"What is a Majorana fermion?
It is named for the physicist Ettore Majorana, who found that a particle could be its own antiparticle. If a particle has properties with values unequal to zero, then its antiparticle has the opposite values. What that means is that all the properties of a Majorana fermion, the charge, energy, what have you, it's all zero. It is a particle, but it doesn't have properties that we can measure. That makes it very mysterious. It also makes it difficult to find."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829160.300-nothing-to-see-the-man-who-made-a-majorana-particle.html
Sounds much like Emptiness to me, or a very, very close cousin.
When is a particle not a particle? MU!
Originally posted by TaomanIt shows to me that people aren't reading it, (science and/or Buddhism), or choose to keep their heads in the sand.
"What is a Majorana fermion?
It is named for the physicist Ettore Majorana, who found that a particle could be its own antiparticle. If a particle has properties with values unequal to zero, then its antiparticle has the opposite values. What that means is that all the properties of a Majorana fermion, the charge, energy, what have you, it's all zero. It is ke Emptiness to me, or a very, very close cousin.
When is a particle not a particle? MU!
It's not like the Buddhist sympathizers and atheists don't make an attempt to understand the bible - which has been done to death. It is now just another self-replicating virus that preys on the weak [of mind].
Originally posted by TaomanI would think science still must get far lest concrete with its concepts before it is anywhere near the vagueness of modern Buddhism.
"What is a Majorana fermion?
It is named for the physicist Ettore Majorana, who found that a particle could be its own antiparticle. If a particle has properties with values unequal to zero, then its antiparticle has the opposite values. What that means is that all the properties of a Majorana fermion, the charge, energy, what have you, it's all zero. It is ...[text shortened]... ke Emptiness to me, or a very, very close cousin.
When is a particle not a particle? MU!
Originally posted by SwissGambitI guess the epithet of vagueness applies when you talk of "things" that are empty of "thingness". Can't really be avoided, it appears to be the very nature of what is being looked at in either of Buddhism or science at this ontological level. I see an interface between definiteness and vagueness in both, particularly here.
I would think science still must get far lest concrete with its concepts before it is anywhere near the vagueness of modern Buddhism.
Science is precise when it deals with matter almost all the way down, measurement is its other name. But not so much at this level, it would appear to me.
I fail to see why it is so difficult at least to acknowledge the mysterious nature of this findings, even without any interpretation. That a particle can be it's own anti-particle is mysterious and so vague its hard to conceive what it is that is being referred to. Zero, I guess as it is stated..some "thing" that "exists" in a state of zero....???
Anyway, I can live with vagueness.
Originally posted by twhiteheadEmptiness here (specifically"sunyata" in Sanskrit), as a philosophical term is strongly associated with Buddhism and central to its philosophy.
How is emptiness "Buddhist"? Its as silly as Christians claiming that morality is "Christian".
Of course, the ordinary concept of emptiness (as in the nihilsitic absolutely nothing), like morality, belongs to everybody. It is unfortunate that the term is too quickly equated with that common meaning. However it is still the most appropriate in the context of ontological philosophy.
It has been explained repeatedly that it is not referring to the normal state of emptiness, but rather to refer to an existential concept in which it is reasoned and claimed that everything is interdependent and there is no "thing" that exists unto itself alone, including concepts like "self".
Yes, some Christians - definitely not all - claim that the only real moral code and the "claimed" moral living that ensues belongs to them alone. That is, by both observation and reason, an error on which we can agree.
Originally posted by TaomanA particle being its own anti-particle is mysterious (at least to me - I'm not a physicist), but not as vague. When I read about Quantum Physics, I discover that some very counter-intuitive things may happen, BUT they still happen according to probabilistic rules. We can still predict the results in the aggregate with astonishing accuracy.
I guess the epithet of vagueness applies when you talk of "things" that are empty of "thingness". Can't really be avoided, it appears to be the very nature of what is being looked at in either of Buddhism or science at this ontological level. I see an interface between definiteness and vagueness in both, particularly here.
Science is precise when it deals "thing" that "exists" in a state of zero....???
Anyway, I can live with vagueness.
Difficult for the layperson to understand? Yes. Vague? No.
Originally posted by TaomanWell I totally fail to see the connection between that an the particle in question.
It has been explained repeatedly that it is not referring to the normal state of emptiness, but rather to refer to an existential concept in which it is reasoned and claimed that everything is interdependent and there is no "thing" that exists unto itself alone, including concepts like "self".
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
The New Testament teaches that morality belongs to created man. Human beings have a moral sense and various moral codes.
"For when Gentiles [nations], who have no law, [meaning the law of Moses from Sinai] do by nature the things of the law, these, though they have no law, are a law to themselves,
who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness with tit and their reasonings, one with the other, accusing or ecen excusing them ..." (Romans 2:14-15)
The Gentiles, the non-Jewish nations, who do not possess the Law of Moses given by God to Israel, nevertheless show much of the moral content of the law written on their created hearts. Their consciences and their reasonings considering moral judgments.
Whether men can live up to their moral thoughts and codes is another story. But they have them in their hearts and do not have to be either old covenant Jews or new covenant Christians to claim to have a sense of moral obligation.