Every thing is Everything

Here's one I've chewed on for a long time without an end in sight, I thought I would try to spread the horrible disease:

"Everything" (or every/any thing, that you can possibly conceptualize) "is everything."

It's equivalent to mathematically saying "1 = 1" but it implies a lot more than the math does. It implies an infinite number of things, it implies something about everything you ever look, hear or think about. There is nothing avoiding its mighty grasp.

I know not everything our language constructs can imply is objectively true 100% of the time, but there are at least actual philosophies and even theoretical physics to back the statement, in fact is the very theory of a unification of everything. In string theory, the ultimate dimension/construct completes a set of every single universe that can exist under every possible set of parameters across all time, etc. Certain quantum mechanisms allow access to other states of reality that we normally do not have access to, and when you think of the underlying reality physicists are looking at to explain it, you are again thinking of the "highest"-dimensional unification of every single possibility and possible thought in all the universes under all parameters ever... "Everything." As the smallest make-up (or at least the smallest we've yet found, the quantum make-up) of.... everything. In Buddhism there are a number of teachings on the illusory/empty/"same" nature of reality, how there is never any difference, and Taoism and Hinduism talk about that unnameable reality and describe its nature with different words and perspectives.

"The mind is everything. What you think you become." - Buddha

The mind and its consciousness is a multi-dimensional system creating a neural hologram of "everything" experienced by it (its integrated knowledge and experiences of "everything"). In this way it's like a mirror image of the universe, within the universe. Every single mind is like a mirror image of its individual perception of the universe around it. The more our individual perceptions take in of the reality around us, the more we accept it as part of ourselves, the more we resonate with it, and the more beautiful things we will find within it (as well as ugly things, strengthening things, depressing things, and all the rest -- literally everything, anything you could possibly imagine looking for).

“Consciousness is in everything just as everything is in consciousness” - Leif Ericsson Leo Veness

“To imagine is everything, to know is nothing at all.” - Anatole France

“Imagination is everything." - Albert Einstein

to dumb it down you are saying that one single atom is the same as the other atom, and they are all the same atom just in another point of time, and space.

∞ = 1

Yes. And the actual experience of it is outrageous.

[edit on 28-7-2009 by Skyfloating]

Hi all,

Everything is everything.

Everything is nothing = nothing is everything.

I am that I am.

Now I'm just being silly...this article is very interesting and relevant!

Enjoy!

www.redicecreations.com...

Maz*

[edit on 28-7-2009 by Maz81]

[edit on 28-7-2009 by Maz81]

"Everything is everything" is called a 'tautology'. It's a statement, as you pointed out, that 1 = 1. It is true, but adds nothing to a discussion.

I'm not clear what you were trying to say. There is a concept that, since any electron, photon, neutron, etc. is indistinguishable from any "other", there is no way to say that two particles are not actually the same particle. You measure one. You measure another. You can't tell whether the second one is the same one, because you are no longer measuring the first one. You've lost track of it.

It seems that the very notion of identity gets lost in quantum physics.

I think what's really happening with quantum physics isn't necessarily all that spooky (maybe it is, though). I think it's just that we're in a place where our everyday experiences have nothing to do with how particles behave. We have to use math, and you get some result (example: a particle has a 60% probability of being in this region, 20% there, etc.). What does this mean? Is the particle only 60% present? Is the particle there 60% of the time? Is only 60% of the particle there? No. None of those explanations is correct. They are questions that rely on our everyday experience that if something is here, it's not there - and all of it is wherever it is. All this falls apart in quantum theory. The very concept of location - *where* a particle is - becomes fuzzy. You can't even say where a particle begins and ends. You can't say exactly where it is, or where it's going. The more you know about one, the less you know about the other, and no matter how good, what you can know has a maximum that can't be surpassed. The best you can do is have a fair idea where it is, and a fair idea of where it's going.

It seems to me that it's fairly useless to try to grasp quantum physics in detail without the math. I don't think 1 in 1000 people are able to learn the math; and maybe I'm being generous there.

All the popularizations are approximations, interpretations of what the math seems to show, according to the skills of the physicist/author who discusses them. They're almost all substantially different, and frequently (apparently) contradictory. For those of us without the math, I think we'll always be standing on the sidelines, scratching our heads...

But that's OK. As someone said, "If quantum physics seems to make sense, then you don't understand it".

reply to post by chiron613


All the math is actually made up after somebody comes up with a conceptual way to organize all this different data. I've just read a lot of material, often from the scientists themselves, that explains the logic they find behind these structures. In trying to unite everything into a single expression, no matter what system is trying accomplish it (science or a philosophy or spirituality) you are always going to be bound to find some incredible connections as the final pieces fall into places in bringing everything together. Consciousness itself is the big piece scientists are only beginning to consider.

Originally posted by chiron613It seems that the very notion of identity gets lost in quantum physics.

Not just identity!

"even time and space could no longer be viewed as fundamentals. Because concepts such as location break down in a universe in which nothing is truly separate from anything else, time and three-dimensional space, would also have to be viewed as projections of this deeper order."

www.redicecreations.com...

Maz*

Something from the "censored" gospel of Thomas. No I am not "Christian" , I do not believe in some white bearded "God" watching everything from somewhere. I am "God". Same as everybody and everything else

Rather, the Kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty"

"It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the All. From Me did the All come forth, and unto Me did the All extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find Me there."

"There is neither Jew nor Greek [i.e. Gentile], there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

And these :
en.wikiquote.org...

"The first peace, which is the most important, is that which comes within the souls of people when they realize their relationship, their oneness, with the universe and all its powers, and when they realize that at the center of the universe dwells Wakan-Tanka , and that this center is really everywhere, it is within each of us."

"The Great Spirit is everywhere; he hears whatever is in our minds and our hearts, and it is not necessary to speak to Him in a loud voice."

"This center which is here, but which we know is really everywhere, is Wakan-Tanka."

[edit on 28-7-2009 by pai mei]

reply to post by bsbray11


Infinity from the finite.

Well, thats how I like to put it.

Almost forgot....

"With Knowledge comes power, with power comes responsibility, with responsibilty comes accountability, with accountability comes maturity, with maturity comes wisdom and with wisdom comes infinity"



[edit on 28-7-2009 by XXXN3O]

reply to post by bsbray11


All the math is actually made up after somebody comes up with a conceptual way to organize all this different data.

Well, that's not accurate. Before anyone can even begin to study quantum theory, s/he needs to learn an enormous amount of math. The math they need to learn is incredibly difficult, far beyond what is taught in ordinary courses. There is calculus, analytical geometry, differential equations, differential geometry, tensors, phasors, and on and on and on. It's not for the faint of heart. That's before you can even begin to examine the data.

It is true that, having accumulated lots of data, scientists often use intuition to seek answers to what they have. In that respect, yes, the math comes *after* the inspiration. But until they've learned to think in this math, scientists must spend many years learning the math.

Unfortunately, with this sort of math, there's no "right answer". When you perform the math, you wind up with classes or families of equations, an infinite (literally infinite) number of possible solutions to the problems. You weed out some of these solutions by comparing them to known physics. For example, if one solution requires a particle of infinite mass, it will probably be rejected.

The goal is to remove all the solutions that don't work, leaving only one. What really happens is, even after removing many solutions, there are dozens or more left. Which one is true?

Scientists try to make sense of these solutions, trying to translate into words what the consequences of these solutions imply. Quite often they get some unknown phenomenon that must be true, if the solution is true. OK, sometimes they can check that. Does this particle do exactly this? Does this interaction of particles produce such-and-such a particle? Or, according to the solution, there must be a particle with certain properties, but we don't know about it yet. So we use particle accelerators to see whether, in fact, there is such a particle.

The positron, a positive electron (antielectron) is such a particle. It was predicted from some solution by Dirac. His solution said that *IF* such-and-such is true, and if this and that are true, then there must be an antielectron. Eventually they found such a beast.

Not all such particles are found. Many solutions require particles that don't exist, or that are too few or too many for the solution to be true.

But the fundamental basis for all of this is math. Without the math, the intuition has no way of being tested. It remains one more interesting notion, but it is not science. It becomes science when it can be subjected to testing.

I will note that, just because Dirac's positron exists, that doesn't prove that his solution is correct. In fact, is "solution" is also a set of solutions. If they failed to find the positron, that would have meant his solutions were wrong; but finding the positron doesn't prove it's right. The problem with science is you can't prove anything; you can only fail to disprove it.

reply to post by pai mei


I think that such correspondences between the writings of spiritual authors, and of physicists, says more about the limits of the human mind, than about reality.

Originally posted by chiron613
reply to post by bsbray11

 

All the math is actually made up after somebody comes up with a conceptual way to organize all this different data.

Well, that's not accurate. Before anyone can even begin to study quantum theory, s/he needs to learn an enormous amount of math.

Ok, who originally came up with all the math models and based on what evidence? Same thing, someone with a theory (only the technical aspect of which being a formula or actual numbers) to explain data that did not previously have any "explanation" at all. But I agree they don't really know what they are talking about, they are only describing objective data gathered from it. Thinking of a lot of numbers and mathematics systems as complicated is the source of all the complication. It is all meaningless number-crunching until a human mind interprets the system and gives it meaning anyway, and that's ultimately what physicists are trying to do, they are always looking for a deeper understanding of the meaning of what they are looking at. What fascinates me is that I am familiar with a lot of Eastern philosophies and they happen to teach a lot of the conceptual theories that are popping up to explain phenomena in quantum physics. The concepts of non-locality and a vibrating, illusory reality (at least the vast majority of this "reality" is really empty) are all ancient Eastern philosophical and/or spiritual teachings. So that quantum physics is entertaining models for explanations of physical events that use these concepts, is very fascinating to me.