Important Video

[Paul Rezendes]

Everyone,

I feel this is a really important video. It covers a lot of what we explore here on the Diehards. Here is an excerpt from the video:

Paul

Everything you learned about atoms and particles is wrong. There are no particles—only quantum fields vibrating in patterns so complex they look like objects. Nobel Prize winner Sir Roger Penrose reveals the profound truth of quantum field theory: you are not made of things, you are made of fields.

Discover why the particle picture is fundamentally wrong, how quantum field theory replaces particles with field excitations, and why empty space is full of quantum fluctuations. Learn how electrons aren't little balls but ripples in the universal electron field, why identical particles are actually identical (same field, different excitations), and how quantum entanglement makes sense when you understand there are no separate things—only patterns in unified fields. Explore the philosophical implications: you are not a collection of objects but a temporary knot in the quantum field structure, connected at the deepest level to everything in the universe. From wave-particle duality to virtual particles, from the Casimir effect to twistor theory, understand why spacetime itself might be emergent and fields are the only fundamental reality.

https://youtu.be/q7jGZNDZWi4

[Jeffrey Angelson]

Yes. Check the thread One Field. I think he is describing the same thing in more detail. It defines Oness more explicitly than Interbeing. We are truly all the same thing only it’s not a thing. 

I am at a retreat but will get back to this later. There is nothing to connect!!

Jeff Angelson

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Diehard Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diehard-grou...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/2384CBE6-0FBF-4F2A-BE6A-2D4CD5629493%40paulrezendes.com.

[Rani Madhavapeddi]

Paul,

Yes saw it yesterday.

Thx

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Thanks for sharing this Paul. Much of it really resonates with how things have come up for me, too. The video points out that our classical view of the world is an approximation that works really well for everyday life. And I don't think we would be here right now if it didn't, since it has been around for a long time. But as the video says, it's all an approximation. Its emphasis on there being no things also has been very present for me. And to me the presence of things reflects that thought tends to dominate our lives in this way as "thinging", which again works well as an approximation up to a point as it said, until it doesn't (like the division in the world). Of course, a model of fields also may be its own approximation, but it feels much more accurate to me, as it is not so concrete, but fluid and in flux.

One question here: I'm wondering if there are actually distinct fields, or does this reflect how we tend to experience the world. In the least these different might reflect interactions among themselves in which their distinctions disappear in the real world. But to speak of it might mean we break it down a bit......

It might be worth pointing out that the video is not associated with Penrose per se, but is AI generated. So I don't know if Penrose actually said all that is presented in the video. I also came across an AI avatar for the physicist Richard Feynman who also was given a Nobel for his work on quantum fields. It has some really interesting things to say about fields, light and so on. Again it is not directly being said by Feynman but reflects his scientific work. I'll send it out later when I have a chance. It sounds good, in the least.  -Dan

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Jeff, Paul, All,

I'm pasting a link to the video I mentioned about Richard Feynman and the discussion of light and fields. I spent some time looking through various videos related to him, and numerous recent ones from different youtube channles seem to be an amalgam of his teachings, talks and research, and also contributions from other sources (sicentific and otherwise). These likely extend or expand on what he originally said (he died in 1988). This one has an avatar that speaks, and you can always simply listen and avoid watching the imagery if necessary. 

The video source doesn't show attributions but says it presents physics in the down-to-earth style of Feynman, which he was famous for. They have quite a few videos now. But be clear, Richard Feynman is not the direct source of what is said, but it sure sounds like him.....

For anyone interested, -Dan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fh1qX_Mu7L4

[Paul Rezendes]

Dan,

I did watch part of the video you sent in. I found it very hard to follow. 

Paul

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGgGDoCxrYGpL2RhOCJZTdORP7Mnzo3jt-TFRneL0mghDgEucg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

No worries Paul, it is definitely in the weeds of physics. Thanks for checking it out. There is one part (if I remember correctly) where the video says that light doesn't actually travel, it is fluctuations moving in an electromagnetic field. And it may be that light (and everything else) is neither a particle nor a wave, nor both. These impressions may simply reflect how we experience and measure as seemingly localized form (fluctuations....). 

Interesting, something just came up here. There are such things as standing waves (fluctuations) which seem to persist for a while. Maybe this has something to do with ourselves, and our experience of and as form altogether......-Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/397D8BDE-CEB4-448B-87C0-2F26174DD914%40paulrezendes.com.

[Kevin Charest]

Dan,

I enjoyed the video a lot and appreciated some of his practical examples  as well - entanglement for instance.  

Thanks for sharing,

~Kevin

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGgGDoDojeBgSekD908rRPuCyfLN7C_2ymz51WaBwhE8JoMNmg%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Kevin Charest, PhD, CISSP

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Kevin, 👍

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGKU7fGE_7Vg0J9YAzh68h-dZ52cU9s6rr4R0-%3DnN7HaFT7Amg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Everyone,

Sharing something that hearkens back to what was coming up earlier, including what Sunhee was saying in her 2 cents thread here about trying to define in words what we call wholeness. And just to clarify, to define or describe (to me) means to give something qualities, properties and so on, right? Something we experience about it..... Not the same as what might come up spontaneously, in the moment, as an immediate pointing to now. Describing has a different meaning or feel to me....

I was reading an article about how physicists are trying to bring together the quantum realm and our daily experience. As I read it, this kept coming up for me: how can we describe the absence of anything separate? The entire flow or direction of these explorations starts (and ends) with isolated things/particles and so on, and then strives to figure out (and describe) how these things/particles can possibly be in the same place or state simultaneously and so on. 

At a fundamental level, it seems to me that what is being missed is that the observing is the observed, which in this case is really to observe through thought. When we seek to understand through thought, we unavoidably begin with separate things. This is the implicit framework unconsciously, imho. How else can we define/describe anything? To define/describe something, it can't be everything else at the same time, can it? It has to be implicitly separate to begin with. Otherwise the defining/describing loses its whole meaning, it seems to me. For example, it would require a model that could include its own actual modeling in real-time, which is not a model. The ongoing modeling (now) can't stand outside itself to describe itself......

So I wonder if physicists ever ask whether there is anything separate to begin with. Of course, they might not have anywhere to go at that point. I gather some may already have.....

I don't mean that quantum physics is a waste of time (who the heck am I to say such a thing!). It is tremendously fascinating and practically impactful, as we humans explore our physical reality and our underlying nature. But maybe this exploring naturally brings us to how we are looking at everything to begin with, which may have its own action. This doesn't diminish the exploring, imho, but maybe then what is being explored ultimately might be clear, the very exploring itself in real-time, without a landing place...  -Dan

[Jeffrey Angelson]

Dan Everyone

Too much mind ?

Physics moves by distinction toward unity. It begins with things, then sees they are not separate. Words grow finer, thinner. When wholeness is felt, the need to explain falls away. The question releases, and everything dissolves into one no-thing.

Just saying 

Jeff Angelson

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGgGDoABbtd5Q__m1e2yDvb0ogOszdn2HRX-KW48_Q9Vf6K%2Bbw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Thanks Jeff. Here is an impression this morning. Through mathematics, physics tries to explain what is actually happening by approximating. It assumes to begin with that everything exists as isolated things separate from their environment, It then tries to describe how these two interact. This framework does not consider its very framework or assumings, not seeing that everything may already be its environment (no independent existence), one and the same. Like the field you described and which is explored in the video Paul shared.

But here is the kicker perhaps: all that exists is unique in itself, simply because it is, actual. Trees are not frogs, yet these are not fundamentally separate. So uniqueness is something shared by everything that exists, unique expressions of the field. Sameness and uniqueness all at the same time. 

Somehow, to me, this has something to do with love, which is action not a feeling. Everything is being itself. Maybe like the walk by the Buddhist monks.....

-Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAAUbiCQqsmBXFEfa1yo%3DHvEUACyEWeu6EFrYPMb93p-bPnZ8wQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jeffrey Angelson]

Dan, 

All we need is love 💞 

Physics struggles because it looks bottom-up. Parts first, then a whole.

But implicate order points the other way. The whole comes first.

Each part is the whole appearing as an excitation.

Nothing is assembled. Nothing stands apart.

Forms arise and return to the field.

When that field is felt, not explained, it is love, it is peace.

The parts are love and peace taking shape.

One field, appearing as many.

Jeff Angelson

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGgGDoDZn_uYjjRvccz%3DwKtHDWDA_q0V7Wi0_vnsbYSrhF%2BtuQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sheri R]

All, 

Just a quick thought here. 

Maybe another reason science falls short is they are speaking of only the 10-15% of what they understand is 'what is'. And what they understand is approximately 5% of what is understood in their cognitive consciousness. To my understanding, they do not have good grasp on dark matter, which they estimate is 85+% of all 'matter' or 'stuff'. Their focus is on what they can apply their mathematics and sharp minds to. And that is only approximately 5% of cognitive consciousness. 

In summary, approximately 5% of cognitive consciousness to explain approximately 15% of the 'stuff' they feel they can look at. 

I like that science is so eager to explain it all. From this perspective however, it just starts on the wrong foot! 

When it comes to understanding 'this', I'll stick to the mystics and my direct experience.

With Metta, 

Sheri 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAAUbiCRsw1KZPfYAmZ46%2BzcOHYmXZsdcPv5D1UwVG2To-yqTsg%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Sheri Rink Dip.PT, Acup., RYT

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Sheri, All,

Sheri, I really appreciated what you shared here, about what we are truly able to speak about. Even without science suggesting dark matter and energy, it seems quite clear there is so much more going on than our minds can take in. Just to see how our own lives move so unexpectedly. This may be where our own lives are really showing and informing us (unknowing), as you said.....  

Something is still moving for me around all this, somehow bringing the whole matter down to our actual lives, human in some way, as Sheri is pointing to I believe. I may have all my screws loose, which at this point in my life, feels perfectly fine. Again, exploring, even if off the wall.

What if the field we speak of here is one of experiencing. Vast, limitless, timeless experiencing. Permeating this field is the experiencing of being localized, as form (a dog, not a cat, and so on). Yet, simultaneously this field has absolutely no framework to localize itself. Impossible. So experiencing being localized remains as it is, even as it is never localized. It has no where else to go, it can't be other than what it is. Even as this experiencing of being localized seeks to go beyond itself, to experience itself as non-experience, it remains this experiencing of being localized, as part of experiencing. To say this another way, experiencing being localized is never separate from anything, including itself.

A conundrum that is never a conundrum, because it is simply how things are and never can nor needs to conform to being otherwise.

-Dan 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAAfzGURFfz6JJCNCzq%3DaPAppygbU9y5Ns6R%2B5nu%3DqyxnWYwY2Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sheri R]

Dan and All, 

Dan, I think I’m following you this time.

I know I don’t know and am fully relaxed and in fact, feel this wild freedom in ‘not knowing’. 

With that disclaimer, what you described is how it seems to be through the experience of this localized, non local experiencing. 

Thank you.🙏 

Sheri

Sheri Rink Dip.PT, Acup., RYT

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGgGDoAQobawZJ28YoTgqG17RUi47v0EQAReFQMxVR23xKUs0w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jeffrey Angelson]

Sheri, Dan All— I really appreciate both of your reflections here. What keeps coming up for me is how closely this ties to what I was pointing to earlier about physics working from the bottom up. It feels like science keeps trying to assemble the whole from pieces, starting with what can be measured, while life keeps showing itself all at once, from the inside.

Even without dark matter or energy in the picture, our own lives already demonstrate how much is beyond cognition. Things unfold, shift, surprise us — not as parts adding up, but as a living movement we’re already inside of. That’s where unknowing starts to feel less like a gap and more like a kind of intelligence.

From there, the mystics and direct experience don’t feel like an alternative explanation so much as a different starting point — beginning with the whole, rather than trying to build toward it.

Most of what’s happening isn’t visible anyway. Maybe there’s nothing to conclude—just this, unfolding.

Jeff Angelson

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAAfzGURZFb%2Bi%2BhgxhUkKR%3Dz2hd%2B94%2BVZ3zO9z8N_TG59YVhRjg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Sheri, wow, I feel like you are getting what came up for me more than I did! Maybe something is unfolding here, yet who knows, can't be sure. It doesn't have to...

-Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAAfzGURZFb%2Bi%2BhgxhUkKR%3Dz2hd%2B94%2BVZ3zO9z8N_TG59YVhRjg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Jeff, Everyone,

Jeff, yes, I have had the same feeling about science, starting from the standpoint of breaking things up and then putting back together (Humpty Dumpty?). But this might be of interest: the bottom or part is also the whole, right? So science may be missing what is already staring it in the face: it's very moving in this way. It doesn't have to go anywhere, just really look, in the moment.....

And your last comment about nothing to conclude may be the point moving in all of this: there is nowhere to land, which is what? The falling away of any need to have anything to hold onto (as Sheri said, free), unburdened by this need. This is what I feel is moving in all of this, in what Sheri and you shared, what is moving here right now.....  -Dan

[Paul Rezendes]

Everyone,

Seems to me we are having concepts about concepts. And this, in turn, is another concept about concepts. We can't help ourselves. Maybe all we have to do is realize that our concepts are limited. They're not absolute. They are just approximations. I thought Roger Penrose had a real good approximation as far as science goes.

Just more concepts, LOL.

Paul

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGgGDoCfcrJZjaSSeFTReMDpZtmHVZ1a8XWP6zP5JXvuRABwLQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rani Madhavapeddi]

So true,

Silence has always been revered for that reason🤔

Rani Madhavapeddi Patel

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/A8BB12EC-77B7-453A-8D2D-5B259BBDBBE8%40paulrezendes.com.

[Paul Rezendes]

Everyone on this thread,

I’d like to share something here from my time spent with David Bohm. I can understand, and I’m with everyone, when we say we would rather hear from mystics. However, how do we know what the state of mind of some of these physicists are? They’re not going to go around saying I’m a mystic. I remember Bohm pointing to how science changes things and the world perspective. He would talk about how we used to think the world was flat until science said it wasn’t. You can see what happened in those days. But he was quick to say that these are all mostly approximations, not to be held onto and not to be attached to. They will change and evolve if we don’t hold onto them and get attached to them. We need to keep asking questions. That’s what I remember him pointing to.

In my relationship with nature, there is an understanding, a living visual/visceral understanding, of interconnectedness, which is not of thought although thought can reflect back upon it and may try to point to it with concepts. But the concepts are not what’s being pointed to. I think we all understand that. So there’s something there that is known that is not just a concept. When I heard Roger Penrose talk about the quantum field, it all just fell together, and I think his take on it is a good approximation of what I was learning in nature. I put that video up and then Dan put another video up about Light. I think Penrose’s video might have gotten missed in the mix. I’m going to put it back here below. Penrose was a colleague of David Bohm. For me, although I may not be a good judge of it, they seem to be saying and pointing to the same thing. I also think that RP video is more up-to-date than the one on light. Roger Penrose is now 94 years old.

Just trying to share something.

Here is the link I sent in previously in case some of you missed it. I thought it was a really important way of articulating things. Hopefully we don't dismiss him because he's a scientist.

Paul

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/B4322E3E-1707-4E9C-90C7-8FE49D22D87F%40gmail.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Paul, All,

I just wanted to make a short comment about what you shared about Bohm and scientists. Having been one, I fully appreciate the spirit of exploring into what is actually happening in the world. Science is really not so much about what we already know, but what we have yet to find out. This is what draws the really good ones to inquire. I remember when I first truly discovered the beauty of chemistry, I felt in some undefinable way, that I was actually exploring myself. The whole thing was so alive that I lost track of time and forgot to eat, I just wanted to learn and find out. I spent an entire weekend in this way, and came out with a really good understanding of the physical reality behind the periodic table, as a teenager. Chemistry was about life itself, including myself, not some distant subject.

So for me, this exploring may have no end. And what takes place in our inquiries may not be separate from the endeavor of science itself.  -Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/80537DF8-CB39-4523-8753-682D3CC6354F%40paulrezendes.com.