chownah wrote:I think there is a gap in the information here about the recently discovered something that came from nothing. Scientists have a a very complicated theory that explains the tiny bits of stuff that make up bigger bits of stuff that make up our world...they actually have more than one theory but the popular and presently most successful one at predicting what will happen when certain conditions exist at that very very small scale is called quantum science. The theory itself is a thicket of mathematical equations which have evolved over time and their evolution is driven by the need to accout for the results of experiments conducted at that very very small scale. Something that surprises non-scientists is that when you have such a complicated set of equations which explains things that you have seen you can take those equations and see consequences of their structure which allows you to predict things that should happen if the equations are indeed correct in modeling the behavior....so....scientists analyse various aspects of these equations looking for something they can predict and then they construct new experiments trying to find what their analysis of the equations has predicted. This is basically the driving force in particle physics today and will almost assuredly be for the forseeable future.
This is the part I think that applies essentially to the Buddha's advisement. It's a futile thing really because the fundamental scientific measurements of reality are always going to bring up questions. Quantum mechanics proves
, that the closer you get to scientifically observing reality, the less intuitive it becomes, the more absurd it becomes and the more nonsensical. Notwithstanding, a small portion of what people call metaphysics--but that relies on meditation and wisdom--actually makes sense of it. On the other hand, it takes a vast entanglement of mathematical abstraction to explain it as well. That's why mind and form are separate that way.
Anyway....some scientists looked at the equations and said that if they are to hold true then there need to be particles spontaneously arising in pairs out of space where no particles were before. I know this seems like gibberish but that is what they predicted. The problem is that these particles recombine so fast and existed in such a small space that there was no known way to detect them.....until recently when an experiment was constructed for the purpose of detecting them. The theoretical idea behind the experiment was that a device was made so that if there were no spontaneous particles present then one thing should happen but if a certain kind of particle was present (and which would not be present unless it spontaneously arose) then something else would happen.......when they tried it the "something else" happened and this is taken as a confirmation of the existence of the particle and the only way that particle could have been there was by spontaneously arising.
My theory is, it's not a particle per say (in the usual sense) but rather a "connection," that spontaneously arises. And I think this culminates in the contact of form and consciousness. Because even the four great elementary qualities conduct quantum mechanics, from which form builds in the kama sphere. In the rupa sphere there is no matter, but there's form. What I'm saying is, consciousness has contact with the form elements and it generates a "connectivity" presence in the quantum space. This connectivity creates space particles, wind, fire, water and earth particles, and this earth particle I speculate might be the thing which generates mass, thus allowing atoms or alternative building blocks to pop out (of invisible hyperspace). The elemental qualities conduct these particles and allow subatomic particles and atoms to coerce. This is clear when we take the elemental qualities into the context of the behavior of subatomic particles.
I have hence babbled.
So.....since scientists have alway conceived of empty space as being...well...EMPTY...and by empty they meant that there was nothing at all there of any kind....then for a particle to emerge from this nothingness of the present view of empty space this means that something came out of nothing. Now it could be that scientists will re-evaluate their ideas of "empty space" so that it is not empty but that there are things there that have not been detected. After all the concept of "dark matter" and "dark energy" are relatively new and while there is alot of evidence to support their existence neither has been directly detected as existing in any particular region of space so I suppose (my views) it is possible that they pervade all of space but are simply not detected and these spontaneously arising pairs of virtual particles might turn out to be the first evidence of a way to directly interact with dark matter or dark energy....I guess....but I don't know for sure.....I'm just a rice farmer....I have a much better understanding about how to grow rice or cow peas.....
My thinking is that there is a static energy that fills emptiness[this is very scientific reasoning only], and consciousness causes cohesion of this static to the elemental qualities, in other words, form. Which demonstrates that the mechanics
by which consciousness meets form to produce contact, is based on static cohesion to the elements--scientifically legitimizing that the four elements are indeed fundamentally basic, and that these mechanics (ergo quantum mechanics
) are based on elements, and also ensue from consciousness. Static energy isn't measurable, it isn't permanent or solid, and herein I have supplanted it to consciousness--a fundamental element, along with space which is the element of derivation.
This is my thinking of quantum mechanics as explained through energy, consciousness, and the elements according to Buddhism. I also think this explains a lot of incoherent concepts that have cropped up in Buddhism throughout Sarvastavadan, Mahayanic and Vajrayanic as well as other traditions descending from Buddha's teaching.
David N. Snyder wrote:
chownah wrote:Now it could be that scientists will re-evaluate their ideas of "empty space" so that it is not empty but that there are things there that have not been detected.
Yes, I agree too. It reminds me of one of my college professors who warned us about the need for using the correct measuring device (when doing a scientific study). If a fisherman catches fish with a large, wide net (with large holes) it will only catch fish that are 8" or larger as the small ones pass through. It would be wrong for the fisherman to conclude that there are "no small fish in that body of water." Another fisherman could come by with a finer net/web and catch several small fish.
Indeed, furthermore the man with the airtight "net" will actually catch the water itself and hold it within the bag. Therefore space itself is substantial, elemental.
son of Dhamma.
A seed sleeps in soil.
It's cold and alone, hopeless.
Until it blooms above.