Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
PaulS

Do animals share in this 'more' and 'beyond'?

Recommended Posts

E=MC^2.  So we are M cuz we are not squares, C?  Just too slow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burl said:

E=MC^2.  So we are M cuz we are not squares, C?  Just too slow.

Could you translate - I would like to know what you actually think but don't want to have to puzzle it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, thormas said:

If, we accept that there is energy or that 'all is energy'

note energy has the dimensions of mass x distance (squared) / time (squared)  this is sort of the point of Burl's pun.

So when what do we mean when we might say "all is energy"? 

Brian Greene (if I remember correctly) in one of his books wrote something like ... everything is travelling at the speed of light but the vectors are different.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 7:00 PM, Burl said:

My niece is having her first child Thursday!  Not an illusion!

Yet all the constituent parts of this hopefully happy event are not as they seem. Does not seem like that the baby has been plucked out of the air, water and soil and fueled by the sun.

 

Seem too amazing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, romansh said:

note energy has the dimensions of mass x distance (squared) / time (squared)  this is sort of the point of Burl's pun.

So when what do we mean when we might say "all is energy"? 

Brian Greene (if I remember correctly) in one of his books wrote something like ... everything is travelling at the speed of light but the vectors are different.

 

True but still, valuing Burl's opinion, I was asking for a translation of a fuller explanation of his take on the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thormas said:

True but still, valuing Burl's opinion, I was asking for a translation of a fuller explanation of his take on the topic.

Rom is exactly right.  Just a pun.  I think I am frustrated since the image hosting service I used for "Heathens!" went down without notice, and the images are too big to post as attachments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Burl said:

Just a pun.  I think I am frustrated since the image hosting service I used for "Heathens!" went down without notice, and the images are too big to post as attachments.

Well. when frustration ends, weigh in. I do miss Heathens though, talk to Joseph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, thormas said:

Well. when frustration ends, weigh in. I do miss Heathens though, talk to Joseph.

It was just a joke.  All is energy; E=MC^2.  Math and physics jokes are difficult.

The images must be uploaded to an image server, which serves them to the board.  If I direct linked they would only be available when my computer was on.  There were two companies who provided a free service and both folded.  I am looking for a new one.  

This board has nothing to do with the issue.  It is completely external.

Edited by Burl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Burl said:
13 minutes ago, Burl said:

All is energy; E=MC^2.  Math and physics jokes are difficult.

So, from a non-science person, if mass is involved in the equation, am I correct that mass can be a physical property? And, regardless of that answer, is energy a physical reality? And, again regardless of that answer, did energy have a beginning? Or, regardless of that answer, is energy that of which all is or participates or is energy that which sustains all? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, thormas said:

So, from a non-science person, if mass is involved in the equation, am I correct that mass can be a physical property? And, regardless of that answer, is energy a physical reality? And, again regardless of that answer, did energy have a beginning? Or, regardless of that answer, is energy that of which all is or participates or is energy that which sustains all? 

They are an illusion and yes there is an underlying reality.

an afterthought

If we wish to think of energy as sustaining all ... it is the energy differences that appears sustain change; if we assume time as real but illusionary. If we take something akin to Joseph's view then we have to have a completely different view in that time and energy are simply constructs. We simply flip from one reality to another and we don't have to worry about time and energy. 

Edited by romansh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, romansh said:

They are an illusion and yes there is an underlying reality.

an afterthought

If we wish to think of energy as sustaining all ... it is the energy differences that appears sustain change; if we assume time as real but illusionary. If we take something akin to Joseph's view then we have to have a completely different view in that time and energy are simply constructs. We simply flip from one reality to another and we don't have to worry about time and energy. 

Thanks, but clarifications are needed: mass is an illusion, and it doesn't have any physical properties?  Energy is not one reality, there are differences?

How can time be real and illusory? 

What is the underlying reality? 

Time and energy are constructs of what?

If we flip realities, we can't go back in time but we believe there was a past?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, thormas said:

Thanks, but clarifications are needed: mass is an illusion, and it doesn't have any physical properties?

Yes mass is an illusion. I personally do think mass can be thought of as having physical properties. 

7 hours ago, thormas said:

Energy is not one reality, there are differences

In my interpretation energy flow is from concentrated to dilute ... bit of a metaphor. 

7 hours ago, thormas said:

How can time be real and illusory? 

General relativity ... is one example. 

7 hours ago, thormas said:

What is the underlying reality? 

I am not sure we can ever be sure.

7 hours ago, thormas said:

Time and energy are constructs of what?

Evolution and evolution is a description.

7 hours ago, thormas said:

If we flip realities, we can't go back in time but we believe there was a past?

let me quote Hawking and Mlodinow one time. I am not sure I but into this interpretation though:

Quantum physics might seem to undermine the idea that nature is governed by laws, but that is not the case. Instead it leads us to accept a new form of determinism: Given the state of a system at some time, the laws of nature determine the probabilities of various futures and pasts rather than determining the future and past with certainty.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.

Still questions, and some of the answers don't really get at it for me (ex. evolution) and there seems to be room for personal opinion and understanding. Including: that there might be 'underlying' reality but might never know is tremendous wiggle room.

Of course, when energy began (so to speak) is also one to ponder.

Energy is one energy within which there is difference/diversity (concentrated to dilute)?

It would seem if energy is the reality, evolution is the construct.

Food for thought.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thormas said:

personal opinion

That is not what it seems either. This as far as we can tell, personal opinion is a product "memes" and the ability for "chemistry" to replicate them.

1 hour ago, thormas said:

Energy

And yet energy has the dimensions of mass x distance (squared) / time (squared) ... which is the real substrate energy or mass/distance/time?

Edited by romansh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thormas said:

when energy began

This begs the question of time being what it seems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, romansh said:

This as far as we can tell, personal opinion is a product "memes" and the ability for "chemistry" to replicate them.

And yet energy has the dimensions of mass x distance (squared) / time (squared) ... which is the real substrate energy or mass/distance/time?

Say what on personal opinion? Yet, as we know, there is a limit to science (and all knowledge) and it is possible/probable that we will never be able to tell fully. 

But if, as you said, mass is an illusion, then, in this scenario, energy is the reality; all else is based on the ground/construct that is called energy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, romansh said:

This begs the question of time being what it seems.

So if time is illusion, then the substrate/ground simply is or is eternal, beyond time and time is the illusion necessary for us to function. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, thormas said:

But if, as you said, mass is an illusion, then, in this scenario, energy is the reality; all else is based on the ground/construct that is called energy.

If we apply any sort logic to this statement we can only come up with the conclusion is unjustified. 

This energy argument is akin to New Agers and the ilk talking of vibrations. 

4 minutes ago, thormas said:

Yet, as we know, there is a limit to science

Again remember you are talking to an agnostic here. If I were writing this sentence it would go something like ... We don't actually know anything, but science gives us more accurate descriptions of how the universe ticks. Alternatively we just fall for the memes that abound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, thormas said:

So if time is illusion, then the substrate/ground simply is or is eternal, beyond time and time is the illusion necessary for us to function. 

Time being an illusion does not say anything about substrate or the eternal.  I don't understand your "then".

We function regardless whether we recognize that time is an illusion or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, romansh said:

Time being an illusion does not say anything about substrate or the eternal.  I don't understand your "then".

We function regardless whether we recognize that time is an illusion or not.

Are you playing with the goalposts?

Earlier, you said, "They (when I was asking a question about mass and energy) are an illusion and yes there is an underlying reality." And, in another thread, you agreed with Joseph that the ground of being could be understood as the substrate of being. Joseph then replied, "For me, it is part of everything. seen and unseen . .....  Is being  existence ? ..... perhaps one could say being encompasses existence ...."

So we have ground/substrate of being, we have an underlying reality for all illusions and we have being that encompasses existence (which seemingly includes time). So, if we have being, and if being encompasses existence, and there is an underlying reality to illusion (including time), are being, reality, energy the same and one?  How, do you understand it (in plain speak)?

We do function whether time is illusion or not, and if illusion, whether we recognize it or not - but, again, is (in your present understanding) the substrate/ground of being or the reality 'behind' (so to speak) the illusion 'beyond time?' Is that being or reality eternal, i.e. beyond illusion?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear - ground of being, for me is the universe or whatever it is actually. 

For me the substrate and universe are one. If as  I understood Joseph to imply the substrate is some separate then I don't agree. Separateness is bordering on delusion in my opinion.

Scholars like Joseph Campbell have described "eternal" as now.

Quote

Eternity isn't some later time. Eternity isn't a long time. Eternity has nothing to do with time. Eternity is that dimension of here and now which thinking and time cuts out. This is it. And if you don't get it here, you won't get it anywhere. And the experience of eternity right here and now is the function of life.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, romansh said:

To be clear - ground of being, for me is the universe or whatever it is actually. 

For me the substrate and universe are one. If as  I understood Joseph to imply the substrate is some separate then I don't agree. Separateness is bordering on delusion in my opinion.

Scholars like Joseph Campbell have described "eternal" as now.

 

Okay, helpful: ground of being = the universe (and I suppose a multiverse if it exists). When you say 'whatever it is actually' are you referring to reality  or something else? You lost me: what is the 'separate' that Joseph might have implied? All I believe he said is 'being encompasses existence.'

I can get what Campbell means, although in this one quote it is vague. 

However, in my question, "are being, reality, energy the same and one?" you have only mentioned being (and equated it with the universe). Are reality and energy the same as being, in your present opinion? And, my other question: "(in your present understanding) the substrate/ground of being or the reality 'behind' (so to speak) the illusion 'beyond time?' Is that being or reality eternal, i.e. beyond illusion?" Let me rephrase: if the illusion (all that is - 'it not as it seems') is in time (also shares the illusion since time is understood as illusion, is being which equals the universe, or is reality eternal? 

And, it is probably best to keep opinions like. "Separateness is bordering on delusion" out of the conversation as they are unhelpful.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps my question to Joseph needed more detail ... For you, is this substrate part of the universe or is it one?

His reply was: For me, it is part of everything. seen and unseen. This to me implies a separateness, and here I can't agree with Joseph if indeed this is what he means.

Now when I consider myself or "I", I draw a very useful boundary around myself.  But this boundary is flexible and arbitrary. Imagine an average carbon atom ... through the magic of photosynthesis it is plucked out of the air, converted into glucose and then converted into nutrition. Occasionally through an intermediary ... quite often lamb in my case. That carbon atoms briefly becomes "me". It took a whole universe to make that carbon atom and the pattern it fits into. Now I am describing all this dualistic terms. It is very easy to fall into the trap of separateness. Eventually that carbon atom goes back to the air. The Great Circle of Life.

Whatever it is - reality - universe. We have a limited array of tools to assess the universe. But science is expanding our array. 

Are energy and reality the same as being universe? Strange question. Energy is a descriptor of reality. Not the only one. Force, power, tension are also descriptors. There are many more ... they are called words.

2 hours ago, thormas said:

And, my other question: "(in your present understanding) the substrate/ground of being or the reality 'behind' (so to speak) the illusion 'beyond time?' Is that being or reality eternal, i.e. beyond illusion?" Let me rephrase: if the illusion (all that is - 'it not as it seems') is in time (also shares the illusion since time is understood as illusion, is being which equals the universe, or is reality eternal? 

What? I am not sure what time is ... I have a perception of sequential cause and effect. But something travelling at [approaching] the speed of light will be affected by time differently than me that is at an arbitrary rest. If Joseph is right this universe has come into existence whole (and there is no cause and effect) then your question makes no sense. 

I do live my life as time exists but I certainly don't think it is at it seems. The universe is in the now, wherever that now might be.

2 hours ago, thormas said:

And, it is probably best to keep opinions like. "Separateness is bordering on delusion" out of the conversation as they are unhelpful.

Really? If we truly believe we are separate and all the evidence is against it, then how should you describe our belief in separateness? If I had an opinion and someone described it as deluded, I would weigh and debate the evidence and come to a conclusion. But I still maybe deluded regarding my opinion. 

 

Edited by romansh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, romansh said:

His reply was: For me, it is part of everything. seen and unseen. This to me implies a separateness, and here I can't agree with Joseph if indeed this is what he means.

OK, I get this (although to me it suggests one in many, yet one, so not many - maybe).

Now when I consider myself or "I", I draw a very useful boundary around myself.  But this boundary is flexible and arbitrary. Imagine an average carbon atom ... through the magic of photosynthesis it is plucked out of the air, converted into glucose and then converted into nutrition. Occasionally through an intermediary ... quite often lamb in my case. That carbon atoms briefly becomes "me". It took a whole universe to make that carbon atom and the pattern it fits into. Now I am describing all this dualistic terms. It is very easy to fall into the trap of separateness. Eventually that carbon atom goes back to the air. The Great Circle of Life.

Ok, I get the flexibility of the boundary that is I (although not sure it took the whole universe - but I get the idea for discussion sake).

Whatever it is - reality - universe. We have a limited array of tools to assess the universe. But science is expanding our array. 

Agreed on the tools and how science is expanding them.

Are energy and reality the same as being universe? Strange question. Energy is a descriptor of reality. Not the only one. Force, power, tension are also descriptors. There are many more ... they are called words.

Not so strange as I am simply trying to understand if the different words, such as energy, reality, universe, being, are the same for you. And if not, how not. Plus, I simply want to know what the words mean for you and if they are different words that describe the same reality or if they are the reality. For example, with the talk of reality and energy, then being was included - I was thinking you identified the reality as energy and both as being.  it seems you do not and I guess it is fair to say there is reality for you, that it has many descriptors but you have no idea what reality is. 

What? I am not sure what time is ... I have a perception of sequential cause and effect. But something travelling at [approaching] the speed of light will be affected by time differently than me that is at an arbitrary rest. If Joseph is right this universe has come into existence whole (and there is no cause and effect) then your question makes no sense. 

That's ok, again just trying to understand what you (and Joseph) believe. So, that's Joseph belief, do you believe the universe came into existence whole? Plus I think you have provided an answer: you perceive sequential cause and effect, and, as your example of photosynthesis shows, the universe makes (cause) 'something' to happen to you, to become you , to become something else .(effect).

I do live my life as time exists but I certainly don't think it is at it seems. The universe is in the now, wherever that now might be.

If time is not as it seems, what is science telling you is reality (if that is the right word)?

Really? If we truly believe we are separate and all the evidence is against it, then how should you describe our belief in separateness? If I had an opinion and someone described it as deluded, I would weigh and debate the evidence and come to a conclusion. But I still maybe deluded regarding my opinion. 

Sure! Because in effect you are saying anyone who disagrees with what you believe is delusional: mistaken, misunderstanding, misapprehending. Although I am attempting to engage in a discussion to better understand your position, you have admitted: 

(we)science has limited tools (expanding but still limited),

all you (we) have are words, which are mere descriptors and, not reality (and science too deals in words/descriptors),

you don't know what time is but you have perceptions that suggest cause and effect over time,

you agree with Joseph on substrate/ground of being but disagree with him if he is implying separateness,  -   realizing, of course that the word separateness is (by your definition) only a descriptor and as you live as if time exists, we also live life as if we are separate.  And separate, as a descriptor, is not always to be taken at face value, some do not mean 'separate' but rather One which is expressed (be it illusion or not) as many. This idea (separateness),in discussions of this type, does not always carry the entire ordinary meaning of the word

the tools are limited, the 'evidence' or the truth of science is never final; what is 'accepted' today might be discarded/ next week, next year, next ? and any knowledge we have is through our senses, subject to interpretation and as admitted if 'it (nothing) is as it seems' the objects of scientific study must be illusory.

I have been trying to understand what is reality - and it is evident, that you do not know! Which is fine.

So, all I'm saying is be a little more careful with your descriptors. You must realize that many people (present company excluded) might be offended by having their beliefs called delusional and, by extension, being called deluded themselves. You say, if positions were reversed, you would weigh the evidence - but you rely for everything on evidence. You must realize, that not everybody relies on it as you do and not all believe (the) evidence is conclusive,

plus, some/many others simply believe that science studies the universe, has a limited (but expanding) array of tools to assess (judge, gauge, estimate, appraise, analyst, determine) the universe and that this work is on the objects in, the laws of, the energy of universe  - in other words, all that is part of the universe (or even the multiverse); they believe the universe is continent (fortuitous), objective reality and, as such, is the proper focus of scientific study. However, they believe, to put it in classical terms, there is unconditional, necessary reality by which all continent reality -. every-thing, every object -  is dependent. Given 'unconditional reality' and given what science is, there is no-thing, no object for it to assess, gauge or analyze. 

I know you do not, will not - ever -accept this - and not only am I fine with that and respect (but disagree with) your position - I have no need to call you deluded. Such would be a fruitless comment and a waste of time. Plus, in the best way, I simply don't care: your beliefs, your reliance on evidence I take as sincere, and I accept that never the twain shall never. 

So, I really did mean it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×