Nothingness is All Things

[Atla]

That’s not what modern science regards as “ultimate reality”. There is no “ultimate reality” or “apparent reality” in modern science it’s just reality. It’s not manifest energy or unmanifested energy. There are levels to it where different laws and rules apply. It’s why some quantum principles don’t apply at the classical level and vice versa.

Again you need a degree in physics to understand this. I only know this because I spoke to someone who did and the answer is no fields are not “unmanifested energy”. The truth is way more complicated than I think most folks here will get.

But the short answer to your statement is NO. I know because someone I saw 7 years ago said the same stupid remark.

There's no reason to think that there are levels to reality either. Not everyone with a physics degree will admit that a century ago they split the universe into the classical level and the quantum level, because simply no one knows what's really going on with quantum mechanics. Of course the "classical level" also entirely consists of things that we consider quantum.

Wrong. Science has advanced leaps and bounds in a century and we know there are “levels” to this stuff, to put it one way.

In a sense we do know what is going on because it’s a heavy math field. The math checks out but trying to create an interpretation for it is…challenging. It doesn’t help that only those with degrees in this stuff understand what’s going on. But that doesn’t stop folks from running away with interpretations.

But no there is not only a reason but evidence for levels of reality. This is just ignorant.

Hmm great, present the evidence then. Where does one level end and the other begin?

[Darkneos]

There's no reason to think that there are levels to reality either. Not everyone with a physics degree will admit that a century ago they split the universe into the classical level and the quantum level, because simply no one knows what's really going on with quantum mechanics. Of course the "classical level" also entirely consists of things that we consider quantum.

Wrong. Science has advanced leaps and bounds in a century and we know there are “levels” to this stuff, to put it one way.

In a sense we do know what is going on because it’s a heavy math field. The math checks out but trying to create an interpretation for it is…challenging. It doesn’t help that only those with degrees in this stuff understand what’s going on. But that doesn’t stop folks from running away with interpretations.

But no there is not only a reason but evidence for levels of reality. This is just ignorant.

Hmm great, present the evidence then. Where does one level end and the other begin?

When the principles of quantum mechanics break down and classical takes over.

Again this is pretty much known. There are levels to existence, hence by when first encountered it was baffling how classical physics didn’t apply to the quantum level.

[Atla]

When the principles of quantum mechanics break down and classical takes over.

Again this is pretty much known. There are levels to existence, hence by when first encountered it was baffling how classical physics didn’t apply to the quantum level.

Hearsay is not evidence. Demonstrating quantum behaviour on bigger and bigger scales is a "matter of budget".

Again: where does the quantum level end and the classical level start? What does that even mean, aside from the same stuff behaving differently?

[Darkneos]

When the principles of quantum mechanics break down and classical takes over.

Again this is pretty much known. There are levels to existence, hence by when first encountered it was baffling how classical physics didn’t apply to the quantum level.

Hearsay is not evidence. Demonstrating quantum behaviour on bigger and bigger scales is a "matter of budget".

Again: where does the quantum level end and the classical level start? What does that even mean, aside from the same stuff behaving differently?

Actually no, it’s not a matter of budget. At larger scales the quantum probability is so low that the likelihood of it happening is effectively zero. I don’t remember the why.

It’s not hearsay, it just is what it is. And again the levels end when the rules change. I don’t know when that is, likely above a certain level of complexity. It’s like atoms forming molecules, then cells, tissues, organs, living things. All various levels of existence.

Again your ignorance on this makes it difficult to discuss. Why not talk to someone who studied this like I did? I’m making my case but you’ve gone nothing, which seems to be a running thing on this forum so far.

[Atla]

Actually no, it’s not a matter of budget. At larger scales the quantum probability is so low that the likelihood of it happening is effectively zero. I don’t remember the why.

It’s not hearsay, it just is what it is. And again the levels end when the rules change. I don’t know when that is, likely above a certain level of complexity. It’s like atoms forming molecules, then cells, tissues, organs, living things. All various levels of existence.

Again your ignorance on this makes it difficult to discuss. Why not talk to someone who studied this like I did? I’m making my case but you’ve gone nothing, which seems to be a running thing on this forum so far.

Yes at larger "scales" the probability is effectively zero, which isn't the same as zero, is it. So yes, it's also a matter of budget.

No wonder you don't remember the why either, as "scale" is just an interpretation too that may be nonsense. There's no reason to think that "scale" is anything but a human subjective view, and not a feature of how the universe actually works.

Complexity is likely yet another human subjective view, and not a feature of how the universe actually works.

So you couldn't provide any evidence for your belief that there are levels of existence. No evidence for scale as an explanation, no evidence for complexity as an explanation, no evidence for a strict boundary between levels.

Saying that atoms and molecules are different levels of existence, makes even less sense, a molecule is atoms put together. Cells are molecules put together, and so on.

Guess who is the ignorant one

[Darkneos]

Actually no, it’s not a matter of budget. At larger scales the quantum probability is so low that the likelihood of it happening is effectively zero. I don’t remember the why.

It’s not hearsay, it just is what it is. And again the levels end when the rules change. I don’t know when that is, likely above a certain level of complexity. It’s like atoms forming molecules, then cells, tissues, organs, living things. All various levels of existence.

Again your ignorance on this makes it difficult to discuss. Why not talk to someone who studied this like I did? I’m making my case but you’ve gone nothing, which seems to be a running thing on this forum so far.

Yes at larger "scales" the probability is effectively zero, which isn't the same as zero, is it. So yes, it's also a matter of budget.

No wonder you don't remember the why either, as "scale" is just an interpretation too that may be nonsense. There's no reason to think that "scale" is anything but a human subjective view, and not a feature of how the universe actually works.

Complexity is likely yet another human subjective view, and not a feature of how the universe actually works.

So you couldn't provide any evidence for your belief that there are levels of existence. No evidence for scale as an explanation, no evidence for complexity as an explanation, no evidence for a strict boundary between levels.

Saying that atoms and molecules are different levels of existence, makes even less sense, a molecule is atoms put together. Cells are molecules put together, and so on.

Guess who is the ignorant one

Again no, but there is only so much you can talk to someone who doesn’t get it.

Scale isn’t an interpretation it simply is. At different speeds and different energy levels or “sizes” different laws of physics apply. Calling it a matter of budget is just stupid. The probability is effectively zero, but again so low as to not really be concerned about.

Complexity a feature of how the universe works. Just looking at how at different size and energy levels the things at work behave differently. Humans needs to eat and sleep but the atoms that make us up don’t. Like I said, it’s complicated, likely more than you grasp.

Atoms and molecules are different levels of existence but more closely related than cells. Once you get to the level of a cell you start getting into the level of “life” so to speak. At the macro level different rules apply than the micro.

Like I said before you got nothing. Your only point is that science is imperfect, which is duh. But that’s a non starter, no system is perfect. I’ve given evidence, even explained it, they’re only so much you can say to someone who just doesn’t know.

Face it, you’re too ignorant on the matter to hold a conversation. But then again given the the posts on metaphysics so far that checks out.

It’s really hard to take you seriously she. You have nothing to show for it and think the low probably of quantum phenomena at the macro level is a matter of budget.

Talk to people who study this, like I did. You might learn something. The fact you think I have given no evidence though doesn’t give me much hope. Levels to existence is just a fact, not a belief.

[Atla]

Actually no, it’s not a matter of budget. At larger scales the quantum probability is so low that the likelihood of it happening is effectively zero. I don’t remember the why.

It’s not hearsay, it just is what it is. And again the levels end when the rules change. I don’t know when that is, likely above a certain level of complexity. It’s like atoms forming molecules, then cells, tissues, organs, living things. All various levels of existence.

Again your ignorance on this makes it difficult to discuss. Why not talk to someone who studied this like I did? I’m making my case but you’ve gone nothing, which seems to be a running thing on this forum so far.

Yes at larger "scales" the probability is effectively zero, which isn't the same as zero, is it. So yes, it's also a matter of budget.

No wonder you don't remember the why either, as "scale" is just an interpretation too that may be nonsense. There's no reason to think that "scale" is anything but a human subjective view, and not a feature of how the universe actually works.

Complexity is likely yet another human subjective view, and not a feature of how the universe actually works.

So you couldn't provide any evidence for your belief that there are levels of existence. No evidence for scale as an explanation, no evidence for complexity as an explanation, no evidence for a strict boundary between levels.

Saying that atoms and molecules are different levels of existence, makes even less sense, a molecule is atoms put together. Cells are molecules put together, and so on.

Guess who is the ignorant one

Again no, but there is only so much you can talk to someone who doesn’t get it.

Scale isn’t an interpretation it simply is. At different speeds and different energy levels or “sizes” different laws of physics apply. Calling it a matter of budget is just stupid. The probability is effectively zero, but again so low as to not really be concerned about.

Complexity a feature of how the universe works. Just looking at how at different size and energy levels the things at work behave differently. Humans needs to eat and sleep but the atoms that make us up don’t. Like I said, it’s complicated, likely more than you grasp.

Atoms and molecules are different levels of existence but more closely related than cells. Once you get to the level of a cell you start getting into the level of “life” so to speak. At the macro level different rules apply than the micro.

Like I said before you got nothing. Your only point is that science is imperfect, which is duh. But that’s a non starter, no system is perfect. I’ve given evidence, even explained it, they’re only so much you can say to someone who just doesn’t know.

Face it, you’re too ignorant on the matter to hold a conversation. But then again given the the posts on metaphysics so far that checks out.

It’s really hard to take you seriously she. You have nothing to show for it and think the low probably of quantum phenomena at the macro level is a matter of budget.

Talk to people who study this, like I did. You might learn something. The fact you think I have given no evidence though doesn’t give me much hope. Levels to existence is just a fact, not a belief.

Different laws of physics, what a load of bollocks, and then why have they been desperately trying to unify GR and QM?

You're like the type of Dunning-Kruger who thinks that everyone else is

[Darkneos]

Yes at larger "scales" the probability is effectively zero, which isn't the same as zero, is it. So yes, it's also a matter of budget.

No wonder you don't remember the why either, as "scale" is just an interpretation too that may be nonsense. There's no reason to think that "scale" is anything but a human subjective view, and not a feature of how the universe actually works.

Complexity is likely yet another human subjective view, and not a feature of how the universe actually works.

So you couldn't provide any evidence for your belief that there are levels of existence. No evidence for scale as an explanation, no evidence for complexity as an explanation, no evidence for a strict boundary between levels.

Saying that atoms and molecules are different levels of existence, makes even less sense, a molecule is atoms put together. Cells are molecules put together, and so on.

Guess who is the ignorant one

Again no, but there is only so much you can talk to someone who doesn’t get it.

Scale isn’t an interpretation it simply is. At different speeds and different energy levels or “sizes” different laws of physics apply. Calling it a matter of budget is just stupid. The probability is effectively zero, but again so low as to not really be concerned about.

Complexity a feature of how the universe works. Just looking at how at different size and energy levels the things at work behave differently. Humans needs to eat and sleep but the atoms that make us up don’t. Like I said, it’s complicated, likely more than you grasp.

Atoms and molecules are different levels of existence but more closely related than cells. Once you get to the level of a cell you start getting into the level of “life” so to speak. At the macro level different rules apply than the micro.

Like I said before you got nothing. Your only point is that science is imperfect, which is duh. But that’s a non starter, no system is perfect. I’ve given evidence, even explained it, they’re only so much you can say to someone who just doesn’t know.

Face it, you’re too ignorant on the matter to hold a conversation. But then again given the the posts on metaphysics so far that checks out.

It’s really hard to take you seriously she. You have nothing to show for it and think the low probably of quantum phenomena at the macro level is a matter of budget.

Talk to people who study this, like I did. You might learn something. The fact you think I have given no evidence though doesn’t give me much hope. Levels to existence is just a fact, not a belief.

Different laws of physics, what a load of bollocks, and then why have they been desperately trying to unify GR and QM?

You're like the type of Dunning-Kruger who thinks that everyone else is

Yeah it’s just easier to call you stupid at this point.

Also it’s called string theory, you can just use the term. As to why, apparently some scientists aren’t comfortable with the notion that the universe operates according to multiple theories (Einstein did when he encountered QM). So it seems like ego than anything else. We like things simple and elegant but sometimes in the pursuit of that you just end up wrong.

You’re boring.

[Atla]

You have nothing to show for it and think the low probably of quantum phenomena at the macro level is a matter of budget.

I see this one went over the D-K's head too, I'll clarify to others who might be interested.
I said that demonstrating quantum behaviour on bigger and bigger umm.. scales, is also a "matter of budget". Those aren't my words btw, some quantum physicist said it, as this was becoming the prevailing view 10-20 years ago.

It means that as we conduct quantum experiments here on Earth, with bigger budget for the experiment, we can push the limits of when our "quantum system" umm.. "collapses" or "decoheres" or however we want to call it, to the environment.

Which is another way of showing that there doesn't seem to be an inherent quantum/classical divide in our universe. The same stuff that would usually have "collapsed" or "decohered", so it should be on the classical "level", is being kept on the quantum "level".

----------------

Actually, if the D-K meant that quantum phenomena only "collapse" or "decohere" due to probability, then that looks like an objective collapse interpretation, a class of interpretations widely considered to be untenable.

----------------

In the early days of QM, it was simple and useful to divide the world into the micro and the macro, and draw a line between them, and then just forget about the issues. I think it was the Copenhagen school's idea. Technology wasn't really available yet that would be able to test the meeting of the micro and the macro. Now we start to have the technology.

[Atla]

Yeah it’s just easier to call you stupid at this point.

Also it’s called string theory, you can just use the term. As to why, apparently some scientists aren’t comfortable with the notion that the universe operates according to multiple theories (Einstein did when he encountered QM). So it seems like ego than anything else. We like things simple and elegant but sometimes in the pursuit of that you just end up wrong.

You’re boring.

Why would one and the same world behave according to multiple theories?

[Darkneos]

Yeah it’s just easier to call you stupid at this point.

Also it’s called string theory, you can just use the term. As to why, apparently some scientists aren’t comfortable with the notion that the universe operates according to multiple theories (Einstein did when he encountered QM). So it seems like ego than anything else. We like things simple and elegant but sometimes in the pursuit of that you just end up wrong.

You’re boring.

Why would one and the same world behave according to multiple theories?

Because the universe is strange and scientists like to keep things simple. String theory is more just discomfort than practicality.

[Atla]

Yeah it’s just easier to call you stupid at this point.

Also it’s called string theory, you can just use the term. As to why, apparently some scientists aren’t comfortable with the notion that the universe operates according to multiple theories (Einstein did when he encountered QM). So it seems like ego than anything else. We like things simple and elegant but sometimes in the pursuit of that you just end up wrong.

You’re boring.

Why would one and the same world behave according to multiple theories?

Because the universe is strange and scientists like to keep things simple. String theory is more just discomfort than practicality.

Also, string theory is just one attempt at it. Well, if you have any actual evidence for your levels, you know, real scientific evidence, let me know.

[Darkneos]

Why would one and the same world behave according to multiple theories?

Because the universe is strange and scientists like to keep things simple. String theory is more just discomfort than practicality.

Also, string theory is just one attempt at it. Well, if you have any actual evidence for your levels, you know, real scientific evidence, let me know.

Again, have and did.

Like I said, it’s just easier to call you stupid at this point.

[popeye1945]

This sounds eerily similar to some nonsense someone tried with me on YouTube and I had to tell them there is no such thing as “nothing”, we made it up. There is always something, even at the beginning of the universe.

Even eastern philosophy (which is where I assume OP got it) doesn’t say there is nothingness but rather “no thingness” meaning nothing with an inherent and unchanging form, everything is always shifting. What they mean by “non exist” is there isn’t some essence to it that is separate from the world. Or rather it exists but not as we usually think so (though I’m pretty sure no one imagines a chair is external or anything else so they might be off there).

Of course that was when we don’t know much about the origins of the universe and everything else so it’s outdated as a belief system. But it wouldn’t be the first time someone butchered eastern philosophy.

I mean even the initial post is incorrect as every word they used is by definition a comparison. Nothing with something, total with partial, we know what it is by what it is not. Without any comparison you wouldn’t know what any of those things were, so it’s kinda funny they’d say that.

But that’s mysticism for you, you’re just meant to accept it not question it because they weasel out with “you can’t logic it”.

In modern science ultimate reality is thought of as a place of no things, in other words, unmanifested energy, while apparent reality is a place of things/objects. Objects, however, are manifest energies, but I suspect they are dependent on the effects of energy on the biological subject's body. Seeing as we cannot escape our subjective consciousness, however, to date it is impossible to know.

That’s not what modern science regards as “ultimate reality”. There is no “ultimate reality” or “apparent reality” in modern science it’s just reality. It’s not manifest energy or unmanifested energy. There are levels to it where different laws and rules apply. It’s why some quantum principles don’t apply at the classical level and vice versa.

Again you need a degree in physics to understand this. I only know this because I spoke to someone who did and the answer is no fields are not “unmanifested energy”. The truth is way more complicated than I think most folks here will get.

But the short answer to your statement is NO. I know because someone I saw 7 years ago said the same stupid remark.

Was E = C of the light square a stupid equation? When science was searching for the ultimate stuff of which all things were made, and with ever more powerful microscopes they discovered that matter is not made of matter. So, there is matter which is an energy form and unmanifested energy much of it we cannot even perceive. So, what is there besides energy in these two forms? They must have a name for it no?

[Atla]

Because the universe is strange and scientists like to keep things simple. String theory is more just discomfort than practicality.

Also, string theory is just one attempt at it. Well, if you have any actual evidence for your levels, you know, real scientific evidence, let me know.

Again, have and did.

Like I said, it’s just easier to call you stupid at this point.

You only presented your beliefs. Here's the simplest one: show EVIDENCE that

Atoms and molecules are different levels of existence