Nothing is the what Everything comes out of. That seems to be the case in Quantum Physics as well. David Tong in his video, is pointing to the Quantum vacuum as being 'absolutely nothing'. But the fields are still there, out of which Everything is made. Saying that The Absolute is Everything that exists, does not make it finite. It is The Infinite, as Dobson explained:
"Now Swami Vivekenanda's statement that the Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space and causation allows us to get some interesting information, albeit in negative terms, about what he calls the Absolute.
Since it is not in time, it cannot be changing. Change takes place only in time.
And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because division and separation occur only in space.
And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it.
Now "changeless," "infinite," and "undivided" are negative statements, but they will suffice.
If we don't see the Absolute as what it is, we'll see it as something else.
If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."
(edited)
The Equations of Maya
IOW, we are trying to define The Infinite Universe in terms of the conditioned mind, that is, in terms of the conceptual frameworks of Time, Space, and Causation. When these frameworks are removed from consciousness, we then see The Universe as it actually is: The Absolute. It is The Absolute that is appearing as 'The Universe'. We cannot understand the true nature of Reality in terms of descriptions of Reality, like math, physics, religion and philosophy; we can only understand what the descriptions mean when understood in the context of Reality itself. And we can only do that when we see things as they actually are. That can only happen when the mind is awakened to its original unconditioned state.
I hope some of you can see how what I am pointing to here has everything to do with the Watchmaker topic without having to connect the dots for you. The Watchmaker argument is a flawed argument simply because it is an argument formulated by the conditioned mind, especially being an argument with a religious agenda in mind. In that sense, the topic itself is a proselytizing activity. The unconditioned view, OTOH, has no such agenda in mind. It is just to see things as they are, and not as any doctrine wants you to see them. And isn't that what any discipline should be doing? To free the mind of ignorance so it can see things as they are?
If you can't impress people with the elegance of simplicity, then baffle them with complex BS. You are not interested in honestly sharing or explaining any rational basis for your arguments. You are like a child, arguing only to go the distance, regardless of what anyone else says. Losing, or being proven wrong are not options. Your words desperately avoids connecting any logical dots. They only need to sound like they do. You simply, create your own dogma and logic, add what is unknown or unknowable, call both absolutes, and continue to make truth claims. This is truly a sad, deceptive, and the most intellectually dishonest method of discourse. Especially, since nothing you say can be proven or falsified. But to add insult to misery, you are now inferring that we are the fools responsible for giving your self-serving delusions any credence at all.
Truth is, you just don't like the fact that I have something valid to say that exposes your silly materialist paradigm, so you would rather see the thread shut down to stop the voices in your head. So here you are, throwing a tantrum.
For a thread that's been 'hijacked' by me, there certainly is a huge amount of interest and response to my input, including yours. I can hardly keep up.
and,
You're just making excuses to stay inside Plato's Cave, where it is nice and comfy, and gives you that nice fuzzy feeling of thumb-sucking security. You know. The one that says you are on the 'right' side, exactly like the one the theists get by thinking they are on the right side. Neither of you wants to venture out of your comfort zone. The light of day would be too harsh.
These, and many other quotes, are examples of arrogance and egotism. Certainly not knowledge. You mentioned the "conditioned mind" as one of your mind-numbing mantras. Is it the conditioned mind that believe that consciousness exists outside of the physical brain? Is it the conditioned mind that believes that there exists an ultimate consciousness, or an unconditional perspective or view? Is it the conditioned mind that accepts that something is true without evidence, because there is NO evidence that something is true? Is it the conditioned mind that avoids, deflects, misrepresents, and distorts any questions that requests that you prove your extraordinary claims? Isn't your own arguments flawed by your own conditioned mind? Or, is your mind an "unconditioned mind" that exists outside of the brain, and is exempt from the "special pleading" fallacy? You may hide behind a cloak of pseudo-sophistry and unfalsifiability. But eventually without evidence or facts, the ludicrous nature of your claims will become exposed as the nonsense rhetoric it is. I sincerely hope that you are not just another insecure attention seeking science illiterate, that chooses to create a redefined version of reality in his own image. Simply to overcompensate for a lack of something else.
The two questions that I asked, "does
nothing" mean the absence of absolutely everything? Shall we say the "
nothingness" is also an absolute?". These questions are clear and simple. They only required a simply yes or no. Your responded was the same convoluted, indirect, vague and ambiguous truth claims, that try to circumvent, distort, or avoid the original questions. No one asked about what is in the case of Quantum physics. I don't think you could solve even the simplest problem in Quantum physics using the simplest of operators. Just another straw man creation to avoid the answer.
Nothing is the what Everything comes out of. That seems to be the case in Quantum Physics as well. David Tong in his video, is pointing to the Quantum vacuum as being 'absolutely nothing'. But the fields are still there, out of which Everything is made. Saying that The Absolute is Everything that exists, does not make it finite. It is The Infinite, as Dobson explained:
You simply argue with yourself, to create your own straw man. My question had nothing to do with a Quantum Vacuum, or Quantum fluxuations. Two areas that you seem to know very little about. But since there are many more that know even less, you can safely become the "one-eyed man in the world of the blind". Or, the linguist that only speaks a different language to those that don't know it. A Quantum vacuum is certainly not an example of the absence of absolutely everything(quantum fields, quasi-particles, virtual particles, Casimir effect, and Quantum fluxuations). A Quantum Vacuum is simply the lowest energy ground state in the Quantum world. If "everything" that exist is not finite, then it is not an absolute, period. If the speed of light is not finite in all mediums, then it is also not an absolute, period. So, do you know of any absolutes, that can change or violate any of our physical laws? Of course not, therefore until you or anyone else can, "there are no absolutes in nature", period. Please stop using the Quantum world to dig up, and create more uncertainties about the macro-world. Both worlds use different sets of rules to operate. Stay in the reality that we can observe and understand. I don't have a clue what the relevance of infinite is here, since there are many different "infinites". So using terms like "the Infinite" or "the One", as examples of an absolute is simply silly and meaningless. The most obvious question is "how do you know?", and "what is your evidence?". You don't, you can't, and you never will. You were also asked many times before. What is the material necessity of the metaphysical? What would be its practical worth within society? What evidence can you produce, including fallacy-free logic, to demonstrate even its existence? More questions to avoid, so keep parroting to the ignorant.
You might even be the poster child exception to my thread, why "Religious people are not Stupid". It would seem that there are also no absolutes within the human condition as well. Is mortality an absolute? Or, will your answer include an "infinite consciousness", forms of energy, or a soul? You can always make s**t look good enough to eat if it is plated well. But s**t will always be s**t, no matter how good it looks.
I have learned alot from you. I have learned how easy the english language can become self-serving, abused and manipulated. I've learned that there are no limits to any rational discourse, whenever logic is abandoned. I've learned whenever ideas are not supported with facts, data, intuition, reason, or any evidence, all explanations can be both right and wrong at the same time. It only depends on how they are being used. I have learned that if you equate one unknown term with another unknown term, you can create something that sounds like it should be known. I have also learned what the true meaning of obstinance, human nature, and mystic fundamentalism are. I have learned that if a mystical, metaphysical realm truly does exist, that you are probably the last person on the planet to explain it. I'm afraid compared to our scientific understanding, you will always be a flea, biting the back of an elephant. So please, NO MORE. Come back when you can present any objective evidence to actually back up what you claim. Not, how well you can cut, copy, and paste from Google U.
