Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Amazing Emptiness
thickpaper
Veteran
I have longtime known things are mainly empty space, but had no idea quite how much until last night.
Hows about this for a fact I learned from the BBC:
If you took all of the empty space out of the world, ie, between electrons and atoms and molecules, then the world world be the size of a sugar-cube!
Bonkers!
Hows about this for a fact I learned from the BBC:
If you took all of the empty space out of the world, ie, between electrons and atoms and molecules, then the world world be the size of a sugar-cube!
Bonkers!
0
Comments
The great physicist, David Bohm has demonstrated that the Universe is quite literally a hologram in all senses of the word. And currently, the GEO 600 experiment is well on it's way to proving the Holographic Universe.
.
The universe is most definitely not empty. Even in the emptiness, there are unseen forces, attractions holding things together. Light, radiation, electromagnetic forces and others... even on the very smallest scale. Just because our eyes fail to perceive them does not mean our minds can not.
Go ahead, try and counter that.
The error of the sense perception is in the lack of discernment necessary to see the "softer stuff" between the "harder stuff". We deceive ourselves when we think that there is nothing between object A and object B.
This error occurs because the less affect something has directly upon us, the less we have need to perceive or note it. The mind, not carefully thinking, assumes that the mindless senses know the only real truth.
Without the mind, the senses are always half blind and always must remain so else they will be even more blind by having too much to be able to discern significance.
I think it is because however far you go down to find something you just end up with divisible objects or properties, you never seem to find things. They are probabilities rather than actualities.
Yes, but these do not fill the space in the way the illusionary objects we perceive do; they are more to do with the behaviors of the world rather than the things in the world.
I think that light and radiation are particular empty as with matter and space.
A question if you will, Do you think that there is a point in this universe where you can point to a position and say with certainty "This is not empty."?
My mind has terrible troubles trying to imagine what even molecules are "really" like, let alone atoms and quarks with their strangeness and charm.
I thought the sugar-cube fact was fascinating, I thought i would share it. I didn't realize that this would bring about a competition.
you win!
namaste
Emptiness == "the lack of perceived affectance"
ALL of reality is made of affectance, only a little of which, we can perceive.
I'll leave it at that and bid you adieu. Interesting thread though.
Two lumps, please, thickpaper.....;)
Do cars, planes or cities inherently exist or are they the product of the human mind? How about trees, oceans and mountains? They are dependently coarisen. Not only self is empty even the world is.
On the experiential level they are fabricated through our senses of sight, sounds, smells, taste, touch and thoughts/memories? So the sense of solidity of objects is not "reality".
Here is an account of a stroke by Jill Bolte Taylor describing the change
to her "reality"
I think, no, they don't.They are systems without any objecthood.
No, they exist independently of the mind but are experienced by the mind, sometimes, though not always.
They are concepts of systems or things, yes. But I don't understand why anyone would think they are "just" concepts.
How do they come into existence? They don't inherently exist but are brought into existence by human thought and ingenuity. Money, country borders and nationalities too.
Humans are creators of their own suffering and salvation.
OK:)
And arn't 'sentient beings illusory projections'
Yes. And I think Buddhism agrees as well.
.
I don't understand this. What is an illusionary projection?
Also, I don't see how Dependent Origination would be compatible with a holographic universe. DO contains connected but discrete changes/events whereas a hollographic universe, according to the my understanding of the notion, contains no discrete changes.
I think Dharma comes before the universe, for me, it is not about this or any universal model, but all possible universes.
I thought it was understood in Buddhist philosophy that all forms and what we perceive to be reality is all an illusion. Nothing has any intrinsic existence and is ultimately empty and void. The holographic model of the Universe certainly concurs with this because this too means reality is an illusion and ultimately empty.
Not to mention, one of the peculiar aspects of a hologram is that each part of a hologram is a smaller representation of the whole. This concurs with interconnectedness as well as the idea that you are not a self but the whole of existence.
.
My view here is we need to be careful we don't mix perceptions and the perceived. Yes, perceptions are illusionary, but that doesn't mean that what is perceived is in some sense unreal or in some other sense projected by the perceiver.
I agree on the emptiness...
Yes, this is a fascinating thing isn't it! But do you see you have just made an analogy between:
A) A visual hologram that can be explained by the laws of optics and stuck on all of our credit cards.
and
can you explain to me why that is a legitimate analogy because I cannot see it at all.
Maybe you are confusing interconnectedness with containment?
All points are connected with all other points.
All points contain all other points.
namaste
Those are two different things. All forms are unreal and illusory. Though, I'd say that because of this, our mind has the ability to project things onto reality. But yes, in Buddhism, there is the concept of "maya" which literally means "illusion."
Yes. The analogy applies to reality as well.
This concept is called Holonism: "It is maintained by the throughput of matter-energy and information-entropy connected to other holons and is simultaneously a whole in and itself at the same time being nested within another holon and so is a part of something much larger than itself. Holons range in size from the smallest subatomic particles and strings, all the way up to the multiverse, comprising many universes. Individual humans, their societies and their cultures are intermediate level holons" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holon_%28philosophy%29
I actually realized as I was writing my post that there was this nuance you just pointed out.
This explains it better than I can: "Since a holon is embedded in larger wholes, it is influenced by and influences these larger wholes. And since a holon also contains subsystems, or parts, it is similarly influenced by and influences these parts. Information flows bidirectionally between smaller and larger systems as well as rhizomatic contagion. When this bidirectionality of information flow and understanding of role is compromised, for whatever reason, the system begins to break down: wholes no longer recognize their dependence on their subsidiary parts, and parts no longer recognize the organizing authority of the wholes." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holon_%28philosophy%29
.
I believe that there is an underlying reality that is distinct from the illusion.
It seem's you do not?
Actually I was aware of holons. But what you seem to be suggesting is that the holons contain themselves, which isnt what holons do, they contain otehr holons and are contained by other holons? Is that right?
Yes, but note how that is different from a hologram; In a hologram the part contains an exact representation of the whole.
Interesting topic!
namaste
That is in accord with all of the Buddhist teachings. The Buddhist teachings are not meant to imply that reality is an illusion, only that our reality is mind-made; and until full awakening, full enlightenment, that mind-made reality is not in accord with true reality. We must be careful not to take the teachings "too far"; they have a reason, and the reason, that meaning, must be fully penetrated and understood.
I think the Buddha would teach differntly, all phenomena are truly empty; isn't that the very heart of anataman?
I agree 100%. But I think lot's of Buddhists don't. Its no matter, Dharma can accommodate idealism and objetvisim with equal peace:)
Stephen, do you see how you are being dogmatic there?:)
None of us should talk like we have the Buddha's ear.
namaste
Point a... (negative) the Buddha was not perfect; conditions were not right for this, and he knew that his teachings had a fixed lifetime / the Buddhist teachings are not perfect, much time and many schisms between Sanghas have created dogmatic traditions that are clung to
Point b... (positive) the Buddha knew all of this. He in fact knew more than could be put into conceptual words, at least at the time. He foresaw a future where the teachings and our observations of reality would coincide and create a unified teaching that would simply be "the way". I think this time is approaching.
Because the two points are at odds, certain perspectives will always be at odds with others. It may be disadvantageous to continue on in this regard, in any matter that may be considered affected by the paradox which are all matters of Buddhism.
There is no Buddhist, no "self", in the context of these aggregates that function as a conditioned process adapting and evolving throughout what is perceived as time along with all other transient phenomena. As to that, "I" choose to depart, not to seek out full liberation as was my initial intent, but to not cause any further conflict of interest. If any find fault in the things that I have said, know that I find more fault.
Farewell.
Yours in the Dhamma...
~
ok, close the door quietly on your way out, and if you need to take the big brolly, feel free.
The door's never locked if you feel the need to pop back at any time.
If you do come back, buy some milk. We're nearly out.
:wavey:
Personally, I hope you come back soon!:)