Gravity and Impermanence?

Theravāda in the 21st century - modern applications of ancient wisdom

Re: Gravity and Impermanence?

Postby mirco » Wed May 29, 2013 10:30 pm

nrose619 wrote:I have a philosophy club at my school and in today's meeting I said

I think, that's the problem. Leave the club.
Discussions at philosophy clubs only lead to wrong views, if there is not at least one arahat present. :thinking:

The All-embracing Net of Views (Brahmajāla Sutta)

Regards,
Mirco
I get what I give
mirco
 
Posts: 360
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:12 pm

Re: Gravity and Impermanence?

Postby inpractice » Sun Jul 07, 2013 5:26 pm

Gravity being weaker the further apart two masses are. Also, before big bang, there is no sun or earth, so there is no sun's gravity or earth's gravity.
inpractice
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 4:26 pm

Re: Gravity and Impermanence?

Postby mirco » Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:51 pm

Hi inpractice,

inpractice wrote:Gravity being weaker the further apart two masses are.
Also, before big bang, there is no sun or earth, so there is no sun's gravity or earth's gravity.


What makes you think there have been no suns and planets befor the last big bang?


.
I get what I give
mirco
 
Posts: 360
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:12 pm

Re: Gravity and Impermanence?

Postby Jason » Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:16 pm

nrose619 wrote:I have a philosophy club at my school and in today's meeting I said that almost everything is impermanent. One person disagreed saying that the law of gravity is permanent it was always here and always will be. I said gravity is dependent on mass therefore it is not a permanent self sustaining force/thing. Also, what about in dead space where there is an absence of gravity? He continued to restate that it's a law and has been scientifically proven therefore it is permanent. We both kinda ended up in a dead end. Any thoughts on this?


Here's my two cents. The Buddha says in many places that "all fabrications are inconstant" (sabbe sankara anicca) (e.g., SN 22.90). Anicca simply means inconstant; and in terms of compounded phenomena, particularly in reference to the five aggregates, it implies change and lack of self (because whatever is inconstant and subject to change isn't fit to be called 'me' or 'mine'). If gravity isn't a compounded phenomenon, then it, like nibbana, would be nicca, constant.

If, however, gravity is a compounded phenomenon, then its existence can technically be infinite (i.e., lasting as long as the duration of the universe) as long as the conditions for its continuation are present since it's logically possible that "when this is [indefinitely or for very long cosmological periods], that is [indefinitely or for very long cosmological periods]." Gravity itself is inconstant and changes in the sense that it depends on the mass and distance between to objects; and its existence and constancy as a universal phenomenon depends on the universe being exactly as it is, which may not be the case in for other universes, if they exist, or the fate of this universe when it ends.

So I'd say that, from one point of view (that of the experience of gravity), gravity is inconstant, and its perceived constancy in the other (as a universal phenomenon) depends upon certain conditions that themselves are potentially inconstant, which is consistent with the Buddha's statement that "all fabrications are inconstant." And if gravity isn't a compounded phenomenon, then its constancy doesn't contradict the the Buddha's statement that "all fabrications are inconstant."
"Sabbe dhamma nalam abhinivesaya" (AN 7.58).

leaves in the hand (Buddhist-related blog)
leaves in the forest (non-Buddhist related blog)
User avatar
Jason
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:09 am
Location: Earth

Re: Gravity and Impermanence?

Postby acinteyyo » Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:49 pm

nrose619 wrote:I have a philosophy club at my school and in today's meeting I said that almost everything is impermanent. One person disagreed saying that the law of gravity is permanent it was always here and always will be. Any thoughts on this?

Hi Nick,

so let's recapitulate what you said. You said almost everything is impermanent. Why did you say almost? And why did one person disagree with bringing up one example when you didn't say that everything is impermanent in the first place but just almost everything. I'm just asking rhetorically.

Imho in philosophical discussions it's important to formulate an accurate premise first. Lay down a general framework and only then start to discuss a topic.
What is your premise?

best wishes, acinteyyo
Pubbe cāhaṃ bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ. (M.22)
Both formerly, monks, and now, it is just suffering that I make known and the ending of suffering.

:anjali:
User avatar
acinteyyo
 
Posts: 928
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Neuburg/Donau, Germany

Previous

Return to Theravāda for the modern world

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests