Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
cintune
climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
|
|
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
energy's not physical now? atoms dont have an extant? is this a post midterm thing?
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
Ptyl Delta theory is metaphysical garbage. He also considers "demoncast". If this is your primary source, JL, you should avoid disclosing it.
;>(
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Would you believe it? Cintune has the hots for Fibonacci numbers.
I can almost remember seeing that problem 55 years or so ago.
FWOOOM!
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
"Someone or some group has shown (proven?) what the basic nature of matter is?"
"what is it you want to know?"
I want to know what constitutes a well lived life and what is the criteria for that opinion based on a purely scientific point of view and a full knowledge of the nature of matter.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
Step 1: look in a mirror.
Step 2: if you've completed step one, you're probably alive.
Step 3: Enjoy that feeling.
Step 4: Keep enjoying it.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
I want to know what constitutes a well lived life and what is the criteria for that opinion based on a purely scientific point of view and a full knowledge of the nature of matter.
And after that you will carry water in a sieve?
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
What is stable? Matter, or the theory?
Thanks for responding, Ed:
It’s that adjective “basic” in the term, “basic matter,” that I’m asking about. What do you / ‘we’ know?
What is the final substance (or whatever) at the bottom of it all, of all matter?
It is my apparent poor understanding of physics that says that no one ‘knows.’ What people have are theories about matter. I think that is what the Wiki page said, that Base pointed us to. Are you challenging Wiki’s claim that matter is a theory (model, concept, abstraction. etc.), rather than a “fact?”
For the sake of clarity (and my wont to avoid confusion), I am not questioning the predictability of outcomes of studies or even the usefulness of one theory over another. I am not challenging provisionalism, either. I am asking what is at the bottom of everything (here, matter). If matter has no final explanation or bottom, then what is it? Matter, if at all substantive, cannot be a theory—can it? Could theories be the bases of everything that you see, test, and measure?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
MikeL wonders:
I am asking what is at the bottom of everything (here, matter).
and I wonder if it has any meaning whatsoever. Let's say you were magically gifted the knowledge, how would it change anything for you?
First, what do you mean by the term "bottom of everything"? It presumes that there is some ultimate "truth" that is knowable. An interesting presumption, and one that has no supporting evidence, and even no philosophical basis, though it is a standard presumption in some philosophies.
What if there is no "bottom of everything"? then you will be denied knowing the "truth" since there isn't any.
How would that change things for you?
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
Largo, I really don't have any problem with most of the things you say, particularly when they have to do with your specialty, meditation. At least you are our resident expert, along with Mike.
Before the last thread was nuked, you were talking about the nature of matter. You had been reading this website:
http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/
So I read some of the discussions. It is basically a particle physics for non scientists website.
You made this post, which I remember well:
"Form is emptiness. Emptiness is form. Exactly."
I'll never forget that. After all of these years of fighting science, which you have done, so don't waste our time denying it, you found something in science that "fitted" your pre-conceived notion of what is real.
Particle Physics is pretty weird. It isnt' my area of study, but I can get the basic gist of it.
So Largo. We know that a proton is not a fundamental particle. It is made up of smaller particles. Two up quarks and one down quark, whose mass is oddly enough only 1% of the total mass of the Proton. I didn't go further than this. I only have 10 hours of physics, and classical physics is adequate for my work.
From there it is all cutting and pasting, for both of us.
Apparently you read something that fit your Zen ideas, that most matter is almost all empty space. You did not find that out by meditating. You found it out on a website or through your carpool. I do assert that.
This revelation that you posted was not based on anything that you learned in a Zendo. It was based on words posted by a physicist. A scientist. You have been going off on scientism and measuring for years now.
This is the biggest measuring device on Earth, which you apparently now embrace:
Did you change your tune about scientism, reductionist thinking, and measuring? Honestly?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
This is the biggest measuring device on Earth, which you apparently now embrace:
No it isn't.
It's absolutely nothing compared to the soul.
Without the soul there would be absolutely no measurement period.
The soul is the source of all measurements ......
|
|
cintune
climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
|
|
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
"First, what do you mean by the term "bottom of everything"? It presumes that there is some ultimate "truth" that is knowable. An interesting presumption, and one that has no supporting evidence, and even no philosophical basis, though it is a standard presumption in some philosophies."
Really? Science doesn't presume such a possibility as they struggle to reveal the "god" particle with the "biggest measuring device" on earth?
"Pondering the question "why there is something rather than nothing" is hopeless."
A question that is probably more disconcerting than just hopeless since it implies an eternal mystery far beyond the reach of science.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Ed:
“No bottom” wouldn’t change anything for me, since I tend to see things as not very concrete or serious to begin with.
I’m fine with no bottom and no meaning. I’m fine with “it’s all labels, theories, models, and abstractions.” I’ll still teach that stuff because it’s the role that I’ve found myself in, and I can be very expressive in that role, but I won’t be taking any of it all that seriously. Teaching “stuff” is a basis for development of thinking, reason, and looking at feelings, stories, instincts, and activities. Teaching is a basis for dialogue and conversations.
Perhaps if a non-serious view were widely shared, we might have more “skillful means” among humans and other living beings. I mean, look around; we’re awfully serious about most everything these days. And to what end? (We can’t “fix” samsara. We could be more enlightened about reality, though, by being more playful and open about it.)
For example, on the Wiki page that Base pointed to, the article indicates up front that it discusses a concept, but read anything else on the page beyond that point, and it is written as if matter were unassailable fact. (A little post-modern analysis there, anyone?)
Me? I’d like to know what Paul wants to know:
I want to know what constitutes a well lived life and what is the criteria for that opinion based on a purely scientific point of view and a full knowledge of the nature of matter.
In my view, matter is nothing “to know.” That knowledge, if it can be called such, doesn’t seem to help Reality a bit. It’s essentially empty as it is, alone, independent, free-standing. What “matters” is consciousness, becoming connected to one’s heart, and aligning intentions with what flows. Link “matter” up with those, and I think a person could have something realized.
(BTW, Tvash above nailed it.)
Isn’t it somehow telling that the word “matter” is so often used in declarations of “what matters?” The metaphor seems accepted as a reference for truth, or what is really true. But aren’t metaphors just analogies?
I’m not against science. I think that a material view on reality is interesting, along with a number of other kinds of knowing that comes through different structures of consciousness. Science certainly has its place. (Just not the whole place, please.)
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
I want to know what constitutes a well lived life and what is the criteria for that opinion based on a purely scientific point of view and a full knowledge of the nature of matter.
You're in the wrong department. The philosophy section is two doors down. Inquire at the desk and fill out the "existential revelations" form.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
"You're in the wrong department. The philosophy section is two doors down. Inquire at the desk and fill out the "existential revelations" form."
...and this is exactly the point. There is a place where science simply isn't up to the task and in this place the wisdom of myth, religion and philosophy may reconcile us to those "existential revelations."
|
|
cintune
climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
|
|
There is a place where science simply isn't up to the task....
Non-overlapping magisteria
Main article: Non-overlapping magisteria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria
In his book Rocks of Ages (1999), Gould put forward what he described as "a blessedly simple and entirely conventional resolution to ... the supposed conflict between science and religion." He defines the term magisterium as "a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution." The non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) principle therefore divides the magisterium of science to cover "the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry." He suggests that NOMA is "a sound position of general consensus, established by long struggle among people of goodwill in both magisteria."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould#Non-overlapping_magisteria
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
There is a place where science simply isn't up to the task and in this place the wisdom of myth, religion and philosophy may reconcile us to those "existential revelations."
I agree. Existential questions are more in the domains you cite, but becoming excited and involved in scientific discoveries might mute those disturbing questions. There are various ways of dealing with the feelings of emptiness and worthlessness that underlie existential dilemmas and exploring science is one.
On the other hand science has given us numerous pills to pop, some of which would take the sting out of existential turmoil.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!