The Father and Son of Taoist Philosophy

[Jeff]

...

 

Something from nothing is Steven Hawking's theory.  I watched the original presentation on TV.  Didn't accept it then, don't accept it now.  It violates all the laws (as we understand them) of physics as well as logical rationality.  If Hawking's theory were correct then there wasn't any need of a Singularity that went "Bang".

 

Something (everything that is) was created out of Singularity.  (Super-Duper Black Hole - the beginning of this cycle of this universe)  Yes, there are unsaid givens to what I just said but I don't have the knowledge to speak to those givens.

 

And too, Wayne L Wang uses Higgs Field Theory in his introduction to his translation of the TTC titled "Dynamic Tao".

 

I think there is much more to be learned regarding the supposed Higgs Particle and what is believed to have been observed.  (Yeah, I am again saying I don't accept "something from nothing".)

 

...

 

What current understanding or laws of physics does it violate?  I think that the position is commonly accepted by all physicists in the last 10-20 years. Your position seems to be like the previous belief that there is a force like "gravity" that causes the planets to rotate around the sun.  All modern day physicists realize that it is more a "warping" of the space-time field.

 

On the Higg's field, it seems to me that you are stating that your "realist" views are counter to what is actually found/experienced in reality.  Have you gone fundamentalist on us? (Sorry, couldn't help the joke )

 

Best wishes,

Jeff

[Marblehead]

So you grew up and want to play hard ball now, do you?  Hehehe.

What current understanding or laws of physics does it violate?  I think that the position is commonly accepted by all physicists in the last 10-20 years. Your position seems to be like the previous belief that there is a force like "gravity" that causes the planets to rotate around the sun.  All modern day physicists realize that it is more a "warping" of the space-time field.

That the total sum of energy in the universe can never be newly created nor destroyed.  It just takes on different form over time.

 

I have, a number of times, stated that I believe that there is much more to gravity that science still needs to learn about.

 

Yes, I am aware of the "warping" of space/time caused by massive objects throughout the universe.  One of the biggest causes of this "warping" are Black Holes.  Those suckers are super massive!

 

.

 

On the Higg's field, it seems to me that you are stating that your "realist" views are counter to what is actually found/experienced in reality.  Have you gone fundamentalist on us? (Sorry, couldn't help the joke )

 

Best wishes,

Jeff

I am a fundamentalist when it comes to questioning "truths".

 

The only way the Hadron Collider could have created something out of nothing would have been to accelerate two particles of Absolute Nothing (which does not and can not exist) to the speed of light and cause them to collide and observe the creation of something.  This is not what was done.  They collided two particles of "something" and saw the creation of something else.  (Transmutation of Manifestations of Tao - This has been going on since Tao gave birth to One.) 

 

But butterflies really do exist.

[Jeff]

So you grew up and want to play hard ball now, do you?  Hehehe.

That the total sum of energy in the universe can never be newly created nor destroyed.  It just takes on different form over time.

 

I have, a number of times, stated that I believe that there is much more to gravity that science still needs to learn about.

 

Yes, I am aware of the "warping" of space/time caused by massive objects throughout the universe.  One of the biggest causes of this "warping" are Black Holes.  Those suckers are super massive!

 

I am a fundamentalist when it comes to questioning "truths".

 

The only way the Hadron Collider could have created something out of nothing would have been to accelerate two particles of Absolute Nothing (which does not and can not exist) to the speed of light and cause them to collide and observe the creation of something.  This is not what was done.  They collided two particles of "something" and saw the creation of something else.  (Transmutation of Manifestations of Tao - This has been going on since Tao gave birth to One.) 

 

But butterflies really do exist.

 

Hard ball... These are slow pitches...

 

I challenge you to find any physicist that supports your position regarding your "rules" that you believe in. Also, the only way that physicists even attempt to support such a energy conservation position is to assert that the universe has many (infinite) dimensions and realities that are currently beyond our perception.  Hence, rather than a particle "growing" from nothing, it would be more that we only see a limited aspect of the particle in our dimensional reality (kind of like only seeing the tip of an iceberg). And, if one takes that multidimensional view, then is would logically also be true for relative mind/body and there would be a "place" for that soul (broader aspect) to hang outside of our currently perceived reality.

 

This logical dilemma is why the Higg's particle is often called the "god particle". 

[Marblehead]

Hard ball... These are slow pitches...

 

I challenge you to find any physicist that supports your position regarding your "rules" that you believe in.

The very First Law of Physics:  (from Wikipedia)

 

In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can be neither created nor be destroyed, but it transforms from one form to another, for instance chemical energy can be converted to kinetic energy in the explosion of a stick of dynamite.

 

Also, the only way that physicists even attempt to support such a energy conservation position is to assert that the universe has many (infinite) dimensions and realities that are currently beyond our perception.  Hence, rather than a particle "growing" from nothing, it would be more that we only see a limited aspect of the particle in our dimensional reality (kind of like only seeing the tip of an iceberg). And, if one takes that multidimensional view, then is would logically also be true for relative mind/body and there would be a "place" for that soul (broader aspect) to hang outside of our currently perceived reality.

No, you cannot take me to places that are imagined to exist in the mind of other people.  I have enough work with my own illusions and delusions.  I don't need to be taking on those of others.

 

This logical dilemma is why the Higg's particle is often called the "god particle". 

That was, IMO, their first of many mistakes:  calling it the "god particle".

 

But still, they did not create something out of nothing.  All they did was modify existing energy.  I do that every day.

 

As with the Tao, the more you use it the more it remains the same.

[Jeff]

The very First Law of Physics:  (from Wikipedia)

 

In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can be neither created nor be destroyed, but it transforms from one form to another, for instance chemical energy can be converted to kinetic energy in the explosion of a stick of dynamite.

 

No, you cannot take me to places that are imagined to exist in the mind of other people.  I have enough work with my own illusions and delusions.  I don't need to be taking on those of others.

 

That was, IMO, their first of many mistakes:  calling it the "god particle".

 

But still, they did not create something out of nothing.  All they did was modify existing energy.  I do that every day.

 

As with the Tao, the more you use it the more it remains the same.

 

A little later in your quoted wikipedia section...

 

In quantum mechanics, energy of a quantum system is described by a self-adjoint (or Hermitian) operator called the Hamiltonian, which acts on the Hilbert space (or a space of wave functions ) of the system. If the Hamiltonian is a time independent operator, emergence probability of the measurement result does not change in time over the evolution of the system. Thus the expectation value of energy is also time independent. The local energy conservation in quantum field theory is ensured by the quantum Noether's theorem for energy-momentum tensor operator. Note that due to the lack of the (universal) time operator in quantum theory, the uncertainty relations for time and energy are not fundamental in contrast to the position-momentum uncertainty principle, and merely holds in specific cases (see Uncertainty principle). Energy at each fixed time can in principle be exactly measured without any trade-off in precision forced by the time-energy uncertainty relations. Thus the conservation of energy in time is a well defined concept even in quantum mechanics.

 

So as it says, just make sure that you measure at the correct "fixed times" and not in the present moment (otherwise that energy number can be all over the place).

[Marblehead]

 

So as it says, just make sure that you measure at the correct "fixed times" and not in the present moment (otherwise that energy number can be all over the place).

Ah, but quantum mechanics works at only the quantum level.  Take it to the macro level and all the theories break down.

 

Yes, we know that neutrinos are dynamic and move at close to the speed of light.  Measuring them must be extremely difficult.  Equally so with anything that travels that fast.

 

I also think that science still has a lot of work to do regarding this stuff about a particle acting like a wave (or however they say it).  At this point in time it still doesn't seem logical to me.

 

Chuang Tzu did exist, we aren't sure about Lao Tzu.

[Jeff]

Ah, but quantum mechanics works at only the quantum level.  Take it to the macro level and all the theories break down.

 

Yes, we know that neutrinos are dynamic and move at close to the speed of light.  Measuring them must be extremely difficult.  Equally so with anything that travels that fast.

 

I also think that science still has a lot of work to do regarding this stuff about a particle acting like a wave (or however they say it).  At this point in time it still doesn't seem logical to me.

 

Chuang Tzu did exist, we aren't sure about Lao Tzu.

 

Breaking down is the problem with all theories (which is basically my original point).  Also, familiar with the concept of quantum pairing?  We already know that time and space (speed of light) are kind of an illusion.

 

Also, I am sure about Lao Tzu.

[Marblehead]

Breaking down is the problem with all theories (which is basically my original point).

Yes, if a theory doesn't hold true for every test, all other things equal, then the theory still needs more work or it needs be trashed.  (Absolutes are very difficult to come by.)

 

 Also, familiar with the concept of quantum pairing?  We already know that time and space (speed of light) are kind of an illusion.

I am just beginning to gather information on this.  As of now I don't have enough information to even successfully discuss it.

 

Also, I am sure about Lao Tzu.

That gave me a happy face.  Thanks.

[Jeff]

Yes, if a theory doesn't hold true for every test, all other things equal, then the theory still needs more work or it needs be trashed.  (Absolutes are very difficult to come by.)

 

I am just beginning to gather information on this.  As of now I don't have enough information to even successfully discuss it.

 

That gave me a happy face.  Thanks.

 

Definitely agree on the absolutes and that we should all remain flexible as understanding tends to deepen as we go along.

 

I think you will enjoy your research on quantum pairing, but it may effect your model somewhat.  The cool thing is that it shows that such things like teleportation are theoretically possible.

 

Glad I have brought a smile to your face.  Thanks for the discussion.

[Stosh]

Overall, dark energy is thought to contribute 73 percent of all the mass and energy in the universe. Another 23 percent is dark matter, which leaves only 4 percent of the universe composed of regular matter, such as stars, planets and people.

 

Cutting edge Quantum physics and astrophysics are still exploratory, not  explanatory about the matter at hand , those arguments aren't solidly enough based yet to conclude something does come  from nothingness, (since we dont know about all the dark stuff ), or if quantum pairs are-, or are not ,connected.  ( via dark stuff)  On the living human being scale , matter and energy are conserved. Some day one side will be able to prove itself as fact to the other, but it isn't yet that time. Despite confusing experimental data,even if it is correct ,the logical conclusion is that stuff doesnt come from nothing. 

Edited May 13, 2015 by Stosh

[Jeff]

Overall, dark energy is thought to contribute 73 percent of all the mass and energy in the universe. Another 23 percent is dark matter, which leaves only 4 percent of the universe composed of regular matter, such as stars, planets and people.

 

Cutting edge Quantum physics and astrophysics are still exploratory, not  explanatory about the matter at hand , those arguments aren't solidly enough based yet to conclude something does come  from nothingness, (since we dont know about all the dark stuff ), or if quantum pairs are-, or are not ,connected.  ( via dark stuff)  On the living human being scale , matter and energy are conserved. Some day one side will be able to prove itself as fact to the other, but it isn't yet that time. Despite confusing experimental data,even if it is correct ,the logical conclusion is that stuff doesnt come from nothing. 

 

Dark energy and dark matter (and hot dark, cold dark, mixed dark, etc...)  are theoretically "everywhere" and currently beyond our current perception and theoretically operate on WIMPs forces. Which is effectively the same as the tip of the iceberg approach described above as applied to matter.

 

Also, i am not trying to defend the concept of stuff being created from nothing (only trying to show the logical inconsistencies of a  existing fixed theory), but is there any experimental data at all supporting  the concept of dark matter or dark energy?  Basically, it is just a "plug" to fix existing models that don't work because none of the previous theories worked correctly.

 

Basically, they said oops... We were so wrong with our existing theory that we had to make up a concept that said the universe had 3 x more stuff (only in certain observable places) in it to even get close to having the theory work.

[Stosh]

Dark energy and dark matter (and hot dark, cold dark, mixed dark, etc...)  are theoretically "everywhere" and currently beyond our current perception and theoretically operate on WIMPs forces. Which is effectively the same as the tip of the iceberg approach described above as applied to matter.

 

Also, i am not trying to defend the concept of stuff being created from nothing (only trying to show the logical inconsistencies of a  existing fixed theory), but is there any experimental data at all supporting  the concept of dark matter or dark energy?  Basically, it is just a "plug" to fix existing models that don't work because none of the previous theories worked correctly.

 

Basically, they said oops... We were so wrong with our existing theory that we had to make up a concept that said the universe had 3 x more stuff (only in certain observable places) in it to even get close to having the theory work.

Oh yeah, 100% agreement on that.  Im just posing that , ..well I dont do that work, and I consider it very speculative right now.   Dark stuff could have been produced at the big bang , and so conservation still holds, then again , maybe dark stuff is just a mathematical correction, and so one couldn't use the physics of today to make solid arguments yet because thats a pretty huge unexplained correction factor ,  Yes?   

[Jeff]

Oh yeah, 100% agreement on that.  Im just posing that , ..well I dont do that work, and I consider it very speculative right now.   Dark stuff could have been produced at the big bang , and so conservation still holds, then again , maybe dark stuff is just a mathematical correction, and so one couldn't use the physics of today to make solid arguments yet because thats a pretty huge unexplained correction factor ,  Yes?   

 

Yes, with that level of attempted correction you think they would just start over with the model.  When your correction factor is 75-80% of your entire model, your statistical significance goes down to basically zero and you should probably just try again.

[Marblehead]

... but it may effect your model somewhat. 

Oh, my model has been altered so much she now look like a guy.

[Marblehead]

... but is there any experimental data at all supporting  the concept of dark matter or dark energy?  Basically, it is just a "plug" to fix existing models that don't work because none of the previous theories worked correctly.

Yes indeed.  And this is important to remember.  They are called "dark" because they are not understood.

[Marblehead]

... and you should probably just try again.

How about:  Tao gave birth to One; One gave birth to Two, Two gave birth to the Ten Thousand Things?

 

No, I don't know how Tao and One became pregnant.  I didn't do it.

[Jeff]

How about:  Tao gave birth to One; One gave birth to Two, Two gave birth to the Ten Thousand Things?

 

No, I don't know how Tao and One became pregnant.  I didn't do it.

 

Like which came first, the chicken or the egg...

 

But, I prefer that the One sort of emerged from the Tao. Somebody had to be first.

[Stosh]

Thats a good Idea about starting fresh  , Im dropping the atom idea,,, In the beginning, there was only muff , muff expanded till there was enough room for mass and stuff. The universe is all muff, and all that will ever exist is muff in the shape of an expanding torus.  While muff  may be regarded as either mass energy etc , (since that which has no mass may be converted to having the property of mass),, its interactions may be massive or energetic. but really all of it is still muff. Muff is a context , a sum of its own muff  .both void and material. if you will.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Lao and Chuang had gone to a nearby cafe to have some kimchi and rice to eat and some rice wine to wash it down.  The background chatter was interesting for them but they only sat and listened without making comment.

 

Upon finishing their meal they returned to the riverbank and continued their discussion.

 

 

After getting comfortable Lao Tzu said:

 

 

Those Who Do Not Act For The Purpose Of Living

The reason why people take death lightly,
Is because they so avidly seek after life.

Only those who do not act for the purpose of living;
Only these are superior to those who value life.
 

[Marblehead]

And Chuang Tzu replied:

 

 

On Valuing Life

A prince said to the Sage, “I am living at present abroad but my mind keeps thinking of my palace.  What should I do?”

“Think of your life first”, replied the Sage, “for if you value your life, then you put less weight on the luxuries of life.”
 

[Marblehead]

A short pause followed while the two watched the fish playing.

 

Then Lao Tzu said:

 

 

The Advantage Of Not Being Daring

He who is brave in daring will be killed.
He who is brave in not daring
Will be let alone to live.

With these two things,
In one case there is profit,
In the other there is harm.

And even if Heaven dislikes certain people,
Who would know who are to be killed and why?
Therefore the Sage regards it as a difficult question.

The things Heaven hates!

Who knows why?
 

[Marblehead]

Lao Tzu waited but Chuang Tzu remand silent, apparently with nothing to say.

 

After a pause Lao Tzu continued with:

 

 

The Active Life

Block up the holes;
Close the doors;
And till the end of your life
You will not labor.

Open the holes;
Meddle in affairs;
And till the end of your life
You will not be saved.
 

[Stosh]

Given a choice between being laborless and unsaved. I pick unsaved. Said Confucious, rowing along in a boat and whistling.

[Marblehead]

(Both waved "Goodbye" to Confucius as they knew he was headed toward a waterfall.)

 

Then Chuang Tzu replied:

 

Name Is But An Accessory Of Reality

The king wished to abdicate in favor of the Sage, saying, “When the sun has come forth, if the torches continue to burn, would it not be difficult for them to shine?  When the seasonal rains have come down, if one persists in watering the fields, would this not be a waste of effort?  Now, you, sir, just stand before the throne, and the empire will be in order.  Since I am here occupying the position, I can see how wanting I am.  So I beg to proffer to you the empire.”

“You, sir, govern the empire,” said the Sage, “and it is already in order.  Were I to take your place, would I be doing it for the name?  Name is but an accessory of reality; and should I trouble myself for an accessory?  The tit, building its nest in the mighty forest, occupies but a single twig.  The tapir, slaking its thirst from the river, drinks no more than the fill of its belly.  Relax and forget it, my friend.  I have no use for the empire.  Even though the cook were not attending to his kitchen, the impersonator of the dead at the ancestral rites and the priest of prayer would not step over the cups and dishes to do the work for him for fear of injuring their hands.”
 

[Marblehead]

A short time passed then Lao Tzu said:

 

 

The Great Tao (Way) Is Very Level

If I were possessed of Austere Knowledge,
While walking on the Main Path
I would avoid the by-paths;
It is only going astray that I would fear.

The Main Path is easy to walk on,
Yet people greatly delight in tortuous paths
And love the small by-paths.