The Message of Emptiness

Originally posted by Palynka
Thanks. Not sure I still understand it, though.

Seems to me a lot of such excerpts are deliberately contradictory to illustrate the errors of duality (or hard edges, if you will). But I still find it hard to wrap my head around it exactly because of the contradictory nature of those metaphors. Does this make sense to you?

I'm comfortable with the "ha ...[text shortened]... that wholesale rejection is not the point but it still feels like that whenever I read them.

Or maybe it's just BS.

Originally posted by Palynka
Thanks. Not sure I still understand it, though.

Seems to me a lot of such excerpts are deliberately contradictory to illustrate the errors of duality (or hard edges, if you will). But I still find it hard to wrap my head around it exactly because of the contradictory nature of those metaphors. Does this make sense to you?

I'm comfortable with the "ha ...[text shortened]... that wholesale rejection is not the point but it still feels like that whenever I read them.

As you are probably aware, light as a result of quantum experiments is found to have a wavelike aspect and a particlelike aspect. These two states are inherently contradictory. You cannot say light is a wave and you cannot say light is not a wave.
Nor can you say it is a particle nor not a particle. It is not both at the same time nor is it neither of them at the same time.
The statement about existing and not existing has the same quality.
There is not any rejection of hard edges as such intended. The intention is to indicate that it is not the only nor final aspect of reality. It would be like saying light is just a particle. Things are hard edged. Tigers WILL eat you. Light is a particle and powers photosynthesis.
The illusion of our naturally differentiating minds is that that is that and it isn't.

As we burrow down through that hard edged rock or tiger, we begin to see a lot of actual emptiness at the level of atomic structure. Atoms are 99.999999% empty space. And the components that are there as you burrow further begin to get very furry and indistinct and hard to locate. They start to have to be spoken about as probabilities and super-positions and fields. It all depends which theory one wants to follow, but all equally have the quality of lack of particulate-like definition, when referring to same. What is a wave and what is it a wave of? Where do probabilities and super-positions hang out?

Things are, and yet, they are not.

The plot thickens.

Originally posted by Taoman
You cannot say light is a wave and you cannot say light is not a wave.

That is because, it is neither. Both are models of behavior that we observe.

Originally posted by Taoman
As you are probably aware, light as a result of quantum experiments is found to have a wavelike aspect and a particlelike aspect. These two states are inherently contradictory. You cannot say light is a wave and you cannot say light is not a wave.
Nor can you say it is a particle nor not a particle. It is not both at the same time nor is it neither of them a ...[text shortened]... ties and super-positions hang out?

Things are, and yet, they are not.

The plot thickens.

“...These two states are inherently contradictory. ...”

actually they are not.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is because, it is neither. Both are models of behavior that we observe.

Ok, let me put it in those terms. The use of The use of "is" too loose here. Good point.

Light demonstrates two properties, that of wave behaviour and that of particle behaviour. These behaviours are exhibited under differing contexts, the only one being whether it is being measured or observed. There is no other factor that has changed in the experimental setup. If it is not being measured or observed it demonstrates wave-like behaviour, if it is being measured it demonstrates particle like behaviour.
The point is what is the nature of light - where does its reality lie or demonstrated in a final conclusive manner? If you say the light is really there by pointing at the particle behaviour as proof, not irrefutably so, because under another condition it is behaves in a quite contradictory way as a wave. And similarly when coming from the wave direction stating that behaviour as irrefutable proof of the existence of light as a locatable, clearly differentiated (by the measurement and description of properties or behaviours) 'thing'.

It neither can be seen as existing in its own independent state, nor can it be said to not be existing.

You are not saying surely that all there is is behaviours or properties alone divorced of any "thing" that demonstrates those behaviours? Be careful if you are, because that is a very Buddhist viewpoint, and you and I would finally be in agreement. Perhaps miracles do happen.

By referring to the behaviours you have simply pushed it back one more step.

Both of these properties are of their nature irreconcilable contradictory behaviours arising from the one source, light.

The locatable particle-proton behaviour and the wave like behaviour has been demonstrated to not only apply to this sub-atomic particle, but to every sub-atomic particle including and most importantly, electrons.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...These two states are inherently contradictory. ...”

actually they are not.

I cannot see how they are not. In fact it is the very contradictory behaviours that has provoked all the historical quantum discussion. If you know of a theorem or explanation that shows they are not in fact contradictory, please at least point me to it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I protest, because you use word, to mean something quite different from their dictionary meanings. I would have no problem with that if the new definitions were given and clear, but I tend to find Buddhists and like minded people do not give definitions and change their meaning over time and tend to imply that a definition must be experienced not given. This always leaves me totally lost.

I protest, because you use word, to mean something quite different from their dictionary meanings.

Well, that is an extremely naive way of thinking. Dictionaries do not exist to prescribe what language-users mean, nor do they exist to prohibit new meanings; they simply describe historical or current usages of the word (or, to be more exact, the lexeme.) They are useful as a way to determine what a given word might mean or generally means; they do not legislate meaning. No dictionary can claim to be exhaustive or comprehensive and the lexicrographer has to accept that there may be meanings in particular speech communities which he has missed. New meanings are bound to arise as well, in which case, the dictionary simply has to be updated. Definitions are tentative and provisional.

I think the important point to take away is that meaning does not materialise except in the context of its utterance. We might say that 'vacuum' in most contexts refers to empty space, that is, devoid of any matter, but there is no reason why it must refer to empty space. In a different context, a new meaning might be obvious (and clearly this is the case here) and we only need to use our inferential powers to deduce what that is. In fact, part of the pleasure of reading poetry or theosophical works like this is that we must use our skills of inference, figuring out when to jettison conventional readings of a word, and then decide what meaning is appropriate. But to simply say 'Well, in my line of work, this word means X and I will only tolerate such a meaning' comes across as a bit simpleton (although, I know you are not a simpleton!)

Originally posted by Taoman
It neither can be seen as existing in its own independent state, nor can it be said to not be existing.

You seem to be very confused about quantum mechanics. I suggest you study it a bit more before trying to use it for philosophical arguments.
You seem to believe that:
1. Waves do not exist.
2. That the dual properties of matter under quantum mechanics (wave and particle like behavior) are incompatible with each other.
3. That 'action at a distance' is so inexplicable that it needs some sort of new theory involving awareness to explain.
4. That intelligence or awareness is required for the 'collapse' in quantum mechanics.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Dictionaries do not exist to prescribe what language-users mean, nor do they exist to prohibit new meanings

I fully agree and said as much in my post.

In a different context, a new meaning might be obvious (and clearly this is the case here)
It was far from clear to me, hence my objection and a request for a definition. The response was that a definition was not possible and that its meaning in this context was not possible to determine.

But to simply say 'Well, in my line of work, this word means X and I will only tolerate such a meaning' comes across as a bit simpleton (although, I know you are not a simpleton!)
And I did not make any such statement. I say quite clearly in the post you are responding to that I am quite ready to tolerate new meaning so long as there is some way that I can find out what that new meaning is. With Buddhists and like minded people I frequently find myself in a position where I am unable to decipher what they are saying. I have a number of times tried to converse with black beetle for example and almost invariably have to give up because I cannot understand him. But I am not saying he is wrong to use words differently from the way I do, I am simply saying that unless he can find a way to help me understand the meanings of those words, then he is not able to communicate with me.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I fully agree and said as much in my post.

[b]In a different context, a new meaning might be obvious (and clearly this is the case here)
It was far from clear to me, hence my objection and a request for a definition. The response was that a definition was not possible and that its meaning in this context was not possible to determine.

But t ...[text shortened]... to help me understand the meanings of those words, then he is not able to communicate with me.

For those who are not familiar with quantum physics, I recommend a book entitled 'The Quark and The Jaguar' as a starting point. A little outdated now, but very well explained, in the context of its time, by a hero of mine, "Murray Gell-Mann", one of the world's greatest quantum physicists and mathematicians.

Not an expensive book, and widely available. A cannot put down book, at worst!

-m.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I fully agree and said as much in my post.

[b]In a different context, a new meaning might be obvious (and clearly this is the case here)
It was far from clear to me, hence my objection and a request for a definition. The response was that a definition was not possible and that its meaning in this context was not possible to determine.

But t ...[text shortened]... help me understand the meanings of those words, then he is not able to communicate with me.[/b]

And I did not make any such statement. I say quite clearly in the post you are responding to that I am quite ready to tolerate new meaning so long as there is some way that I can find out what that new meaning is.

You are right. In my defense, you took the poem far too literally in your first post and so when I read that one sentence in your second post, I stopped and balked. You do however definitely acknowledge that new meanings are possible. So I apologise. I ought to have read the whole post. Take my comments as though referring to someone else.

I am not however entirely comfortable with everything in your post. I think that it is quite acceptable to say that meaning must be experienced. Particularly in the case of religious thought, why should any thought be expressible in any other language? Of course, discussion would be futile and if the Buddhist had any intention to engage you in dialogue, he would have to take some other course. If a religious person subscribes to the idea that their language is wholly unknowable to outsiders, then I have no idea how they can extricate themselves from that insularity.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I fully agree and said as much in my post.

[b]In a different context, a new meaning might be obvious (and clearly this is the case here)
It was far from clear to me, hence my objection and a request for a definition. The response was that a definition was not possible and that its meaning in this context was not possible to determine.

But t ...[text shortened]... to help me understand the meanings of those words, then he is not able to communicate with me.

Edit: "I have a number of times tried to converse with black beetle for example and almost invariably have to give up because I cannot understand him. But I am not saying he is wrong to use words differently from the way I do, I am simply saying that unless he can find a way to help me understand the meanings of those words, then he is not able to communicate with me."

Our conversations were to me pure pleasure although we can hardly agree regarding specific issues: for example, the nature of the reality as I perceive it, is mind-only and thus "empty" / sunya. All the variations start from this point -if you cannot understand sunyata, you cannot proceed. So, what exactly you cannot understand regarding sunyata?

I really have a good time seeing you and our Palynka and Taoman trying to come in grips with that happy unleashed monster -named Reality- that shows to every sentient being a quite different and unique shape. I even gave you once more another good hint regarding sunyata! What else would you want me to do?
😵

Originally posted by Palynka
Thanks. Not sure I still understand it, though.

Seems to me a lot of such excerpts are deliberately contradictory to illustrate the errors of duality (or hard edges, if you will). But I still find it hard to wrap my head around it exactly because of the contradictory nature of those metaphors. Does this make sense to you?

I'm comfortable with the "ha ...[text shortened]... that wholesale rejection is not the point but it still feels like that whenever I read them.

You're on 'a' right track.

What's the most difficult thing to measure?

"Attitude!"

-m.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You seem to be very confused about quantum mechanics. I suggest you study it a bit more before trying to use it for philosophical arguments.
You seem to believe that:
1. Waves do not exist.
2. That the dual properties of matter under quantum mechanics (wave and particle like behavior) are incompatible with each other.
3. That 'action at a distance' is ...[text shortened]... ain.
4. That intelligence or awareness is required for the 'collapse' in quantum mechanics.

We could resort to calling each other confused but there will be no progress.

I do not regard waves as not existing. I am clearly referring to waves as a property or behaviour of light.

I have repeatedly said that the wave behaviour of light like the particle presentation does not not-exist. I have only said that logically how can something be said to exist finally and separately as a thing in itself, if it is so indisputably and irrevocably linked to something else it requires to show "existence", namely the particle aspect. Nether the wave nor the particle exist as a self-existent thing in themselves, apart from the other.

You may continue make bland unsupported statements of disagreement without engaging with the logic I present. If you believe such, then support it with argument. You also repeatedly oversimplify and simply ignore my expanded statements of explanation and definition.

Originally posted by Taoman
I cannot see how they are not. In fact it is the very contradictory behaviours that has provoked all the historical quantum discussion. If you know of a theorem or explanation that shows they are not in fact contradictory, please at least point me to it.

quantum experiments show:
if you measure/detect/interact with one of them in one kind of way then it shows wavelike behaviour and
if you measure/detect/interact with one of them in a different kind of way then it shows particle-like behaviour
thus this shows sometimes it behaves as a particle and sometimes it behaves as a wave but apparently never both at the same time (at least both at the same time is never observed) thus shows one of the following must be true depending on which interpretation of quantum physics is correct:

1, whether it IS a particle or a wave is dependent on the measurement/interaction with it at the time so it is never literally simultaneously a particle and a wave at any one point in time (so at no point in time can you have a 'contradiction' of it being both at the same time)

2, it is both a particle and a wave because it consists of a particle and a wave PAIRED together inseparably (so in that sense the wave and a particle are two different things albeit inseparable and, because they are not the same thing, there is no 'contradiction' in them being the same thing at the same time) and simultaneously exist but, because of various limitations of the observer, only the wave part or only the particle part and never both can be detected/observed/measured at any one point in time.

So where is the logical contradiction in 1, or 2 ?