Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2012 - 11:55am PT
|
interesting that this might come up again...
if the universe is actually some instantiation of "nothing" it is quite possible that the form of "nothing" dictates what the possible instances are... I know it sounds objectionable to posit that "nothing" has some form... but there you have it, the fundamental difference in viewpoint, to me, "nothing" can be characterized, defined, etc... it really isn't nothing in the philosophical sense, but rather in a practical sense my idea of "nothing" is just as empty as any other, the difference is that the "nothing" I think of has some form, and it is that form that determines what "somethings" can emerge from "nothing."
that was a fun paragraph!
here is a conjecture:
if you let the kinetic energy of the universe go to zero, you have "nothing"
if you let the kinetic energy of the universe go to infinity, you have "everything" which I sense is the same thing as "nothing"
equating those two states gives you an idea of how the in between stuff is the way it is...
|
|
rgold
Trad climber
Poughkeepsie, NY
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2012 - 12:43pm PT
|
I'm way out of my domain when it comes to quantum mechanics, but I'd say, from a strictly mathematical point of view, that the operators come with symmetries, their symmetries cannot be "set." Or perhaps the idea is that the symmetries are somehow determined first, and then only those operators that admit the symmetries are possible. In that case, symmetry would be a more primitive concept than time.
In view of the fact that "nothing" cannot have any symmetry operations, since there are no functions from the empty set to itself, what does it mean to say that the "vacuum" has non-trivial symmetry? Doesn't the presence of symmetry automatically mean there is "something" that is symmetric?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2012 - 12:57pm PT
|
if the universe is actually some instantiation of "nothing" it is quite possible that the form of "nothing" dictates what the possible instances are... I know it sounds objectionable to posit that "nothing" has some form... but there you have it, the fundamental difference in viewpoint, to me, "nothing" can be characterized, defined, etc... it really isn't nothing in the philosophical sense, but rather in a practical sense my idea of "nothing" is just as empty as any other, the difference is that the "nothing" I think of has some form, and it is that form that determines what "somethings" can emerge from "nothing."
This, and what Rich just posted, point in some way to one of the most fundamental Zen insights reaching back thousands of years, arrived at not by thinking, per se, but by sitting for ages in that vast "no-thing" and watching forms, ideas, feelings, sensations all arise as "instantiations of nothing."
The way that this idea is put forward is:
Form is emptiness and emptiness is form - exactly.
In other words, the "nothing" Ed speaks about is never "nothing in the philosophical sense," meaning it never exists separate from and in isolation to forms. The two are interdependent, and coexist. For instance, it is my understanding that one cannot say that matter is either a solid or a energetic field, or is empty space in any absolute sense.
This near-paradoxical fact is well presented in what Rich said:
In view of the fact that "nothing" cannot have any symmetry operations, since there are no functions from the empty set to itself, what does it mean to say that the "vacuum" has non-trivial symmetry? Doesn't the presence of symmetry automatically mean there is "something" that is symmetric?
In a strictly practical sense, "nothing" is a meaningless word and could not possibly exist without "something that is symmetric." Things and non-things exhibit duration only so long as they have an opposite. But it's not the case that you can remove forms or nix "nothing" and that the opposite would also vanish, because that would leave "nothing in the philosophical sense," and since that has no opposite, it cannot possibly be or not-be.
Interesting stuff . . . Wish I didn't have to work right now and could riff on this stuff.
JL
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2012 - 01:06pm PT
|
Somehow or other modern science has felt the need to rule out God having anything to do with it.
And by what scientific method?
Guessing ........
|
|
splitter
Trad climber
Hodad surfing the galactic plane
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2012 - 01:21pm PT
|
What is time?
Did time have a beggining? When did it begin?
Will it have an end? When will it end?
What if aging, deterioration stopped. The detrimental effects of time seized. But we continued living. What would that be like?
What was before time?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2012 - 01:28pm PT
|
well that is were the conjecture comes in... (and yes WBraun, "conjecture" is just a 3-syllable word for "guess")
the operations on the "states" that exist form an algebra, and the symmetries describe that algebra... now think the other way around, if the algebra exists first, as a description of what operators could be it essentially says that the symmetries of "nothing" would determine what "something" could be... but Richard correctly observes that the symmetry of the null set isn't something that makes sense
the conjecture, however, says that the two states are equivalent, that is, "nothing" is effectively the same as "everything" (which is the state of infinite kinetic energy), but perhaps what I would say is the universe in a single "state" all operations on that state result in that state, the universe with an infinite number of equivalent states, all operations on those states result in an equivalent state...
but true, I'm saying there is at least one state... which is the minimal sense of naming a thing, even if the name of the thing is "no thing"
while we might sense the physical existence of a null set of states as a possibility, as Richard points out, there's not much we can do about it... and my suspicion on Largo's interest in the Zen "nothing" doesn't go very far as the body of Zen philosophy on it is an admonishment that it cannot be "known."
now back to work...
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2012 - 02:31pm PT
|
while we might sense the physical existence of a null set of states as a possibility, as Richard points out, there's not much we can do about it... and my suspicion on Largo's interest in the Zen "nothing" doesn't go very far as the body of Zen philosophy on it is an admonishment that it cannot be "known."
Not quite. The way you have it here is that "nothingness" is beyond all understanding, but that is not strictly so. "Known" in this sense means that it is not "graspable," or quantifiable as a discrete "thing" because "it" is not a thing - we can easily see why.
But we can directly experience no-thingness - we all do all the time, our experience itself being an instance of same.
Quantifying is limited to what is graspable, whereas the experiential spans both dimensions. For example, we only access an equation and sense data by way of our experience. There is no other "way" to input any thing or no-thing.
JL
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2012 - 02:46pm PT
|
Even the notion of nothing is something, JL.
The mathematical concept of zero was a big deal. I know that the Mayans independently came up with it, but perhaps someone can enlighten me on who did it first. Greeks?
Imagining the two things: zero and infinity, is very hard. Infinity is super hard.
Look up and see the sun. We all know that it is a star. We look up at night and the sky is filled with stars. What most people don't realize is that the stars you see are almost all the very bright ones. A star like our sun is pretty small.
400 billion stars in our galaxy. Kepler has shown that planets are the norm around stars. So for each star you can guess 4 or 5 planets at least.
Then you have over 150 billion galaxies in the observable universe. Some are small, and some have many trillions of stars.
Sit and contemplate that number of suns out there. Nature is so huge and so old that it is very difficult to grasp.
I work on tiny time scales, usually less than 50 million years on one sequence of rocks. I then fit them into a larger setting that is usually no older than 600 million years.
It is easy. You can tell the story on fast forward. The Earth has an incredible story, and there is more physical evidence and information than nigh any "normal" person can grasp.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2012 - 02:52pm PT
|
But we can directly experience no-thingness - we all do all the time, our experience itself being an instance of same.
The 'thing' itself, experientially at least, would seem entirely definable...
font / noun
1. a receptacle, usually of stone, as in a baptistery or church, containing the water used in baptism.
2. a receptacle for holy water; stoup.
3. a productive source.
4. the reservoir for oil in a lamp.
5. Archaic . a fountain.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2012 - 02:55pm PT
|
but what is thought? even an idle curiosity or the outcome of years of discipline
if not taking the measure of the world around us
and to exclude that all
whether by banishing the metre stick or the curious question
an impossibility itself
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2012 - 04:04pm PT
|
Infinity is fun to contemplate even if I don't have your understanding of it, Ed.
I am just a fan of the Universe.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2012 - 04:39pm PT
|
It takes a little time but with enough experience and practice you can come to see clearly that "thinking" is one of many mental functions unfolding in the emptiness of "mind." Sounds like wu wu but it's a very simple thing once you can break awareness fusion with "stuff." Not easy. In fact I have to practice every morning to maintain any facility to do so. That's what eyes open meditation is all about, whereas eyes-closed meditation is more associated with states and ideas/feelings/memories, et al.
JL
|
|
go-B
climber
Habakkuk 3:19 Sozo
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2012 - 04:50pm PT
|
For this body!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2012 - 07:34pm PT
|
breaking the connection between what you are experiencing "eyes open" and what is actually happening is an important trait of an experimental scientist and also has to be practiced all the time in order to maintain any facility in it... I practice as a part of my work activity...
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2012 - 08:06pm PT
|
What is actually happening?
|
|
kev
climber
A pile of dirt.
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2012 - 08:21pm PT
|
All that silly education we got as children...indoctrinating everyone to follow the parallel postulate - toss that out and the infinite can seem much more intuitive (depending on your choice of geometries)!
I have always loved the fact that there are different 'sizes' of the infinite and cardinal mathematics is really fun/interesting, but this still (as mathematics in general) is so dependent on how we define things such as set size (aka cardinality) etc...
kev
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2012 - 09:23pm PT
|
breaking the connection between what you are experiencing "eyes open" and what is actually happening is an important trait of an experimental scientist and also has to be practiced all the time in order to maintain any facility in it... I practice as a part of my work activity...
Not sure what you're saying here, Ed.
It sounds a little like you do not trust what you are experiencing "eyes open," and have to rely on external aperatai to tell you what is "actually happening," and that in turn, you can later input the "real deal" by some other means above and beyond your own consciousness.
Put differently, once you determine what is "actually happening," by whatever means, how to you reconnect said measurements with your very own brainpan, if it is not through the eyes open consciousness that you have previously distrusted and disconnected from?
What I think you are actually saying is that your senses are not reliable as a measuring tool per the endless forms and incarnations that matter takes. For instance, our senses would never tell us that the world is round, or that matter is full of space, or that (fill in the blank).
But all this has to do with forms, measurements, components, aspects, properties, and such. This is the "content." IME, for whatever that's worth, the no-thing or nothingness is the container in which all of these forms arise and fall back into.
But I'm still working and have to get back to it . . .
JL
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!