The Awakening of the Omniself

[Swarupa]

Considering how inadequate language is at describing the Self/Infinity i feel conversation about it should mainly be directed at methods of directly experiencing it, rather than theories about its actual existence, those deabtes are fruitless as they don't incite the direct experience.

 

[Rising Spirit]

Considering how inadequate language is at describing the Self/Infinity i feel conversation about it should mainly be directed at methods of directly experiencing it, not descriptions or theories about its actual existence, those debates are fruitless as they don't incite direct experience of pure consciousness.

To those that know it is the only thing that exists, so why seek to prove it? It's Self evident.

Agreed. I doubt any sincere seeker seriously believes they can prove the existence of that which is beyond the grasp of finite mind and the laws of relativity. At best, we allude to a greater presence and vainly attempt to encapsulate the Infinite in rational human terms. Granted, it may seem like a hopeless effort, given the depth of such conceptions but I do feel it is a valuable thing, this desire to communicate. For, if the realization of an Omniscient state of being is both, universal and natural... why not rejoice in sharing our visions?

Just keep experiencing it... if you are always experiencing something, then the whole world can tell you that you are wrong, every scientist on the planet, but inside you know because your experience is the unbroken flow of being that can't be removed... that being doesn't need the support of anything to assert or assure its existence, its fucking OWNS existence.

Wise council. It seems clear that with or without our merging, the perfection of absolute consciousness shines brightly in it's unbound glory. If we celebrate such a Divine play and cosmic dance, kudos to us. Honestly, I just want to reach out and shake hands with my psychedelically/spiritually oriented family, the family of mystically inclined shamans and erudite philosophers, clinically precise scientists... who frequent this fine oasis on the net and across the expanses of this small world of ours. Ain't life grand? Thanks for your input. 8)



Peace, love & Light

 

[Citta]

I do not think we as humans are connected to everything. We aren't even one thing. We are made up billions upon billions of tiny particles. Our sense of self is also an illusion created by the brain again for evolutionary reasons.

Well, we are connected to everything. Matter/energy interaction. Besides, all of reality is within our minds collectively, also a way to say we are connected to everything. The whole universe as we know it within our framework is in the mind collectively. I'm not arguing that there's not some kind of objective reality out there, but reality per se as we know it is a representation of our minds, our thought constructs and our technology which is also relative to our own framework and distinguished thought processes and mental constructs.

The experience can give people a profound sense of empathy for other people and other forms of life and non life. I think its alone makes it worth having the experience.

Seconded.

As far as we know the universe is made of discrete particles. They all interact with each other and in that sense they are connected but they are still distinct objects. That's what quanta means. Even if something like string theory is correct its still not one giant connected thing. So I don't really see how this idea of everything being one really makes sense.

Why is the universe not one giant thing? Even tho the most fundamental reality we know of is discrete particles that interacts with eacother, they are all just matter/energy interactions - manifestations of the same thing. Just the fact that we can't describe a particle in an on itself, but only in interaction with something else makes it pretty obvious they are all connected. They are distinct objects because we choose to see them as such. We abstract phenomena in order to study it. The way we abstract is also very spesific to our brain and the way the brain works. What is reality outside of this organ? Fundamentally, what are particles? Do they really exist outside the physicist and the apparature he uses in his study of them?

 

[embracethevoid]

How are you not connected to everything? A mere flutter of your eyelids will change things for lightyears around, even if slightly. And let's not forget the concept from string theory that the whole universe can be encoded on its boundary, that points in only one direction, connectedness.

Also the idea that the universe is "made of quanta" is a lie. It clearly is not, it's merely our way to interpret and make sense of this damn thing. There is no such thing as an atom, there is no such thing. All of these things are merely names you give to what actually is, and what actually is happens to be just the one seamless thing. You will notice that every model of the atom has been smashed to bits and there is always a new atom or fundamental particle, a new smallest indivisible unit. I sincerely doubt the Planck length is the end of this thing. Quantising the universe is like digitising an analog signal, no matter what you do there will always be the leftover pieces in the signal you lose out on. People are going to be struggling with this one until they understand that, notice how general relativity works to almost arbitrary precision (of course so does QM)?

Yes you can observe things like single electrons moving through slits and whatnot, even then it doesn't take away from what I say. The reason being that what "connects" everything ironically is also what "separates" everything - the vacuum of space itself. Actually, to say that anything is "connected" or "separated" is a lie, both of these things imply separate entities joined together or not; this is self evidently not the case. Space may be the "absence of matter" but matter is also the absence of space to a very rigorously definable degree.

 

[burnt]

I'm going to scrutinize a bit more I'll respond to each person individually:

Embracethevoid:

And let's not forget the concept from string theory that the whole universe can be encoded on its boundary, that points in only one direction, connectedness.

I don't see why the holographic principle implies that? I'm confused.

Also the idea that the universe is "made of quanta" is a lie. It clearly is not, it's merely our way to interpret and make sense of this damn thing. There is no such thing as an atom, there is no such thing. All of these things are merely names you give to what actually is, and what actually is happens to be just the one seamless thing. You will notice that every model of the atom has been smashed to bits and there is always a new atom or fundamental particle, a new smallest indivisible unit.

Atoms are real. Just because certain models of the atom are no longer accepted doesn't mean atoms aren't real. The periodic table is as valid as ever. Sophisticated models of atoms have been developed that are in line with experimental data and physical theories. Yes there are more fundamental building blocks then protons and neutrons but protons and neutrons are still there. Its just a different scales with different properties.

I spent a good part of this afternoon trying to figure out the shape of a molecule based on physical measurements. I "look" at molecules all the time.

I sincerely doubt the Planck length is the end of this thing. Quantising the universe is like digitising an analog signal, no matter what you do there will always be the leftover pieces in the signal you lose out on.

Well if we are talking about electricity no matter how you want to look at it fundamentally its all a bunch electrons. When there is an whole bunch of them it becomes practical to use analogue like descriptions. I'm probably not saying that correctly but I think its clear what I mean?

The planck length is really really small ~10 to the -33cm. Although things like diameter become fuzzy at scales as small as the electron an electron classically is ~10 to the -13cm. These are massive orders of magnitude in difference. Measuring things at the plank length requires generating energies far beyond technological capabilities. It is possible that things like quarks and electrons are fundamental objects that literally do not get any smaller. Its an assumption to assume that things go infinitely down. There could be more fundamental objects like strings (or some other object might be envisioned).

Yes you can observe things like single electrons moving through slits and whatnot, even then it doesn't take away from what I say. The reason being that what "connects" everything ironically is also what "separates" everything - the vacuum of space itself. Actually, to say that anything is "connected" or "separated" is a lie, both of these things imply separate entities joined together or not; this is self evidently not the case. Space may be the "absence of matter" but matter is also the absence of space to a very rigorously definable degree.

Empty space is not empty. Even what is apparently empty space is teeming with particles that wink in and out of existence.

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/618 (note this lecture discusses unification of forces which I will comment on later in post)

Citta:

Well, we are connected to everything. Matter/energy interaction. Besides, all of reality is within our minds collectively, also a way to say we are connected to everything. The whole universe as we know it within our framework is in the mind collectively. I'm not arguing that there's not some kind of objective reality out there, but reality per se as we know it is a representation of our minds, our thought constructs and our technology which is also relative to our own framework and distinguished thought processes and mental constructs.

I am connected to things in the sense that the matter in and around my body is in contact with a bunch of other matter/energy around me. If you connect all that then yes in some sense its all connected but its still a lot things being connected via other things. The matter in my body is only in contact with other stars in the sense that I can see photons that left them potentially hundreds upon thousands of years ago.

Our reality is a representation in our minds. Objective reality doesn't have to be. Our senses can't perceive most of it anyway.

Why is the universe not one giant thing? Even tho the most fundamental reality we know of is discrete particles that interacts with eacother, they are all just matter/energy interactions - manifestations of the same thing. Just the fact that we can't describe a particle in an on itself, but only in interaction with something else makes it pretty obvious they are all connected. They are distinct objects because we choose to see them as such. We abstract phenomena in order to study it. The way we abstract is also very spesific to our brain and the way the brain works. What is reality outside of this organ? Fundamentally, what are particles? Do they really exist outside the physicist and the apparature he uses in his study of them?

Sure you can look at the universe as one giant thing in the same sense you can look at your own body as one thing. When you speak about manifestations of the same thing in some sense that might be correct. Its possible that the four fundamental forces are all manifestations of the same fundamental forces. But force particles are not all there is, which is important to note. Please see the lecture I highlighted earlier in post, this is discussed.

Kartikay:

I can't deny what I've seen, burnt, but I completely understand where you're coming from. In fact I use that argument myself when an emotional gf starts getting paranoid about who thinks what about who, among other things... But again, seeing is believing. I'm not going to preach it, or push it on anyone else. But at this point, I could never change my belief about it.

How can you not question what you have seen? Our senses and intuitions are known to make mistakes. Its a fact. Thus I personally question my own experiences. Why I had them and what may have caused them to occur is a valid question.

Honestly this is one thing that scares me about psychedelic drugs and probably keeps them illegal. That they cause people have beliefs that are so strong they will not try and think critically about them. I've seen it go gone wrong in certain people. People have harmed themselves and others because of delusions induced by psychedelic drugs. Not that I'm implying there is anything wrong with you or anyone's beliefs that's not my point.

To sort of respond to/retort this argument, I don't think this is actually what physicists have discovered. First off, we've discovered particle entanglement, which proves that in some dimension(and i use that term to refer to nothing specific... i just don't have a better word) things can be connected regardless of physical distance. Secondly, we've never actually discovered a true piece of physical matter. A block of pure gold looks solid and singular, but its made up of atoms. Atoms look singular, but are actually made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. The atomic particles look singular but are actually made up of subatomic particles, etc etc. Everything is just energy, and we can perceive it differently at different levels of magnification.

Yes entanglement is a real phenomenon but not all particles are entangled. Entangled particles can be made under certain conditions. Like I said earlier electrons and quarks may really be fundamental 'matter' particles. Various force particles may be fundamental as well. We don't know yet. We may never know the answer to that. So thinking things go infinitely down or up is an assumption.

Gibran:

You say that it’s the brain that “actively sets up our perception of the self and its separation from the rest of the world”. This suggests that the brain is doing something to make us perceive ourselves as separate, when in fact we might not be. You also say that psychedelics break down or inhibit this separation process.

These are reasonable assumptions, but how do they lead to the conclusion that we are indeed separate? All you’re really saying is that when the brain is in one state (it’s evolutionarily advantageous “normal” state) we feel we are separate, and when it’s in another state (it’s DMT-addled “oneness” state) we feel we are “one”.

Well again people are not really one thing. We are many things. Our brain makes us seem like we are one object, a human, which is also sort of an illusion. I'm a bunch of cells working together and I'm mostly unaware of those processes. So when you feel like your are everything because drugs are inhibiting this sensation or extending some other sensation that overrides it your just changing your perception of it. But neither is really correct.

Two brain states, two resultant ways of perceiving. We can test brain states and examine the effects on perceptions, thoughts, feelings, etc., but there is no test that can show which state (if either) represents reality.

It doesn't have to.

 

[Citta]

So ultimately, to sum it all up, what do you think? I mean, the distinction of objects, separetedness, feeling of an I is just a state of mind, as is the state of mind of oneness, so where does this lead us? And what do you mean about

Our reality is a representation in our minds. Objective reality doesn't have to be. Our senses can't perceive most of it anyway.

Isn't all we have our reality? The reality created by our brains? Isn't all of reality, the way we know it, our own? What can we really say about anything objective? Why are atoms real? Why are particles real? Fundamentally, are any of these things even near being what we think they are? All of reality and everything in it is created by our brains, no? What do we know about things outside of this organ? We are in principle unable to say anything about anything objective, because all we have are ultimately mental phenomena with its roots in the human nervous system.

Everything we habitually call physical, or matter, is a product of our psyche, or the brain. Science is a game, as it plays by certain fundamental rules. And the most fundamental rule of science is the assumption of an objective world, fixed with all sensory qualities, before we sense it. What we perceive isn't "out there" before we sense it, but is rather being projected by the brain as external objects.

There isn't any absolute external cosmos, just conditions in the human nervous system we call spatial extent, colors, things, electrons, cubes, whatever.

 

[actualfactual]

As far as connectedness I'm going to paraphrase Sagan - we are all made out of star stuff. Everything we are physically made of was made in the center of dying stars. We are the universe observing itself..

 

[embracethevoid]

I don't see why the holographic principle implies that? I'm confused.

Thanks for the response . I can't quite transfer my thoughts into words on this subject but roughly what I mean is that if such a concept is true then evidently each quanta of the universe contains the rest of the universe inside of it in a way. Now the key point is that a single quantum doesn't carry any significant information content yet to explain why it is there and not elsewhere, you would essentially have to describe its entire past light cone or at least the contents of its observable universe in the present moment. I see that as nothing less than pure connectedness.

Atoms are real. Just because certain models of the atom are no longer accepted doesn't mean atoms aren't real. The periodic table is as valid as ever. Sophisticated models of atoms have been developed that are in line with experimental data and physical theories. Yes there are more fundamental building blocks then protons and neutrons but protons and neutrons are still there. Its just a different scales with different properties.

I spent a good part of this afternoon trying to figure out the shape of a molecule based on physical measurements. I "look" at molecules all the time.

Of course, you are right. These little segments of reality exist just as much as our body cells do. But what I mean is that atoms are not real in the same zen way that you are not real, that there is no self without the other to define it. These constructs don't exist outside of our own minds. An atom is not definable unless you define what a photon is, if you get what I mean; there are no absolute measures in this universe, fundamental ratios aside.

As for the 2nd bit, a matter of perception! Let's be a bit pedantic, I'm guessing you're looking at a diffraction pattern or something. That's not "looking at an atom", that's looking at what you percieve/believe to be an atom. Say you have a telescope but you believe that the stars are painted onto a canvas that wraps around the earth, you'd be telling me "I got a good look at the canvas therefore it's there". Of course, this isn't really any major matter in this discussion.

Well if we are talking about electricity no matter how you want to look at it fundamentally its all a bunch electrons. When there is an whole bunch of them it becomes practical to use analogue like descriptions. I'm probably not saying that correctly but I think its clear what I mean?

The planck length is really really small ~10 to the -33cm. Although things like diameter become fuzzy at scales as small as the electron an electron classically is ~10 to the -13cm. These are massive orders of magnitude in difference. Measuring things at the plank length requires generating energies far beyond technological capabilities. It is possible that things like quarks and electrons are fundamental objects that literally do not get any smaller. Its an assumption to assume that things go infinitely down. There could be more fundamental objects like strings (or some other object might be envisioned).

You're damn right about the electricity. Yet, I'm of the opinion that science can go in 2 directions - one being that we have found everything as is now and future progress will instead be made in analysing the intricacies of QM or the more likely option, that it will never end. Every generation thinks that science is done and dusted once and for all and then something always proves that wrong.

Empty space is not empty. Even what is apparently empty space is teeming with particles that wink in and out of existence.

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/618 (note this lecture discusses unification of forces which I will comment on later in post)

That's exactly what I mean though! To see space as a sea of positive and negative energy summing to an illusory zero means that matter is merely a + or - value in a sea of zeros - taking something away from omnipresent infinity rather than adding something to omnipresent nothing, if you understand?

The big bang singularity would presumably have been one continuous piece of nothingness, and I don't expect that we as big bang remnants have changed that tradition! Indeed my understanding of cause and effect is that everything has been ordained from the first moment but it is freely determined right now - essentially meaning that we are still in the big bang singularity just with the illusion of this entire universe going on


Also to add to Citta, IIRC it is common consensus that prior to observation, nothing actually exists except for the imaginary wavefunction.

 

[burnt]

Interesting replies. Gotta think on it for a while.

 

[Rising Spirit]

If I had to limit myself to just ONE thing that I've learned from psychedelics, then hands down, the answer is that we're all one. In our primal, sleeping self, we are all completely connected with absolutely no division of awareness. It makes no philosophical difference whether we call it the Omniself or God or the Godhead or whatever... but we do lose something in conversation when we resort to using capitalized and archaic terms. If we can describe without proper nouns, then let us do that. We are all connected. We're all one.

OK, if the use of bold print, capitalization and archaic terminology are a turn off... my apologies. Words are funny things and can only fully express their meaning through our often ineffective efforts, by which we attempt to express experiences which fall above and beyond the normal usage of these symbols. I suspect that most of us would agree that 99% of the "enlightenment" experience is beyond the scope of humans speech and the rational organization said ideas convey. For while we believe that they represent our most profound thoughts and beliefs, they are just words after all. In desiring to attempt to communicate, I have discovered that we all have slightly different agendas. Some folks have used the word "argument" to describe individuated perspectives and insights. For myself, arguments are not designed at communicating at all, neither are they aimed at reaching a general agreement or consensus. They appear to be, in fact, the embodiment of a specific type of egotism; have a certain motivation, proudly driving them along. Often we find it is a form of maintaining our rank and status, having been carefully crafted over decades of practice, to contest with aspects and details of another's personal opinion. Almost as if by picking apart any alternate concept, within someone else's attempt at verbal self expression, the unwitting victim in turn become defeated by the cleverness of the very antagonist offering an argument against it (or a contrary stance). We don't have to agree but we do share the same interior Omniself, when everything else is stripped away. :shock:

Admittedly, I have always been naive about this type of communication, so there exists some confusion with how I interpret such comments. Hey, it's my problem, if I choose to oppose such notions but from the structure of my own belief system, I simply must respect all perspectives as viable. So, I hope to expand my understanding of this form of written exchange and learn something positive from it. Still, while utilizing a decidedly debative form of communication is fine for certain applications and discussions, rarely does it generate a consensus. Not that a consensus is necessary or really that important, I just wanted to have some agreements amongst ourselves about that level of consciousness, where all is One. Obviously, it is my projection and important to myself; possibly many other members? I personally feel debates are essentially, a game of one upmanship, whose intention is to nullify the significance of the thoughts of others. We do agree that we are One and that's the most valuable thing to arise from our chat. This makes my heart smile. :d

We often find that a linguistic attempt to encapsulate an experience of a Divine or indivisible field of energy, difficult and/or impossible. For, an experience which is opposite to and so much greater (as with merging with the consciousness of the One), we are doomed to failure. Frankly, any written or spoken approach falls shy of the mark. And yet, we do still try. Why? Why can't some of us easily, get over it? I sincerely believe it is because we desire to rejoice in it's glory. I will take this advice to heart, though, and seek to be clear, concise and free of any use of the English language which obscures the efficiency of my intent. Fair enough? ironically, without catch phrases and grand labels, describing the infinity of an energy field like God, is hard to nail down with human words.

However... get over it! People tend to ride this idea and then add all sorts of crazy to it, like a perfect bill in congress plagued by 200 idiotic amendments. When you start preaching "Ultimate Truths," or claiming telepathy or other pseudo-mystical powers, I then lose interest.

If you're new to this site, then know this: We have heard every type of prophecy from every type of preacher, and we do not like being preached to.

Well, "getting over it" is something for which I am not properly wired. How do you get over seeing the Light? You see, since I was a small child, I have been having experiences which capitalize, emphasize and punctuate it's very importance. Now, as it has for over half a century, this fixation has inspired my mortal soul towards immortality. This is nothing unique and I do feel that many fellow Nexians are in harmony with this kind of exuberance. While I have only been a club member for a little over a year, compared to your staggering span of 2 years... I find it difficult to comprehend how you, Kartikay, feel the authority to speak for the totality of the Nexian community. Isn't the Philosophy/Spirituality forum the appropriate placement for the mention of such ideas? Now, if The Traveler tells me to keep my big mouth shut... that would be a different story.

BTW, nothing I spoke of is by definition, "prophesy" nor am I under any definition of the word, a preacher. I honestly thought I was sharing something I find most precious, with my newly found psychedelically inclined family members. It's certainly nothing new, as our species has been doing so for millenniums. While you may find it irritating, others may find it reassuring, enlightening or inspiring, each in turn? I would advise that you find a way to harmonize more with other sentient beings, who do not share the same exact variations in self expression or mode of delivery. There is something quite wonderful about the communal aspect of communication and our reaching out to one another, we may find we grow in some positive and significant ways. Or we may not... but please be kind to those who wish to stand tall and cry out, "Hallelujah". Such overtly religious exclamations would be ridiculous in the Science forum but how is it out of context on this one? By in large, I have found nothing more intriguing and worthy of both study and exploration, than Humankind's quest for total realization of the One. How is this offensive to you?

Thank you for sharing your vision of the Omniself, I will try and learn from the depth of your wisdom.

Peace,love & Light

 

[cellux]

I have this feeling you are drilling burnt with these extremely psychedelic screwdrivers inch-by-inch towards the realization of Nothingness.

 

[cellux]

I suspect that most of us would agree that 99% of the "enlightenment" experience is beyond the scope of humans speech and the rational organization said ideas convey. For while we believe that they represent our most profound thoughts and beliefs, they are just words after all.

Well, yes and no. In my experience, any kind of phenomena can become a door to the numinous. When this happens, we perceive that thing with our physical senses and our mind, but there is also an extra sense, which perceives the truth behind it. This is how we can decide whether something is good or bad: if we feel a disharmony between the truth, the meaning perceived with the inner sense and the "feel" and structure of the representation, then we - by our nature - are driven to modify the representation until it becomes a perfect embodiment of truth. Then something "clicks" and a new piece of art has been created.

Similarly, if someone is reading words which were written by someone who was "in tune" with the cosmos, then those words may awaken that inner sense in the reader. In that magical act, we can become one with each other through a common ground in the mind of the creator.

 

[Rising Spirit]

Well, yes and no. In my experience, any kind of phenomena can become a door to the numinous. When this happens, we perceive that thing with our physical senses and our mind, but there is also an extra sense, which perceives the truth behind it. This is how we can decide whether something is good or bad: if we feel a disharmony between the truth, the meaning perceived with the inner sense and the "feel" and structure of the representation, then we - by our nature - are driven to modify the representation until it becomes a perfect embodiment of truth. Then something "clicks" and a new piece of art has been created.

Similarly, if someone is reading words which were written by someone who was "in tune" with the cosmos, then those words may awaken that inner sense in the reader. In that magical act, we can become one with each other through a common ground in the mind of the creator.

Beautifully put, Cellux 8)

 

[Kartikay]

Rising Spirit, the vast majority of my post was not directed towards you. I'm sorry that it appeared that way. The capitalized words thing, yes. Everything else, no.

For preachers, I was targeting embracethevoid, and him as well for the claims towards telepathy and pseudo-mystical powers. His was the post directly before mine and I found it lacking of reasonable thought.

For "Ultimate Truths," I was referring to aloneits's mention of Vedanta, the Hindu Upanishads. These texts, along with every other religious text I've seen, are stuffed to the gills with supposed Ultimate Truths, like the ones that aloneits quoted.

Again, I'm sorry that you had to take the time to write out such a well-worded response. It was a post in response to many posts before mine, not just yours.

I will say though, if I had to make a 7-step guide to becoming a New Age preacher, I'd list "making up new definitions for words, and capitalizing them" as step #1. But you've got a long way to go before becoming JZ Knight or Esther Hicks. I've thoroughly enjoyed your posts and the respect you show towards members of differing opinions.

I have no reservations about speaking for the majority of Nexians when it comes to preachers. We have had many-a-conversation about them in the past. I haven't heard a single dissenting voice, but then again I haven't done a full sample survey

 

[burnt]

Citta:

So ultimately, to sum it all up, what do you think? I mean, the distinction of objects, separetedness, feeling of an I is just a state of mind, as is the state of mind of oneness, so where does this lead us? And what do you mean about
Quote:
Our reality is a representation in our minds. Objective reality doesn't have to be. Our senses can't perceive most of it anyway.

Our brain evolved to interpret the world around it in a certain way. Lets take vision as an example of what I am trying to say. Our eyes can see certain wavelengths of light. Humans couldn't have evolved the ability to sense photons of a specific wavelength if it 1- wasn't there or 2- if it had no relevance to our survival. Other organisms can sense the world differently. Many insects see UV light we don't. There are plenty of things in objective reality we don't perceive with our senses.

Isn't all we have our reality? The reality created by our brains? Isn't all of reality, the way we know it, our own? What can we really say about anything objective? Why are atoms real? Why are particles real? Fundamentally, are any of these things even near being what we think they are? All of reality and everything in it is created by our brains, no? What do we know about things outside of this organ? We are in principle unable to say anything about anything objective, because all we have are ultimately mental phenomena with its roots in the human nervous system.

Our reality is all a result of what we can perceive and what we can do cognitively. But that doesn't encompass all of reality. How could it possibly? We couldn't survive if we perceived everything. I couldn't imagine a system that could perceive everything without being as complex as everything.

How can anything be created by our brains if nothing exists? How could our brains exist if there was not something for it to exist in?

Everything we habitually call physical, or matter, is a product of our psyche, or the brain. Science is a game, as it plays by certain fundamental rules. And the most fundamental rule of science is the assumption of an objective world, fixed with all sensory qualities, before we sense it. What we perceive isn't "out there" before we sense it, but is rather being projected by the brain as external objects.

There isn't any absolute external cosmos, just conditions in the human nervous system we call spatial extent, colors, things, electrons, cubes, whatever.

I very much disagree with this. Again how could there be a subjective world without an objective world to evolve from? Not to mention that the objective world and some of its laws that we understand are extremely consistent and could very much exist independently of us. If they couldn't there would be no past and all of existence would just be an illusion. But even if all existence is an illusion there still must be some other existence for you to be having the illusion in. Since no one has noticed any such existence its perfectly fine to assume its not there until something in regular existence points to it. Thus far nothing does.

embracethevoid:

Thanks for the response Smile . I can't quite transfer my thoughts into words on this subject but roughly what I mean is that if such a concept is true then evidently each quanta of the universe contains the rest of the universe inside of it in a way. Now the key point is that a single quantum doesn't carry any significant information content yet to explain why it is there and not elsewhere, you would essentially have to describe its entire past light cone or at least the contents of its observable universe in the present moment. I see that as nothing less than pure connectedness.

I would have to read up more on this idea before I could comment on it accurately. It was major subject in a book I read so I can review that a bit if its necessary.

Of course, you are right. These little segments of reality exist just as much as our body cells do. But what I mean is that atoms are not real in the same zen way that you are not real, that there is no self without the other to define it. These constructs don't exist outside of our own minds. An atom is not definable unless you define what a photon is, if you get what I mean; there are no absolute measures in this universe, fundamental ratios aside.

I don't have to define what an atom is for it to exist. Atoms existed before we ever knew they existed.

As for the 2nd bit, a matter of perception! Let's be a bit pedantic, I'm guessing you're looking at a diffraction pattern or something. That's not "looking at an atom", that's looking at what you percieve/believe to be an atom. Say you have a telescope but you believe that the stars are painted onto a canvas that wraps around the earth, you'd be telling me "I got a good look at the canvas therefore it's there". Of course, this isn't really any major matter in this discussion.

Spectroscopy is not a matter of perception. Neither are telescopes. They are tools to understand aspects of reality that lie outside our senses abilities. Since you mentioned diffraction I'll assume you mean x-ray diffraction. Its a way to look at crystalline substances by bombarding them with x-rays which are scattered by the molecules electron 'cloud'. My perception of the pattern doesn't have anything to do with it. Our ability to understand the rules that govern these patterns is the way they are interpreted.

This is going to get off topic so I'll stop about this subject if you want to discuss scientific instrumentation and its ability to tell us about the world around us I'd be happy to in another thread :arrow:

You're damn right about the electricity. Yet, I'm of the opinion that science can go in 2 directions - one being that we have found everything as is now and future progress will instead be made in analysing the intricacies of QM or the more likely option, that it will never end. Every generation thinks that science is done and dusted once and for all and then something always proves that wrong.

Yea I think anyone who claims that science is done is full of it.

That's exactly what I mean though! To see space as a sea of positive and negative energy summing to an illusory zero means that matter is merely a + or - value in a sea of zeros - taking something away from omnipresent infinity rather than adding something to omnipresent nothing, if you understand?

Its not just positive and negative energy though. There's a lot more to it then that. These kind of connections made by people about mysticism and science saying the same thing are superficial at best.

This is also not how we humans see empty space. We barely even notice the air around us which is filled with matter at higher energies. Its only by careful probing that we notice these effects which can also be predicted or confirmed by theory if they are in any way representative of whats going on.

The big bang singularity would presumably have been one continuous piece of nothingness, and I don't expect that we as big bang remnants have changed that tradition! Indeed my understanding of cause and effect is that everything has been ordained from the first moment but it is freely determined right now - essentially meaning that we are still in the big bang singularity just with the illusion of this entire universe going on Razz

This reminds me of a quote by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their new book "The Grand Design". Its actually on the first and its relevant to my next point:

"Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge."

Naturally quotes like this pissed a lot of people off. But I think its great and it should serve as a wake up call for philosophers to get their facts straight before speculating about the big questions like where did the universe come from or why do we exist.

First the singularity can't be correct it didn't take into consideration quantum mechanics. Its based on a strictly relativistic view of the universe which would apply at the low scales for which a singularity supposedly would exist. So there is no point in discussing the big bang from the singularity idea it was wrong. It was a good early attempt though but now we know more. So anyone who philosophizes about the singularity at many theologians do they are wasting their time.

Second your human intuitions about cause and effect are wrong. All of ours are. Its only by probing the subatomic world we realize this. So again a lot of philosophy that has gone on is incorrect when looking at the universe from certain intuitive perspectives.

 

[Kartikay]

Kartikay:

I can't deny what I've seen, burnt, but I completely understand where you're coming from. In fact I use that argument myself when an emotional gf starts getting paranoid about who thinks what about who, among other things... But again, seeing is believing. I'm not going to preach it, or push it on anyone else. But at this point, I could never change my belief about it.

How can you not question what you have seen? Our senses and intuitions are known to make mistakes. Its a fact. Thus I personally question my own experiences. Why I had them and what may have caused them to occur is a valid question.

If it was a one-time experience, then I would agree. However, it is an experience that is repeated 100% of the time. It's not an adequate scientific process, but it does at least have the element of being able to be reproduced successfully each time it is repeated, even by other users.

Questioning everything all the time is rather fruitless. Am I really sitting on this couch? If I get off it, will gravity really pull me to the floor? Is there really beer in the refrigerator? The answer to all these questions is yes. They aren't worth doubting.

Honestly this is one thing that scares me about psychedelic drugs and probably keeps them illegal. That they cause people have beliefs that are so strong they will not try and think critically about them. I've seen it go gone wrong in certain people. People have harmed themselves and others because of delusions induced by psychedelic drugs. Not that I'm implying there is anything wrong with you or anyone's beliefs that's not my point.

I think more accurately, the problem is that most of the ideas can't be tested critically. If there is no way to test a hypothesis using the scientific method, then anything we use to justify our ideas will fall short of solid evidence. That being said, I agree that there is a tendency for people to fall into all sorts of conspiracy theories which can be examined rather thoroughly. This happens rather frequently without the use of psychedelics, though. I recall we had a president who believed in weapons of mass destruction over in Iraq at one point...

To ease your worries, if you truly have any, about the specific belief that everything is one: I don't think anyone will get hurt by living by the golden rule and treating others as we would treat ourselves.

To sort of respond to/retort this argument, I don't think this is actually what physicists have discovered. First off, we've discovered particle entanglement, which proves that in some dimension(and i use that term to refer to nothing specific... i just don't have a better word) things can be connected regardless of physical distance. Secondly, we've never actually discovered a true piece of physical matter. A block of pure gold looks solid and singular, but its made up of atoms. Atoms look singular, but are actually made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. The atomic particles look singular but are actually made up of subatomic particles, etc etc. Everything is just energy, and we can perceive it differently at different levels of magnification.

Yes entanglement is a real phenomenon but not all particles are entangled. Entangled particles can be made under certain conditions.

Regardless, it's worth noting.

A stronger argument, would be that electrons collapse from a wave function to a particle when observed. We are not physically manipulating these electrons in any way. Each and every one of us has this ability, given the proper equipment to observe the phenomena. I'm honestly open to other explanations, but to me that shows that there is a dimension(again, please excuse the term) in which awareness exerts influence and ties us together without spatial dimensions.

Like I said earlier electrons and quarks may really be fundamental 'matter' particles. Various force particles may be fundamental as well. We don't know yet. We may never know the answer to that. So thinking things go infinitely down or up is an assumption.

You would make a greater assumption by assuming that electrons and quarks are fundamental 'matter' particles. Why assume that the trend ends there? It seems more probable that the trend would continue. Why? Because it is smarter to follow trends, rather than ignore them. Our limiting factor is our technology and our ability to observe the world at that level. We could agree, I think, that it is foolish to recognize either explanation as absolute. Both are legitimate possibilities.

 

[Virola78]

"A substance cannot be produced from anything else : it will therefore be its own cause, that is, its essence necessarily involves existence, or existence appertains to the nature of it."

"No two or more substances can have the same attribute and it appertains to the nature of substance that it should exist. It must therefore exist finitely or infinitely. But not finitely. For it would then be limited by some other substance of the same nature which also of necessity must exist: and then two substances would be granted having the same attribute, which is absurd. It will exist, therefore, infinitely."

- Spinoza

Im curiously burnt, what do you think of the ideas of this philosopher?
Are his ideas not based on logic?

 

[polytrip]

All particle research has realy proven, is that we know nothing. All our assumptions on space and time proof to be wrong, time and time again.
We cannot peak into scales that are smaller in size than the most basic building blocks of our world. So we're left with a model that only knows properties of things of that scale or properties derived of things of that scale.
There is no tool that will ever enable us to look further, because all the tools we have only exist in the world of properties derived from our smallest scale particles.
Most importantly is that we will never have any understanding of what goes on in those small scale dimensions either, because all of our understanding is based on the properties of things at this scale we know.
Everything we do is speculating.

 

[gibran2]

I haven’t listened to this yet, but it seems relevant to this topic:

Quarks + Creation

 

[embracethevoid]

Burnt:

What's the name of the book if you don't mind me asking? As for the idea that atoms existed prior to our existence, you are STILL doing the stars-printed-on-a-canvas thing, I would expect you to learn a bit faster, this is the most basic aspect of logic. Let's use a common riddle, a tree falls in the forest with nobody to hear it. The tree makes a vibration but it doesn't make a sound, a sound is something heard by the ear. Likewise, atoms are the sound not the vibration, what truly exists are the excitations in what may perhaps be the unified field (I am under the assumption that this field exists). In fact it is unjust to even say "excitations" because all that there is is the unified field.

As for perception - you are right that objective reality exists; numbers always have perfect consistency. However the subjectivity arises in that your perception/interpretation of what you observe is variable. The telescope doesn't falter but the man behind it can. Semantics aside, what I'm saying is that you are not looking at an atom, you are looking at a disturbance in "THAT which is" which you call an atom. A human is human but we separate it into arms, legs, etc.

The key point is that the separation produces a massive amount of work for our brains to handle and while there is more room for information, there is also more room for delusion. Concentrating on the universe as a unified system merely results in more compassion, love and understanding than if you were to look at it as a separate "every man, woman, child and particle for themselves" system, primarily due to the overload on the brain in trying to process what is essentially a many body problem. The best brains of our time can't even handle the chaos of 3 perfect spheres in orbit, and you expect the average Joe "Brainless" Schmoe to compute a 7 billion body problem? Hell no!

It's funny because I actually had a dream about this; I occasionally get highly spiritual dreams which are like choreographed waking trips in a virtual reality rather than psuedorandom dreamtime gibberish. This time round I was observing a scene as it was. I percieved what I felt to be my brain's cpu cycles, this was represented to me as a light ray running around in a circuit, the shape of the circuit representing my thoughts. To observe alone made the light ray return to zero in rapid time but each time I made a judgement about what I was seeing, the ray went around in an extra circuit as my memory was updated and internal grammar/vocabulary was modified to accomodate for the judgement. Fascinating stuff.

Regarding space/mysticism; sure most science-mysticism connection is superficial but you cannot deny the element of pure common sense/intuition in making the connections that happen to be correct. What I understand is that science never actually tells us what is but it definitely tells us what is not, what cannot be. We know the earth isn't flat, or resting on a turtle. We know the Earth doesn't orbit the sun or vice versa but they revolve around the centre of mass. What we do not know is what the hell is ACTUALLY going on. My belief is that we never shall know because we are the deciders of that.

The singularity is a reasonable start, forget the fine intricacies and focus on the big in-your-face issues at hand. We observe that the universe clearly is accelerating away from itself and we deduce that if we roll back time, this means that perhaps the universe was perhaps a single unified entity at the beginning. I disagree with the quote in that science has been the ONLY bearer of the torch rather than "become" and also in that without the torch-bearing of science, many people have already been fully illuminated as to the nature of this universe. The problem is not in the knowing of truth because the ultimate truth is innate and effortless to comprehend, the problem is in putting it into words.

As for cause and effect, please expound why my intuition is wrong, don't just say it is because that's pretty useless to know. I'm of the understanding that QM agrees fairly well with such a view of causality, my belief is merely that "consciousness causes collapse", that "randomness" arises from the decisions of the sole observer of the sole system. In my opinion this is fairly obvious and tautologically so once one realises that the animated movable, munchable, fuckable human consciousness is not CONSCIOUSNESS, the foundation/base matter of the universe but rather a mere expression of it on an incredibly insignificant little planet in the middle of nowhere called Earth. Spinoza's quote prior has it down to a T.