Simon, thanks for your views...perhaps you would like to look at one of the links? You will find that your basic assumption about emptiness entirely misses the mark.
On Sep 9, 5:20 am, Simon Ewins <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/9/9 ornamentalmind <[email protected]>: > > > of consciousness. So…here I ask you to become a true skeptic and > > examine very closely the things you see and feel. What is the nature > > of a table? Does it exist? How do we know a table is a table? Does a > > table ever change what it is? Etc. > > How do we share concepts of items such as rocks or tables or trees or > other things that we all experience in a shared way? I have formed the > following opinion... > > We use approximation and synthesization. As long as we can approximate > in our reality the perceptions that fit the feedback about the same > object as others describe in their reality then we can agree that we > are sharing an experience of the same object. > > This is easy with physical objects but becomes more problematic with > other types of objects. The hierarchy is: > > 1: Auto-psychological objects (the self). > 2: Physical objects. > 3: Hetero-psychological objects (other 'selfs'). > 4: Cultural objects. > > The further we get from #1 the more abstract and difficult > approximation and synthesization becomes. Cultural objects (such as > gods and philosophical concepts) are the most divergent while physical > objects (such as rocks and tables and chairs) are the least. > > > How could he come to find that emptiness is the ultimate cosmology? > > Because at its base that is what it is, either at a quantum level or > as the sum of all mass and all gravity in our universe (E=0). > > > Why would you not agree with him? > > That would depend what is meant by 'ultimate'. If it is meant that we > 'rise to' it, then no. If it is meant that we 'rise from it', then > yes. > > Although I am equating emptiness with nothingness here... > > All that is something comes from nothing. Now, the problem is with > nothing which many physicists don't believe exists. There is always > something even if it is the 'spooky' responses (energy of some sort > not understood at all) between vastly separated quantum particles. Why > is there something instead of nothing? Because something is more > stable. What has been thought of as nothing is simply a curve of > space-time in a quantum vacuum that possesses an unimaginable amount > of energy. Occasionally this energy creates a bulge in the space-time > curve and a bubble breaks free and often becomes a new universe (but > that is for another thread). --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
