If the universe is infinite, we're immortal (sort of)

Wow, I got some great news after reading only two chapters in physicist Brian Greene's new book, "The Hidden Reality." I'm immortal!

Only catch is, the "me" who exists forever isn't really the same me who is typing out these words. Though maybe it is.

Just depends on how I look upon myself: (1) as a being with a unique essence peculiar to myself (I don't mean a smell, but a non-physical identity), or (2) as a configuration of atoms which could be almost exactly duplicated in another corner of the cosmos.

I've read Greene's previous books, enjoying them, but finding them a bit overly technical. He's used a different style in "The Hidden Reality," jumping directly into the scientific good stuff without feeling like he needs to go over the basics of quantum theory, cosmology, and such.

So, bingo, by pages 4-5 Greene has introduced the mind-boggling premise of his book: reality could well be a hell of a lot bigger and stranger than it appears from our earthly vantage point.

A striking fact (it's in part what propelled me to write this book) is that many of the major developments in fundamental theoretical physics -- relativistic physics, quantum physics, cosmological physics, unified physics, computational physics -- have led us to consider one or another variety of parallel universe.

Indeed, the chapters that follow trace a narrative through nine variations on the multiverse theme. Each envisions our universe as part of an unexpectedly larger whole, but the complexion of that whole and the nature of the member universes differ sharply among them.

In some, the parallel universes are separated from us by enormous stretches of space or time; in others, they're hovering millimeters away; in others still, the very notion of their location proves parochial, devoid of meaning. A similar range of possibility is manifest in the laws governing the parallel universes.

In some, the laws are the same as ours; in others, they appear different but have a shared heritage; in others still, the laws are of a form and structure unlike anything we've ever encountered. It's at once humbling and stirring to imagine just how expansive reality may be.

There's no better indication of how my current churchlessness differs from my prior true-believing self than what I read before my morning meditation (a habit for over forty years).

I still read some philosophy, usually of the Taoist/Buddhist mindfulness sort, but science books -- mostly neuroscience and physics -- are an equally common target for my yellow highlighter. Often I feel more inspired and energetic after learning a new scientific fact, than being exposed to some fresh philosophical wisdom.

Greene's discussion of infinity in his Endless Doppelgängers chapter had that sort of Wow! So cool! effect on me.

I had a sensation of being released from my usual preoccupation with myself and what is right around me -- which, of course, is a big reason why people are attracted to religions. Science, though, is even more effective at taking us out of ourselves, of putting our ego in its place, because it is real, while religiosity is fantasy.

Also, science is humble. Greene makes clear what modern science is confident about, and what is merely a hypothesis.

Our universe could be finite, like a spherical ball (except in this case, there is nothing the ball is resting in or on, so it is almost impossible to visualize the shape of the universe, as we have no familiarity with anything that isn't a separate "thing").

However, more likely the universe is infinite, for reasons I won't go into, but which have to do with the average amount of matter/energy in each cubic meter of the universe.

If this is true, infinity, not surprisingly, leads to some vastly interesting conclusions. One is that the big bang didn't result in the universe starting off in a teeny-tiny state, as I've visualized. Rather:

If space is truly infinite in size, then it always has been and always will be. When it shrinks, its contents are squeezed ever closer together, making the density of matter ever larger. But its overall extent remains infinite. After all, shrink an infinite tabletop by a factor of 2 and what do you get? Half of infinity, which is still infinite.

Religions speak of God as being infinitely this and that. Powerful. Knowing. Present. Loving. Yet there's no need to posit an other-worldly infinity; science finds evidence for infinity much closer to home. Right here, the universe where we live and breathe.

Which brings me to the most intriguing aha! in Greene's Endless Doppelgängers chapter. If the universe is infinite, then there are countless (maybe infinite) numbers of universes just like ours. Since that last sentence may sound weird, here's why a single universe could contain an infinite number of universes.

What we call the "universe" isn't all that there is.

Our knowledge of the universe is bounded by the speed of light, since information can't travel faster than this. Thus the maximum distance we can see is 41 billion light years -- more than the 13.7 billion year age of the universe, because space has been expanding since the big bang at faster than the speed of light. So distant galaxies are now much farther away than they were when light first left them.

Thus what we call the "universe" likely is just one patch of an infinite universe. Even though a patch with a radius of 41 billion light years is unimaginably huge, in an infinite universe there will be an infinite number of patches that size.

I won't go through all the arguments that Greene uses to reach his next conclusion. But trust me, they make good scientific sense. His most mind-boggling hypothesis is that in an infinite universe, each arrangement of particles in a particular "patch" of it will be repeated many times.

Since you and I are a particular arrangement of particles, this means that exact copies of us abound in other parts of the universe.

This means that if the universe is infinite in extent, you are not alone in whatever reaction you are now having to this view of reality. There are many perfect copies of you out there in the cosmos, feeling exactly the same way. And there's no way to say which is really you. All versions are physically and hence mentally identical.

Far out. In more ways than one. I'm blown away by this notion of countless me's existing elsewhere in the cosmos. And not just precise copies, but also variations on the Theme of Me.

Because not only will there be arrangements of particles that exactly mirror everything that's happened in my life, but there also will be universes where I did other things -- typed "stuff" rather than "things," for example. So it seems that in an infinite universe, everything that can happen, does happen.

Which can be interpreted to mean, "I'm immortal," since the arrangement of particles that I call "me" will be repeated countless times. However, note that Greene said "there's no way to say which is really you." Thus the whole idea of "me" as a unique individual falls away.

I find this possibility both disconcerting and appealing.

It's sort of like worrying that you've lost your car keys, then realizing that you don't have a car. Yes, it'd be nice to possess a car, but it's also pleasant to be relieved of the worries that come with having one.

Likewise, sometime I think that it'd be great if I had an immortal soul. However, if I had one, I'd worry about what was going to become of it after I die. No soul, no worries.

Brian Greene, sharp guy that he is, recognizes that his whole doppelgängers thing is founded on the assumption that we humans are arrangements of physical matter/energy, nothing more. If there is some unique something else (soul, spirit) that makes us who we are, then exact copies of you or me couldn't exist.

In interpreting the implications of this statement [that arrangements of particles in patches of the universe must be duplicated an infinite number of times], I should declare my bias. I believe that a physical system is completely determined by the arrangement of its particles.

Tell me how the particles making up the earth, the sun, the galaxy, and everything else are arranged, and you've fully articulated reality. This reductionist view is common among physicists, but there are certainly people who think otherwise.

Especially when it comes to life, some believe that an essential nonphysical aspect (spirit, soul, life force, chi, and so on) is required to animate the physical. Although I remain open to the possibility, I've never encountered any evidence to support it.

The position that makes the most sense to me is that one's physical and mental characteristics are nothing but a manifestation of how the particles in one's body are arranged. Specify the particle arrangement and you've specified everything.

Hard to disagree with. Bad news: we aren't special. Good news: we aren't special, so in an infinite universe the arrangement of particles I call "me' lives on... and on... and on.

 

Comments

[George]

what i want to know is how can going within as the mystics do, tell one a damn thing about the external world, when the obvious conclusion is that you can only ever be wrapped up in your own personal mind?

is it therefore any wonder that all these mystic traditions are concerned with the self and ego, since clearly that is all they can ever be concerned with.

But have the mystics actually brought to bear any form of verifiable knowledge about the universe and reality, at any stage throughout human history?

In terms of knowledge what have they ever actually contributed, apart from bullshit baffles brains double speak, which is not objectively verifiable?

[Willie R]

So George - what is the nature of the subjectivity which is confronted with the stark objectivity of the universe?

If you attempt to direct your attention "within" you will find precisely NOTHING. Not an absence of anything, per se, but an absence of absence.

And that absence of absence is not in any way describable. The stark objectivity of the universe is pure imagination, because there is nothing that objectivity is objective TO.

I am not attempting to discount imagination - the universe is very real, very physical, very measurable. It is imagination without the benefit of an imaginer.

Try and identify yourself, George. You will not be able to.

[Mike Williams]

quote George;
"But have the mystics actually brought to bear any form of verifiable knowledge about the universe and reality, at any stage throughout human history ? In terms of knowledge what have they ever actually contributed, apart from bullshit baffles brains double speak, which is not objectively verifiable? "

That's right, Jesus din't tell us the world
is round, Buddha didn't tell us the earth
moves around the sun. Swami Ji didn't
explain relativity. The pope threw Galileo
in prison.

Nothing the Guru says can be verified.
Yet they call their yogas a science.
They are primitive witch doctors.
Gypsies. Fanatics start the religion
and the greedy continue it.

Summa Ching Hai, Rajinder, Gurinder ...
is the end result. Complete hyprocracy.
Sheer madness.

All to save our soul.

[George]

yes exactly, i dont have a problem with anyone that preaches love and peace and goodwill, but why should these men be deified?

what seperates a compassionate loving man or woman from a mystic, and for that matter why are their not more female mystics? Their great insights are not particularly profound at all. Love is all-important and everything is connected. Well you dont need a great mystic to have such insights. Believe it or not those terrible cold-blooded scientists, secular humanists and atheists, mostly all know the importance of love.

So what actually is it that these mystics teach, which holds everyone in such awe?

Or is it not so much their teaching which is what is yearned for, what every religion in the hsitory of mankind has yearned for, a sense that we are not alone, that there is some grander plan, that thig will infold as they must, that all will be alright in the end, that there is something after death.

Of course these ideas are attractive. That is precisely why they are so powerful and convincing, deep down we all want to believe such things and that is therefore almost certainly why so many of us do believe. But are we just fooling ourselves with man's perpetual question of existenstial angst - what is the meaning of it all or who am I, to which there might simply be no satisfactory answer - but that does not stop the searching.

[Karl Coryat]

The infinite-universe hypothesis is poppycock. Brian Greene is a string theorist, and string theorists are people of faith.

Funny that you mention how God is said to be infinite. That's exactly what's happening in physics today: Physics has hit a wall in terms of what it can explain, so, in an attempt to advance, it has resorted to introducing "physics of the gaps" such as infinite universes, Level I multiverse, and extra "curled-up" dimensions, none of which has an iota more evidence than the God of the Bible.

Don't get swept up in this new faith, Brian. It is in Greene's best interests that people eat up untestable physics hypotheses as readily as zealots did in 1st-century Judea. Despite being increasingly exposed as a dead end, string theory is still where most of the funding is going (well documented in Lee Smolin's "The Trouble with Physics"). As physicist Paul Davies points out, we should look for answers *within* our own observable universe, not appeal to mysterious and unknowable entities outside of it, in order to explain what we can see.

[TonyM]

Brian,
I would love to see a list of your book collection. I don't suppose you have one floating online somewhere?
Cheers,
Tony

[TonyM]

Karl,

I've been thinking about the whole multiverse thing recently, wondering if it really is as you say a 'physics of the gaps'.

Not being mathematically minded, I cannot analyse the mathematics involved in these matters.

However, it is not unreasonable that at some point even physics may hit a brick wall, where it's desire will be greater than it's ability to examine the universe.

In the same way, early humans who did not have the tools to examine the nature of the sun, started filling the gaps and concluding the sun was a god.

I guess it all depends upon whether multiverse physicist's calculations can be used accurately to predict other occurences in the universe - time will tell.

[Blogger Brian]

Karl, an infinite universe hypothesis really doesn't rest on string theory; it rests, as I said, on the average amount of matter/energy in each cubic meter of space. If the universe is "flat," it will continue expanding forever. Also, if saddle-shaped.

Greene says that current measurements indicate that the universe is indeed flat. So there's more evidence for the universe's infinity than for God's infinity, for sure.

TonyM, I'm starting to get my books organized via a cool iPhone app that lets me scan the barcode, then enters the book info via wi-fi. But at the moment I don't have a list of the books I've read recently, and am reading. It's an eclectic collection.

[George]

Interesting post from Karl, but I would just add the following.

Science normally always begins with a hypothesis. It is not accepted as a scientific theory until the evidence supports it. As Richard Feynman said “If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science”.

This is the beauty and power of science, which tempers and focusses the human imagination with objective evidence.

The religious stereotype of the austere unimaginative scientist is either ignorant or more likely, a view taken by someone who does not like what science has to say about their view of how the universe should be.

Theoretical physcists, by their very job, have to be some of the most open-minded and imaginative ppl that have ever existed. The reason is because they need to understand the universe in a way that no-one before them has done. They themselves might never see the inside of a lab, as opposed to experimental physists. Yet they too also have to be incredibly imaginative in devising real-world experiments that prove or disprove a theory. This is why there is genius in science.

But even the initial theoretical hypothesis are typically not pure guesses. They are educated guesses born out of scientific intuition, which is informed by an individual's own scientific training and background, but also by collective scientific knowledge as a whole. Thomas Kuhn suggested that science progressed with paradigms, in which a revolutionary new model would arise whenever anomolies of a current model begin to accumulate to reach a tipping point.

String theory is one such hypothetical model, which looks to find a way forward, but is still lacking in emperical evidence, the test of whether something is scientfically accepted as correct or not.

But it is also wrong to equate this type of scientific intuition with a faith-based belief like religion. For one thing, there is a vast mathematical strcuture underpinning the theory, which at least points to some logical consistency - of which religion and mysticism have none. But more importantly string theory, unlike religion or spiritual belief, has nothing to say about how we should behave, what we should worship or what the meaning of life or meaning in it is.

[George]

In terms of physics hitting a wall, well that can be said of every moment in science's history, it is all about hitting walls, discovering new problems, solving them and going deeper.

At the end of the 19th century, it was famously said that physics had discovered all there was to know and that all that was left were details. It transpired that the biggest discoveries were still yet to be made in the 20th. Much, if not all, of this knowledge is cumulative - building on the shoulders of giants - is the phrase they often use.

There is no way of knowing at what stage of scientific development, we are currently at, it might very well be the tip of the iceberg.

However, at least the scientists proposed concrete theories about the world, which are verifiable and repeatable - as opposed to the wishy-washy teachings of the mystics, which are none of the above.

So my point is what have the mystics actually contributed to human knowledge other then that which we already know, which is that we are emotional beings and love is all-important?

[Katy Lyst]

George wrote, "So my point is what have the mystics actually contributed to human knowledge other then that which we already know.."

>>I think that is the point. Some mystics have helped point to what we intrinsically already are, but has been clouded by how we think. They offer a perspective which diminishes the confines of relative, conditioned belief. This perspective is a way of seeing and of being that lightens and enlightens the experience of life for the many who resonate with the message.

Although pain is part of life, so much is self-created. A sage can be a catalyst for awakening to a broader view, even a transcendant view where everything is the same but seen in a new light.

Science has made great discoveries that have helped many people, but many people haven't benefited from those discoveries due to their circumstances in life.

So, some mystics have made a big contribution in some people's lives even if this contribution can't be measured with instruments of science. Don't you think this could be true?

Even if the mystics haven't done that for you?

[George]

Katy,

"So, some mystics have made a big contribution in some people's lives even if this contribution can't be measured with instruments of science. Don't you think this could be true?"

But my question is what is the actual new insights or knowledge they are imparting?

If it is that LOVE is the all-important quality that we should seek for in life, I do not believe that one needs to be a mystic to realise or know this. I believe that most humans beings (scientists and atheists alike) believe or know this.

Perhaps the mystics do know the ultimate truth, but I am asking what is this ultimate truth? How can it be knowledge if no-one can even really say what it is they are teaching. The reason I value science is not because of its measurement, but because it provides evidence to supports its claims. Surely it is important that we question and are critical of unsupported claims?

How do they enlighten or lighten lives? If their teaching are false should we be happy in a state of blissful ignorance to believe these tales, which are so enticing for human beings that seem to have an inherent tendency to want to believe in something more meaningful?

There are two problems with mystical knowledge, i) it is not supported and ii) it is not clear what they actually are teaching.

Personally speaking, I hope the mystics are right, because reality as I see it seems to be a pretty meaningless, short and ultimately a relatively tragic and pointless existence for most of the lifeforms on this planet. But there is a difference between wanting to believe something is true and the actual truth itself, not so?

[Katy Lyst]

George in quotes: "But my question is what is the actual new insights or knowledge they are imparting?"

--The insight I am talking about is neither new nor old. It is just the nature of things.

"If it is that LOVE is the all-important quality that we should seek for in life, I do not believe that one needs to be a mystic to realise or know this."

--"love" is your word. You are assuming that love is the "all-important" quality. It may be there is no all important quality.

"I believe that most humans beings (scientists and atheists alike) believe or know this."

--Know what? That love is the most important quality? Love what? The way I see it, love just is. It is not cultivated.

"Perhaps the mystics do know the ultimate truth, but I am asking what is this ultimate truth?"

--It can't be objectively known. The one who would know it is that which is desired to be known. It has been said, 'The freedom you look for is where you look from.'

"How can it be knowledge if no-one can even really say what it is they are teaching."

--It is not knowledge as such. Saying one "knows" it is just an inconvenience of language. It can't be taught because it is not an objective "thing". No mystic or sage "teaches" ultimate truth. That is impossible. At best they help us to break free of our conditioning, maybe.

"The reason I value science is not because of its measurement, but because it provides evidence to supports its claims."

--Valuing science is fine. No true mystic or sage will ask you to accept or believe anything nor will they make any claims. It does not matter to them because life is just as it is. There is nothing to change and no one who needs teaching. Most of them just go about life doing whatever they do just like anyone else and don't teach anything. They are you and me. You are the sage.

A few find themselves in the role of a guide or helper. That's about it. They're act sort of like barriers in a pin-ball machine that the little ball of conceptual thought bounces off of until, somehow it finds itself going into the hole, so to speak.

"Surely it is important that we question and are critical of unsupported claims?"

--Yes. Anyone who makes claims should be suspect.

"How do they enlighten or lighten lives?"

--If they do, it might happen the way I described above about the pin ball machine.

"If their teaching are false should we be happy in a state of blissful ignorance to believe these tales,"

--do not believe tales of the kind you speak.

"which are so enticing for human beings that seem to have an inherent tendency to want to believe in something more meaningful?

--Yes, this enticement is why people get trapped in the web of belief. This is why being a guru or spiritual teacher or preacher will continue to be a viable career choice.

"There are two problems with mystical knowledge, i) it is not supported and ii) it is not clear what they actually are teaching."

--If it is objectively supported and clear then it is not the truth. That would only be an idea or an appearance, a reflection of truth.

"Personally speaking, I hope the mystics are right,"

--There is no 'thing' for them to be right about.

"because reality as I see it seems to be a pretty meaningless, short and ultimately a relatively tragic and pointless existence for most of the lifeforms on this planet."

--In identification with form or appearance this may seem to be the case, but even then one need not feel this way. This is just one way of defining the ever-changing flow of life. One could just as easily create and choose a different mindset although this may not be easy for some.

Is this very moment tragic and pointless? No time for that sort of thought if you are fully present. It just is as it is. Tragedy and pointlessness exist only in conceptual time, but never Now.

As what we ARE, as the 'field' within which phenomena appears, there are no such concerns about the purpose or pointlessness of existence.

No human escapes the burden of relativity which at the same time is the blessing which enables the perception of diferentiated appearance. It may help to see that one is being lived rather than THINKING there is one is doing the living.

"But there is a difference between wanting to believe something is true and the actual truth itself, not so?"

--Yes, that is so.

[George]

"There is nothing to change and no one who needs teaching"

i'm quite satisfied with that, but then why should we be concerned about our conditioning and changing this or becoming enlightened or discovering our true nature?

why a living mystic master or mystic knowledge if no one needs teaching?

In that statement, you have actually just made my point, which is that if life is indeed how it is, why do need mysticism at all?

From my vantage point the only thing worth any transcendent value in this life is love, and love like all things dies, there is absolute no purpose to being in the now, what difference does is make if you are in the now or are 6ft under pushng up daisies? What is more, in 100 years from now you, me and everyone else on this blog will be gone and it will be as if we never existed. Whether you lead a good, bad, selfish, generous, loving or brutal life seems to be of absolutely no difference.

[Suki]

Reality or whatever THIS is,is not belief and vice versa. Though the latter arises in and is dependent on the former.Reality is not dependent on any thing...
Science like every other subset of Reality is dependent on Reality.It's contribution in the fields of medicine,natural history,cosmology,technology,etc are breath taking and border on the mystical especially in the quantum sciences. But,they will always be limited.No matter how grand the discoveries - they will always remain a subset of Reality and never actually eclipse it.

[Katy Lyst]

George in quotes:

"i'm quite satisfied with that, but then why should we be concerned about our conditioning and changing this or becoming enlightened or discovering our true nature?"

--We don't need to be concerned, but since we are the discussion continues.

"why a living mystic master or mystic knowledge if no one needs teaching?"

--They are there because there are those who think they need teaching.

"In that statement, you have actually just made my point, which is that if life is indeed how it is, why do need mysticism at all?"

--We don't. But the time comes when we feel something is amiss, and the search begins.

"From my vantage point the only thing worth any transcendent value in this life is love,"

--Some have called reality "love" but it is just a word.

"and love like all things dies,"

--Reality is unborn and therefore never dies. Phenomena (things, ideas) appear to be born and die.

"there is absolute no purpose to being in the now,"

--You can't help being in the now even if you don't know it. Now is all there is.

"what difference does is make if you are in the now or are 6ft under pushng up daisies?"

--No difference.

"What is more, in 100 years from now you, me and everyone else on this blog will be gone and it will be as if we never existed."

--It is as if we never existed right now.

" Whether you lead a good, bad, selfish, generous, loving or brutal life seems to be of absolutely no difference."

--What happens happens. We think we make choices. Choices just happen. You only think you make choices because the flow of life makes it appear that way. Life goes on of its own accord. Do you control your digestion, metabolic functions, kidney filtering, red corpuscle count? A flower grows, flourishes, wilts and dies. Weeds grow around it, it gets stepped on and pops back up. It suffers from lack of water and is refreshed when it rains. All this goes on without the flower analyzing it or having any angst.

[David]

Katy Lyst,

It is not clever to put down meditation in any way, now, before and tomorrow. And speaking with flowery words about some kind of omniscient state of gyana yoga is completely stupid. I suggest you try meditation before you compare it to TV.

Also, you might want to check out science, especially modern science. I hear it is worthwhile. Possibly get a degree or PHd in psychology, parapsychology and hypnosis. All of these things will help you to be more coherant and believable.

And don't forget sesame street.

[Katy Lyst]

David,

Would "American Idol" or "Survivor" be OK instead of "Sesame Street"?

[Mike Williams]

"It is not clever to put down meditation in any way, now, before and tomorrow."
quote

Show proof meditation gets one to heaven
and God.

Until then, it is is a rational statetment
to question the veracity of meditation.

[Roger]

What is the difference between a mystic and a sage? When does a mystic become a 'true' mystic? I like my mystic to be of the highest quality. So, tell me something about how all this dualistic stuff happens.

Update on Almighty GOD and the hyena:

God told the hyena to stop eating Liver. Livers are forbidden foods. He (Almighty God) suggested chewing on arms and legs.

This advice makes sense to me.

[George]

Suki

But what else is there except for Reality? If reality is all there is, surely science is the most accurate description of it? Quantum mechanics makes very accurate and specific predictions, supported by evidence. What is mysticism describing?

Katy,

Some valid and interesting points, but like mysticism itself, it also seems so vague and only superficially thought through. For example, your last paragraph seems on the face of it to hold much truth, but i dont believe it is necessarily true. This seems to be a common mystical claim, which is that we humans have no choice or free will. That 'choice just happens', as you seem content to leave it. But imo this is not really an accurate representation of reality.

Does this 'just happening' have a cause? Is it random or pre-determined according to some great cosmic plan?

There are many physical processes that might just happen, but 'choice' is a particular type of mental process that seems only possible in organisms having a conscious mind.

A flower has no conscious mind (that we know of) and therefore cannot choose. As you say the flower is at the mercy of the elements over which it has no control. Human beings on the other hand seem to have far more control, not only over their bodies (chosing to go for a jog to raise their metabolism), but able to understand and control their environment like no other lifeform.

The most basic instinct of every lifeform is survival and yet human beings sometimes choose the opposite. Human beings also choose personal values, some prioritise love, others money, others knowledge, other power, other sex, others selfishness, other altruism - the choice is massive.

It also seems the greater our technology becomes, the more choice we appear to have over controlling and impacting reality (whether or not this is a desirable or not seems a different issue).

[Suki]

@George
The word 'Reality' is just a designation for whatever we are experiencing and whatever the context is for the experiencing to occur.Now that does not tell us anything - we still don't know what this is.
How then can descriptions mystical or scientific actually tell us what this is?

As for choice,there seems to be only relative choice,which is another way of saying no choice.Did we choose to be born?Did we choose our sex?Did we choose to have bad genes over healthy genes? We can't even choose when want to piss or shit!
Look at all the biological functions in our body that go on,like digestion,breathing,circulation,etc It is obvious there is no one choosing because there is no chooser....
A thought arises I prefer coffee to tea is based on conditioning and experience the brain has been exposed to.Each condition is derived from indeterminate number of other existing and contributing conditions and on and on. There is no chooser and no choice.Though it may feel like there is a 'you' who is making the choice...

[Katy Lyst]

I think Suki did a good job explaining about 'choice'.

Roger wants to know the difference between a mystic and a sage. I don't think he really cares much because he knows names are just names and don't really have anything to do with the object named.

A car is a car, but there is also a lot of difference between cars in terms of design, quality, features, engines, etc. So, when you call something a car you are saying a lot and very little at the same time.

"Look out! Here comes a car!" Is sufficient information if one is crossing the street, but saying to a car salesman, "I want to buy a car." is leaving things wide open especially if you don't speak english very well and really meant to say you wanted to buy a truck. Or, the car saleman doesn't speak english very well and starts to show you trucks when you really want to look at cars.

You can apply the above to sages and mystics any way you like and I will be perfectly happy. They are a dime a dozen and often have much in common and also profound differences. In a nutshell, I don't really know what one is...a wiseman? What constitutes 'wise'?

In previous comments above I used the terms interchangably to represent one who supposedly has knowledge or experience of ultimate reality,
"enlightenment" or how things really are even if they don't.

enough silliness.

[George]

Sorry i disagree with you two, how can you say relative choice is another way of saying no choice.

That is not how the world (reality) seems to work. Instead it appears that are some things over which we do not have any choice (such as the examples you provided), but there are other instances where we do appear to have a choice (such as the examples I provided).

We might be compelled to defocate by our bodies, but our minds are capable of exercising some control or choice over even this most basic bodily function. If we really had no choice, imagine the mess in the subway?

Conditioning is a massive part of our existence, but there are many facets to our make-up, and so the nurture vs nature debate rages on.

[Katy Lyst]

Let's say I want to defecate. There, I have defecated (in this case in a proper location and not on the subway). What really happened? A nerve is stimulated, a peristalic wave occurs and waste is produced. Immediately the "I" rushes in and claims triumphantly, "I have decided to defecate!". Look carefully at your thoughts, the "I" always comes after the occurance.

Every action, idea, and thought occurs on its own. But there is the presiding idea of "I" which reinterprets every event as part of its own history. A thought by the name of "I" appears in a moment after the event takes place, claiming the action as its own and calling it "my" will, "my" mistake, "my" body, "my" life, "my" death, and of course "my" defecation.

Look at it this way. Simply rest in being aware. Soon a thought or desire will come up. Was it your will that made the thought or desrire come up? Or did the desire emerge from itself as energy unfolding, like a flower that blooms without reason or meaning? Essentially, desire comes and goes by itself.

[Suki]

Is there a "you" or a "me" apart from a thought of a you and me.What does a "you" or a "me" look like - describe it.It should be easy? since it is the one making the choice,no?
Could it be that a "you" and "me" is just a mental construct,something the brain assigns?What is the evidence for a independently existing "entity" that is apart from the body/mind/organism that can choose.
If you say bmo is choosing,then is bmo separate from Reality or Existence.If there is no separation from Reality,then who can choose to exercise choice?

[George]

Forget the I, how about simply that one's peristalic wave signals the brain that the ass wants to let a ripper go, but it might upset aunty Marge's tea party.

whose body is it that is defecating if not your own? i cant read your thoughts, nor you mine, so whose thoughts are they?

Look at it this way, you have no control over Brahm's defecating during one of his movements, nor he over you, at all, yet each of you can (to some extent) supress your own peristalic ass action.

what an intriguing discussion, thank you.

[Blogger Brian]

Wow. I never realized how cosmic taking a crap could be. From now on, instead of reading the sports page on the toilet I'll pay more attention to the existential implications of my oh-so-moving experience.

[Suki]

@George
There are just thoughts.Not my thoughts or your thoughts,just thoughts.There are no'others' thought.There is just thought. Thinking I am thinking my thoughts - is just a thought. There is no thinker! Claims to the contrary are more thoughts. If the brain is generating the thoughts,then it can easily assign the "I" thought greater importance for survival purposes,but somewhere along the evolutionary line this "I" thought seems to have gone astray and very much like a virus has most of the 6.7 billion in it's iron fisted grip. Though it's grip is entirely illusory in nature - BELIEF in a separate self is the religion that is imprinted on our brains from the ages of 2-2-1/2 yrs and reinforced by conditioning through our culture,society,education systmem,etc. until the day we die.

People like J.Krishnamurti and U.G. Krishnamurti,Nisargadatta have pointing at this for decades.There are many others too numerous to mention in both eastern and western cultures.

I'm not disputing a separate bmo,just the fact that there is no actual separately existing entity apart from the bmo. There is no thinker that chooses. Choosing happens - operative word happens. It's all just happening. Everthing is guided by Reality and it is your perogative to believe what you want.

Good day to you Sir.

[George]

lol Brian

But suki if they are just thoughts, not yours or mine, how come you can only think your thoughts and not mine, whereas I can only think my thoughts not yours?

i may be thinking that i am thinking my thoughts, but am certainly not thinking that i am thinking your thoughts - so even if their is a false thinker, what is causing this false thinker to think 'my' thoughts, rather then 'your' thoughts.

the mystics confuse things and they seem to say that the rest of us are confused. the simplest explanation is normally the right one, ockams razor.

And Good day to you too Ms Suki.

[Suki]

@George
"the simplest explanation is normally the right one" - explanation is conceptual,more thought.

What is your direct experience.Like I said there are no 'others'! 'Others' thoughts,speech any action for that matter are in your experience only. There is no 'others' experience.Any confirmation of others experience confirmed by others is still your experience only and that experience is all there is.I understand that this is very radical and paradoxical,but that is direct experience and not explanation or conceptual.

You cannot understand other peoples thoughts.Reason one is there is no you.And reason two is there are no others.Because experience is experienced dualistically via the brain/mind does not make it so.

If you are 100% honest and seeing clearly then there is only the fact of uninterrupted experiencing.All experiences are just arisings in that,including the birth and death of your bmo.The uninterruped experiencing is the contextless context for all that arises as phenomena,even in absence of phenomena it is present.

Good day and it is Mr Suki,but no problem :)

[Roger]

"There is just thought."

---What is this? The 'thought' word has been assigned to such. Any further information to present on what you mean?
We are blogging here, so write something. Blogging is a dualistic activity.

[Suki]

@Roger
The situation is we can't know what anything is without the activity of thought to assign labels.Those labels to not actually tell us anything.They just refer to more labels,more thoughts.(we don't need to know what anything actually is to function in the perceived world,because we can't know what anything actually is)
Apparently we have a brain/mind to learn and tell us what is happening in our environment and ourselves by way of thought.
Anything that you refer to is by way of thought and we don't know what thought is,we ONLY have thought to tell us what thought is! We never actually know what anything actually is.We only have translations of translations of thoughts - is there a thinker in there somewhere or is that only a thought!

Now,there is something that is NOT thought.THAT which is aware of thought is not thought,but what it is? can't be said...ok,it can be said,but what is said is more thought.
That which is aware is not separate from what it is aware of.Thought creates the subject/object split - hence perceived duality.
The Reality or whatever name you wish to designate for this,the unspeakable is Non-Dual.

Warm regards - Suki

[Roger]

Mr. Suki,

"can't be said...ok,it can be said,but what is said is more thought."

--non-duality can't be said, however, it can be said(expressed) dualistically. Yes, in duality, it can be said with thought and more thought. That’s the game we play.

So,
"There is just thought."
-- This is just a dualistic expression.

and

"there is something that is NOT thought"
--What would be this something, that is NOT thought? There might be no thing, that is NOT thought.

Nothing wrong with duality, we are engaged with it when we come here to blog. That said, duality can be bad too. It is the subject/object realm where we do our thing.

[Suki]

@Roger
There is no such "thing" as duality - it is a concept.

Non-duality is a concept for the inconceiviable,Reality is NOT a concept,it is what you are.

How can concepts ever grasp THAT which is Non-conceptual.You are that.

[Roger]

In duality, a concept, such as a "thing" can be. It can be such, nothing more.

Dualistic Reality is the game we play, as what we are. No problem with that.

Yes, concepts can never grasp that which is non-conceptual or non-dual. I and You may or may not be that. I don't know.

[Suki]

"Yes, concepts can never grasp that which is non-conceptual or non-dual. I and You may or may not be that. I don't know." - :)

I don't know either...

[Roger]

Yes, we don't know.

That said, we can still come to this blog or others and engage in blogging. Blogging is where messages are presented and examined. It's dualistic activity, and no harm done. It is the illusion.

So, where is Katy? I need to tease her, regarding the hyena and Almighty God.

[Katy Lyst]

Objectifying what is functioning (while objectifying) and calling it "me" is the primary illusory process. This process has become habitual, reflexive, deeply ingrained and "normal" which is why many people have trouble understanding the previous sentence.

[Suki]

@Katy
"Objectifying what is functioning (while objectifying) and calling it "me" is the primary illusory process." - Beauty!

We conceptually make a noun out of a verb(nameless functioning)

[Roger]

Katy,

I like your messages. How did you obtain the knowledge or understandings?

[Katy Lyst]

Roger, as I sit here now I don't feel I have obtained any knowledge or understanding. To answer your question would be like searching for the source of a sound by chasing its echo. Glad you like the echos.

[Mike Williams]

The Problem with Consciousness

We are 'that' is correct.

But, 'that' is temporal flashes of
neurons creating the delusion of
continuity.

We live and die in micro seconds.

We can find nothing to pin
our hats on and say, 'this is
permenant'.

Not even a 'self'.

That is the problem.

We may find sach kand in this lifetime,
but it will not exist when we are dead.

[Roger]

Katy,

How do you know to write the messages that you send? When you blog, you are engaged in dualistic activity. You are drawn to Duality for some reason. I'm just curious as to the general source of your thoughts, transformed into writings. The 'knowledge' and 'understandings' words are just relative terms. If you prefer silence, I shall understand.

[Katy Lyst]

Roger,

I have been exposed to gurus, teachers, mysticism, ways, paths, religions, cults, philosophies, non-duality...all the usual stuff, but I don't hang my hat on any of them.

There is the appearance of duality. Yes.

[suki]

The pathless path goes nowhere - now here...

[Mike Williams]

It was noticed suki and Roger
were discussing something and both
agreed they didn't know.

What a wonderful thing it is to say,
"I don't know".

There is a tremendous sense of freedom
in these words.

Maybe the ultimate freedom.

Benjamin Franklin in old age, at the
signing of Thomas Jefferson's constitution
said to paraphrase : I have lived a long time. I have lived long enough to know
that I do not know and can't be sure
of anything.

Faquir Chand to paraphrase : I cannot say
my conclusions are final. I hope I have not
woven a web. I do not know if I am correct.
I do not know what happens after death.
If it is possible, I will return to tell you.

Jiddo Krishnamurti : The world is being destroyed by those whom would tell us they know.

[Suki]

Small ice crystals of knowing form on the surface of an infinite ocean of unknowing,they are not two neither are they one...

[Dogribb]

I seem to be a verb

Richard Buckminster “Bucky” Fuller

Beautiful words girls. would that it resonated as deeply here

[Roger]

Katy,

You said,

"I have been exposed to gurus, teachers, mysticism, ways, paths, religions, cults, philosophies, non-duality...all the usual stuff, but I don't hang my hat on any of them."

---Very good answer.

[SIReUS]

Well, I've tried to read these long winded comments about mostly everything but the article itself. So I'm going to offer my own long winded comment. Only mine's about the article, mostly.

Sure, we all know the usual themes for immortality: GOD gives me the gift of eternity because I was a good boy for a few years. Or the ole' I used to be a slug but now I'm reincarnated into a yuppy flavor of immortality. Now some scientists are getting in on the action. I guess the big difference is that there's no external influence involved. You will be immortal just because that's how the universe works. Let's think about that for a minute, no need to uproot your current flavor of afterlife belief.

About a year ago I had a prescription induced space trip that would make Timothy Leary proud. Before, I didn't believe in life after death and I was cool with that. Now I believe that life goes on. What changed? Well now I believe in Infinity itself. If you think and think and learn about infinity. You might come to understand that the Finite is just a temporary experience and is just a subset of the Infinite. In other words Infinity is more true than finality. It all comes down to experience and belief and I'm not trying to convince anyone, but check this out: What if the Universe is finite but repeats in infinite cycles? You have infinite combinations of matter. What if the Universe is infinite? Then you have stuff in infinite combinations.

Now, say that which is YOU, is a relationship of parts. If all the parts are working you get awareness. Sweet.

Now imagine taking a deck of cards, ok just 10 cards, its easier to imagine. Throw them on an empty table. You'll get a unique pattern. Let's call that unique pattern, umm, Uncle Duke. Now pick up the cards cause Uncle Duke had the big one and died. Now thow them down again. And again. And again.... you get the idea. It will take a really really really long time but after many attempts the pattern will repeat. Eventually the cards will align at the exact pattern as the first time. Voila Uncle Duke lives again! Of course the experience would be the same as before and he wouldn't know the difference. But let's say that the last throw was identical to the first except for one card. That one card was aligned .00000002 degrees clockwise compared to the first throw. O.K. now let's call that particular card the defibrillator card. During the first throw someone forgot to plug in the defibrillator, oops. But now that card is slightly different. This time the defibrillator was plugged in so that this time Old Uncle Duke was saved. That which is Uncle Duke has continued. His consciousness will have jumped across time and space because the experience that made him who he is has continued. And he won't even notice.

Somewhere somehow you WILL continue in an infinite universe.

In an infinite universe you must continue. You are a part of infinity and all parts of infinity are also infinite.

The universe seems to always be changing and cycling and I do believe in Infinity. Not because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy, I don't. Not to cope with fears of death, I didn't have them. But because I look around and I see a myriad of "things" composing, then decomposing, then composing again. Finite things are tools for a conscious mind to interact with its environment.

All things are relative to perspective. Death is relative. Others will see us die, but we never will. Unless you want to consider the change of our self image as death. Are you the same person you were half your life ago? Maybe close but in some ways very different. In that way you have died and become a new person. How can we unlearn? Ungrow?

It may turn out that "The End" is more of a personal metaphor than a physical experience.