Realities Of The Divine

That’s a good argument MeAgain.

Even Hegel in his dialectic of, ‘being and nothingness,’ needs clarity over such things. His antithesis was always implied within his thesis. We could say that nothingness is implied in being, because for there to be being we can argue that there must be someplace where there is no being, but that would not make sense in an Idealist universe, and he was proposing an idealist universe. Hegel used nothingness as the antithesis but he did not mean this nothingness as a void of all being. Instead he reasoned that if you try to think of ‘pure being,’ all you can think of is nothingness, so this was his antithesis.

We are unable to experience a non-physical thing in the physical world as the conscious mind perceives only that physical world. There is one exception, and that is mind. Light, as a zero-mass, zero-time, particle is questionable as well.

If we look at the definition of physical we see that it is, 1.) Of or relating to the body and not of the mind. 2.) Of or relating to things perceived of the senses and not of the mind; tangible or concrete. 3.) Of or pertaining to things of a sexual nature. 4.) Of or pertaining to Natural science. 5.) Of or pertaining to physics and characterized or produced by the forces and operations of physics.

As you can see by definition above the mind is nonphysical. In the MIT experiments that I have often referred to, there is very strong statistical evidence that human intention, a non-physical thing of the mind, can alter physical states of matter or even matter itself, for example, the .ph level of water, the coagulation of blood, the speed at which insect larva develop and so forth. In fact, the results were so powerful that they bled over into the control and the experiments had to be redone with the control experiment separated from the main experiment. This is an example of a nonphysical element, by definition, having an effect on the physical.

Likewise, there are physical things, such as drugs or alcohol, that can alter the nonphysical (mind).

One problem is that there is no word to easily describe existence in all its nuances. Physical things certainly exist. We speak of the mind in terms of its existence, which is nonphysical. But then we speak of nonphysical existence, which references things that cannot exist in a physical sense, and suddenly its existence cannot be because it is not of the reality we take for granted. The first question then becomes can there be a nonphysical existence? Well, we know that mind exists, and that is already nonphysical. But what of other things that we cannot determine to exist in a physical, yet somehow suggest an existence of some kind?

That wave of light that is rapidly approaching us from deep in space cannot be perceived in any manner by the physical senses. There is no way to develop a physical thing that could measure or detect that light and signal its existence before it reaches us, therefore we can only know of that light through the mind, which goes against all the definitions other than 5. While this light meets definition 5 of physical, its existence is still only of the mind, i.e. theoretical, because we do not truly know if the star that produced that light was destroyed or even blocked by another object, such that any light would no longer reach us at some near future point, and that light is therefore not there. Therefore we cannot truly say that this light still in deep space is an actual physical existent.

At some future time, that light reaches us, and we realize that it was there all the time. But based on the definition, we can argue that it was not physically existent until we were aware of its existence. From our limited perspective it was existent in a nonphysical sense, until the present moment where it was physically perceived (at which time through decoherence it actually underwent a probability wave collapse and became a physical particle).

In the same manner, we cannot perceive a super-positioned particle, because it is not really a particle but a wave, and therefore is neither concrete nor tangible. We can theorize its existence as in definition 5 through math and so forth, but once again, if we try to determine or picture its existence, it is only theoretical. It is only as a collapsed, and actual, particle that it has a position, and is concrete and tangible, at least long enough to produce the phenomena of its existence.

But you are right: “then they are just different forms of the same thing manifesting in different ways.” A wave for example is continuous, without beginning or end, through time and space, and therefore we can argue that even those points where it manifests as a particle, the wave is also present. If the 4th dimension is timeless, then it is simultaneously at all points in the 4th dimension, even those where the wave is pulled into the physical 3 dimensions within the 4th dimension where it has a specific position. And all of time, to light, is a simultaneous event. It must have been a photon in the big bang, on the surface of every star it has emerged from, and every atom in every other star, planet, piece of dust, rock, eye, or whatever that it has been absorbed into, and later from whatever atom it emerged from as that atom absorbed another photon, and yet in between and during each of these photon events, that light was a wave.

Therefore we can say that it is one and the same thing, except that it is an issue of what dimension it is manifesting within. And I would argue that if it is manifesting in a lower dimension, that at the same time it is still present in the higher dimension, but not visa versa. In this sense, the existence becomes one of a question of dimension. But here again, from our human perspective—and in terms of the definitions given above—only things of and within the physical 3 dimensions have physical existence, because we can only perceive of the 3 dimensions through our physical senses, and perceive of the 4th dimension only as time.

But where is the future, where is the past? Only the present has physicality. If only the present has physicality and this is defined by all simultaneously existing quantum—i.e all simultaneous probability collapses—which just as quickly return to probability waves (but just as quickly there are new simultaneous probability wave collapses) then each point of now has physicality, but is still a separate point of universal existence. From a physical standpoint, only the present exists. This represents the philosophical standpoint of presentism, which is the exact opposite of eternalism.

But the 4th dimension is timeless, because in an absolute sense, at the speed of light all time equates to zero—an infinitely small flash of simultaneity. But we do not move at the speed of light, therefore we perceive time—to us the fourth dimension represents time, as time occurs to us (according to the Theory of Relativity) at the speed of light. So from our perspective, the 4th dimension represents eternalism—that all time is present there, Existentially then the past is all phenomena moving away from each of us, while the future is all phenomena moving towards us.

Each point in the universe is therefore a subjective present. As we discussed before (in another thread), if we were standing in a room together, all light moving from me and toward you, is my past and your future. All light moving away from you and towards me is your past and my future. The light that is out deep space approaching us from a star 4 million light years away is approaching us from our future, but is showing us a star as it was 4 Million light years before, but that light is only experienced in a moment of the present. Each Quantum Now is a simultaneous Now manifesting clear across the universe, but it is experienced from a seemingly infinite number of centers, and in this way the present is always subjective and local.

Time is therefore a dialectic of Presentism and Eternalism, which can also be stated as a dialectic between the Now and the timeless.

 

But reality in its totality is never actually perceived---as suggested by the article referred to in the OP. We each define reality in terms of our subjective experience of it. There is a common shared perception of reality, and being able to perceive that, and differentiate that same reality from dreams, fantasies, hallucinations, or even other experiences of reality is what determines our definition of sanity.

The term alternative reality, when used in reference to a drug trip, or the perceptions of alternative states of consciousness such as a Shamanic State of Consciousness refers to a subjective experience of reality. If one experiences such things, or even a glimpse of another dimension, which I believe is possible---then that would, by being a subjective definition of reality, represent an alternative reality.

 

Consensus is one rule of thumb I use in deciding on what is real, but I'd think this would raise problems for atheists. After all, a sizeable number of people throughout history have assured us that god(s) are real. Education and peer verification in a Catholic school will give you a possibly skewed view of reality. Some classic experiments in social psychology, like the Asch experiment, demonstrate that if the rest of the group says the longer line is shorter, the odd person out will agree, whether they really believe it or are afraid of the majority. Janis' Victims of Groupthink documents instances in which this tendency has led to disastrous decisions. Regardless of the science, opinions on the reality of climate change seem to vary with party affiliation. Fortunately, the addition of allies to the minority in the experiments greatly strengthens their decision to stand up to majority views that seem dead wrong.

 

Appologies for the delayed response but in answer to your question I do feel as though reality is inherently formless. I am not certain as to why at least not scientifically. Allow me to expound. Growing up I initially accepted all things I saw, experienced, and was told, primarily by my parents, as fact. There was a God in heaven, Satan resided in hell, and Jesus was divinity incarnate. As I grew older I began to qeustion these precepts. Were my parents correct in their views of existence? What were miracles? Did God cause them? Ihad witnessed a few myself and seen others on TV and the like. However they weren't all Christian based. Through observation and extrapolation I noted that miracles only seemed to happen en masse. Why was this I wondered. So I began to study other religions and over time a realization occured. It was will. Where many are gathered there also am I. I concluded that humans willed these miracles into existence defying reality and it's presumed laws in the process. How was this possible? Why only in large numbers did such things seem to occur? Then came Taoism and my answer. Reality is fluid, malleable, infinite and yet rigid, ungiving, and constantly ending. Hopefully that somwhat answers your question. I must go but I await your reply. Also l do not claim these thoughts as my finality just the first stepping stones on my Way.

 

I think we might distinguish between reality and factuality. Scientific types tend to get the two mixed up. Factuality is the "state of things that actually exist". But it isn't necessary to accept that as "reality'. E.O. Wilson wrote a book misleadingly entitled The Meaning of Human Existence, in which he simply describes human evolution. Very informative, but I don't think it begins to live up to the title. Science, for all its wonderful accomplishments, can never give us meaning, and without that, the brute facts are simply shadows on the wall of Plato's cave, or as you Buddists say, illusions. Buddhism personifies this as Maya, which is ephemeral. In Aztec/Toltec theology, it is Tezcatlipoca (Smokey Mirror), or as St. Paul would say, the glass through which we see darkly. The world of factuality is the world in which people are driven by desires and attachments: getting power, getting rich, getting ahead, getting laid--that's what life's all about. Human life can factually be reduced to organisms competing to survive and reproduce--"full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." I think you Buddhists have it right: the thoughts you put into your mind are very important, and if you buy into the idea that the merely factual world is the true reality, you buy into dukkha.

In western culture, we have those who purport to be "realists". In international relations, "realism" is the school of thought which views world politics in terms of national interest defined as power. In jurisprudence, "legal realism" is the school that defines the law in terms of predictions of what administrators, police officers and judges are actually going to do. And from a practical standpoint, both perspectives are useful in staying out of trouble. But Saint Augustine tells us that kingdoms without justice are mere robberies. And in the Gospel of Thomas, #56, Jesus tells us: "One who has known the world has found a corpse, and one who has found a corpse, the world is not worthy of ". So much for factuality. I think the historical Jesus was factual, although the evidence is slender. But the mythical Jesus is self-evidently real.

 

How do you know? I've gotten most of my life's meaning from science, including buddhist science. Many scientists are metaphysically fulfilled from their scientific work. Whatever is going on inside your head, whether it's a daydream, or drama about "meaning", that is all stuff that is happening in Reality.

 

I submit that the "meaning" you derive from science is not something intrinsic to science per se but the subjective "metaphysical fulfillment" that your passion brings to it. Dawkins describes it most eloquently:“The feeling of awed wonder that science can give us is one of the highest experiences of which the human psyche is capable. It is a deep aesthetic passion to rank with the finest that music and poetry can deliver. It is truly one of the things that make life worth living and it does so, if anything, more effectively if it convinces us that the time we have for living is quite finite.” Unweaving the Rainbow.. Metaphysics by definition isn't science, but rather a set of ideas designed to fill in the gaps in the absence of facts and empirically refutable scientific theories, e.g., the metaphysical theories of multiple universes or a universe from nothing.

I will say this: reality must be consistent with factuality. I consider world views that are inconsistent with logic or the findings of science to be delusional. That goes for fundamentalism of all persuasions. But when people say that science is the only valid meaning, or the only valid approach to meaning, or that the facts that science has unearthed are the whole story of human existence, they've gone beyond science into religious (or irreligious) fanaticism or scientism. And calling Buddhism a "science" in any sense beyond mere orderly inquiry is a corruption of the term "science" as a process of inquiry based on rigorous empirical testing of falsifiable hypotheses. Christian Science is not a science, no matter what its practitioners like to call it, nor is theology the "queen of sciences". Science cannot tell us scientifically what the meaning(s) of life are in an objective sense. For science, objectivity is the name of the game.

 

Just because theoretical physicists find Buddhism and Taoism useful doesn't make them scientific.

 

Regardless of their scientific value their real measure is of relevance to the perciever. Although I must say that from my common understanding of certain scientific theories I find much in Taoism coinciding with those theories .

 

So did Frijtof Capra. (see The Tao of Physics). Unfortunately, the book was published shortly after the confirmations of the standard-model quantum field theory that made Capra's support of the bootstrap model of strong force interactions obsolete. So goes science.

 

The more I learn of quantum physics the more I see my Way within it.

 

That is the Merriam Webster Definition, though I also used the definition provided on Google search too. The only other dictionary I have is a Webster Collegiate, and it has the same definition.

This brings us back to essence---let me clarify here that my purpose is not to create or return us to a duality. Dualism is part of the problem of the Modern Age after all. There are two purposes here, which I wasn’t very clear on before---1.) Deconstruction of the existing duality where the body or physical side is not only the dominant binary opposite, but even the only side (materialism). 2.) Resolving the duality through dialectic.

I actually agree with you that ultimately there is no difference.

The Modern World is so materialistic in its assumptions on reality that I get too used to debating the physical vs the nonphysical. Because we are dealing with the nihilism of the modern age, and because the ego traps us into a strictly physical reality, I feel we have to take begin with a limited Derridean approach to this problem and first acknowledge that there is still a mind-body duality at play---as much as in Descarte’s time, or as in Kant’s time, there still is today. This is the very source of the nihilism today

Next we try to deconstruct this duality—not as Derrida would with an all out assault converting everything in a text from physical to nonphysical. Rather by taking a part of physical reality we take for granted as physical----the wave---- and setting it up in a nonphysical dimension of its own. If this works, which in terms of both Einstein’s theories and Quantum Mechanics it actually does very nicely, then we have reintroduced Modern Man to the nonphysical.

Next we complete the deconstruction by converting the physical side of the equation also to the nonphysical, which we do not achieve entirely, but we do certainly achieve effectively. Consider that an atom, as we understand it, is .0000000000001 actual physical mass. The rest is empty space—mostly between the nucleus of the atom and the electrons around it. Already concrete material reality no longer seems so concrete. But science already knows this, and so there is nothing new to that. But what we have done is taken physicality and turned it into a continuous state of becoming where, broken down into individual moments, not only is every object mostly emptiness, no object ever even exists in its entirety, and the only particles to ever exist in entirety are zero-mass particles. In other words, we have turned physical existence into a hologram, where the only actual existence is zero-mass particles (and having mass is part of the definition of ‘physical’ in the Webster Collegiate Dictionary), and all of reality is determined by phenomena, emitted by not only these zero-mass ghosts of particles, but also fleeting glimpses of incredibly small bits of other particles—just enough to produce the phenomena of existence.

In other words, the physical is no longer physical. At best it is simply a fleeting shadow of itself. I don’t think this is mathematically accurate (I would have to check it) but if you consider the size of an atom to a human, this could be the equivalent of 1 Planck length to an atom----that is the width of our hologram.

The final step in Derridean deconstruction is to resolve the duality of the binary opposites and demonstrate that they are one and the same. So far what we have done is to create three different dimensional levels to reality—mind, wave, and particle. We have seen evidence that the observer can impact reality and shape how quanta collapse. But if we leave it here, we are faced with that same problem that has always plagued Quantum Mechanics: How could anything exist outside of human perception?

Quantum decoherence gives us a way of allowing for existence without human observation—for the universe to have its own path. This opens the way for still a higher dimension of consciousness; one that equates to the totality of all being, the Absolute—the point at which there is no difference.

In this way we start at the absolute—nous, the Cosmic Mind. This differentiates into the beginning development of the Other: Mind and individual mind. Mind differentiates further into wave form. It is the interaction of all these that come together as the physical reality that we know.

It is the essence resulting from nous and wave that gives objective reality its form (however I use objective loosely in this case, as the subjective-objective duality is also deconstructed, by first returning emphasis to the subjective and then demonstrating that each point of the universe is both subjective and objective). Individual mind as well interacts locally in this regard, e.g. we are exactly who we are through our own individual essence—a creative essence that reflects our history, but also demonstrates an existential freedom of potentiality, i.e. we are largely our own creation. It is the essence through its intentional object that maintains the shape of a ball, the shape of a tree, a dent in a fender, a scar on a back, a broken arm, broken---yet healing…

In the end we are left with a Phenomenalist universe of mind.

Exactly---though I don’t start the argument this way---I end with it. For the sake of multiplicity, I allow for different people to stop at any level, even though doing so would ignore some or much of the philosophy. The first purpose of my philosophy is to break the dogmatic mindset that is responsible for the Post Modern Crisis

I like what you said about the present being a consciousness of the present. I say a very similar thing to that. I still say that only the present exists, but the present is, as you can see, an almost infinitely small hologram. Because it is an actuality—everything coming together and manifesting at each and every subjective point of the Quantum Now, that individual moment represents only the physical present—and it has manifested. On the other hand, because we as conscious beings are able to remember, and anticipate, in addition to perceive the present, our mind transcends the physical (This is my 3rd Principle). The universe itself (nous—cosmic consciousness) transfers quantum information through the wave (phenomena), which is received in one Quantum Now as the phenomena that generates the decoherence (a phenomena which is then transferred once again as wave (phenomena) to a future quantum now), also represents mind that transcends the physical present.

The philosopher, Franz Brentano, was the first (or one of the first) to speak of consciousness as consciousness of an object. Consciousness, he said, held an Intentional Object, which is what it was conscious of. Probability waves have quantum information which determines where the greatest probability is for that wave to collapse into a particle. I place this quantum information as the intentional object of that wave, which as we have seen, is already a form of consciousness. A sentient individual (e.g. a human being) can change this encoded information, through his/her own intentional object. An intentional object does not always alter reality. More often than not it is simply, what Sartre called, positional. In other words, it is simply a continuation of the phenomena as it was generated in a previous Quantum Now. The Tao flows endlessly on. The ball stays as a ball. In the Double Slit experiment, everything left to itself, we get an interference pattern. But change happens through choice---we decide to measure the actual particles going through the slits in the Double Slit experiment, and suddenly the interference pattern turns to a pattern of the two slits.

 

Okiefreak is referring to the deeper questions of Why, and in that I agree with Okiefreak. (And by the way, I don't really believe in the Jesus of the Bible for various reasons, but I do believe that the Gospel of Thomas is probably an accurate record of the things the actual Jesus said.)

Though I am speaking in terms of science as a unifying truth to Modern Culture. Which is to say that on a subjective level, there are those who gain deeper meaning from science in regards to things that matter to them, including their own mortality. But this is not true for everyone.

The philosopher, Spinoza, said that everything has a question why to it. And when we answer that question, it takes us back to another why, and another why before that, and before that. Finally as we get deeper and deeper into the ground of reality, we come to the 'Big Question of Why.' If we never reach this big question why, then the why's would just continue ad nauseum, and life would therefore be absurd. Science never reaches this Big Why, and the reason is not just because one new discovery leads to another.

If Science did truly give life meaning on cultural wide basis, then it would have provided a unifying meaning to our culture, and answered, at least for the time being, the deeper questions we ask. It would have given most everyone meaning. Instead it failed as a unifying truth, and left a vacancy that consumerism filled.

And now, we are faced with a Post-Modern Crisis, and the Age of Nihilism...

 

On a related note, I recently picked up a book titled, 'The Really Hard Problem, Meaning in a material world,' by Owen Flanagan. As the over leaf on the cover says, "If consciousness is the 'hard problem' in mind science, then 'the really hard problem,' Owen Flanagan writes in this provocative book, is explaining how meaning is possible in the material world."

He too, seems to fall back on Buddhism, for example, Chapter 3 has the title, "Science for Monks: Buddhism and Science."

So far it doesn't look too promising. The first chapter reads, "A broad philosophical naturalism can accomodate our unusual nature as social animals that both discover and make meaning. ...the scientific image of persons need not make us weak in the knees. Even if I am an animal, even if at the end of the day I am dead and gone for good, I still make a difference, good or bad. Why? Because I exist. Each existing thing makes a difference to how things go--a small difference, but a difference."

Naturalism, by the way, is a philosophy that anything that appears supernatural is false, or a misunderstood side of physical reality.

It is very objective to assume that such a concept would provide meaning to everyone facing their own demise or the loss of a loved one. This is only the first chapter, but I am hoping it provides more than that!

 

You correctly identify naturalism as a philosophy. It isn't a fact proven by science, but it is an operating assumption of science--and rightly so. Many (I say "many" because I can't prove "most") think it is the business of science to provide explanations of reality that exclude the supernatural. That is, I think, as it should be. It's useful to see how far humans can go in accounting for physical reality without invoking supernatural entities or forces, which can only be influenced by ritual and prayer. But it is also useful to remember that it's an assumption, not a fact that science has proven. Another assumption that scientists like Steven Weinberg and Victor Stenger make is reductionism: "The theory that every complex phenomenon, especially in biology or psychology, can be explained by analyzing the simplest, most basic physical mechanisms that are in operation during the phenomenon". To the reductionist, the whole is essentially the sum of its simple, most basic parts and mechanisms, the rest being more or less epiphenomenal. This perspective led Weinberg to the conclusion: “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless”. Not all scientists are of this opinion. Biologist Stanley Kauffman and physicist Paul Davies believe in emergence: the idea that the whole is greater than (or at least quantitatively different from) the sum of its parts--that water, for example, has properties that can't adequately be predicted by knowing about the properties of its constituents, water and hydrogen. Drawing on the perspectives of complexity theory, Kauffman has studied the properties of auto-catalytic or self-organizing systems that he thinks contributed to the origin of life and evolution, along with natural selection. So far, his theories seem to be largely at the computer simulation and hand waving stage, but philosophically they do suggest a path beyond bleak reductionism that gives meaning to humanity beyond pointlessness.

 

And on the other hand we have to be careful about anti-science as well---ridiculous claims such as creationism that is paraded as science.

But science is discovering and validating aspects of reality that are supernatural or spooky (as they like to say). I will have to check out more of the work of Kauffman---though I think I have come across some of it.

 

To me, something is "supernatural" if it doesn't yet fit our going paradigms of nature. God is supernatural in the additional sense of being the source of creation, and therefore, at least analytically, transcending nature.

 

maybe the energy itself is the god of all things....but I can always say I don't know....