Neutral Substance Monism - Any Modeling Potential?

In summary: That might seem like a pretty strong requirement, but it's actually quite reasonable. If esse were not absolutely homogeneous, then it would be possible for one part of esse to change while the other parts remained the same, and that would create a conflict or inconsistency within the substance. Esse must be the only substance. This one is a little more controversial. One could argue that there must be other substances, perhaps even a vast array of them. But for the purposes of this contemplation, assume that there is only one substance. In summary, monism is the belief that the basis of all existence is either one essence, or one type of entity which might exist
  • #71
Castlegate said:
So in the interest of being what you are ... please speculate on.


Okay, you asked for it :biggrin: . . .

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=30762

. . . complete with diagrams. It's a long thread, but if you are interested in modeling with monistic concepts, you'll find plenty there.

For this thread I was asking others' opinions on if a neutral substance monism could be practical to modeling physical aspects of the universe. I referenced some great philosophers up front, such as Russell (who was also an empiricist), who did see potential for it. Yet no one has really ever given it a serious try as far as I know. That, and because I've already modeled with it in the above thread, is why I haven't gotten into it more here.


Castlegate said:
Thats because we are talking in terms of a discreet quantity . . .

What does discrete quantities have to do with it? I've already accounted for that by suggesting that a neutral substance will appear discrete (in the sense of separate from its surroundings) if it is concentrated into a self sustaining system (e.g., an atom).

Moving finger spoke of zero point energy. We do know virtual particles pop in and out of existence due to some sort of energy tension (and further observed in the Casimir force) in the vacuum (which obviously isn't really a vacuum). What if that field could be concentrated enough at a point to form an atom? If so, then the atom emerges from that field yet is still one with it. What appears "discrete" is really just differentiated by concentration and oscillation of a "point" in the field . . . there is no real separation. These are monistic concepts.


Castlegate said:
. . . which can have properties.

What properties does energy have besides causing movement and manifesting heat? How is it then, that it takes the form of mass which then becomes all the characteristics we know in this universe. From something simple comes something incredibly varied, so in terms of me proposing that same idea for substance monism, there is precedent.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
Les Sleeth said:
Here is the issue that I can't make sense of. If we learn, then the Whole learns, and if the Whole learns, then it changes. Also, if we are part of it, then the Whole has the feature of individuating points within itself.
We, as 'momentary' dreams within Consciousness, dream 'ourselves' and a 'universe' to live in, and 'time' (as a necessity of space and 'mass') to do it. Time is also a necessity for 'learning' anything at all. Learning is linear (like the mind; so, like 'time'..go figure!), involving 'memory', extrapolation, thought, 'motion'.. all sequential, linear, and all dependent on the 'given' of 'time'.
Consciousness is not 'in' time. Like a Planck Moment. Consciousness is so 'in the moment' that there is literally 'no time' (for time) to learn anything nor anything to learn. Learning requires a functioning brain and mind to conceptualize that which we shall learn. First we 'manufacture' a 'moon', then we study it and learn about it.
The timeless NOW has no 'concepts' much less concepts of 'past', 'trees', or anything else. It just 'Is'. It is only mind within ego within Consciousness that fantasizes 'things separate from things' (something to learn about) Nothing 'exists' for Consciousness to be conscious of. Other than these fantasy dreams.
Then it's a matter of learning/evolving and growing more powerful until it acquired the ability to concentrate our universe into existence.
Thats US doing that, not Consciousness. We don't 'concentrate it into existence', we just think/observe it into 'existence'. Sometimes the gentlest glance can have 'monumental effect' in the 'physical' world. The harder one 'concentrates, the worse the results. Ego 'tries'. Wisdom 'opens to'..
The objective of the type of meditation I do is to directly experience consciousness itself, its "base" qualities.
The closer I came to Consciousness the less there was an 'I' to 'experience' anything, much less the, if any, 'properties' of Consciousness. I posit that we can not experience the (if any) 'properties' of Consciousness. The best we could do would be to 'logically' posit any, like the property of 'dreaming', perhaps? Perhaps WE are a 'base' property of Consciousness? If the 'ability to dream' is a property of Consciousness, then the dreams of the dreams might also be concidered 'properties' of Consciousness? If so, then the material (apparently material) universe is also a 'subset' of Consciousness, another, albeit tenuous, 'property' of Consciousness...
If there is 'time/change' in a dream of a dream of Consciousness and 'change' is 'happening' in this dream, can one also say that Consciousness thereby also 'changes'? Of course there is really no-*thing*, really, that ever 'changes'. Is a 'hologram' considered a thing? Again, tenuous at best...
One property I can report consciousness having is light, another is a very fine vibratory quality, and yet another is a gentle pulse you can find hiding behind the breath.
Nothing that I have found similar. Perhaps you are juxtaposing Consciousness and an expanded Awareness of the subtler aspects of your body. Light, needs eyes and mind (light is a concept), vibration and pulse, likewise, are related to our senses and mind (all concepts within brain/mind). Ego is all that stands between us and Consciousness. There seems to be an inverse ratio involved between 'ego' and (access to) Consciousness. It is ego that maintains the illusions of Maya, of the phenomenal universe, of the linearity of time, motion, the Duality that allows this and that... The greater the Consciousness that is 'experienced' (with no 'experiencer'? Perhaps it is Consciousness that is the Experiencer??! Not 'knower', not 'thinker', not 'rememberer, but the immediacy of pure experience of the NOW?), the less real is the egoic 'self' and subsequent universe of apparent phenomena.
That's why Kabir, a great meditator (1488–1512, India), once said "“What is God? He is the breath inside the breath.” (He also said, reminiscent of the model I proposed, "“The Supreme Soul is seen within the soul, the Point is seen within the Supreme Soul, and within the Point the reflection is seen again.”)
Consciousness Is, within, without, It Is that which 'Is'. We search within, we find 'God' (Consciousness, 'Self'), searching without, the same... I can understand what Kabir is saying here..
One doesn't have to use the words "god" or "soul" to see the modeling possibilities.
Of course...
In terms of consciousness being a dream, I would say, as a meditator, almost the opposite of your interpretation.
Sigh... after all this! NONONONONONONO! I am NOT saying that Consciousness is a dream, but that, within Consciousness, Dream is. Consciousness is the Ground 'Matrix' of Dream, not the Dream itself.
As I learned to still my mind, I became more and more aware of the residual effect of incessant thinking. You know, like if you think angry thoughts about a situation it will leave behind a residual effect. But because most people never stop thinking, and outright imagining, there is a strong build up of residual effects they carry around all the time which to me anyway, seemed something like a dream; in fact, I used to call it a "semi-dream."
You are describing 'attachments'. Thought is involved in the creation of 'residual effects'. Hence meditation, to bring unruly thought under control. It is the 'relinquishment' of those 'attachments' that liberate one from karma NOW..
This semi-dream constantly affects consciousness,
Affects our access to Consciousness, the amount of which we 'partake'. Most are not conscious in the least, but lost in their dreaming, sleepwalking through life, tripping over their illusions, crying to their god "Why?" and begging for help... No wonder the world is as it is!
distorting every experience by translating it so it fits into the realm of the semi-dream (a big part of the semi-dream is, as you say, egoic). Because of that, I see the semi-dream as UNconscious in nature, not conscious. Only when the mind is made crystal clear from stillness does reality appear as it is. So, I say UNconsciousness is a dream, and true consciousness is awake.
Yeah, like I just said.. I can hang with this.. You just are saying it a bit differently than I just did, but... yeah.
Hahahaha.. nice to end on such an agreeable note!
Good night.
*__-
 

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
505
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
4
Replies
135
Views
21K
Replies
8
Views
962
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
500
Views
87K
Replies
1
Views
258
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
243
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
3K
Back
Top