Impermanency of Matter

[Mawkish1983]

Sorry, I would have typed more but I was being moaned at. I was just pointing out that a few of us here do have physics backgrounds. I wanted to avoid ontological discussions rooted in physics because this is a Buddhism forum, not a physics one (I think the OP mentioned they wanted Canonical sources too... but I might be mistaken). Interestingly, the question of the existence of matter is answered just as inconclusively and cryptically in physics as it appears to be to me in the Dhamma. So, to save many pages of non-Buddhist discussion about physics (which will ultimately lead to the same conclusion - or inconclusion - as the Buddhadhamma) can I suggest we put physics discussions aside?

I'm reminded of the ignoble search, of which this discussion reminds me.

Edit: Repeated myself in my last sentence because I'm still being moaned at. I have to go. I'll leave the repetitive sentence because, upon reading it back, it made me chuckle. I'll check back later. Can someone give a reference and/or quote from the ignoble search? Also, I'm reminded of what the Buddha taught are not fitting topics of discussion for Bhikkhus: this being one of them.

[beeblebrox]

Interestingly, the question of the existence of matter is answered just as inconclusively and cryptically in physics as it appears to be to me in the Dhamma. So, to save many pages of non-Buddhist discussion about physics (which will ultimately lead to the same conclusion - or inconclusion - as the Buddhadhamma) can I suggest we put physics discussions aside?

Yes, I'd prefer that too. One of my pet peeves is when some people try to use QM to explain things, especially the ones related to these kind of stuff.

[Kenshou]

I've got nothing against quantum mechanics, nor do I really understand it, but there seem to be a lot of folks (who aren't physicists) that use it to justify all sorts of weird new-age ideas. Ugh.

[Sanghamitta]

Interestingly, the question of the existence of matter is answered just as inconclusively and cryptically in physics as it appears to be to me in the Dhamma. So, to save many pages of non-Buddhist discussion about physics (which will ultimately lead to the same conclusion - or inconclusion - as the Buddhadhamma) can I suggest we put physics discussions aside?

Yes, I'd prefer that too. One of my pet peeves is when some people try to use QM to explain things, especially the ones related to these kind of stuff.

Well hush ma mouth...I was just casting around for an analogy. I had no idea I was tampling all over territory precious to you boys.

[chownah]

Maybe some of you people should study some physics.....then you would understand that the impermanence of matter is pretty much a scientific fact as well as a Buddhist teaching. Alot of people have no qualms about talking about how their experiences prove this or that etc......so why can't some of us who have a better education talk about our experiences in the realms of science....science is after all just one kind of human experience and is often way more perceptive and revealing then the average persons musings.
chownah

[beeblebrox]

...then you would understand that the impermanence of matter is pretty much a scientific fact as well as a Buddhist teaching.

I don't see anyone disputing that, Chownah...

A lot of people have no qualms about talking about how their experiences prove this or that etc......so why can't some of us who have a better education talk about our experiences in the realms of science....science is after all just one kind of human experience and is often way more perceptive and revealing then the average persons musings.

That's true, but only if the person really knows the subject (not to mention whether the audience would understand what he/she's talking about)... that wasn't (and won't be) the case when the QM was brought up in here. Not that there's anything wrong with that, just I didn't want anyone to continue to be misled about what the science actually says. Nothing beneficial ever comes out of that... only more delusions.

It's OK if we don't know much about certain subjects in science. We don't have to say what we think they say to try make ourselves sound more authoritative. That's just silly. Science doesn't really need more people adding the myths to it.

I'm reminded of Feynman's (a big-time physicist) quote, it went something like this: "I think it's safe that no one really understands quantum mechanics today."

Just be honest with yourself, and with what you actually understand... that's all.

[Sanghamitta]

Richard Feynman was a great man, and totally free from arrogance and pomposity.

[Mawkish1983]

?

[Spiny Norman]

Doesn't "sabbhe sankhara anicca" answer the question?

P

[robertk]

all rupas (matter) are infintesimally tiny and arising and passing away completely every moment . The texts say billions of moments of rupa arise and pass away in a flash of lighting. Nama - all the other khandas- arise and disappear even faster.