Infinity – as a lack of source material underpinning reality

[Ryan Rudolph]

This thread is exploring the nature of the totality in the sense of analyzing whether or not a source material exists at the most basic foundation of reality itself.

For instance: Quantum mechanics has had a difficult time pinning down a concrete source material, as every appearance that resembles material can be broken down into smaller appearances that they themselves also contain smaller appearances, and this rabbit hole of appearances seems to have no end at the microscopic level, so what does this realization say about the nature of the totality?

Because if there is no source material, then it is a difficult argument to make that we live in a materialistic universe, a nuts and bolts universe. And this common empirical assumption is a sort of dogma that has taken root in the academic world. So if such a material cannot be pinned down, and then what type of reality do we live in, or can we say anything about it at all without risking being in error?

[Loki]

Ok, it may be possible that there is no source material (but perhaps protons are the source material?)

But we can't know with any sort of certainty one way or the other. Even if we manage to see the protons are comprised of other things, we can't know if these other things are divisible.

What I do know is that infinity makes no sense, in that, for it to exist is impossible.

[Steven Coyle]

If energy can neither be created nor destroyed then the Void must be a constant storehouse of potential energy.

[brokenhead]

You should have been a physicist, Ryan.

There is a book by Abraham Pais entitled Inward Bound that chronicles the exploration of your rabbit hole. It's a worthwhile book to have around.

[Ryan Rudolph]

It is a very strange reality to face, the reality that a ‘thing’ is not rooted in any sort of source material.

the more one ponders it, the less it makes sense, as far as coming up with a logical explanation is concerned. The mind naturally draws a blank when trying to fathom how the totality expands infinitely at the quantum level.

It makes one fully appreciate how A=A is very relative to the decision of the observer to make divisions, and it is also dependent on the unique human sensory system.

Richard Dawkins goes into this a bit when he suggests that we shouldn’t think about the universe in the form of matter, because matter is mostly empty space. And the only reason we experience “matter” is because our biological organism is adapted to survive in a world of matter - in a world of three-dimensional chairs, cars, houses, and so on.

[Loki]

Richard Dawkins goes into this a bit when he suggests that we shouldn’t think about the universe in the form of matter, because matter is mostly empty space.

Almost empty space? So what is that teeny bit of stuff in your opinion?

[brad walker]

http://www.phrenopolis.com/perspective/atom/

[Ryan Rudolph]

Loki,

Almost empty space? So what is that teeny bit of stuff in your opinion?

Just an appearance, and if you probe deeply into it, it takes on the shape of an infinite number of smaller appearances that consist of almost entirely empty space as well.

For instance: Imagine a football field (empty space) and a football is the center of the field (matter). Well if you zoom into that one football, a new appearance within the football emerges, which is a myriad of new football fields (empty space) and footballs (matter). And then take any one of those new footballs that are observed within, and probe into one of them, then a myriad of new football fields and footballs becomes apparent within that single one ball as well. And this sort of rabbit hole empirical diving goes on for infinity, so that tiny bit of stuff is just an empty appearance without much meat, sustenance, or a concrete reducible essence at all.

And the whole thing is rather odd if you stop and think about it for a minute, as no explanation seems to suffice.

[Loki]

Loki,

Almost empty space? So what is that teeny bit of stuff in your opinion?

Just an appearance, and if you probe deeply into it, it takes on the shape of an infinite number of smaller appearances that consist of almost entirely empty space as well.

For instance: Imagine a football field (empty space) and a football is the center of the field (matter). Well if you zoom into that one football, a new appearance within the football emerges, which is a myriad of new football fields (empty space) and footballs (matter). And then take any one of those new footballs that are observed within, and probe into one of them, then a myriad of new football fields and footballs becomes apparent within that single one ball as well. And this sort of rabbit hole empirical diving goes on for infinity, so that tiny bit of stuff is just an empty appearance without much meat, sustenance, or a concrete reducible essence at all.

And the whole thing is rather odd if you stop and think about it for a minute, as no explanation seems to suffice.

How do you know this for certain? Why is it unreasonable to think that there is some particle which can't be divided?

[Ataraxia]

Why is it unreasonable to think that there is some particle which can't be divided?

It probably isn't unreasonable,it would be guessing though.
It's Zeno's paradox,innit.

[skipair]

Cool topic.

For instance: Quantum mechanics has had a difficult time pinning down a concrete source material, as every appearance that resembles material can be broken down into smaller appearances that they themselves also contain smaller appearances, and this rabbit hole of appearances seems to have no end at the microscopic level, so what does this realization say about the nature of the totality?

I'm not sure if it says anything about the totality itself, other than those appearances being included in it. The "substrate" that I see mentioned I don't think has anything to do with particular appearances of the senses - that is, particular appearances at the exclusion of others. Whatever appears to these QM people doesn't say anything about the totality that wasn't already there before.

Because if there is no source material, then it is a difficult argument to make that we live in a materialistic universe, a nuts and bolts universe. And this common empirical assumption is a sort of dogma that has taken root in the academic world. So if such a material cannot be pinned down, and then what type of reality do we live in, or can we say anything about it at all without risking being in error?

To me experiencing "material" means intaking data from the touch sense. If we also bring sight into the picture, it makes no difference to me whether looking into a microscope reveals some base layer of what I touch. The fact remains that I touch. Bringing in data from the other senses to try and make a congruent picture of reality - for example that there is a thing first, and from that thing arise various sensory attributes - is a false picture I think. There are attributes first, and only then do with make a categorical heading to file these attributes under. A false but practical heading, I think.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Loki,

Why is it unreasonable to think that there is some particle which can't be divided?

Because a thing is always both a part of a larger whole, and a whole itself depending on your perspective.

Skipair,

for example that there is a thing first, and from that thing arise various sensory attributes - is a false picture I think. There are attributes first, and only then do with make a categorical heading to file these attributes under. A false but practical heading, I think.

In my opinion, sensory perception relays information to the mind so that cognition or thought can construct a picture of reality using ‘things’ so in order for ‘things’ to be understood, there must be a mind there, and so cognition needs sensory information in order to function, but I consider cognition at the top of the complexity pyramid, meaning sensory information is what feeds to the mind the necessary goods to allow cognition to exist, and to mature.

However, then there is subjective experience, which shapes cognition as well. And then there is the environment which challenges a person’s subjective experience, which in affect is a challenge to cognition as well.

[Loki]

Loki,

Why is it unreasonable to think that there is some particle which can't be divided?

Because a thing is always both a part of a larger whole, and a whole itself depending on your perspective.

Ok, so you're saying that just because a thing (a particle) is part of a larger whole, then that automatically means it can be divided. What are your reasons for believing this?

You're also implying that just because a particle is a 'whole itself' then that automatically means it can be divided. Again, what are your reasons for believing this?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Loki,

Ok, so you're saying that just because a thing (a particle) is part of a larger whole, then that automatically means it can be divided. What are your reasons for believing this? You're also implying that just because a particle is a 'whole itself' then that automatically means it can be divided. Again, what are your reasons for believing this?

In my opinion, a thing is divided by the mind automatically. A thing by its very nature always has the potential to be divided into smaller things, or else it wouldn’t be a thing. Basically, the world ‘out there’ is actually undivided, but the mind needs to divide it up to make sense of it.

Think of it this way – imagine an infinite ocean that extends forever at the macroscopic and microscopic level, how many water droplets could you divide from it? There is no limit as to how many, and we may divide up the ocean differently. For instance: what I define as one drop, you may define as two…basically, our decision to divide is subjective.

[kissaki]

Ryan,

From what I've gathered most modern physicists have given up hope on finding the prima materia. They are just interested in classifying and classifying all the way down as far as their instruments allow them to probe. I also still disagree with your statement that matter is mostly space; modern physics also disagrees. Sub-atomic particles -- protons, electrons, neutrons -- exist in a sea of particle/anti-particles coming in and going out of existence all the time. This sea is the quantum foam of virtual particles. There really is no place anywhere that 'something' doesn't exist. The only place empty exists is as a concept in your mind.

If matter cannot be pinned down as any independent thing that exists outside of mind, then clearly we live in a universe in which mind precedes things, or at least a universe in which they are on equal footing. I think it means one can confidently stop trying to find the 'hidden meaning' behind things and simply take them for what they appear to be at that moment.

Loki,
Protons, which is but one type of particle of many in a class of particles called hadrons, are composed of particles called quarks. Quarks are experimentally proven to exist. It is reasonable to suppose that quarks composed of yet smaller things, however, detecting such things is quite simply beyond the human mind at the moment.

[brokenhead]

If matter cannot be pinned down as any independent thing that exists outside of mind, then clearly we live in a universe in which mind precedes things, or at least a universe in which they are on equal footing.

It bears repeating.

[Jason]

Basically, the world ‘out there’ is actually undivided, but the mind needs to divide it up to make sense of it.

If there is an 'out there', then there is an 'in there' too, and thus a division has already been made hasn't it? Is this initial division, between out and in, "actual"? And what makes this division?

[brokenhead]

Basically, the world ‘out there’ is actually undivided, but the mind needs to divide it up to make sense of it.

If there is an 'out there', then there is an 'in there' too, and thus a division has already been made hasn't it? Is this initial division, between out and in, "actual"? And what makes this division?

Consciousness, or mind, makes this division. See kissaki's conclusion above. In this sense, as we do not perceeive or conceive without mind or in the absence of consciousness, three is the lowest experiential number. We cannot have a thing (that is, one thing) without there exists also what the thing is not, this cleaving resulting in three, as prerequisite to the cleaving is the "in here" as opposed to the "out there." So there is the initial differentiation between what is observing and what is observed, and then there is the necessary differentiation between the thing that is observed and everything which is not that thing.

[mikiel]

Interesting topic.
What if "the most basic foundation of reality itself" is intelligent consciousness manifesting as energy/plasma/matter?

QM has astounded the scientific community with experiments confirming that "entangled particles" are intelligently connected (constantly in synch, info-wise re: direction of spin) over vast (so far unlimited) distance.

What is the medium of this unbroken info link at extreme distances?
The question can not be ignored. There is an intelligence at work here which is not limited by distance.

What is the "medium" of gravitation across the cosmos as far as we can "see" (practical limit being the cosmic event horizon?) Same question on micro-scale... What is the "weak nuclear force" (which holds atoms together) made of?

How did I know my son had an ulcer from many miles away with no *known* info exchange between us? I just "felt his pain" in my stomach and knew, by no known means, that he was in serious crisis. (He was, it turned out, hospitalized with a severe peptic ulcer.)

What Steven said on conservation of energy/matter is basic science and still true. There was never "nothing" (and then "something" appeared... cosmos as we know it)... nor will "it" all, the "stuff" of cosmos ,*ever* just vanish.

What is "infinity?" Try to describe "the end of space." That it is impossible is the functional definition of infinity.

On division into smaller "pieces." "Holons all the way in and all the way out." Not that the word denotes actual 'things' but it is the principle of infinitely diminishing "size" and infinitely expansive space. ( Ref: Ken Wilber, integral philosophy.)

Divide an arbitrary distance in half, ad infinitum... always a nano-length left. Double an arbitrary length ad infinitum... same on macro level into infinity.
Nailing it all down (in either direction) is a misguided conceit of the human intellect.

[Remo]

My concept of the source of source material.

Source material is what we call outer-space, outer-space only seems to be an empty vacuum due to the fact that we cannot detect the particles that comprise it, we can only detect at the moment particles that have either a positive or negative charge. Without a charge there is no way at our level of technology for us to see or observe its existence. but it does not mean this neutral matter does not exist. We just have yet to figure out how to detect it directly, indirectly we know however. For example we know that based on computer simulations of the universe, that over 50% of the matter that comprises the universe is "missing" meaning we cannot detect it, but the equations and analysis show that it must be there. Whats more we have yet to find the edge of the universe so to speak, so when they say 50% of the matter in the universe is unaccounted for it only takes into consideration what seems to be missing in a given volume of space, so that if you double the known size of the universe there is still 50% unaccounted ad infinitum.

Having no charge these particles neither attract nor repel each other, they are in a state of equilibrium unlike charged particle that attract each other and form clumps of matter, eventually forming suns and planets. These clumps of matter appear more dense to us, than the undetected neutral particles because their charged attraction shrinks the inner atomic space that would naturally exist between neutral unattracted particles. we therefore perceive this as a vacuum but only because of the highly compressed state of our own world and atoms with their +/- charges.

If we suppose that empty space is filled with undetectable particles (at present)that loose their neutral state very rarely ( for whatever reason decay, particle collision, maybe even disturbed from its neutral state by the passing of a wave/particle =beam of light) and develop a charge thus creating a simple atom, the hydrogen atom, from that atom all other atoms will be created in the gravity and furnace fusion of the suns in our universe.This is one way to explain where the source material comes from.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I'd say that the source material is merely different for different levels of reality. On our level of reality, molecules are the source material - but once you gt down to the molecular level, there are smaller source materials. Our level of reality, smaller levels live molecular and quantum levels, and larger levels like universal - all overlay each other, effectively occupying the same space. Looking for the ultimate source is like trying to find the end of infinity.

[mikiel]

I'd say that the source material is merely different for different levels of reality. On our level of reality, molecules are the source material - but once you gt down to the molecular level, there are smaller source materials. Our level of reality, smaller levels live molecular and quantum levels, and larger levels like universal - all overlay each other, effectively occupying the same space. Looking for the ultimate source is like trying to find the end of infinity.

"Source material" is still a materialist perspective, inherent in the thread title. Since all the "material" in the universe has always existed and will always exist, "source" is a moot question... even if all *forms* are constantly being re-created by Universal Consciousness "The Creator" who is eternally creating, sustaining and disintegrating all forms from this "neither created nor destroyed" raw "material" (energy/plasma/matter.)

I agree with you as in my post above... for easy ref:

What is "infinity?" Try to describe "the end of space." That it is impossible is the functional definition of infinity.

On division into smaller "pieces." "Holons all the way in and all the way out." Not that the word denotes actual 'things' but it is the principle of infinitely diminishing "size" and infinitely expansive space. ( Ref: Ken Wilber, integral philosophy.)

Divide an arbitrary distance in half, ad infinitum... always a nano-length left. Double an arbitrary length ad infinitum... same on macro level into infinity.
Nailing it all down (in either direction) is a misguided conceit of the human intellect.

The "holon" ref is the "nesting" principle all the way "down" in micro-scale regardless of whether there are actually little ultra-small "strings" or whether "quarks" are the smallest "distinct" subatomic units... combining into atoms, molecules, compounds, etc...

Likewise all the way "up" to macro-scale... to the cosmos we can see... limited to the cosmic event horizon (speed limit of light being the practical limit)... and beyond to "all there is" or "the whole universe" beyond the "horizon"... out into infinite, unlimited space.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Mikiel,

even if all *forms* are constantly being re-created by Universal Consciousness "The Creator" who is eternally creating, sustaining and disintegrating all forms from this "neither created nor destroyed" raw "material"

If you are totally honest with yourself, you cannot assert with certainty that you know that there is a conscious ‘creator’ process happening through cause and effect. All the evidence actually points to the contrary – meaning nature seems to be rather blind in how it moves, as it is only human beings who have any conscious power at all in the world. Basically, everything we can know, we can only know through what we sense and observe through the laws of cause and effect and basic logic, and to asset otherwise is to delude yourself.

However, there is a natural tendency to believe in a creator outside of cause and effect, but this is more rooted in a fear of ego death, rather than any hard concrete empirical evidence. If you honestly examine what reality can tell you through your own observations and the limits of your own logic, one realizes that it is very difficult to make metaphysical claims with certainity and not come off as a bullshitter or a lunatic.

[mikiel]

Ryan,
Here's a brief summary of gnosis from our 'dear friend' Wiki:

Gnosis (from one of the Greek words for knowledge, γνώσις) is the spiritual knowledge of a saint or mystically enlightened human being. In the formation of early Christianity, various sectarian groups labelled "gnostics" by their opponents, emphasised special or secret spiritual knowledge as gnosis, over faith (pistis) in the teachings of the established community of Christians. These sectarians emphased that the most essential part of the process of salvation was this personal knowledge in contrast to faith in ecclesiastical authority. As such these break away groups were branded heretics by the fathers of the early church. The knowledge of these sectarian groups is contested by Eastern Orthodox Theology as religio-philosophical in nature rather then revelatory. [1]

Spiritual knowledge or gnosis,[2] as well as being discussed within the context of Early Christianity and Hellenistic culture (i.e. as Gnosticism), is also discussed within the context of other religious traditions such as Sufism of Islam[3] and Theravada Buddhism.[4] Gnosis is not exclusive to any sectarian group as the word is a Greek technical or dialectal term. Within the culture of the term, Byzantine and Hellenic cultures respectfully, gnosis was a special knowledge or insight into the infinite, divine, uncreated rather then insight into the finite natural or material world. [5] Gnosis is a transcendent as well as mature understanding.[6] It indicates direct spiritual experiential,[7] knowledge rather than that from rational or reasoned thinking. Knowledge as in revelation and/or intuitive knowledge (see gnosiology).

This from the "Teachings" section at
http://www.centerforsacredsciences.org/ :

III. The end of suffering comes by way of Gnosis,
or the Sacrifice of ignorance through the Grace of a Perfect Realization that Consciousness alone is Absolutely Real. (Ed; m: The manifest realm is *relatively* real.)
IV. The way of Gnosis is the way of Selflessness,
cultivated on the basis of Love (boundless compassion) and Truth (profound insight). It may be seen as a path unfolding in

I am in Truth totally honest with myself, and I can and do in fact "assert with certainty that (I) know that there is a conscious ‘creator’ process happening through *and also transcending* cause and effect. Gnosis is a perennial reality, a legitimate Way of knowing throughout the history of humanity as in evidence through all spiritual (as distinct from religious) literature. (See again the Center for Sacred Science website link above.)

As for your absurd statement:

...nature seems to be rather blind in how it moves, as it is only human beings who have any conscious power at all in the world.

... the blindness in this case is in the eye of the beholder.
Your anthropomorphic myopia (in the other eye) is obvious to anyone who has ever experienced the transcendental revelation that the whole cosmos ("Kosmos') is One Intelligent Being.

Finally to your concluding statement:

Basically, everything we can know, we can only know through what we sense and observe through the laws of cause and effect and basic logic, and to asset otherwise is to delude yourself.

Classic "flatland materialism" (as per the integral philosophy of Ken Wilber.)
This could be an opportunity for you to broaden your horizons...
but I won't be holding my breath.

[Ryan Rudolph]

mikiel,

We already debated this before - the question as to whether or not we can know any metaphysical claims for certain based on intuitive knowledge, and I don’t believe we can. All we can know is what our senses tell us in the present moment, and what our logic tells us.

My argument is that our senses and our logic cannot confirm that there is a universal mind or consciousness underpinning reality, it is only one possibility among many.

However, one thing we can know for certain is that our weak psychology is predisposed into believing in a universal consciousness because it is comforting, and it alleviates the awareness of our own mortality, a mortality that may in fact lead to total ending of our consciousness at death – another possibility.

And when you use quotes from wikipedia illustrating how this sort of belief is at the root of many religions, it isn’t all that surprising, impressive or convincing to your claim because as I have stated humans are predisposed to believe in a universal consciousness as a savoir due to the awareness of their own mortality, it is comforting to that FEAR. Moreover, and then there were some more clever and intelligent ones that didn’t believe in reality as a universal godhead, but only taught it to people as a means to control and manipulate them. It was an easy way to trick people into believing that you were honest, trustfully, and close to god’s mind as a means to accumulate wealth, power, prestiage, and ultimately spread your genes.

The certainty of Gnosis is a form of fundamentalism in my view, and we are in an age where all forms of fundamentalism are being crushed by the weight of an intensified rationalism.