This week in Cosmology

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

And so space isn't really empty?

sg, perhaps you will find this explanation by Red Pine (Bill Porter) to be helpful (unless you're just button pushing ):

(by self-existent, he means existent without dependence upon anything other that itself, i.e. to be unconditioned)

“…the word ‘emptiness’ does not mean nothingness. Emptiness means indivisibility.

Form itself is empty of anything that could be called self-existent. Whatever we use to define form, it is dependent on something else. Thus, the essential nature of form is emptiness. But emptiness is simply another name for reality – not just a part of reality, for reality has no parts, but all of reality – though neither can reality considered to be a whole. The essential nature of reality is that it is indivisible, or empty of anything self-existent. But if form is equivalent to emptiness, or the indivisible fabric of reality, then emptiness must also be equivalent to form.

The absence of anything self-existent is the true nature of all that we experience, however distorted that experience might be by the matrix of our minds. But it is also the true nature of reality.”

s.

PS Does this count as on topic?!?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

sg, perhaps you will find this explanation by Red Pine (Bill Porter) to be helpful (unless you're just button pushing ):

You know how I like to push buttons. (If only to stimulate thought.)

(by self-existent, he means existent without dependence upon anything other that itself, i.e. to be unconditioned)

“…the word ‘emptiness’ does not mean nothingness. Emptiness means indivisibility.
Form itself is empty of anything that could be called self-existent. Whatever we use to define form, it is dependent on something else.

Absolutely relativistic?

Thus, the essential nature of form is emptiness. But emptiness is simply another name for reality – not just a part of reality, for reality has no parts, but all of reality – though neither can reality considered to be a whole. The essential nature of reality is that it is indivisible, or empty of anything self-existent.

Relatively absolutist?

But if form is equivalent to emptiness, or the indivisible fabric of reality, then emptiness must also be equivalent to form.

The absence of anything self-existent is the true nature of all that we experience, however distorted that experience might be by the matrix of our minds. But it is also the true nature of reality.”

Methinks there are more than a few koans in there waiting to emerge.

s.

PS Does this count as on topic?!?

The nature of reality? Yes, I would say it is very much on topic.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Absolutely relativistic?

Possibly.

Relatively absolutist?

sg, how is this relative?

Methinks there are more than a few koans in there waiting to emerge.

Indeed. None more so than this most famous of lines from the sutra.


s.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Possibly.

Which would mean that the one thing that is continual is change.

Originally Posted by Snoopy

sg, how is this relative?

Change and motion involve some relativity, unless change and motion=zero? (Does this mean that change and motion is also empty? I hope not, otherwise our actions would not make one wit of difference.)

[Snoopy]

Change and motion involve some relativity, unless change and motion=zero? (Does this mean that change and motion is also empty? I hope not, otherwise our actions would not make one wit of difference.)

This possibly links to your comments about relative and absolute. Relative and absolute truth distinguish compassion (relative truth) and the wisdom of no-self (absolute truth). All is empty of selfhood: form, sensation, perception, memory and consciousness. The self is empty (“empty” in the manner described above).

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by flowperson

We all must start thinking in terms of an "inside-outside" universe rather than looking at the blackness around Earth's environment and declaring only that to be "space". Or as I like to put it, the entire universe is reflected in a grain of sand.
flow....

flow, quantum theory is not really anything I know about but it sure gets referenced a lot in my reading (if that's the kind of thing we're on about here?).

Come across David Bohm, Ronald Kotulak or Piero Scaruffi? (apologies if this is a repeat, put it down to a silver drool cup moment. )

s.

[flowperson]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

flow, quantum theory is not really anything I know about but it sure gets referenced a lot in my reading (if that's the kind of thing we're on about here?).

Come across David Bohm, Ronald Kotulak or Piero Scaruffi? (apologies if this is a repeat, put it down to a silver drool cup moment. )

s.

Absolutely spot on Snoop. There's a guy named Pribam that's influenced this new sort of thinking also. A lot of their work was done in the mid 20th century and it has taken the rest of the world to catch up and on.

BTW, I use a brass drool cup and don't polish it up very often. I see it as a fashion accessory, especially when I frequent concert halls.

flow....pfffttt....

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by flowperson

Absolutely spot on Snoop. There's a guy named Pribam that's influenced this new sort of thinking also.

Maybe I should check this stuff out directly then.

A lot of their work was done in the mid 20th century and it has taken the rest of the world to catch up and on.

Huh huh. (gosh, did that sound manly?). It appears that 20/21st century Western science is catching up on the Mahayana a couple of millenia on.

BTW, I use a brass drool cup and don't polish it up very often. I see it as a fashion accessory, especially when I frequent concert halls.

Just tried to get Portishead tickets. Sold out. Poo. OK they're not R&B, but they float my boat.

s.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

flow, quantum theory is not really anything I know about but it sure gets referenced a lot in my reading (if that's the kind of thing we're on about here?).

Come across David Bohm, Ronald Kotulak or Piero Scaruffi? (apologies if this is a repeat, put it down to a silver drool cup moment. )

s.

Working with probabilities in quantum theory sounds reminiscent of "emptiness" being full of possibilities.

{To tie all of these ideas of emptiness and self (somewhat) together to be inclusive under the topic of cosmology: I look at the cosmos as a work of art.

Just what is it that makes a piece of art? Is it the canvas, or the paint, (or other media?) Is it the skill of the artist in composing the media? Is it the idea conveyed by the art? Is it what the artist left out? Can it be pinned down to any one thing?

Does this make the concept of "art" also empty?}

[flowperson]

Hi Snoop...You should try and get ahold of an 80's book titled, The Holographic Universe, by Michael Talbott. Much maligned by the traditionalist science establishment here. That alone tells me there's probably a lot of truth in it. It centers upon the work of Drs. Pribam and Bohm, and describes in detail an alternate universal structure which seemed plausible to me, but that was when I read it fifteen years ago.

I've bought a soft cover copy to reread, but just haven't gotten that started yet. Wasting a lot of time here these days. I'll do almost anything to avoid beginning another portion of what I'm writing because it's just such hard word.

What's the buzz over there about Amy Winehouse cleaning up on the Grammy recording awards ? I'm an old school R&B guy so my daughter and I are happy to see the "persecuted" finally win something important .

Ta !

flow....

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Does this make the concept of "art" also empty?}

Is this meant as a rhetorical question? Hard to tell online...and if so ...yes or no...

I say yes, you give a perfect example: remove any one "thing" required and the art is gone; it is empty of selfhood.

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by flowperson

Hi Snoop...You should try and get ahold of an 80's book titled, The Holographic Universe, by Michael Talbott. Much maligned by the traditionalist science establishment here. That alone tells me there's probably a lot of truth in it. It centers upon the work of Drs. Pribam and Bohm, and describes in detail an alternate universal structure which seemed plausible to me, but that was when I read it fifteen years ago.

I've bought a soft cover copy to reread, but just haven't gotten that started yet. Wasting a lot of time here these days. I'll do almost anything to avoid beginning another portion of what I'm writing because it's just such hard word.

OK ta. Don't you go doing any hard work now.

What's the buzz over there about Amy Winehouse cleaning up on the Grammy recording awards ? I'm an old school R&B guy so my daughter and I are happy to see the "persecuted" finally win something important

.

Never heard her meself. Probably a lot of media froth. People say she's got a great voice but certainly needs to sort her life out I think. Hasn't she been charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice (over her husband's case?) As you can gather, it's not really anything I'm interested in!

s.

[seattlegal]

*Note to moderators*
I admit it! I lead the Old Farts off topic! Please feel free to move the irrelevant posts to another thread if you deem necessary!

One of the advantages of being disorderly is that one is constantly making exciting discoveries.
--Winnie the Pooh

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Is this meant as a rhetorical question? Hard to tell online...and if so ...yes or no...

I say yes, you give a perfect example: remove any one "thing" required and the art is gone; it is empty of selfhood.

s.

Oh, Pooh! Now we're back to the uncarved block.

"When you wake up in the morning, Pooh," said Piglet at last, "what's the first thing you say to yourself?"
"What's for breakfast?" said Pooh. "What do you say, Piglet?"
"I say, I wonder what's going to happen exciting today?" said Piglet.
Pooh nodded thoughtfully. "It's the same thing," he said.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

*Note to moderators*
Please feel free to move the irrelevant posts to another thread if you deem necessary!

That'll mean most of this forum getting moved around!

Oh, Pooh! Now we're back to the uncarved block.

You calling me Pooh? I see myself more as Eeyore.

And that's enough button pushing for one day - now go and find something useful to do!

s.

[Tao_Equus]

Not in the news this week, (well not to my knowledge), but I am still finding my pea brain wandering back to Black Holes and the relationship they have to the wider universe. What is really buzzing my head is that if you were to get a black hole the size of our universe it would have the same mass that we observe in our universe. Estimates of the total quantity of Dark Matter vary from around 72%-94% of the total mass of our universe. When you look at the distribution maps of Dark Matter, and the positioning of visible matter, (galactic clusters), it seems to me that the idea that our universe is a Black Hole seems ever more credible.
Short animation on Dark Matter 'clumping' :
YouTube - Dark Matter 3D Map

When you look at an active Super Massive Black Hole, (SMBH), we can observe that it is a powerhouse of creation or recycling for the essential elements of stellar birth. And that it seems to do this in cycles that somewhat resemble a sponge soaking up then squeezing out matter. The sponge like structure of DM mapped in the animation is then perhaps an indication that our universe is the same?

So what is DM...exactly? In a Black hole matter becomes so compressed that it loses its molecular identity. In some sense it enters a quantum state or at least a quantum-like state of undetectability that renders every would be particle capable of the potential of any other would be particle. Is DM exactly the same kind of super-condensate? Undetectable, except by its gravitational effect, simply because it exists in a quantum state of undetermined potential?

Perhaps it would be helpful and maybe even accurate to liken this state to another dimension. We can see the non-uniformity or clumpiness of DM distribution creates the overall appearance of a sponge like structure. That we do not see an even distribution may indicate that there are stresses and influences outwith our own local universe. In much the same way that despite its awesome gravitational effects an SMBH at the center of any galaxy is stressed by the mass of that galaxy. There seems to be a ratio of a central SMBH being approximately 1% of of galactic total mass and the sigma (rotational velocity at the galactic edge), infer that the 'tidal' influence of galactic rotation does indeed place huge stresses on the SMBH. This effect is the squeezing and release of the sponge, so to speak.

If our universe is a Black Hole in a bigger universe I would expect to see much the same distribution map of matter/dark matter that we do see due to the gravitational influences of a Galaxy on a scale of magnitude that boggles the mind. One of billions of similar vast galaxies that make up an even more massive Black Hole just like our universe. In turn the Black Holes we observe would be universes in their own right, dimensionally shifted in an order of magnitude.

I am captivated by this theory and would appreciate all comments, pointers and links that either support or refute the ideas expressed.

Tao