The Watchmaker Revisited

[gnostic]

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

Again, you are mixing the two up.

Zen have to do with individual achieving “emptiness” and then an “awakening”, what you referred to as “Big Mind”. But it has nothing to with cosmic reality of Hindu Brahman and nothing to do with the universe being “conscious”, and more to do with extending one’s own mind, by becoming more Buddha-like, not Brahman.

You cannot achieve awakening state, until you have mastered the emptiness state.

Yes, you are right, about direct apprehension of knowledge in Zen, and Buddhism in general, but this has more to do with more of avoiding or of being tied to doctrines, and not about any cosmic consciousness (Brahman) in the universe.

This direct apprehension or insight, have nothing to do with learning about or understanding the universe. The awakening is about understanding one’s self.

Zen has nothing to do with the whole universe, and it has nothing to do with oneness with the universe. The “oneness” you speak of have to do what they do in their everyday life, in this life, and again not about the universe.

Your continuous use of Brahman, with Zen, make it impossible for you to reach your own emptiness and awakening.

If I understand Buddhism correctly, the “emptiness” is all about not letting go of emotions, loss and pain. And I must say, you really haven’t achieved the emptiness state, because you are very egotistic.

If you really want to go the Zen route, then you need to stop using Brahman. But if you really want to keep Brahman, then you need to drop this Zen business.

And you are trying to mix your perverted Zen with quantum mechanics. Your needs to pluck Brahman and quantum physics and tied them to Zen, just demonstrated your pride and ego of wanting Zen to be more than just “Zen”.

 

[godnotgod]

Again, you are mixing the two up.

There is only one fundamental Reality. All teachings are pointing to it, including Quantum Physics.

Zen have to do with individual achieving “emptiness” and then an “awakening”, what you referred to as “Big Mind”. But it has nothing to with cosmic reality of Hindu Brahman and nothing to do with the universe being “conscious”, and more to do with extending one’s own mind, by becoming more Buddha-like, not Brahman.

I think you are confused. Brahman is not a persona. You are confusing it with Brahma, the Hindu god. Brahman is Pure Consciousness, which Zen is attempting to attain. Neither Buddha nature nor Brahman have attributes, so there is no such thing as 'Buddha-like', because the Buddhistic view is 'no particular view'. IOW, it has no preference. In having no preferences, and being completely empty of self nature, it is like the state of Brahman, which is Attributeless, Pure Consciousness. Both are Universal Consciousness, not attached to self, or individual consciousness.

You cannot achieve awakening state, until you have mastered the emptiness state.

The paradox to the ordinary conditioned mind, is that there is no self that achieves awakening or emptiness, because emptiness is devoid of self nature. In truth, there is only awakening and emptiness, without a self that achieves awakening or emptiness.

Yes, you are right, about direct apprehension of knowledge in Zen, and Buddhism in general, but this has more to do with more of avoiding or of being tied to doctrines, and not about any cosmic consciousness (Brahman) in the universe.

No. Zen and Buddhism are not about knowledge. They are about spiritual awakening. The Buddha achieved the highest possible state of awakening a human being can achieve called 'Supreme Enlightenment', which is none other than Cosmic Consciousness.

There is no such 'Brahman' IN the Universe: Brahman IS The Universe! Awakening, or Nirvana, is the merging of your consciousness with that of the Universe, as the drop merges with the vast ocean.

This direct apprehension or insight, have nothing to do with learning about or understanding the universe. The awakening is about understanding one’s self.

Wrong! Awakening is about transcending the self; to awaken from the illusion of the self in the dream state called Identification as 'I'.

Zen has nothing to do with the whole universe, and it has nothing to do with oneness with the universe. The “oneness” you speak of have to do what they do in their everyday life, in this life, and again not about the universe.

gnostic, please stop before you swallow your foot! You don't have any idea of what you are talking about! Zen is probably the ONLY teaching that marries the Ordinary with the Miraculous. This very everyday life is life in the Universe itself. Where else do you suppose it is happening? In la la land?

Your continuous use of Brahman, with Zen, make it impossible for you to reach your own emptiness and awakening.

I don't claim ownership of either, but you, attached to both, are not yet free.

If I understand Buddhism correctly, the “emptiness” is all about not letting go of emotions, loss and pain. And I must say, you really haven’t achieved the emptiness state, because you are very egotistic.

Excuse me, but emptiness is already the case. Only someone still attached to ego would think there is someone who lets go, or who achieves something....like yourself, for example. Now stop, OK?

If you really want to go the Zen route, then you need to stop using Brahman. But if you really want to keep Brahman, then you need to drop this Zen business.

If you have traversed the path correctly, there is no trace of your coming and going. You are still clinging to 'this' and 'that' in the state of duality. You see conflict, where I see only harmony. You still think there is someone who goes the Zen route, or uses Brahman. There is no such self.

And you are trying to mix your perverted Zen with quantum mechanics. Your needs to pluck Brahman and quantum physics and tied them to Zen, just demonstrated your pride and ego of wanting Zen to be more than just “Zen”.

Your nose is growing longer and longer by the minute, gnostic! For shame! Now go to your room and sit quietly without thought.


I will give you a hint: The experience of Zen and Brahman are beyond the teachings of Zen and Brahman.

 

[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..

I do not trust your source.

Well, apparently the International Physics Conference thinks so highly of this man without the 'proper' credentials, that they presented him with the very prestigious 'Best Paper Award' at that conference, 2009, I believe:

"Nassim Haramein has recently proven that the “Strong Force” and the “Standard Model” actually rely upon a mis-measurement of the energy density of all Protons.

Along with Dr. E.A. Rauscher, Nassim Haramein has published a more precise cosmological mathematics, which shows that the mysterious “Strong Force” is actually “Quantum Gravity” in disguise.


This Paper, The Schwarzschild Proton received the Best Paper Award at the 9th International Physics Conference (CASYS’09 – Computing Anticipatory Systems) in Belgium, and the prediction within The Schwarzschild Proton was recently confirmed by a Swiss proton accelerator experiment in 2013.


The Standard Model of physics has been overturned and we now have a more accurate measurement of the quantum world.


In addition to The Schwarzschild Proton, Nassim Haramein has published The Origin of Spin.
Within this paper, Nassim Haramein and Dr. Elizabeth Rauscher have effectively added “Torque” calculations to Einstein’s Field Equations, thus identifying the source of Charge within all subatomic particles (protons and electors) – a very useful discovery.


With Haramein’s new and award-winning model of the universe, we can now design and engineer small scale systems that are able to produce their own magnetic and gravitational fields independent of the Earths magnetic and Gravitational field.


Thus, opening up the door to Magrav Technology as means of Lift, Drive and Energy Generation – replacing combustion technology and resolving the energy and environmental crises plaguing our planet today."

https://www.thenewenergyindustry.com/project/revolution-nassim-haramein-and-magrav-technology/

Nassim was so dedicated to physics that he spent day and night, living in a van for years to educate himself in order to create more study time for himself so he did not have to work so many hours. Apparently, it all paid off in the end, and he is now reaping the rewards of his efforts, while gaining world wide recognition. One of his claims is that he has resolved the disparity between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, explained in his Ted Talk video 'The Connected Universe'.

 

[godnotgod]

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.

But you have missed the point with all your truly stupid 'trashing' about. You have even trashed your beautiful Asian culture, like a Bull in a China Shop. Don't you see what your mind is doing? It first sets up a straw dog called 'Mystical BS', and then proceeds to kick it around and abuse it, without understanding the nature of what it is you are kicking around so abusively. Any teaching that does not fit your materialist concept is automatically 'trash', and gets dumped.

Anyway, the point you have missed is that both ben d and I have noticed the same fact of your lack of reading comprehension in discussions with you, and, as ben d pointed out, it is due to your shortcomings in the English language, so because of that, he kind of excused you. And while I understand that you have this handicap, I cannot let go some of the glaring errors you make in comprehension as it changes the meanings of what I am saying to you dramatically.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Atheists don't avoid these alternatives and we don't say "Everything just IS,".
Regarding an "absolute beginning", we say we don't know, yet.
Regarding an "eternal", we say we don't know, yet.

This is honest and in direct contrast to theists who make up origin stories and insist they are correct. In terms of Christianity, you proclaim the universe had an absolute beginning around 6,000 years ago when it was created by an eternal god. A position for which there is absolutely no corroborating evidence.

There's a lot there to unpack, and some accusations I don't bear--I would NEVER EVER say "Earth is only 6,000 years old, and I know for sure."

I'm okay with "We don't know yet" rather than "Things just ARE", however, will you admit that you question why everything "is" from an existential perspective?

 

[BilliardsBall]

And as I have been telling you, we don’t know if the universe is or isn’t eternal.

What the Big Bang cosmology explain is working backward the timeline using General Relativity on how stars and galaxies, then using a combination of nuclear/particle/quantum physics to explain how the earliest atoms formed (hydrogen, helium & lithium), and before that, how the smaller particles formed (protons and neutrons, then earlier quarks and leptons).

The further you go back in time, the more denser and more hotter was the universe, where the universe was more in plasma state.

The Big Bang theory only explain from the inflationary of the universe, starting with the Planck Epoch. It doesn’t explain the universe before this Planck Epoch, other than saying it was infinitely hot and infinitely dense.

So BB explain mostly the observable universe, and nothing much really beyond that.

You say you like history, then you should appreciate that the Big Bang theory is ongoing scientific theory, with 3 major contribution beginning with 1910s and 1920s, then the late 1940s to the mid-1960s, and then the late 1990s.

Before the 20th century, astronomers thought the whole universe was the Milky Way, because the telescopes was not very powerful before the building of the observatory with the Hooker Telescope was completed in 1919.

Before the Hooker Telescope, astronomers just assume the Andromeda and Triangulum, the most distant objects they could see with the naked eye (respectively about 2 and 3 million light years away) were nebulae within the Milky Way itself, not two separate galaxies.

Now, in 1906 and then in 1917, Albert Einstein respectively formulated Special Relativity and General Relativity.

Einstein had also worked on duality of light, having the properties of wave and particle - the Photoelectric Effect (1905) - and that, along with Max Planck (who was responsible for the black body radiation in 1894 and his famous Planck’s constant in1900), kickstarted the Quantum Theory.

It was Edwin Hubble, using the new Hooker Telescope in 1919, when he discovered that Andromeda and Triangulum were separate galaxies, not part of the Milky Way. And Hubble discovered a lot more galaxies even more distant than Triangulum Galaxy.

It was only then (1919) and from that time onward, that they discovered the universe was a lot larger than the Milky Way.

Not long after Hubble’s breakthrough discovery, 3 pioneers independently used Einstein’s General Relativity as their frameworks, came up with the expanding universe model or the inflationary universe model, before it was called the Big Bang theory in 1948 or 49. They were -

1. the Russian astrophysicist Alexander Friedmann (1922),
2. the American physicist Howard Percy Robertson (1924-25),
3. and the Belgian physicist and Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître (1927).

Each one were Big Bang pioneers.

It was Robertson who predicted that the expansion can be explained by observing two galaxies moving apart, by measuring the redshift in the electromagnetic spectrum. His prediction was verified by Edwin Hubble in 1929. Robertson-Hubble redshift was the first piece of evidence favouring the B.B. cosmology.

Friedmann died in 1925, but he taught a young student, named George Gamow, who defected to the US and taught Friedmann’s model in university during the 1940s. He was mentor to his former student Ralph Alpher, whom he teamed up and wrote the papers on the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis in 1948. Alpher with Robert Herman wrote another paper in 1948, on the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) that happened during the Recombination Epoch (which I have already spoke at length in my previous replies).

These 1948 predictions weren’t verified until 1964, by two physicists, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, who accidentally discovered CMBR when they were installing basic radio telescope at Bell Labs in New Jersey. That was 2nd and more important evidence.

1948 marked the 2nd most important contribution to the Big Bang theory.

The 3rd important important of the Big Bang theory, was to explain why the universe is not only still expanding, but also accelerating. So in come, the formulation and predictions of Dark Energy and Dark Matter, and in the late 1990s, was the Lambda-CDM model or the ΛCDM Big Bang.

The Greek letter lambda stands for Dark Energy, while CDM stands for Cold Dark Matter.

Georges Lemaître made be called the Father of the Big Bang theory, but he wasn’t the only contributor, and he certainly was the first.

So that the history of the Big Bang theory.

THANK YOU.

I do hope I understand: "we don’t know if the universe is or isn’t eternal" is what you wrote. But I see only two possibilities, one of which we will someday learn via science, we believe:

1. It is.

2. It isn't.

If it is, I ask myself, "How is that possible?" If it isn't, I ask myself, "Who or what process created the non-eternal universe?"

Are you okay with me asking myself these natural questions? Do you ask yourself either or both of these questions?

Thanks again.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

THANK YOU.

I do hope I understand: "we don’t know if the universe is or isn’t eternal" is what you wrote. But I see only two possibilities, one of which we will someday learn via science, we believe:

1. It is.

2. It isn't.

If it is, I ask myself, "How is that possible?" If it isn't, I ask myself, "Who or what process created the non-eternal universe?"

Are you okay with me asking myself these natural questions? Do you ask yourself either or both of these questions?

Thanks again.

Answer me honestly:

Did you stop reading gnostic's post after the very first sentence?

 

[Polymath257]

THANK YOU.

I do hope I understand: "we don’t know if the universe is or isn’t eternal" is what you wrote. But I see only two possibilities, one of which we will someday learn via science, we believe:

1. It is.

2. It isn't.

If it is, I ask myself, "How is that possible?" If it isn't, I ask myself, "Who or what process created the non-eternal universe?"

Are you okay with me asking myself these natural questions? Do you ask yourself either or both of these questions?

Thanks again.

There is also the question of the definition of the term 'eternal'. Does it mean 'for all time'? Or does it require that time go infinitely far into the past? So we actually have the following possibilities:

1. Times goes infinitely into the past and the universe exists whenever there is time.

2. Time goes infinitely into the past and the universe came into being at some time.

3. Time only goes finitely far into the past and the universe exists whenever there is time.

4. Time goes only finitely far into the past and the universe started after time did.


Now, your question 'How is it possible' requires the action of causality. So one issue that needs to be addressed is the connection between causality and time. Similarly, the question of 'who or what process?' also requires a discussion of causality.

Now, my position is that 1) time is part of the universe and 2) causality requires time. Now, if time is part of the universe, then my 2 and 4 cannot happen. But if causality requires time, then there *cannot* be causality for the universe in cases 1 or 3. That means that your questions of cause simply do not apply in the only cases that make sense.

The only way to avoid this is to show either that time is *not* part of the universe (which is difficult because of general relativity) or that causality does not require time (which is difficult because of the nature of both causality and time).

 

[godnotgod]

There is also the question of the definition of the term 'eternal'. Does it mean 'for all time'? Or does it require that time go infinitely far into the past? So we actually have the following possibilities:

1. Times goes infinitely into the past and the universe exists whenever there is time.

2. Time goes infinitely into the past and the universe came into being at some time.

3. Time only goes finitely far into the past and the universe exists whenever there is time.

4. Time goes only finitely far into the past and the universe started after time did.


Now, your question 'How is it possible' requires the action of causality. So one issue that needs to be addressed is the connection between causality and time. Similarly, the question of 'who or what process?' also requires a discussion of causality.

Now, my position is that 1) time is part of the universe and 2) causality requires time. Now, if time is part of the universe, then my 2 and 4 cannot happen. But if causality requires time, then there *cannot* be causality for the universe in cases 1 or 3. That means that your questions of cause simply do not apply in the only cases that make sense.

The only way to avoid this is to show either that time is *not* part of the universe (which is difficult because of general relativity) or that causality does not require time (which is difficult because of the nature of both causality and time).

Eternity is outside of Time and Space, and therefore outside of Causation as well. It is this timeless present moment that you now find yourself in. But realization of this fact only occurs when you awaken. When you see yourself existing in Time and Space, and therefore, Causation, then you are still asleep, though you think yourself awake. Real Love is one of those experiences that can awaken us, and the sense of eternity can be experienced first hand. Otherwise, the conditioned mind will always think in terms of Time, Space and Causation, until awakened.

"The Universe IS The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivekenanda

 

[Polymath257]

Eternity is outside of Time and Space, and therefore outside of Causation as well. It is this timeless present moment that you now find yourself in. But realization of this fact only occurs when you awaken. When you see yourself existing in Time and Space, and therefore, Causation, then you are still asleep, though you think yourself awake. Real Love is one of those experiences that can awaken us, and the sense of eternity can be experienced first hand. Otherwise, the conditioned mind will always think in terms of Time, Space and Causation, until awakened.

"The Universe IS The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivekenanda

Word salad doesn't feed understanding.

 

[godnotgod]

"Who or what process created the non-eternal universe?"

.

What makes you think it was 'created'? That is to say, what makes you think the 'material' world is really material? Quantum Physics is now saying that there are no material particles in the Universe, only energy fields.

 

[godnotgod]

Word salad doesn't feed understanding.

Wake up and understand!

 

[Polymath257]

Wake up and understand!

I'm fully awake. I just don't see any sense to what you wrote. In fact, I see a lot of anti-sense to what you wrote.

 

[Polymath257]

What makes you think it was 'created'? That is to say, what makes you think the 'material' world is really material? Quantum Physics is now saying that there are no material particles in the Universe, only energy fields.

Please don't keep with this falsehood. Quantum particles are real things. The field description and the particle description are completely equivalent. The particles determine the type of field and the field determines the probability of detecting a particle. And no, the fields are NOT just energy fields. Energy is one of the properties of the *particles*, but it is far from the only, or even the defining property.

 

[gnostic]

I think you are confused. Brahman is not a persona. You are confusing it with Brahma, the Hindu god.

I am talking about Brahman, not Brahma.

And I am talking about consciousness, not about any god. You are the one confused, not understanding what I am saying.

Zen had nothing to do with the universe or the cosmic of the universe. And Zen has nothing to do with the universe being consciousness.

You are the one conflating Zen awakening with Brahman and the universe.

The Zen awakening only connects with one’s personal journey, not the cosmos or the universe.

Please provide sources from Zen Buddhism that speak of the universe being conscious.

No. Zen and Buddhism are not about knowledge. They are about spiritual awakening. The Buddha achieved the highest possible state of awakening a human being can achieve called 'Supreme Enlightenment', which is none other than Cosmic Consciousness.

There is no such 'Brahman' IN the Universe: Brahman IS The Universe! Awakening, or Nirvana, is the merging of your consciousness with that of the Universe, as the drop merges with the vast ocean.

Again, Buddhism have not to do with Brahman and nothing to do with the universe.

Why do you keep insisting on this shenanigan?

 

[gnostic]

I do hope I understand: "we don’t know if the universe is or isn’t eternal" is what you wrote. But I see only two possibilities, one of which we will someday learn via science, we believe:

1. It is.

2. It isn't.

If it is, I ask myself, "How is that possible?" If it isn't, I ask myself, "Who or what process created the non-eternal universe?"

Are you okay with me asking myself these natural questions? Do you ask yourself either or both of these questions?

Asking questions are fine, but only if you can suspend false assumptions before you get the answers with real data (evidences) to work with.

I am not saying that you cannot ask further questions, if you can manage to get answer to your question.

I am saying, can you wait for the answer from your first question. Because your 2nd set of questions, deal with casualIty, if you do get answer from the 1st question?

But what if your 1st question cannot be answered? Can your ask more questions if your 1st question is unanswerable?

 

[godnotgod]

I'm fully awake. I just don't see any sense to what you wrote. In fact, I see a lot of anti-sense to what you wrote.

You only think yourself awake. It's typical of people who are still asleep, and see the world as a mechanical wind up unconscious apparatus that can be 'understood' via dissection and clinical analysis. Like you, they insist they are fully awake, and by a trick of nature, they wake up for a brief moment and then go back to sleep. If your consciousness were truly awake instead of being so thoroughly conditioned by learning, you would have no trouble seeing that eternity is not in Time or Space. But it is anti-sense to you because your rational mind immediately wants to 'make sense' of something it doesn't understand by superimposing your conceptual frameworks over nature, thinking you've got something. When you wake up in this moment, time doesn't stand still; it simply doesn't exist.

 

[godnotgod]

Please don't keep with this falsehood. Quantum particles are real things. The field description and the particle description are completely equivalent. The particles determine the type of field and the field determines the probability of detecting a particle. And no, the fields are NOT just energy fields. Energy is one of the properties of the *particles*, but it is far from the only, or even the defining property.

Well it's clear to me now that there are basically two schools of thought amongst physicists about that; the materialists, like yourself, and those of the new physics, like Tong.

Tell me what is 'real' about particles. Tong clearly states that they simply do not exist. It is apparent you do not agree with that. He says they are actually 'bundles of energy'.

 

[godnotgod]

I am talking about Brahman, not Brahma.

And I am talking about consciousness, not about any god. You are the one confused, not understanding what I am saying.

Zen had nothing to do with the universe or the cosmic of the universe. And Zen has nothing to do with the universe being consciousness.

You are the one conflating Zen awakening with Brahman and the universe.

The Zen awakening only connects with one’s personal journey, not the cosmos or the universe.

Please provide sources from Zen Buddhism that speak of the universe being conscious.


Again, Buddhism have not to do with Brahman and nothing to do with the universe.

Why do you keep insisting on this shenanigan?

In the Hindu view, Brahman is the fundamental Reality playing itself as 'The Universe'.

Are you saying that a Zen practitioner who realizes his own Enlightenment is not fully in and of the Universe when this occurs? If not, where do you suppose he is?

In Hinduism, the jiva, or individual soul, becomes one with Brahman, ie; 'Pure Consciousness', because his true nature already IS Brahman. IOW, he was Brahman all the time, but asleep, pretending he was NOT Brahman, playing the cosmic game of Hide and Seek. Actually, the jiva is a play of Brahman, and in reality, never existed from the very beginning. The only true Reality is that of Brahman.

In Zen, Awakening is the goal. When one awakens, it is to realize that the world one thought to be real, is actually illusory. That the self, ie 'jiva', one thought oneself to be, is illusory, or, in terms of the Heart Sutra, 'empty of self nature', and that one's true nature is that of the Buddha himself. Buddha nature is not that of the individual self. If it is not of the individual self, ie 'self view', then the only thing it can possibly be is that of universal nature. Buddha nature is consciousness that is fully awake. The Buddha referred to himself as 'the awakened one'. That means his consciousness is fully awake, and THAT means his consciousness is pure, ie 'clear', empty of self nature. Pure Consciousness without self nature is Brahman. There are not two Ultimate Realities.

In Nirvana, ie 'extinguishing', the seeker, ( ie 'individual soul', or 'jiva', in Hindu terms,) never existed to begin with. What is extinguished is greed, lust, and avarice, which exist via the illusory self. Only Nirvana is Ultimate Reality, fully awakened Mind:


Nirvana and Expanded Consciousness
By Harold Boulette

“The true teaching is that Nirvana is a state of the fullest consciousness—a state in which the soul is relieved of all the illusions of separateness and relativity, and enters into a state of Universal Consciousness, or Absolute Awareness, in which it is conscious of infinity, and eternity—of all places and things and time. Nirvana instead of being a state of nothingness, is a state of ‘Everythingness.*’” ~William Walker Atkinson

Whether you call it Christ Consciousness, Cosmic Consciousness, Nirvana, Enlightenment, or some other name, it all means that same thing: that state of being in which one is fully conscious of the universe and everything in it. And that is not limited to the material level of the universe, but more significantly, includes the spiritual planes of existence also. In fact, one cannot hope to achieve this Nirvana without using the spiritual faculties.

To a materialist, this all seems total nonsense. To them a higher state of consciousness means getting another college degree and filling your brain with more and more “facts” that are often not facts at all, but opinion. That attitude is understandable since some of them have tried very hard to understand the spiritual with the brain, and to achieve these high levels of consciousness using the brain. Unfortunate for them, it just can’t be done.

more here: http://cosolargy.org/nirvana-is-cosmic-consciousness/

* Everything can only be manifested, however, where the fundamental state of Absolute Nothingness is present, just as waves can only come into play when the vast underlying ocean is present.

 

[Polymath257]

Well it's clear to me now that there are basically two schools of thought amongst physicists about that; the materialists, like yourself, and those of the new physics, like Tong.

Tell me what is 'real' about particles. Tong clearly states that they simply do not exist. It is apparent you do not agree with that. He says they are actually 'bundles of energy'.

He is quite clear that particles exist in the sense of quantum mechanics. They don't have the same properties as classical particles, but they * exist.

You are very hung up on the concept of 'material' in a classical sense. And it is true that the *classical* notion is false. But that doesn't mean that things aren't material. It just means that our definitions need to be changed in the light of what we have learned.

Our experiments detect particles, not 'energy fields'.