The Watchmaker Revisited

[Polymath257]

So this discreteness, or quanta: what is it's origin?

Tong was clear to say that the fields are present in the Quantum vacuum, but fields are energy, not of a material nature.

So it appears to me that you are saying that discreteness emerges from the fields, but underneath the field level, are discrete quanta. Tong says there is no evidence of this underlying discreteness.

The field description and the particle descriptions are *entirely equivalent*. Neither one has priority over the other. It is another case of quantum dualism.

 

[godnotgod]

Emergent phenomena still exist in nature.

Yes, but being emergent, they are not fundamental to nature, again, at least according to Tong.

In that context, the 'feild' is simply a state of the system.

If that is the case, then we have a chicken vs egg situation in terms of origin. Particles emerge from fields, but fields do not emerge from particles. 'Particles' return to the default state of field, which is without form. This pattern of form emerging from the formless state is reflected in the Big Bang event. The particle is an event in the field, and not the reverse. When you talk about 'particle', you are talking about field.

Fields are always present, but particles are not.

So 'the system' is something that contains both field and particle? Are you referring to the Quantum vacuum? If not, then what, exactly, do you mean by 'system'?

Who thinks this? There are fundamental particles, like electrons and quarks, from which everything else is made. But there isn't a *single* fundamental material. That's an invention of your fantasy.

For many decades, people thought the material world to be composed of 'particles', even though there are many kinds of them. Prior to that, they thought that the 'atom' was the fundamental building block of the universe, even though there are many types of atoms.

.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, but being emergent, they are not fundamental to nature, again, at least according to Tong.



If that is the case, then we have a chicken vs egg situation in terms of origin. Particles emerge from fields, but fields do not emerge from particles. 'Particles' return to the default state of field, which is without form. This pattern of form emerging from the formless state is reflected in the Big Bang event. The particle is an event in the field, and not the reverse. When you talk about 'particle', you are talking about field.

So 'the system' is something that contains both field and particle? Are you referring to the Quantum vacuum? If not, then what, exactly, do you mean by 'system'?

No, particles do not 'emerge' from fields. Each type of field is associated with a particle. Each type of particle is associated with a field. For each field, there is an operator whose value gives the number of particles of that type around. For each particle type, there is a field that describes the probability of measuring that type of particle.

Neither is an 'event' in the other. They are literally different ways to describe exactly the same thing.

For many decades, people thought the material world to be composed of 'particles', even though there are many kinds of them. Prior to that, they thought that the 'atom' was the fundamental building block of the universe, even though there are many types of atoms.

.

And now, everything is made from a few fundamental particles: electrons, quarks, neutrinos, etc. All of them are particles with associated fields.

You didn't answer the main question: what do *you* mean when you say something isn't 'material'? What is required to say something *is* 'material'? In what way do electrons, quarks, etc NOT conform to your definition?

 

[godnotgod]

You didn't answer the main question: what do *you* mean when you say something isn't 'material'? What is required to say something *is* 'material'? In what way do electrons, quarks, etc NOT conform to your definition?

I have no answer because in my world, 'matter' is just an illusion, a creation of consciousness. But for you, it is something 'real'. But so is the dream world when you are asleep, dreaming. It is real on that level of consciousness. On the next level of wakefulness, this macro world of 'things' is also 'real', but from the POV of the next higher level, it is also a dream, but one of a higher caliber than the one of the previous level.

 

[Polymath257]

I have no answer because in my world, 'matter' is just an illusion, a creation of consciousness. But for you, it is something 'real'. But so is the dream world when you are asleep, dreaming. It is real on that level of consciousness. On the next level of wakefulness, this macro world of 'things' is also 'real', but from the POV of the next higher level, it is also a dream, but one of a higher caliber than the one of the previous level.

OK, so when you say things are not 'material', you don't actually mean anything by it?

You are the one that repeats that nothing is 'material'. What does that statement mean *to you*.

For *me*, to be 'matter' is to be composed of first generation fermions. That makes all atoms examples of 'matter'. For me, the term 'physical' is more general and includes other generations of fermions as well as bosons. So, light is physical but not matter.

 

[godnotgod]

OK, so when you say things are not 'material', you don't actually mean anything by it?

You are the one that repeats that nothing is 'material'. What does that statement mean *to you*.
.

....that nothing is real except That which is manifesting it. What is 'real' does not appear and disappear; it does not come and go, like the phenomenal world does, always in flux. The only true Reality is that which does not come and go, and it is not 'material', but appears to be material.

If you are dreaming, you may experience dream thirst and hunger, and drink dream water and eat dream food. For you, on that level, dream water and food are real. The same is true on the next level of wakefulness: we experience a 'material' world that is real to us; we measure particles and they exhibit spin, mass, and all the other properties and so they are 'real' to us. But from the POV of higher consciousness, they are all illusions.

 

[Polymath257]

....that nothing is real except That which is manifesting it. What is 'real' does not appear and disappear; it does not come and go, like the phenomenal world does, always in flux. The only true Reality is that which does not come and go, and it is not 'material', but appears to be material.

OK, I disagree. That which is *real* isn't in a dream. It is *always* in flux because time is real. And yes, real things come into existence and go out of existence.

dreaming, you may experience dream thirst and hunger, and drink dream water and eat dream food. For you, on that level, dream water and food are real. The same is true on the next level of wakefulness: we experience a 'material' world that is real to us; we measure particles and they exhibit spin, mass, and all the other properties and so they are 'real' to us. But from the POV of higher consciousness, they are all illusions.

OK, I disagree. Dreams are different than reality. At least mine are. I have never been refreshed by dream water, never felt full from dream food.

And you have yet to demonstrate the existence of a 'next level' or why your fixation on Tong and energy bundles relates to such.

 

[godnotgod]

OK, I disagree. That which is *real* isn't in a dream. It is *always* in flux because time is real. And yes, real things come into existence and go out of existence.

OK, I disagree. Dreams are different than reality. At least mine are. I have never been refreshed by dream water, never felt full from dream food.

And you have yet to demonstrate the existence of a 'next level' or why your fixation on Tong and energy bundles relates to such.

Time and space are not real in a dream, and yet the dream is always in flux, coming into and going out of existence.

You may not have been refreshed by dream food and water specifically, but when you are dreaming, you do not know you are dreaming; you believe your dream to represent reality.

Only you can experience the next level, in the same way you now experience waking from a dream, an awakening which immediately shows you the illusory nature of the dream.

Whether particles are of a 'material' nature or of an energy nature is a characteristic of the illusion of a 'material' world. It's just that the caliber of the dream is of a much higher one than your ordinary dream, which vanishes upon awakening. The world as we know it via the level of conditioned awareness does not vanish upon awakening onto the next higher level of unconditioned awareness. It is that background of unconditioned awareness against which you now see all things, rather than via the subject/object split which the conditioned mind artificially creates. Because there is no longer the self-construct of a subject/object split functioning, consciousness is no longer limited to a separate subject called 'self', but is instead now completely integrated into the Universe. This is part of the transformation of consciousness that occurs from a conditioned to an unconditioned state, which now sees things without Time, Space, or Causation.

 

[Polymath257]

Time and space are not real in a dream, and yet the dream is always in flux, coming into and going out of existence.

You may not have been refreshed by dream food and water specifically, but when you are dreaming, you do not know you are dreaming; you believe your dream to represent reality.

No, not actually. Whenever I have stopped and asked myself in a dream if I was dreaming, I knew I was. It's easy enough to tell.

Only you can experience the next level, in the same way you now experience waking from a dream, an awakening which immediately shows you the illusory nature of the dream.

Well, that s a claim. Even a nice story. Any proof?

Whether particles are of a 'material' nature or of an energy nature is a characteristic of the illusion of a 'material' world.

Just to clarify. Particles exist as part of the 'material world'. You just consider that material world to be an illusion.

It's just that the caliber of the dream is of a much higher one than your ordinary dream, which vanishes upon awakening. The world as we know it via the level of conditioned awareness does not vanish upon awakening onto the next higher level of unconditioned awareness.

So, it is real. It doesn't vanish like dream worlds do.

It is that background of unconditioned awareness against which you now see all things, rather than via the subject/object split which the conditioned mind artificially creates. Because there is no longer the self-construct of a subject/object split functioning, consciousness is no longer limited to a separate subject called 'self', but is instead now completely integrated into the Universe. This is part of the transformation of consciousness that occurs from a conditioned to an unconditioned state, which now sees things without Time, Space, or Causation.

Again, a fancy story. I'm certain you've had an experience. I very much doubt you have interpreted it correctly. I've had similar experiences, but understand them to be delusional.

 

[godnotgod]

No, not actually. Whenever I have stopped and asked myself in a dream if I was dreaming, I knew I was. It's easy enough to tell.

So you partially woke up inside the dream, enough to discern that you were dreaming.
But until that moment occurred, you did not know you were dreaming, and the dream was reality to you.[

Well, that s a claim. Even a nice story. Any proof?

When you accidentally fall into a mountain lake, how do you immediately know the water to be cold before thinking about it?

Particles exist as part of the 'material world'. You just consider that material world to be an illusion.

The 'material' world is 'real' as determined via your perceptual experience in consciousness. As for 'particles', I go with Tong, who says they don't exist in the world, while understanding you disagree with him. This position needs to be further developed to get a better handle on it, however.

So, it is real. It doesn't vanish like dream worlds do.

No. What I am saying is that because it does not vanish, it reinforces the notion of 'realness', in spite of the fact that it's true nature is illusory.

Again, a fancy story. I'm certain you've had an experience. I very much doubt you have interpreted it correctly. I've had similar experiences, but understand them to be delusional.

Well, science is far, far fancier, and has a multiplicity of theories re: the nature of Reality. Now, my experience with higher consciousness yields unmistakable happiness and joy. Is that delusional? Perhaps your experiences were still in the realm of the intellect?

 

[Polymath257]

So you partially woke up inside the dream, enough to discern that you were dreaming.
But until that moment occurred, you did not know you were dreaming, and the dream was reality to you.

Only because I hadn't asked the question. Once asked, the answer was clear.

When you accidentally fall into a mountain lake, how do you immediately know the water to be cold before thinking about it?

My senses inform my brain which processes the signal that the water is cold. That is a form of thought.

The 'material' world is 'real' as determined via your perceptual experience in consciousness. As for 'particles', I go with Tong, who says they don't exist in the world, while understanding you disagree with him. This position needs to be further developed to get a better handle on it, however.

No. What I am saying is that because it does not vanish, it reinforces the notion of 'realness', in spite of the fact that it's true nature is illusory.

The definition of reality is that which doesn't vanish because you stop thinking about it. So, because it does not vanish, it is real, not illusory.

Well, science is far, far fancier, and has a multiplicity of theories re: the nature of Reality. Now, my experience with higher consciousness yields unmistakable happiness and joy. Is that delusional? Perhaps your experiences were still in the realm of the intellect?

Happiness and joy are brain states. I'm sure that you experience them. That doesn't mean you interpret those states correctly in terms of their meaning.

 

[godnotgod]

Only because I hadn't asked the question. Once asked, the answer was clear.

You temporarily woke up within the dream. Until you did and asked, you did not know you were dreaming. It was real to you.

My senses inform my brain which processes the signal that the water is cold. That is a form of thought.

But you experienced the water as 'cold' prior to consciously thinking that it was cold.
Was their really 'thought', or just stimulus/response? Consciousness is knowing what the response is about. Thinking is what occurs immediately afterwards: 'Oh, the water is cold!' You know that it is cold before the thought that it is cold comes into play.

The definition of reality is that which doesn't vanish because you stop thinking about it. So, because it does not vanish, it is real, not illusory.

While it does not seem to vanish, it is constantly in the process of vanishing, though it can be imperceptible to the sense. The only true Reality is that which does not come and go; which does not appear and which does not vanish, and that is the background to that which appears and vanishes. Without that background of changelessness, you would not know that there is change.

Happiness and joy are brain states. I'm sure that you experience them. That doesn't mean you interpret those states correctly in terms of their meaning.

There is neither interpretation or meaning. There is only direct experience. I am sure the brain responds to those states, but what you are saying is simply that memories of joy and happiness are stored in the brain, but that does not mean the brain is the source of joy and happiness. There is joy because there is the absence of delusion, which is the source of unhappiness.

 

[Polymath257]

You temporarily woke up within the dream. Until you did and asked, you did not know you were dreaming. It was real to you.

Why do you assume that? Dreams are not 'real' to me. When I dream, I am typically aware I am dreaming.

But you experienced the water as 'cold' prior to consciously thinking that it was cold.

Hmmm...yes, the conscious thought that it is cold comes later, but mostly because it requires more processing. Both the experience and the thought are activities in the brain.

Was their really 'thought', or just stimulus/response? Consciousness is knowing what the response is about. Thinking is what occurs immediately afterwards: 'Oh, the water is cold!' You know that it is cold before the thought that it is cold comes into play.

Well, the brain responds fairly fast (not instantaneously) and the amount of processing is more than a simple reflex in the spinal cord. I think you are trying to make a distinction without a difference. Both are brain functions.

While it does not seem to vanish, it is constantly in the process of vanishing, though it can be imperceptible to the sense. The only true Reality is that which does not come and go; which does not appear and which does not vanish, and that is the background to that which appears and vanishes. Without that background of changelessness, you would not know that there is change.

There is neither interpretation or meaning. There is only direct experience. I am sure the brain responds to those states, but what you are saying is simply that memories of joy and happiness are stored in the brain, but that does not mean the brain is the source of joy and happiness. There is joy because there is the absence of delusion, which is the source of unhappiness.

Sorry, I *want* to be thinking. Direct experience is a rather simplistic way to approach the world. The complexities make me happy.

I think the experiences we have *are* brain states. So are thoughts, emotions, experiences, etc. Without sensory input or brain activity, you have no experiences at all. And, even when there *is* brain activity, that activity may not reach the level of consciousness, so there still might be no 'experience'. A good example is what happens under certain types of anesthetics, where you can respond to commands, but have no memory after.

 

[godnotgod]

Why do you assume that? Dreams are not 'real' to me. When I dream, I am typically aware I am dreaming.

Until you asked the question, you did not know that. Otherwise, why ask?

Hmmm...yes, the conscious thought that it is cold comes later, but mostly because it requires more processing. Both the experience and the thought are activities in the brain.

But isn't the entire experience a combination of the hot stove, contact, the response, and then the realization? So it is not all about 'the brain'. (I'm sure this is where we differ, since for me and many others, consciousness is non-local, but which stores info in the brain for some activities, such as those of autonomic function.)

[/QUOTE]Well, the brain responds fairly fast (not instantaneously) and the amount of processing is more than a simple reflex in the spinal cord. I think you are trying to make a distinction without a difference. Both are brain functions.[/QUOTE]

Ultimately, and without taking the time to explain at this moment, both are functions of consciousness, the brain being a localized function of consciousness. But all I'm saying here is that we have the experience first, and then thought follows about the experience. You know the water to be cold immediately and without thought because the experience of 'coldness' and the realization of coldness are one and the same event.

Sorry, I *want* to be thinking. Direct experience is a rather simplistic way to approach the world. The complexities make me happy.

No one can avoid the direct experience of life on this planet. We are in it all the time. How we respond is a different story. Some form conceptual frameworks about the experience called religion, philosophy, science, etc, and attempt to make reality fit the framework. Others pursue the source of the experience itself without forming such frameworks. It may be simpler, but certainly not simplistic.

I think the experiences we have *are* brain states. So are thoughts, emotions, experiences, etc. Without sensory input or brain activity, you have no experiences at all. And, even when there *is* brain activity, that activity may not reach the level of consciousness, so there still might be no 'experience'. A good example is what happens under certain types of anesthetics, where you can respond to commands, but have no memory after.[/QUOTE]

Such responses indicate the presence of consciousness, which is also present during dreaming, the details of which many people have little or not recollection. But even in sleep without dreams, there is consciousness present, or you would not respond to the alarm clock or the sun through the window to awaken.

 

[godnotgod]

 

[Polymath257]

Until you asked the question, you did not know that. Otherwise, why ask?

Because a dream state isn't the same as reality.

But isn't the entire experience a combination of the hot stove, contact, the response, and then the realization? So it is not all about 'the brain'. (I'm sure this is where we differ, since for me and many others, consciousness is non-local, but which stores info in the brain for some activities, such as those of autonomic function.)

It's not an experience until the brain receives and processes the information from the nerves. No nerves, no experience. No brain processing, no experience.

Well, the brain responds fairly fast (not instantaneously) and the amount of processing is more than a simple reflex in the spinal cord. I think you are trying to make a distinction without a difference. Both are brain functions.

Ultimately, and without taking the time to explain at this moment, both are functions of consciousness, the brain being a localized function of consciousness. But all I'm saying here is that we have the experience first, and then thought follows about the experience. You know the water to be cold immediately and without thought because the experience of 'coldness' and the realization of coldness are one and the same event.

No, you don't realize the water is cold until the signal carried by the neurons gets to the brain to be processed. I tis the processing of the brain that is the 'experience' and the 'realization' of coldness. If there is no neural signal that reaches your brain, you won't have the experience, no matter how cold the water is.

No one can avoid the direct experience of life on this planet. We are in it all the time. How we respond is a different story. Some form conceptual frameworks about the experience called religion, philosophy, science, etc, and attempt to make reality fit the framework. Others pursue the source of the experience itself without forming such frameworks. It may be simpler, but certainly not simplistic

.

I think the experiences we have *are* brain states. So are thoughts, emotions, experiences, etc. Without sensory input or brain activity, you have no experiences at all. And, even when there *is* brain activity, that activity may not reach the level of consciousness, so there still might be no 'experience'. A good example is what happens under certain types of anesthetics, where you can respond to commands, but have no memory after.

Such responses indicate the presence of consciousness, which is also present during dreaming, the details of which many people have little or not recollection. But even in sleep without dreams, there is consciousness present, or you would not respond to the alarm clock or the sun through the window to awaken.

All of which are activities of/in the brain. If no neural signal gets to your brain (say, if you are deaf), then you won't experience that alarm clock. But, yes, even when dreaming, the brain is active and processing sensory information.

 

[Polymath257]

Sorry, Chopra is a fake.

 

[gnostic]

Sorry, but what would alternative medicine advocate know about the universe.

It would be like asking a carpenter to do brain surgery.

 

[godnotgod]

Sorry, Chopra is a fake.

Evidence?

Klafatos, a Quantum physicist, co-authored the book with Chopra. Is he a fake too?

How about Tong, whom you disagree with? Is he a fake as well, your concepts being the true ones? Or maybe.....

 

[godnotgod]

Sorry, but what would alternative medicine advocate know about the universe.
.

I don't know. Maybe watch the video to find out. What does alternative medicine have to do with seeing into the nature of things?

What did the Buddha know about it? A sheltered prince who achieved Supreme Enlightenment. Oh, wait! I forgot! Mysticism is just a load of crap, right?

note: Klafatos, a Quantum physicist, co-authored the book with Chopra. What does HE know about the universe?

BTW, Chopra is a bona-fide medical physician as well as an ayurvedist.