# matter manifests out of nothing

This is a post which is an offshoot of capslockf9 comment as follows

I think the very notion of “matter manifests from nothing” is falling into one of the two extremes and is not a balanced view that sits in the middle of these two extremes.

The two extremes are that everything exists or nothing exists.

The middle path is that:
“Nothing exists independently of the mind” or put another way “Things exists but are dependent upon the mind”

I think that the nature of existence is not nothingness… but instead it is dependant arising and emptiness.
The essencelessness of the aggregates is only half of the equation.

The nature of not-self is that which is unconditioned — that which is unconditioned cannot be called nothing.
Likewise that which is conditioned cannot be called nothing.
Hence, matter cannot manifest out of nothing.

Subtle points but critical in preventing confusion.

Or that some things exist.
Or that everything exists in the mind, only some things exist independently.
Or that the mind exists, but is dependent on the existence of Other Things.

There are very many middle ways; why do you choose that one?

An observation cannot exist independantly of the observer.

Hypothetically, when “nothing exists”, it becomes an absolute value (since emptiness is equally distributed throughout the nothingness in geometrical terms) and it transitions itself into a point of “something” - from which, the point of something propagates through the nothingness and interacts with itself, creating all of existence (the “big bang”).

Concepts which illustrate something similar to what I’ve just said are the concepts of “Sacred Geometry” (although I am not personally interested in sacred geometry, it is still similar and worth mentioning). Also, search on youtube for a video “Imagining the 10th dimension” - those videos are in a similar field of hypothetical logic.

Now, some questions which are raised with these ideas are:

• Since space is function of the matter/energy within it, how could it be possible that the void (in which nothing exists) could exist with geometric dimensions (since space, x;y;z, had yet to exist)?
• Since time is a property of space which is a function of matter/energy, how could the nothingness ‘begin’ to propagate and interact with itself, since the notion of “beginning” had yet to exist?

One explanation is, that there has always been something in existence, and our universe’s “big bang” was merely what succeeded the destruction of a previous universe. What we know as “existence” is an eternal recurrence of creation and subsequent destruction - or in some theories, an oscillation between points where the universe is “expanding” and “shrinking”.

Another theory is that our entire existence is contained in merely one quanta of light, a juxtaposed photon, which has been travelling through time and interacting with itself to create all of existence.

If you keep on contemplating this logic, a few very relavant concepts to keep in mind are Descartes “I think, therefore, I am” and the Confucius “No matter where you go, there you are” - I assure you, with enough thought into the concepts of “nothingness” you’ll be questioning whether you even exist.
Perhaps the act of merely thinking about “what is existence?” causes the universe around you to unkowingly transition into something sensible - perhaps the very act of asking “What is existence?” is what just created your own existence, and you are not aware of it haha

Descartes did a lot of that type of thinking - although be warned, it might just rock the very foundation of your reality, and possibly even scare the shit out of you and cause you to start panicking.

For all practical purposes, do not bother with thinking anything but the last option - the materialist one. That your mind exists dependent on things outside of your mind. Thinking that the universe around you is a function of your own mind isn’t going to lead to any worth-while conclusions, you won’t really be able to apply them to anything other than “tripping people out with something cool to think about”.

is that the same as saying that things appear to be only as we see them?

Yes, or, “an event doesn’t exist unless it is observed” - which really isn’t as frightening as it sounds… It just means that, on a subatomic (and really, completely negligible) level, observation collapses superpostion, the “wave function”.
Occasions of this effect take place on such a subatomic level, that this really doesn’t bare any significance on our day-to-day life. For example, there is never going to be a situation where some spooky quantum anomaly happens (where an object suddenly disappears or exists in two places at once) - the “tree that falls in the woods” still does make a sound if nobody is around (because in this case, the particles responsible for carrying the vibration of sound would be observers themselves).

However, one incidence where you can actually see with your own eyes the result of wave/particle duality is known as the “Double Slit Experiment” - what happens in this experiment is the act of observation can turn an interference pattern (the pattern formed when two waves interfere with each other) of light into a linear pattern. It is almost as if the act of observing can turn something (whether it be a quanta of light or a particle) from a “wave” with undefined position into a particle with defined position.

Although really, it isn’t as magical as it seems. It is actually quite boring once you explain it semantically: Since it takes time and energy to make an observation, the observation narrows down a wave of probability (composed of possible future interactions which exist juxtaposed in a state of superposition) into a much smaller wave of probability (consisting only of future interactions which could result from the specified interaction/observation).

Peachy Nietzsche:

maybe i will change my sentence a little - what i wanted to ask is " are things really only as we see them? leave out the word “appear”.

you say "an event doesn’t exist unless it is observed - so let’s say that lightning strikes in the forest and cracks right through a tree, toppling it to the ground. there is no one there to “observe” that event… so what you seem to be saying here is that lightning indeed did not destroy the tree? the event never occurred because no one was there to see it happen?

who would be the observer in this case? or as you say, the event would not have existed.

yes, the tree falling still makes a sound because there would be sound waves regardless of whether we may not be there to hear them.

and why would i be frightened by that thought?

Really?

You are misunderstanding the nature of emptiness and you are tripping people out.

It means that an object that appears to a mind needs a mind to apprehend that object.

Not too difficult to comprehend, but sometimes the truth is simple.

There is much more to it than this but this definition is true and sufficient.

Observers don’t have to be human, or even living creatures for that matter - particles themselves are observers. In that case, the very particles making up the tree itself are observing the lightning destroying the tree.
One could ask “how can an observer observe its own destruction?” and this is answered with knowing that “destruction” (in a physical sense) does not occur except when matter interacts with anti-matter. The tree isn’t destroyed, the particles it consists of merely change and give off energy in the process. For example, the carbon molecules making up the tree combust from the lightning - they are not destroyed, they do not cease to exist - instead, the carbon molecule turns into simpler carbon particles (ashes, smoke, etc) during combustion and gives off heat.

To answer your question “are things only as we see them?” - I would have to say no, they are not. Ever see something moving out of the corner of your eye? Ever thought you saw someone standing in a dark room, but then realize it was actually just an inanimate object? In reality, things are not as we “see them” at all. The act of “seeing” itself is really only the effect produced when interconnecting neuronal pathways are stimulated in the visual cortex in response to light activating the photo-receptors in our eyes. No matter how “intelligent” we are, our perception of “things” that we see are always on some level flawed from how things actually are. Say we look at a vase -our mental projection of the vase can not completely reflect what the vase actually is. We can’t recreate the exact properties and dimensions of every single molecule of the vase - we don’t have enough mental capacity to represent each individual molecule even if it were possible to accurately do so.

In your own mind, things are only as you determine them to be. Think of an infant who after watching the movie “Toy Story”, is under the impression that every toy he owns secretly has its own personality and talks to other toys when he isn’t looking. At the time, the infant doesn’t know that this isn’t true. Now take that concept and apply it to your own mind - the way you understand the world around you, and what you know of the world around you, is flawed on some level. This is true for everybody.

Another example of the concept that “things are not as you see them” is the fact that even right now, a bundle of blood vessels in your eyes produces a “blind spot” in each eye. However, since your brain does not have any corresponding neurons in the visual cortex for this blind spot, you can not become directly aware of its existence. Your brain actually “fills in” the blank spot with a background color that coexists sensibly with the regions surrounding the blind spot. think of all the regions in your eyes as a hand of cards; the blind spots in your eyes are “wild cards” that could be anything to best suit a combination with other regions of the eye. You should google “How to find your blind spot” on google, its actually quite interesting.

Here is a website where you can play around with your eye’s blind spot:
serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/blindspot1.html
Not only does it show you how the blind spot can make dots disappear, but if you keep following the links on the webpage, other illustrations show you firsthand when/how your brain “fills in the blanks”. For example if your blind spot is covering up a dot with a line running through it, your brain will fill in the blank by connecting the missing segment of the line. Or if your blind spot is covering up a green dot that is surrounded by red dots, your brain will make a mistake filling in the blank by perceiving the missing green dot as another red dot. Once you find your blind spot, try moving something like a pencil in front of it - it actually looks like the tip of the pencil disappears.

Matter does not manifest out of a thing. It manifests from a process. There are no things. Only processes. The Universe is not made of matter is made of music.

It doesn’t matter where matter manifests itself. From nothing or something, in our mind or from a particle’s point of view, as far as we know matter exists and that’s what matters.

I would then like to think that the Universe is made from this music.

It’s more this one:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_Slow_As … erformance
but slower.

What if its based on yacht rock?

kp

That is scary — imagine Kenny Loggins as the creator of the Universe!

“The actual performance commenced in the St. Burchardi church on September 5, 2001 with a pause lasting until February 5, 2003. The first chord was played from then until July 5, 2005. The most recent new chord from the organ was a three-note chord, A above middle C, C above middle C and the F# above that (A4-C5-F#5), which began on January 5, 2006 and will conclude on July 5, 2012. This sonority can be heard on a website devoted to the Halberstadt event.”

Nice!

Or Michael Mc Donald or, gasp, Christopher Cross?

• Thanks for the Nick Cave!

kp

Peacy Nietzsche:

peachy, that was actually very interesting. i never realized that we had THAT much of a blind spot. i had heard that we all had one, but didn’t realize what it meant. just thought it had more to do with our peripheral eye vision.

i wonder since we all have different brain chemistry, if what we see (what is filled in by the brain) is different for all of us. for instance, the colors and the scope/expanse of a sunset. might sunsets appear differently for each and every one of us, depending on the size of our blind spot and the chemicals within our brain at the time. our brain chemistry can change from moment to moment i think…just a cup of coffee or some chocolate can change it in an instant.

perhaps this is why “beauty is in the eyes of the beholder”. maybe it doesn’t have everything to do with upbringing/spirit or what just grabs us psychologically as beautiful - maybe it is dependant on both the blind spot and brain chemistry.

which begs the question - do any of us actually see anything as it really is or just as we are allowed to by our brain. and if the brain fills things in of itself, how perhaps can other parts of our “vision” be shifted around to determine “space” and “depth” even more so than we think?

i wonder if that “blind spot” has anything to do with the so-called psychological blind spots that we have in regard to people and things…the way we emotionally view people and things? i don’t know. that may be pushing it a bit but who knows. that empty part of the brain may indeed be responsible for what is lacking when it comes to our subjective/objective views not only of the world as we see it but also as we see people.

it was very interesting though.

This is a very valid point Arcturus as we constantly give people qualities that they do not possess.

When we give them “unattractive” qualities, we fabricate and exaggerate their perceived bad quantities — this comes from an attitude of arrogance.

When we give them “attractive” qualities, we fabricate and exaggerate their perceived good quantities — this comes from an attitude of attachment.

These unattractive/attractive qualities (that come from attitudes of arrogance/attachment) are not qualities of the other person but instead are our own qualities. We generally exaggerate our own attractive/unattractive qualities and cannot see them as everyone else sees them.

Sometimes we need to step back and take a good look at ourselves and at other times we need to get closer and have a good look at ourselves.
This is the only way that we can see ourselves as others see us.
When someone points out our blind spots it is more productive to thank them rather than get upset or angry.
But with attitudes of arrogance/attachment we refuse to look at our own blind spots — we hold others responsible, accuse them or put on a facade.

What do you think Sir Rising, do you think this to be true or false?

I don’t mind the sun sometimes, the images it shows; I can taste you on my lips and smell you in my clothes… Cinnamon and sugary and softly spoken lies; You never know just how you look through other people’s eyes.

Thanks peachy, I have not heard that song for some time now http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4WUlNSx_Wk… thanks for the reminder.

The Butthole surfers may have indeed created the Universe, this would be nice!

Its alright. There comes a time. Got no patience to search for peace of mind.
Layin low. Want to take it slow. No more hiding or disguising truths Ive sold.
Everyday its something hits me all so cold. Find me sittin by myself, no excuses, then I know.