What is the physical world?

[wandering peacefully]

To (Amanaki) the physical world is nothing more than a reflection of (Amanaki`s) Consciousness and perception of what the consciousness experiences in each moment. (meaning the physical world is not real)
To others, the answer to what the physical world is will be different.

How do you perceive the physical realm/world in your understanding?

I'm going to assume by your non-response to my response to your opinion that you do not agree that things such as dying people, suffering, sadness, love, family, fear, wishful thinkinf and other such real life feelings and situations are nor reality.

I agree to a certain point. Certainly, we are in control of how we view the situations we are a part of. We are capable of determining what is important and what is static. We ourselves are in charge of how we want to perceive the reality around us. Or at least for some.

There are stories we create to deal with the reality of life whichhas always helped humans to make it through this experience. No one is qualified to say they have the one true way or the universal answers to reality.

The only way we have separated ourselves from our animal relatives is in our ability to create our own reality, for those so inclined to believe and act upon that premise.

And for anyone to say they have the true answers if only others would listen, those are the ones who understand reality the least imo.

Realized reality is in no one else's hands but our very own if we choose that path. Is it impermanent? Well, of course but so what? Every thing is. That is reality and always will be.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

We have dissected it.

What do you mean by that?

 

[WalterTrull]

The physical world is a mental construct. Interesting that while it's not mine or yours, we do have input. I'd love to see itl

 

[Aupmanyav]

Does that mean that you consider our "everyday" illusion to be a lower level of reality?
I have recently become aware of "the 31 planes/levels of existence" but am still trying to navigate my way through the terminolgy and unfamiliar concepts, and finding it somewhat challenging to keep Buddhist and Hindu concepts straight.

Yes, which does not mean 'It is all an illusion".
Hinduism does not make any belief obligatory, except 'dharma' (fulfilling your duties and engaging in righteous action, the latter also is a duty). The Agni Purana mentions only 4 hells. Some texts mention 7 hells. Manu Smriti mentions 21 hells. The Bhagavata Purana, the Vishnu Purana and the Devi Bhagavata Purana enlist and describe 28 hells; however, they end the description by stating that there are hundreds and thousands of hells (Wikipedia). Read somewhere about 44 hells also. So, one can accept whatever version one likes. The basic idea was to frighten people and keep them away from what society considers 'evil actions'. The idea is the same in all religions.
As for belief in Gods and Goddesses, it was preferred, but there were many philosophies which either did not need much of it or rejected it out-right.

Set not your affections upon it. Break not the bond that uniteth you with your Creator, ..

What Bahaullah meant was 'his ways' (i.e., Bahaullah's ways). I would say 'Set not your affections upon it. Break the bond that tieth you to a supposed, imaginary Creator.'

What do you mean by that?

Hinduism analyses how we take the input by our sensory organs and what brain constructs out of it - as reality. In pre-science days, the only way was to this was to critically examine what we believed, there were no instruments, no experiments.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I'm going to assume by your non-response to my response to your opinion that you do not agree that things such as dying people, suffering, sadness, love, family, fear, wishful thinkinf and other such real life feelings and situations are nor reality.

This part of your post is speaking about suffering. and in the Buddhist teaching, this is called attachments, you suffer because you clinging to these things, when the attachments have been fully released compassion arise, with compassion one can see the "why" others suffering, and one can comfort them selflessly. It means we see they suffer and we can help them overcome it with our compassion.

Why can we say we let go of the feeling of greaving, fear, sadness and even fear of death? Because we already understand life is imperfect and impermanent. Accepting what's coming.
We can teach others about it, but can not take their attachments away, But being there for them is important.

Also to understand past is past, can not do anything with that, Future has not yet risen, so we are left with the present moment. the only moment in time we can "control" is the resent moment, that can shape the future we will experience.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Yes, which does not mean 'It is all an illusion".

That's what I figured. It so happens that I currently subscribe to a couple of concepts given to me back around 2003 which opened me up--or so I'd like to imagine--to thinking about "reality" in a manner that seems similar to the one you've described. The challenge for me lies in the use of the word "illusion": that word seems, IMO, inaccurate and distracting. I cling to the notion that reality is absolute (i.e. "very real") and consists of a set of actual, physical "things" that move through space over time and that interact with each other in a deterministic manner: no popping into or out of existence, marvelous but not miraculous. That, for me, is the foundation plane of reality. The various, possible subsets of those "things" have temporary existences with beginnings that occur in one location, ends that occur some place else, and a lot of motion in between.

Hinduism does not make any belief obligatory, except 'dharma' (fulfilling your duties and engaging in righteous action, the latter also is a duty).

After 71 years, I think it's safe to say that I've been more dependably irresponsible than dependably responsible in fulfilling obligatory duties and have personally been the beneficiary of a lifetime of others' righteous deeds for and toward me. It should come as no surprise that I favor the opinion that there is no hell, only "paradise", which I suppose will be hell for those who don't want to be there. For those of us who have regrets and unpaid debts, I'm hoping--at worst--for a purgatory or recycling.

As for belief in Gods and Goddesses,

Believing in an infinite reality as I do, I'm inclined to believe that it's unlikely that earth's life-forms are the only "conscious" beings in the cosmos. But I don't consider that to be an obligatory belief.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I cling to the notion that reality is absolute (i.e. "very real") and consists of a set of actual, physical "things" that move through space over time and that interact with each other in a deterministic manner: no popping into or out of existence, marvelous but not miraculous.

After 71 years, I think it's safe to say that I've been more dependably irresponsible than dependably responsible in fulfilling obligatory duties and have personally been the beneficiary of a lifetime of others' righteous deeds for and toward me. It should come as no surprise that I favor the opinion that there is no hell, only "paradise", which I suppose will be hell for those who don't want to be there. For those of us who have regrets and unpaid debts, I'm hoping--at worst--for a purgatory or recycling.

Believing in an infinite reality as I do, I'm inclined to believe that it's unlikely that earth's life-forms are the only "conscious" beings in the cosmos. But I don't consider that to be an obligatory belief.

We have a few differences.
1. There are no things moving around. It is just a vibration of the force field, which makes us see the various movements. I won't comment on 'popping in or out of existence'. Science has not yet spoken about it. I consider that to be the 'final frontier'. Do things move in a video though they seem to move?
2. Among the many things I do not subscribe to is God, creation, birth, death, heaven, hell, judgment, etc. So I find resonance with you (though I am a strong atheist). All our regrets and debts cease with our apparent death.
3. Yeah, I too believe in infinite reality. My stumbling block is existence and non-existence. What kind of this infinite reality is? It cannot be an eternally existing reality, because that would require an explanation as to from where it has arisen. That takes out a God or Gods and Goddesses from the equation.
What are your comments about it?

 

[Terry Sampson]

We have a few differences.

We're really just two blind men casually sharing thoughts about things that we've noticed in our personal darknesses, aren't we?

Not more than an hour ago, I woke from my night's sleep after posting my last to you, And I'd swear that, for less than a few minutes, the veil between my normal ignorance and understanding became significantly thinner. I actually "think" I may have "seen/understood", albeit briefly, what I've recently been hoping to understand. Whatever I saw/understood, it faded quickly, and the remaining thought I had was: I ought to go back to my last post to Aupmanyav and delete or rework this sentence: "The challenge for me lies in the use of the word "illusion": that word seems, IMO, inaccurate and distracting." Ha! Too late to rework it, so delete it for the time being.

There are no things moving around. It is just a vibration of the force field, which makes us see the various movements.

Hmmm, ... you say "tomahtoes" and I say "tomayters"; you say "potahtoes" and I say "pertayters" ??? or are we comparing my apples and your oranges? I'm not sure.

Science has not yet spoken about it.

Maybe I'm wrong but I thought that's what "Science" has dared to express opinions on in all its chatter about quantum stuff? My tutor in 2003 strongly denied quantum theory, as well as Einstein's relativity, and encouraged me to do the same. So I have to admit to biases against both.

Do things move in a video but they seem to move.

I suspect that it's because I am, currently, a proponent of "substance monism"

• which asserts that "a variety of existing things can be explained in terms of a single reality or substance. Substance monism posits that only one kind of stuff exists, although many things may be made up of this stuff ... (source: wikipedia's commentary on monism); and
  
• IMO, the "stuff" consists of an infinite number of fundamental "things" which my tutor called pythagorean "atoms" (i.e. "uncuttables");
• All of which make up a single set: the Cosmos.

So I'm obliged to favor "movements" over "vibrations".

1. Yeah, I too believe in infinite reality.
2. My stumbling block is existence and non-existence.
3. What kind of this infinite reality is?
4. It cannot be an eternally existing reality, because that would require an explanation as to from where it has arisen.
5. That takes out a God or Gods and Goddesses from the equation.

re: #1. Whew! That's one potential irreconcilable difference out of the way, eh?
re: #2. Put this on hold for the moment.
re: #3. Beats the hell out of me....I've been under this banyan tree for a good long time and I still don't have it figured out.
re: #4. *screeching brakes" .... does not compute. Either I don't understand or it seems to me that an infinite, eternally existing reality doesn't need an explanation as to where it came from, nor when it came "here" nor how it got here. It's always been and always will be, right where it is now.
re: #5. Don't you think there would be room in an infinite, eternally existing reality--assuming that one exists, of course--for other non-human Beings that would like to talk to us or that we'd like to talk to if given the chance? [Maybe someday, you'll let me tell you about the Mormons. They have darn near as many, if not more, gods than theistic Hindus have. At least one Mormon I'm acquainted with wrote a paper [my paraphrase] about where to put them all.]

Question: Should we take this blossom of a conversation private or restrict access to it?
On the other hand, ... it may not last long enough to worry about it.

Regards

 

[Aupmanyav]

Normal 'advaita' Hinduism is 'substance monism'. "Eko sad, dwiteeyo nasti' (What exists is one, there is no second). But I have problems with that. Problem of origin. If in future, science categorically says that Space and energy are directly proportional or something like that, it would satisfy me. Zero space, zero energy. I am fascinated by Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. I go with wave-length and amplitude.

About your last question, we will keep meeting and hopefully, have many interesting conversations.

 

[WalterTrull]

Question: Should we take this blossom of a conversation private or restrict access to it?

Don't restrict it please. Kind of interesting.

 

[Terry Sampson]

I am fascinated by ... Relativity.

Being the Anti-relativist that I am, I wouldn't mind trying to talk you out of your fascination; but I won't bother to try if you're not up for it.

1. Eko sad, dwiteeyo nasti' (What exists is one, there is no second).
2. But I have problems with that. Problem of origin.
3. If in future, science categorically says that Space and energy are directly proportional or something like that, it would satisfy me. Zero space, zero energy.

re: #1. I like that, for reasons that probably won't interest you.
re: #2. I don't have that problem, so I have to work on understanding the reasoning that leads to see a problem where I don't see one.
re: #3. Stop me if and when I lose you or leave you,

• You say that if Science were to confirm that "Energy ∝ Space" (or something similar) , then you would be satisfied.
• Seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you think of Space as an empty vessel and of Energy as a fluid of sorts that is contained within the vessel,
  • In which case Energy can fill the vessel completely or
  • the Energy content in the vessel might not fill the it completely, but
  • in no case can there ever be more Energy than Space. No?

Here, I have to say that I think you've stepped outside of what Mainstream Science allows you to say. My understanding is that, according to Mainstream Science, there is no such thing as Space.
I probably ought to stop there before I get in over my head.

I don't have your problem, because in my worldview, Energy is just masses in motion through Space. And since, "Space" is an abstract noun that refers to an Infinite and, I suppose, Eternal Nothingness, that neither moves, stretches, or contracts, the masses always have, always have had, and always will have room to move around in.

Don't know if you're interested or not, but here's a link to several versions of a playful Cosmogony exercise written by my tutor that may (or may not) introduce to the perspective that I was taught.
Cosmogony 101 Lab, Final Exam Project and Notes "Contra Liberum Arbitrium"

 

[WalterTrull]

I probably ought to stop there before I get in over my head

Oh Ho! Been there. Come to think of it I'm almost always there.
Monism. Interesting. I suppose I'm a monist, but a mental monist. Mass? Hmmm...
Pay no attention. Just noise from the peanut gallery.

 

[Milton Platt]

Lol Amanaki do not eat that kind of mushrooms
The touch, feels, hear, seeing is only an illusion in the form of that nothing in this physical world is permanence. Even humans "see" solid objects, they are not solid at all. Zoom in and what is seen is empty space between atoms so not solid

Can you support the claims?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Atoms form bonds in several different ways, but they all have similar bond lengths. Generally speaking the space between the nucleus of two bonded atoms is around 10 (raised to power) -10 meters. This is also called one ångström (Å). It's approximately the size of the electron cloud of a single atom. (Google Search, Aug 12, 2009)

"Atomic spacing refers to the distance between the nuclei of atoms in a material. This space is extremely large compared to the size of the atomic nucleus, and is related to the chemical bonds which bind atoms together.
The spacing between atoms in most ordered solids is on the order of a few ångströms (a few tenths of a nanometer). In very low density gasses (for example, in outer space) the average distance between atoms can be as large as a meter."
Atomic spacing - Wikipedia
That, I think will be equivalent to the distance between Earth and Moon.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Terry Sampson, yes I overstepped science, because they say at inflation small space had great energy. It may be the other way round. Energy is intrinsic to space, I do not compare it to water in a vessel.

there is no such thing as Space.
I don't have your problem, because in my worldview, Energy is just masses in motion through Space. And since, "Space" is an abstract noun that refers to an Infinite and, I suppose, Eternal Nothingness, that neither moves, stretches, or contracts, the masses always have, always have had, and always will have room to move around in.

Now, I need to read your thesis.
Gave it a first reading. As you would agree that it requires further reading.

I liked what 'dybmh' said, 'first tell me what you want to prove' - 'journalistic writing'.
We have a few TV channels which do just the opposite - What is Pakistan afraid of? What is India's disadvantage? They will go on asking these inane questions at the bottom and expect the viewer to wait till their ads are over. I do not have that kind of patience. I immediately switch to some other channel.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Energy is intrinsic to space, I do not compare it to water in a vessel.

Yeah, ... it was a sloppy analogy..

Now, I need to read your thesis.

Technically, I'm not the author of the Cosmogonies; at most, I am their "editor" of sorts. Their author was the now-deceased tutor I mentioned earlier. Trivia about him: He was the probably the most rational and reasonable person I've ever been acquainted with, and he was an agnostic atheist. I was an ill-prepared and very ignorant "disciple". The Cosmogonies are a small portion of his on-line
writings that I have. I posted a portion of another document that he was working on at the time of his death in January 2004. It's attached to my Post #1 in my "Monistic Atomism" threat at: Monistic Atomism, if you're curious.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Can you support the claims?

Just look in a microscope with large enough zoom, and you will see it.
There is more empty space then solid

 

[Terry Sampson]

I liked what 'dybmh' said, 'first tell me what you want to prove' - 'journalistic writing'.

Ahhh, ... shame on me. I had forgotten that my original intention in the Cosmogonies thread was to present a case for determinism and against free will. From the responses, I received, it became clear to me that I failed. Sharing that thread with you, however, was not to suck you into the back and forth over determinism and free will, but to offer you a playful (IMO) view of a "reality" consisting of point-masses moving through space, ... as a opposed to one consisting of a field of energy and vibrations therein.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I appreciate that, and I admire the way that we have been interacting, even though our views may be different. There is a very famous Hindu invocatory mantra when we begin a discussion from the Upanishads. The third and the fourth part of it forms the logo of many institutions in India.

"saha navavatu. saha nau bhunaktu. saha viryam karavavahai. tejaswi navadhitamastu. ma vidvishavahai."
(Let us together be protected. Let us together be nourished. Let us join together in our action. Let our efforts at learning be brilliant. Let us never have discord.)

 

[wizanda]

What kind of this infinite reality is? It cannot be an eternally existing reality, because that would require an explanation as to from where it has arisen. That takes out a God or Gods and Goddesses from the equation.

In esoteric ideas the Divine Council created the reality from reflections of each other within consciousness, which is all mathematical quantum code.

The Pyramid with an Eye is what perspectives I witnessed in my NDE; the dimensions are the 10 steps of the pyramid, the eye is Oneness observing our reality from above, and within.

We exist in linear time (4D), inside infinity (8D)... 8D is like a pool of water, where the pebble was never chucked into it, therefore there was no ripples of 4D.

All of this is coded from above, and the matrix that sustain the fabric come from a place of complete nothingness (Source); which is above the Divine Council to avoid any corruption.

Infinity exists regardless of quantum structure applied to the reality we coexist within, it just doesn't have any meaning.

It is easiest to understand 'existence, none existence' on a computer, where when the operating system is gone, there is no system, same with our reality.

In my opinion.