"The new fundamental idea that more and more physicists now believe is needed to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the nature of physical reality is before our eys, and it is not actually new. It is to consider space as the fundamental medium of the cosmos."
"...in a paper entitled "The Concept of Space", Einstein wrote, "We have now come to the conclusion that space is the primary thing and matter only secondary..." A few years following the publications of Einstein's thoughts, Schrödinger restated the basic insight, "What we observe as material bodies and forces," he noted, "are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space"...
"...In the second half of the twentieth century empirical evidence became available, which shows that space is a superdense field of turbulent virtual energies (or in a more technical formulation, that it is a field of action-quanta that generates energy). Thus today we can say, as Clifford, Einstein, and Schrödinger would no doubt say, if they were alive, that material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of the quantum vacuum."
- excerpts from pp 81-82,
"Science and the Reenchantment of the Cosmos", Ervin Laszlo
***
"In the universal womb that is boundless space
all forms of matter and energy occur as flux of the four elements,
but all are empty forms, absent in reality;
all phenomena arising in pure mind, are like that."
from Longchen Raabjampa's
"The Treasury of Natural Perfection"
***
A related video"Where Science and Buddhism Meet" (Part 1) is found here:
(viewed by 500.000 plus people)
&feature=related
The whole video is found here:
http://vimeo.com/2293696
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by googlefudgeI suppose it is flexible enough to draw comments appropriate to the forum it is put to.
No it really doesn't.
My comment is that space is becoming more recognized as a substance, as "substance" is used in philosophy.
" There could be said to be two rather different ways of characterizing the philosophical concept of substance. The first is the more generic. The philosophical term ‘substance’ corresponds to the Greek ousia, which means ‘being’, transmitted via the Latin substantia, which means ‘something that stands under or grounds things’. According to the generic sense, therefore, the substances in a given philosophical system are those things which, according to that system, are the foundational or fundamental entities of reality. Thus, for an atomist, atoms are the substances, for they are the basic things from which everything is constructed. In David Hume's system, impressions and ideas are the substances, for the same reason. In a slightly different way, Forms are Plato's substances, for everything derives its existence from Forms. In this sense of ‘substance’ any realist philosophical system acknowledges the existence of substances. Probably the only theories which do not would be those forms of logical positivism or pragmatism which treat ontology as a matter of convention. According to such theories, there are no real facts about what is ontologically basic, and so nothing is objectively substance.
"The second use of the concept is more specific. According to this, substances are a particular kind of basic entity, and some philosophical theories acknowledge them and others do not. On this use, Hume's impressions and ideas are not substances, even though they are the building blocks of—what constitutes ‘being’ for—his world. According to this usage, it is a live issue whether the fundamental entities are substances or something else, such as events, or properties located at space-times. This conception of substance derives from the intuitive notion of individual thing or object, which contrast mainly with properties and events. The issue is how we are to understand the notion of an object, and whether, in the light of the correct understanding, it remains a basic notion, or one that must be characterized in more fundamental terms. Whether, for example, an object can be thought of as nothing more than a bundle of properties, or a series of events."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/
Originally posted by Great King RatReference sources from the book.
I am looking for the paper "The Concept of Space" that is mentioned here, but when I google for it I only see it being mentioned in texts such as the one above by Taoman. Anyone know how to find it?
* "Albert Einstein gave his reconsidered views on space in "The Concept of Space" 'Nature' 123 (1930)"
* "Erwin Schroedinger's views on this topic are in "Schroedinger:Life and Thought" (London:Cambridge University Press:1989."
Right, so any idea where that paper can be found? Must be floating around somewhere on the internet, but I couldn't find it. I'd like to know what Einstein's "reconsidered views on space" were and how they relate to your text in the first post. To tell you the truth: I always feel icky when people use one sentence by Einstein to make a point without adding context. Like people who use the "God doesn't play dice" line to show that Einstein was a theist.
Originally posted by Great King RatI haven't looked for it. I'll give it a go. At the moment that is all I've got. I was trying to give the gist of the passage and shortened it in places. Here is the full quote (not a lot more) from 'The Conquest of Space' "We have now come to the conclusion that space is the primary thing and matter only secondary; we may say that space, in revenge for its former inferior position, is now eating up matter"
Right, so any idea where that paper can be found? Must be floating around somewhere on the internet, but I couldn't find it. I'd like to know what Einstein's "reconsidered views on space" were and how they relate to your text in the first post. To tell you the truth: I always feel icky when people use one sentence by Einstein to make a point without a ...[text shortened]... Like people who use the "God doesn't play dice" line to show that Einstein was a theist.
I too have encountered and sometimes been swayed by extrapolations that on closer examination are not really valid because of original fuller context.
Nevertheless the similarities as a whole are at least worthy of aquaintance.
While not specifically referring to what comes later, the alignment of thought, even if not agreement yet, cannot be denied.
An in-depth book along this theme is:
"Quantum Buddhism - Dancing in Emptiness" (Reality revealed at the interface of Qauntum Buddhism & Buddhist Philosophy" ) by Graham Smetham.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by Great King RatIt is for sale at
Right, so any idea where that paper can be found? Must be floating around somewhere on the internet, but I couldn't find it. I'd like to know what Einstein's "reconsidered views on space" were and how they relate to your text in the first post. To tell you the truth: I always feel icky when people use one sentence by Einstein to make a point without a ...[text shortened]... Like people who use the "God doesn't play dice" line to show that Einstein was a theist.
http://www.abebooks.com/CONCEPT-SPACE-Nature-3163-Vol-125/835798611/bd
and other sites including Amazon, as:
THE CONCEPT OF SPACE. In Nature, No 3163, Vol. 125 June 14, 1930, pp. 897-898.
for, typically, $24. This is for an original edition.
Note it is 2 pages long, so I suspect that if you check a few places that reference or discuss it you will get the gist.
Edit: At least one seller says "Piaggio presents a summary in English of Einstein's lecture given in German at Nottingham College on June 6, 1930."
Which is interesting. The paper seems not to be the lecture in toto.