quantum physicist Amit Goswami.

I get you two confused, because you both shared the same belief on cosmic consciousness and ultimate reality trash.

Thanks for the reminder.

 

[gnostic]

I never said that. With all due respect to science, it is still a narrow view of reality, providing us with only the characteristics and behavior, but not the meat of Reality. It tries to tell us how the Universe behaves, but not what it actually IS.

I have not twisted anything re: the content of the video, but have taken off where the video leaves off. Science has a limited view, by definition and scope, but the mystical view is The Big Picture, as it exists here and now. Science gives us bits and pieces in the attempt to someday piece the puzzle all together to come to some epiphanic moment of realization.

Excuse me, but which mysticism?

There are are many different ones, and not all agreed on the same core mysticism.

Just like many religions are broken down to different factions, eg sects, and they don’t agree with other, and different mysticisms don’t shared the same belief, teachings, etc.

How do your give mystical view give big picture when these mysticisms never understood basic science, let alone advanced science?

 

[gnostic]

Fortunately, Zen and Hinduisms are off topic here, so I refuse to address your post, above. If you wish me to respond, start a new thread on the topic and I will be glad to address your delusions concerning Zen and Buddhism. But if you wish to try to show how I am trying to jusify any religious agenda with the video in question, then my all means, please proceed.

You are the one who brought up my heritage, godnotgod.

And you are the one who brought up Pure Consciousness and Ultimate Reality, so it has everything to do with your perverted version of Brahman, since you are trying to mix your belief with quantum physics.

You are the one who changed the goalpost on me. I am just following your reasoning.

Why are you shying away from it not, when you are the one bringing these up?

 

[gnostic]

I never said that. With all due respect to science, it is still a narrow view of reality, providing us with only the characteristics and behavior, but not the meat of Reality. It tries to tell us how the Universe behaves, but not what it actually IS.

I have not twisted anything re: the content of the video, but have taken off where the video leaves off. Science has a limited view, by definition and scope, but the mystical view is The Big Picture, as it exists here and now. Science gives us bits and pieces in the attempt to someday piece the puzzle all together to come to some epiphanic moment of realization.

You are twisting the video because you will only focus on tiny bit where Tong said “bundles of energy” and there being no material reality (hence particles are illusion), and then you make apologetic excuses, that when Tong do speak of “particles”, your excuses are that it just a “convention of speech”.

Stop lying, godnotgod.

 

[godnotgod]

First off, science is logic plus evidences.

Without the evidences, the explanations is theoretical, and therefore not a “scientific theory”. A scientific theory has to followed the process of scientific method, which mean verification, and which mean...

OBSERVATION
TESTINGS
EVIDENCES​

Science 101, godnotgod.

Science don’t relied on logic alone.

Theoretical physics relied on conceptual models, mixed with solving equations. Hence, the solution in theoretical physics is abstract, not on verifiable evidences.

The fields in theoretical physics, eg superstring theory (and supersymmetry), multiverse models, oscillating universe model, etc, are so untestable, therefore are not accepted as scientific theory.

Second.

You are ignoring that most particles, not including gluons and photons have masses.

The energy come from mass of the particle. You as a person, contained many different types of molecules and compounds, which when broken down further, a whole bunch of different atoms, mostly of oxygen, hydrogen, carbon and nitrogen, hence you have both mass and energy.

Matters, meaning all those atoms, and smaller particles, have two properties, mass and energy, which are related.

You have potential energy, when you are at rest, but once you start doing work, the store energy turned into kinetic energy, which means the energy is the measurement of work done.

Mass is what give object or a person - volume, density and shape.

And whenever you calculate energy, except for gluons and photons, be that formula of classical energy (with unit in joules) or that of Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence equation, mass is involved to find the energy.

You keep ignoring mass, which is real.

.

Sorry, but I believe Tong, a real physicist, not you, who are still spouting old textbook physics. Tong is about the new physics, mostly about field theory. There are no particles in the world; they are actually 'bundles of energy'. That is the new physics, which the old physics did not yet understand. 'Real particles' is the old materialist paradigm which you still believe to be true.

As I said:

'Particles' are bundles of energy; that means ALL particles are energy, not matter."

That is the logic I am referring to, which was in response to your illogical statement that:

"Excuse me, but saying particles are “bundles of energy”, does not necessarily mean there are “no particles” or that particles don’t exist."

No, it means there is no material reality made of material particles; 'material reality' is made of 'bundles of energy' or 'fields', not particles. There are no particles, only fields.

 

[godnotgod]

You are the one who brought up my heritage, godnotgod.

And you are the one who brought up Pure Consciousness and Ultimate Reality, so it has everything to do with your perverted version of Brahman, since you are trying to mix your belief with quantum physics.

You are the one who changed the goalpost on me. I am just following your reasoning.

Why are you shying away from it not, when you are the one bringing these up?

Is inviting you to create a thread on the topic of Buddhism, Zen, and Hinduism shying away? Do it, and I will address your concerns, but not here, as it will derail the thread beyond recognition.

As I said, I am connecting what Tong is saying about the macro world emerging from the Quantum vacuum of absolutely nothing, as Tong tells us in the video, to the mystical view which says that 'Everything comes out of Nothing'. Get it?

Now go to your room.

 

[godnotgod]

Excuse me, but which mysticism?

There are are many different ones, and not all agreed on the same core mysticism.

Just like many religions are broken down to different factions, eg sects, and they don’t agree with other, and different mysticisms don’t shared the same belief, teachings, etc.

How do your give mystical view give big picture when these mysticisms never understood basic science, let alone advanced science?

There is only one mystical view that equates to the One Reality, and that is the one in which there is complete union with the Universe. There is not a conscious individual over here, and an unconscious Universe over there; there is only Universal Consciousness, realized when 'the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation merge into a single Reality'. That is the mystical view of The Big Picture I am referring to and no other. There is no 'other'. The Big Picture sees that Everything comes out of Nothing, just as Tong, in the scientific view, tells us that the macro world comes out of the Quantum vacuum that is 'absolutely nothing'. There are not two 'Nothings', only one, though there may be more than one IDEA of what nothing is.

 

[shunyadragon]

Oh, the irony.

You keep telling me “watch the video”, and when shunyadragon tell you there other videos of his lectures on quantum physics, you ignored these other videos, making excuses not to watch them.

The main reason I did bother to watch the videos, is because I know that you would have selectively quote something and interpret it out of context.

I know from the past that you have brought up the subject, of there being no real object, just “standing waves”, and that you are trying to connect your flawed interpretations and reasonings to justify your cosmic consciousness and ultimate reality craps.

You are definitely no better than the Christian young earth creationists or their Intelligent Design followers. Your belief in a warped zen version of the Brahman, are just as unsubstantiated fantasy as these deluded groups.

Tong's lectures are a part of a series of lectures on very very standard physics and Quantum Mechanics and nothing more.

@godnotgod is trying desperately try and find a reputable physicist that he can selectively cite and interpret to justify his religious Buddhist agenda.

You continually take exact phrases out of context to justify what you believe.

 

[godnotgod]

Tong's lectures are a part of a series of lectures on very very standard physics and Quantum Mechanics and nothing more.

@godnotgod is trying desperately try and find a reputable physicist that he can selectively cite and interpret to justify his religious Buddhist agenda.

You continually take exact phrases out of context to justify what you believe.

I am happy that at least you are correct in saying that I quote 'exact phrases'.

I have asked you to show me those phrases 'out of context'. If you can demonstrate that, as quoted, Tong's MEANING is significantly altered as to cause one to think something other than intended. If you cannot, and the quote exactly matches his intent, such as, for example: 'There are no particles in the world' = 'There are no particles in the world', and not some other cockamamie meaning that you or gnostic are fabricating out of whole cloth to justify your belief in materialism, then you have no case. That I am using such quotes to support a mystical view I do not deny. That is precisely what I am doing, without apology. But, contrary to what you and gnostic are attempting to say, which is that I am twisting meanings to interject a philosophical or religious agenda, no, that is not the case.

Tong's statements that 'the Quantum vacuum is absolutely nothing', and 'there are no particles in the world', and 'particles are 'bundles of energy', and 'everything is made of fields', etc. are NOT 'standard physics'. The discovery of fields, and the energy fluctuations within the field that create what we have been calling 'particles', is part of the new physics. Don't try to sneak it in to represent standard ho hum everyday materialist physics. It is not. But even then, the new physics is not telling us anything about what we are witnessing as to the nature of reality; it still only describes characteristics and behavior. But what behavior? That the Quantum vacuum contains 'absolutely nothing', and that there are these fields of energy which create bundles of energy that make up the macro world we call 'material reality'?

It's like in the Bible, when it says that 'the Word became flesh', and everyone is supposed to believe it like it's 'standard doctrine', ho hum, it's just preposterous. What? Became what? If you really understood what this is saying, you would go shouting wildly in the streets.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am happy that at least you are correct in saying that I quote 'exact phrases'.

'Exact phrases' out of context to justify an agenda is the issue. Repeating yourself does not help your case.

It has also become increasingly apparent that your lack of a scientific background to understand the physics and Quantum Mechanics in the lecture series when you made the bogus statement concerning the 'empty space in atoms,' This extremely out of date statement is very revealing. If you understood science better you would know why your phrases out of context are misrepresenting Tong, physics and Quantum Mechanics. Your refusal to listen to the whole series is very revealing also.

[/quote]
It's like in the Bible, when it says that 'the Word became flesh', and everyone is supposed to believe it like it's 'standard doctrine', ho hum, it's just preposterous. What? Became what? If you really understood what this is saying, you would go shouting wildly in the streets. [/QUOTE]

Your changing the subject here, and sense your agenda is Buddhist the beliefs of the Bible are of no meaning here in our discussion

 

[godnotgod]

'Exact phrases' out of context to justify an agenda is the issue. Repeating yourself does not help your case.

It has also become increasingly apparent that your lack of a scientific background to understand the physics and Quantum Mechanics in the lecture series when you made the bogus statement concerning the 'empty space in atoms,' This extremely out of date statement is very revealing. If you understood science better you would know why your phrases out of context are misrepresenting Tong, physics and Quantum Mechanics. Your refusal to listen to the whole series is very revealing also.

I don't trust your argument against the atom's 'empty space'. Nassim Harrimein, a currently active and recognized Quantum physicist, uses the atom empty space as a basis for his new physics, and it works mathematically. See 'The Connected Universe' video on YouTube at Ted Talks.

For the third and last time: show me the evidence of Tong's phrases that I quoted out of context that change their meaning and that they justify any religious agenda you think I may entertain. Repeating yourself does not help your case. If you cannot show such evidence, then consider your claim to be without merit and case closed. I have given you ample notice to come forth with such evidence, which does not exist. So you keep making the claim without evidence, a not very scientific approach.

One need not have a math or physics grounding to understand the Tong video. Even a caveman can understand his clearly delivered lecture. He deliberately avoids the math, but for a few important examples, and even then, does not go into the mechanics. You just want to continue with your silly snob wall set up against non math/physics people to brow beat them down. Not gonna happen.

I have looked up writings by Tong, and they are consistent with his video, that there are no particles in the world. I will be quoting some of them shortly to further support what I am saying, with added evidence.

It's like in the Bible, when it says that 'the Word became flesh', and everyone is supposed to believe it like it's 'standard doctrine', ho hum, it's just preposterous. What? Became what? If you really understood what this is saying, you would go shouting wildly in the streets.

Your changing the subject here, and sense your agenda is Buddhist the beliefs of the Bible are of no meaning here in our discussion

You obviously have a reading comprehension issue, just like gnostic. You fail to understand a simple analogy, and that the subject has not been changed at all. On top of that you continue to interject Buddhist ideas into your argument, without evidence, evidence I have repeatedly requested of you. Your failure to do so is indication that you have no argument and just want to cling tenaciously to your materialist paradigm.

THE MATERIALIST PARADIGM IS DYING, IF NOT ALREADY DEAD!

Get it?

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't trust your argument against the atom's 'empty space'. Nassim Harrimein, a currently active and recognized Quantum physicist, uses the atom empty space as a basis for his new physics, and it works mathematically. See 'The Connected Universe' video on YouTube at Ted Talks.

Bad source. It is Mr. Hassim Harrimein self-proclaimed scientist, and not Dr. Hassim Harrimein. He has NO formal education in physics, math, nor Quantum Mechanics..

I do not trust your source.

A good scientific source: https://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physfaq/topics/touch.html

There is no empty space around a nucleus, as in Bohr's superseded model. The electrons make up a tiny proportion of the mass of an atom, while the nucleus makes up the rest. The nucleus makes up a tiny proportion of the space occupied by an atom, while the electrons make up the rest.

According to quantum electrodynamics, the space is filled by an electron field around the nucleus which neutralizes its charge and fills the space defining the atom size. What is displayed by a field ion microscope is the boundary of this field. But this boundary is not perfectly defined but a bit fuzzy, more like the surface of a piece of fur or of a cloud.
The electrons are therefore rather like a very low-density glue-like viscous fluid surrounding the nuclei and making up the spatial extent of the atom, transparent for neutrons but not for other electrons. Chemists draw the shape of these fluid clouds (more precisely, the electron density) as orbitals. Electrons show up as particles only under particular circumstances; e.g., in detectors such as Geiger counters.

The picture of an atom being mostly empty stems from the childhood of atomic structure analysis, where most of the atom's extension was found to be transparent for alpha rays, and the early modelsexplained that by pointlike nuclei and electrons.
Similarly the picture of a proton or neutron being essentially empty apart from three quarks embedded in it arises because deep inelastic scattering shows that protons are essentially transparent for very energetic electrons, except when the latter meet an almost pointlike quark.
But both pictures are quite limited: We don't think glass doesn't occupy space because it is transparent for light, or that only the bones of our bodies occupy space because the remainder is transparent for X-rays. So why should we think of the electronic fluid surrounding nuclei not to occupy space simply because it is transparent to alpha rays, or of the meson and gluon fluid in which the quarks are embedded not to occupy space simply because it is transparent to fast leptons?
Glass is hard because it is occupied by a matter field that resists other matter (though not photons). Atoms are even harder because it is occupied by a matter field that resists other matter (though not alpha rays). Protons and neutrons are even harder because they are occupied by a matter field that resists other matter (though not fast leptons).

What we touch is an effective field whose extension is created by the electrons, and whose mass is created by the nuclei (or, on an even deeper level, by constituent quarks).
Indeed, most of the mass in ordinary matter is due to the strong interaction, generated dynamically through dynamical symmetry breaking. This results in constituent quark masses. These approximately add up to proton and neutron masses, and from these to the masses of atoms and molecules, and finally of the solids and fluids that make up our everyday world. The deviations are due to the fact that mass and energy are inter-convertible to some extent, and that the binding energy takes away a bit from particles bound together.
In macroscopic neutral matter, the effective fields are one mass field for each participating chemical substance, a stress field, a momentum field, an energy field. and their conjugate thermodynamic fields.

If two atoms or molecules touch, the volumes occupied by their electron fields touch, and repel each other, while at a slightly (but not much) larger distance there is a slight attraction, the van der Waals attraction, responsible for the formation of liquids. Thus touching is a real effect. The nuclei don't touch each other but the atoms and molecules do.
More precisely, the residual force between electrons bound in two different atoms whose nuclei are at distance r consists of two terms:
(i) the attractive van der Waals force, which decays with distance like 1/r^7, hence is immeasurable at the distance of 1m but noticeable as friction at close to contact distance. (It is attractive although the electrons carry the same negative charge since it also contains the effects of the positive charge of the nucleus.)
(ii) the repulsive (approximate hard core) force, which decays with distance like 1/r^11 (or so), hence is immeasurable already at distances just beyond contact but gets very strong at contact distance, and ensures that solid matter cannot penetrate other solid matter.
The same holds for fluid matter - liquids and gas, but there the molecules are so weakly held together that the matter simply gives way to the contact motion.

THE MATERIALIST PARADIGM IS DYING, IF NOT ALREADY DEAD!

Get it?

No, the disagreement is not over the philosophy of Materialism, which this assertion that is based on your Buddhist agenda.

I am not a materialist, I am a Baha'i.

 

[godnotgod]

Bad source. It is Mr. Hassim Harrimein self-proclaimed scientist, and not Dr. Hassim Harrimein. He has NO formal education in physics, math, nor Quantum Mechanics..

Doesn't matter. His math works. The empty space argument is unimportant to the Tong video, whose content I quoted.

No, the disagreement is not over the philosophy of Materialism, which this assertion that is based on your Buddhist agenda.

I am not a materialist, I am a Baha'i.

You believe the particle to be of a material nature. You are a materialist.

The disagreement is over whether Tong is saying that particles are real or not. He clearly states that they do not exist.

I am not a Buddhist, but the Heart Sutra does conclude that 'all phenomena are empty of self-nature'.

 

[shunyadragon]

The problem is godnotgod, is trying to unite two competing and opposite religious concepts, from Hinduism and Zen Buddhism.

The thing is the whole consciousness in Hinduism related to Brahman, but their concept is also related to the soul (Atman, which I think it is called), but he has rebranded the Brahman into Buddhist ideology.

Zen is a mongrel case of Buddhism, because it originated from China’s Chan Buddhism, which very early on mixed with some aspects of Taoism. And by the time Chan arrived in Japan in 11th or 12th century (I don’t remember when exactly, because my history knowledge of japan and Japanese religions are limited), it a bit of foreign influences Buddhism again, this time from Shinto, coloured it.

And all last year, I couldn’t understand why godnotgod’s religion is so bewildering confusing. Because one moment, I thought he might be a Hindu, but the next moment he was showing sign that he is Buddhist, then back again to being Hindu.

And then it hit me, I only recently discovered why I cannot pinpoint his religion, because he mixed them up together, creating a mongrel religion.

He clearly followed Brahman, but Brahman don’t actually exist in Zen Buddhism. Well, not unless he coloured it.

The view of @godnotgod is not unusual among western adherents of variations and a mix of Buddhist/Vedic culture beliefs. I have met several that have a mixed views of Eastern religions.

It is true in Zen there is no Brahman, but variations of spiritual views based on Shinto Kami are blended in.

 

[godnotgod]

The view of @godnotgod is not unusual among western adherents of variations and a mix of Buddhist/Vedic culture beliefs. I have met several that have a mixed views of Eastern religions.

It is true in Zen there is no Brahman, but variations of spiritual views based on Shinto Kami are blended in.

'Brahman' is just a name for the fundamental Reality, 'the ground of all Being', which Zen calls 'Big Mind'.

 

[shunyadragon]

Doesn't matter. His math works.

Bottom line no back ground in MATH nor physics, and Quantum Mechanics.

BAD SOURCE reflects your bogus argument.

You believe the particle to be of a material nature. You are a materialist.

That is NOT the definition of materialism. More bogus hokus pokus,

I am not a Buddhist, but the Heart Sutra does conclude that 'all phenomena are empty of self-nature'.

Your not a Buddhist?!?! yet you cite Buddhist scripture and apparently believe in some sort of Eastern belief system, possibly of your own invention.

 

[shunyadragon]

'Brahman' is just a name for the fundamental Reality, 'the ground of all Being', which Zen calls 'Big Mind'.

Zen does not call the 'Brahman' the 'Big Mind.' This a somewhat Western corruption of Zen in adding concepts, psychotherapy(?) not inherently 'Zen,' as described below.

From: https://www.quora.com/Zen-Buddhism-...harge-participants-Have-they-found-it-helpful

Big Mind Big Heart - The thing itself
Big Mind is a technique used in similar fashion to koans: it's designed to help Zen practitioners (and others) get a glimpse of... whatever it is that we're not supposed to use words to describe. The Absolute. Our Original Face. Mu. Three pounds of flax... etc etc.

The mechanics of the technique are not unique to Big Mind - indeed, Genpo credits Hal & Sidra Stone for teaching him what they call "Voice Dialogue"(info at Page on voicedialogueinternational.com), in which a therapist gets a client (or occasionally a group) to dialogue with aspects of themselves in the service of personal healing & growth etc.

With Big Mind, the same job is done, more or less, but goes beyond such voices as "The Controller", "Guilt", "The Inner Child," etc. These are worked through but are known as "Relative Voices". There's a progression through a set of relative voices, through a sequence of what I think of as "liminal voices" (I think I just coined this, but perhaps others have said this before me!) such as "The Seeker", "The Seeker of the Way" and even "The Way" itself. This leads to a set of "Absolute Voices" including but not stopping at the eponymous "Big Mind", "Big Heart" and finally the "Integrated Free Functioning Self".

Loosely described by some as it may be described as tapping into some degree of a collective mind (?) of consciousness to resolve issues to become "Integrated Free Functioning Self."
.

 

[godnotgod]

Zen does not call the 'Brahman' the 'Big Mind.' This a somewhat Western corruption of Zen in adding concepts, psychotherapy(?) not inherently 'Zen,' as described below.

From: https://www.quora.com/Zen-Buddhism-...harge-participants-Have-they-found-it-helpful

Big Mind Big Heart - The thing itself
Big Mind is a technique used in similar fashion to koans: it's designed to help Zen practitioners (and others) get a glimpse of... whatever it is that we're not supposed to use words to describe. The Absolute. Our Original Face. Mu. Three pounds of flax... etc etc.

The mechanics of the technique are not unique to Big Mind - indeed, Genpo credits Hal & Sidra Stone for teaching him what they call "Voice Dialogue"(info at Page on voicedialogueinternational.com), in which a therapist gets a client (or occasionally a group) to dialogue with aspects of themselves in the service of personal healing & growth etc.

With Big Mind, the same job is done, more or less, but goes beyond such voices as "The Controller", "Guilt", "The Inner Child," etc. These are worked through but are known as "Relative Voices". There's a progression through a set of relative voices, through a sequence of what I think of as "liminal voices" (I think I just coined this, but perhaps others have said this before me!) such as "The Seeker", "The Seeker of the Way" and even "The Way" itself. This leads to a set of "Absolute Voices" including but not stopping at the eponymous "Big Mind", "Big Heart" and finally the "Integrated Free Functioning Self".

Loosely described by some as it may be described as tapping into some degree of a collective mind (?) of consciousness to resolve issues to become "Integrated Free Functioning Self."
.

Brahman in Hinduism is defined as 'Pure Consciousness', The Absolute, 'The Ground of all Being', all of which are the fundamental Reality; That is Big Mind. There are not two fundamental Realities. Tong is getting very close to it in talking about the Quantum Vacuum that is 'absolutely nothing', out of which Everything is manifested. The only thing missing in Quantum vacuum is Consciousness.

 

[shunyadragon]

Brahman in Hinduism is defined as 'Pure Consciousness', the fundamental Reality; The Absolute, etc. That is Big Mind. There are not two fundamental Realities.

In western schools of Zen the 'Big Mind' is not described as Brahman.

 

[godnotgod]

In western schools of Zen the 'Big Mind' is not described as Brahman.

I never said that it was directly. I said it is the fundamental Reality, which Hinduism calls 'Brahman', or 'Pure Consciousness'. 'Big Mind' is what the experience is when 'monkey mind', ie discursive mind, is subdued. Big Mind then comes into play. That is Universal Consciousness, or Pure Consciousness, 'pure' meaning 'clear'. Consciousness is clear when it is no longer contaminated by individual consciousness. Consciousness without a personal self lost in Identification is universal.

In both Buddhism and Zen, we have The Heart Sutra, which says, in a nutshell:

"form is emptiness;
emptiness is form"

That is to say, 'all phenomena, including humans, are empty of self-nature.' If that is the case, then the fact of non-self can only be universal Self. Brahman is often referred to as the Universal Self, or Universal Consciousness, aka 'Big Mind'.

The Emptiness Doctrine is closely integrated with The Law of Dependent Origination, which says that all 'things' co-arise, and co-subside altogether. IOW, there are no 'things', only form, empty of self, arising and subsiding. This is consistent with Tong's 'particles' emerging from the Quantum vacuum that is 'absolutely nothing', via energy fluctuations in the Quantum Field.

In purely Hindu terms, this is maya, or illusion. Brahman is the world that is maya, playing itself as 'the material world'; playing itself as 'the material particle'.