Life, The Universe and Everything Else

[evo]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/jun/05/scientists-create-antimatter-study

I'm no rocket surgeon but this seems like a fairly significant achievement to a laymen like me.


Antimatter was first postulated by the British physicist Paul Dirac in 1930 while working on a way to reconcile the ideas of quantum mechanics with Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. Particles of matter and antimatter are identical, except for an opposite electrical charge. An electron has a negative charge, whereas its antiparticle, the positron, has a positive charge, and both have an identical mass. Similarly, a proton and an antiproton are the same size and have the same mass, but have positive and negative charges respectively.


In keeping with the more philosophical theme of the thread I love how the deeper physicists delve the more some of the really basc Chinese metaphysical tenets seemed to be affirmed. i particularly like the idea that in the physical for every particle there exist it's negative counterpart. it is fundamentally no different to the Eastern idea of Co-dependent origination/ dependent arising.

Hopefully observing sub atomic particles disappear into parallel universes is next.



2
When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.

Being and non-being create each other.
Difficult and easy support each other.
Long and short define each other.
High and low depend on each other.
Before and after follow each other.

7
The Tao is infinite, eternal.
Why is it eternal?
It was never born;
thus it can never die.
Why is it infinite?
It has no desires for itself;
thus it is present for all beings.

11
We join spokes together in a wheel,
but it is the center hole
that makes the wagon move.

We shape clay into a pot,
but it is the emptiness inside
that holds whatever we want.

We hammer wood for a house,
but it is the inner space
that makes it livable.

We work with being,
but non-being is what we use.

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html

 

[Azza]

When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.

So evo, do we forsake beauty and ugliness and live in blandness, or do we embrace them both? Jung would opt for the latter I think.

 

[Tiger74]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/jun/05/scientists-create-antimatter-study

I'm no rocket surgeon but this seems like a fairly significant achievement to a laymen like me.


Antimatter was first postulated by the British physicist Paul Dirac in 1930 while working on a way to reconcile the ideas of quantum mechanics with Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. Particles of matter and antimatter are identical, except for an opposite electrical charge. An electron has a negative charge, whereas its antiparticle, the positron, has a positive charge, and both have an identical mass. Similarly, a proton and an antiproton are the same size and have the same mass, but have positive and negative charges respectively.

Read this today, but it sounds like amateur hour to me. Don't these idiots know you need to use dilithium crystals and not hydrogen atoms to get the power needed to get a warp drive operational?

 

[evo]

So evo, do we forsake beauty and ugliness and live in blandness, or do we embrace them both? Jung would opt for the latter I think.

to the person at one with the Tao, ultimately there is no 'oughts'. There is comfort in just being.

5
The Tao doesn't take sides;
it gives birth to both good and evil.
The Master doesn't take sides;
she welcomes both saints and sinners.

The Tao is like a bellows:
it is empty yet infinitely capable.
The more you use it, the more it produces;
the more you talk of it, the less you understand.

Hold on to the center.

 

[Azza]

to the person at one with the Tao, ultimately there is no 'oughts'. There is comfort in just being.

'Just being' implies passivity. The 'oughts' are what leads to striving in humanity, which I reckon is fundamental to our evolution and cultural development. Perhaps there'd be a lot less suffering in the world if A. afarensis had stuck to just being, but you'd probably be hard-put arguing that to a mother that lost a kid to a leopard.

Then again, maybe taoism is ultimately correct, and we need to transcend striving or we'll wipe ourselves out. Maybe strong AI is the really the rapture that puts an end to striving and let's us all "just be".

 

[evo]

'Just being' implies passivity. The 'oughts' are what leads to striving in humanity, which I reckon is fundamental to our evolution and cultural development.

yeah, that would be Nietzsche's argument - "Will to Power". It has plenty of merit.

Perhaps there'd be a lot less suffering in the world if A. afarensis had stuck to just being, but you'd probably be hard-put arguing that to a mother that lost a kid to a leopard.

Then again, maybe taoism is ultimately correct, and we need to transcend striving or we'll wipe ourselves out. Maybe strong AI is the really the rapture that puts an end to striving and let's us all "just be".

"just be" doesn't mean non-striving.

It's more like "wise striving"; going with the flow, so to speak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_wei

The goal for wu wei is to get out of your own way, so to speak. This is like when you are playing an instrument and if you start thinking about playing the instrument, then you will get in your own way and interfere with your own playing. It is aimless action, because if there was a goal that you need to aim at and hit, then you will develop anxiety about this goal. Zhuangzi made a point of this, where he writes about an archer who at first didn't have anything to aim at. When there was nothing to aim at, the archer was happy and content with his being. He was practicing wu wei. But, then he set up a target and "got in his own way." He was going against the Tao and the natural course of things by having to hit that goal.

A dramatic description of wu wei is found in chapter 2 of Zhuangzi:

A fully achieved person is like a spirit! The great marshes could be set on fire, but she wouldn't feel hot. The rivers in China could all freeze over, but she wouldn't feel cold. Thunder could suddenly echo through the mountains, wind could cause a tsunami in the ocean, but she wouldn't be startled. A person like that could ride through the sky on the floating clouds, straddle the sun and moon, and travel beyond the four seas. Neither death nor life can cause changes within her, and there's little reason for her to even consider benefit or harm.[1]

This passage is metaphorical. To a Taoist, things arise dependently. The soul and body go together, because if there were no soul, there would be no body and if there were no body, there would be no soul. All these arise dependently. (This is the meaning of the Yin-Yang symbol; if there were no yin, there would be no yang and if there were no yang, there would be no yin).

 

[Azza]

"just be" doesn't mean non-striving.

It's more like "wise striving"; going with the flow, so to speak.

I really like the poetics of the idea, but something leaves me a bit suspicious.

So much for good (and bad of course) has come about because people have been driven by demons. I doubt we'd have the art of van Gogh if he'd lived a life of wise striving, or the brilliant wartime leadership of Churchill. Closer to home, it's struck me that many of the most successful people I know don't lead particularly balanced or happy lives. My father in law is a (now semi-retired) top notch materials engineer who has spent his life in front of microscopes, pretty well ignoring my feather-brained mother in law and being domineering to his kids. The most brilliant academics I've known at uni have been loners.

It could be argued such people would be just as successful if they'd been emotionally mature, but the striving to achievement may also be linked to the lack of balance.

Anyway, something has struck me recently about the yin yang symbol. Ages ago I read something about the key area of the symbol being the lines between the shapes. I don't think I really understood the implications of the statement, thinking it just referred to each shape being defined by the other. But I did a soft systems thinking course recently. It stressed the value of discourse in creating 'emergent properties' in the face of apparently irreconcilable conflicts. The idea was that discourses operate through the world views of the multiple parties to not necessarily resolve an issue, but to reshape the whole situation. It occurred to me what this is what the comment on the lines on the yin yang symbol may have meant, representing the emergent properties that may be generated by the interaction of 'opposites'.

I saw this reflected politically in an address by Noel Pearson on slow tv. He stressed the positives of each of socialism, liberalism, and conservatism, and talked about the resolution of social issues through the interaction of these value systems, rather the whole-hearted domination of one belief system.

Again, it's the dynamic between opposites (the line between the yin and the yang) that leads to new ideas and growth. I wish this were somehow reflected better in parliament. The coherence of both sides seems to have broken down (particularly Labor), and we're left with a grey and muddy sameness that produces little in the way of fresh ideas. Maybe the parliamentary duality model is no longer a useful one.

 

[evo]

Interesting post.

I really like the poetics of the idea, but something leaves me a bit suspicious.

So much for good (and bad of course) has come about because people have been driven by demons. I doubt we'd have the art of van Gogh if he'd lived a life of wise striving

or the brilliant wartime leadership of Churchill.

Anyway, something has struck me recently about the yin yang symbol. Ages ago I read something about the key area of the symbol being the lines between the shapes. I don't think I really understood the implications of the statement, thinking it just referred to each shape being defined by the other. But I did a soft systems thinking course recently. It stressed the value of discourse in creating 'emergent properties' in the face of apparently irreconcilable conflicts. The idea was that discourses operate through the world views of the multiple parties to not necessarily resolve an issue, but to reshape the whole situation. It occurred to me what this is what the comment on the lines on the yin yang symbol may have meant, representing the emergent properties that may be generated by the interaction of 'opposites'.

there is a similar idea in Western philosophy: dialectics. It basically began with "the Socratic method of inquiry". thesis--> anti-thesis--> synthesis. Hegel proposed that's how the universes operated - a spiral.

Marx, among others, went to Hegel lectures and became a "young Hegelian". His theory of man's struggle is called 'dialectical materialism'. it is based around the same idea.

I saw this reflected politically in an address by Noel Pearson on slow tv. He stressed the positives of each of socialism, liberalism, and conservatism, and talked about the resolution of social issues through the interaction of these value systems, rather the whole-hearted domination of one belief system.

Again, it's the dynamic between opposites (the line between the yin and the yang) that leads to new ideas and growth. I wish this were somehow reflected better in parliament. The coherence of both sides seems to have broken down (particularly Labor), and we're left with a grey and muddy sameness that produces little in the way of fresh ideas. Maybe the parliamentary duality model is no longer a useful one.

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government....... except all the others that have been tried."
- Sir Winston Churchill

 

[Azza]

:hihi

I'm not sure I'll let you get away with those 2, although I by no means have a firm position that development is only driven by imbalance. For all Sun Tzu's theorising on war, I'm not sure a Taoist would have the sheer bloody minded unreasonableness of Churchill in opposing Hitler and inspiring the British people. As to Tibetan sand painting, I'm not sure how much it is influenced by Taoism or even Buddhism. But granted there's an element of your wise-striving there, I don't believe there's any way a Taoist would produce a van Gogh with it's edge of madness.

 

[evo]

As to Tibetan sand painting, I'm not sure how much it is influenced by Taoism or even Buddhism.

It's done by Buddhist monks!

 

[Azza]

It's done by Buddhist monks!

Tibetan Buddhist monks. Hardly what anyone would call the essence of Buddhism.

 

[evo]

Why not?

Anywho, mandalas are not the only art of Asia. Japan, for example, has rich history in caligraphy.

I do take your point about the benefits of suffering to art though. I'm a big Salvador Dali fan.

 

[Azza]

Why not?

There's a big focus on demons, deities, and magic in Tibetan buddhism that's contrary to the Buddhas message of salvation through self effort.

Anywho, mandalas are not the only art of Asia. Japan, for example, has rich history in caligraphy.

I do take your point about the benefits of suffering to art though. I'm a big Salvador Dali fan.

I've got nothing at all against Asian art. In fact I have 7 Japanese woodblock prints, 6 of which were printed prior to 1900. The other is by a well known artist Hasui, printed in the 1930s. I had a Korean vase that my ex-wife got when we split up - still peeves me occasionaly! No doubt too the Taoist tradition has inspired great artwork - I think from memory it was credited with refreshing Chinese landscape painting after it became overly formulaic.

I didn't mean to turn this into an east/west thing, although I'm aware of the traditional ideas of the fatalistic Asian in comparison to the dynamic westerner. I thought your points on Socrates and Hegel were really interesting in the context of the Taoist dualities.

This is starting to ramble somewhat! I guess the point is that much of what we value in western culture seems to me to derive from a kind of passionate restlessness, rather than a serene wise-striving in the Taoist tradition. If the Taoist attitude represents a golobal ideal, it doesn't seem to capture that western perspective.

 

[Giardiasis]

Delete

 

[smasha]

We all end with the same.

EVERYONE OF US lol.

 

[tigergollywog]

Tibetan Buddhist monks. Hardly what anyone would call the essence of Buddhism.

thats gold Azza. have you read 'high valley' george jonson and charmaine clift? I think you would enjoy it.

 

[Ian4]

just my thoughts... i actually believe in reincarnation. but not for religious reasons.

the big bang created everything 4.5 billion years ago. our bodys are particles from the big bang. what we eat contains atoms that were created in the big bang. when we drink a glass of water, the atoms you're drinking are 4.5 million years old. they have regenerated and regenerated over all these years, and evertually are regenerated into something we might put in our mouths. so when we die, we get buried and everntually our remains regenerate into something else. hence, reincarnation is real.

another thought...

i recently watched the steven hawking series on SBS. what interested me the most was that he claims he has proved god doesn't exist. his theory is quite simple actually... in a black hole, time does not exist. if you placed a clock in a black hole and it survived (it wouldn't survive, but just for the sake of the argument, it does) the clock would stop working.

scientists claim that the conditions in a black hole are exactly the same as the condition of the universe before the big bang. so if time did not exist before the big bang, it also means that a creator (or god) could not have existed to enable them to actually create the universe... hence god cannot exist.

my own theory (which i'm sure has been discussed by scientists, but i am yet to stumble upon it)...

scientists are now beginning to accept that there is not one single universe, but a multiverse. some theorise that there are as many universes as there are galaxies... billions. my theory is this: if conditions in a black hole are exactly the same as the condition of our universe before the big bang... are black holes actually capable of creating new 'big bangs' and forming brand new universes? is this how the multiverse was created? was our own universe created from a 'big bang' in a black hole?

but if this theory is true, it still raises the question... how was the first universe created?

 

[Disco08]

On reincarnation, isn't it traditionally a rebirth of an individual conciousness? Is conciousness physical?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

but if this theory is true, it still raises the question... how was the first universe created?

It's turtles.....all the way down.

google it

 

[KnightersRevenge]

just my thoughts... i actually believe in reincarnation. but not for religious reasons.

the big bang created everything 4.5 billion years ago. our bodys are particles from the big bang. what we eat contains atoms that were created in the big bang. when we drink a glass of water, the atoms you're drinking are 4.5 million years old. they have regenerated and regenerated over all these years, and evertually are regenerated into something we might put in our mouths. so when we die, we get buried and everntually our remains regenerate into something else. hence, reincarnation is real.

another thought...

i recently watched the steven hawking series on SBS. what interested me the most was that he claims he has proved god doesn't exist. his theory is quite simple actually... in a black hole, time does not exist. if you placed a clock in a black hole and it survived (it wouldn't survive, but just for the sake of the argument, it does) the clock would stop working.

scientists claim that the conditions in a black hole are exactly the same as the condition of the universe before the big bang. so if time did not exist before the big bang, it also means that a creator (or god) could not have existed to enable them to actually create the universe... hence god cannot exist.

my own theory (which i'm sure has been discussed by scientists, but i am yet to stumble upon it)...

scientists are now beginning to accept that there is not one single universe, but a multiverse. some theorise that there are as many universes as there are galaxies... billions. my theory is this: if conditions in a black hole are exactly the same as the condition of our universe before the big bang... are black holes actually capable of creating new 'big bangs' and forming brand new universes? is this how the multiverse was created? was our own universe created from a 'big bang' in a black hole?

but if this theory is true, it still raises the question... how was the first universe created?

Just to be pedantic 4.5billion is approximately the age of the Earth. The big bang happened about 13.7billion years ago. While I'm no expert I don't think the conditions at the centre of a black hole are considered to be the same as the big bang. A singularity gave rise to the big bang. Super-massive black holes may have singularities at their centre but they aren't considered to be the same thing. Who knows? Our best understanding of the laws of nature don't apply in these regions so turtles are as good an explanation as any.