frame of reference

06/03/2017

Stuff in the manifest world exists within the three dimensions of space. Often the stuff is moving around, which means that its spatial location is changing in time. The three dimensions of space and the dimension of time together constitute the space-time continuum. This space-time is not, itself, stuff in the same sense as the manifest stuff that exists within it. Rather, it is a frame of reference.

Usually a frame of reference is an unchanging domain, delineated with a regular metric of some sort. The unchanging nature of the frame of reference gives it an absolute quality, at least for the purposes of describing whatever is going on within the domain. Psychologically and philosophically, it is convenient that the frame of reference has this feeling of being absolute. It allows us to accept it without having to refer to something else, even grander. The absolute frame of reference provides a bedrock. Another way of putting this is that stuff within the frame of reference does not alter the frame of reference.

For a long time, it was assumed that space and time were unchanging and therefore carried this absolute quality. Then came Einstein. His special and general theories of relativity, as the names suggest, declared that space-time is not independent of the stuff within space-time. In other words, the frame of reference is relative, not absolute. Stuff, specifically mass, changes the ‘shape’ of space-time. As stuff is moving around, the shape of space changes over time. Even more mind-boggling than that, time is also being stretched in the same way. (One of the beautiful features of the general theory of relativity is that time is not distinguishable, mathematically, from the three dimensions of space.)

It seems that the human mind struggles with relativity. We want there to be a bedrock. Living in a relativistic universe is like discovering that your house is built on quicksand. There is no foundation. Nevertheless, all the science is indicating that we do live in a relative frame of reference.

If the theory of relativity is too much to grasp, perhaps an easier example is the theory of plate tectonics. This states that the surface of the Earth is comprised of a set of plates which move around. If I am standing on a particular plate then I could use a local frame of reference which applies over the area of that plate. Within this frame of reference, I might seem to be standing still. However, to an observer on another plate, who is also standing still within her local frame of reference, I will appear to be moving. (Of course, this movement happens rather slowly by our human standards, so for practical purposes we can usually ignore it.)

Like space-time, the plate tectonic example is another case where people had previously assumed things (the layout of the continents) to be unchanging. It seems that the thinking mind has a built in bias towards seeing things as static. We want things to be unchanging. It’s challenging enough when things within our frame of reference change. The fact that our frames of reference are also changeable is more than most of us can come to terms with!

So far we’ve looked at rather physical frames of reference. However, there are other sorts of frames of reference such as social ones. All the rules of the society within which we find ourself constitute a frame of reference. Such a frame is meant to apply to all the people within the society. As long as everybody plays by the same rules, social life has a chance of flowing harmoniously. The trouble comes when someone steps outside that frame of reference and lives by different rules. The usual resolution of such a situation is to put the person in a cage.

Even more trouble happens at the boundaries where one social frame of reference butts up against another. Typically this happens at the boundary of a nation state. Just as the boundaries of tectonic plates are where earthquakes, subduction and volcanoes happen, the boundaries of nation states are where humans tend to club together to kill each other en masse.

One way of understanding spirituality is to see it as a search for the absolute. It might be that this search is no more than another manifestation of that longing for things to be unchanging. Certainly the mainstream scientific understanding at the moment is that there is no absolute. And within the rules of science, that seems to be the case. However, for the spiritual enquiry, we need not be bound by the rules of science.

So, let’s step into the slightly more poetic language needed to hint at deeper spiritual truths. Gautam Buddha realised that everything is changeable and that nothing is permanent. Buddhist teachings also emphasise the interconnectedness of all that is. These realisations lead to a very relativistic understanding of life, when one is considering a part of it, such as oneself as a human being. However. something curious happens when we accept that everything is changeable and relative. The whole – everything – when viewed as a single, indivisible process, begins to have the feel of the absolute. The indivisibility that is implied by the word relativity is a key characteristic of the absolute. So, when things are completely relative, including the grandest frame of reference itself, the absolute is revealed.

Apart from stuff though, spirituality leads us to the absolute in another form: the formless. The unmanifest lies completely outwith the scope of science. As human beings we can touch the space of this source when, for a moment at least, our minds become still and silent. In such a state of meditation, the unbounded space of empty, impersonal consciousness is all that is present. Having experienced such a state, if experience is an applicable word, one feels that one has tasted something absolute. This source of all that is becomes something like a frame of reference within which the dance of life is playing out.

non-duality

09/02/2017

From earlier articles, it is probably evident that a mystic regards everything as interconnected. In this article we will explore this perspective further.

Quite often, the mind divides something in the world into a pair of polar opposites, such as day and night, male and female, light and dark, higher and lower, true and false, passive and active, good and bad. This is the dualistic perspective. It is generalised in the Taoist tradition with the yin-yang pair. By dividing existence in two in many different ways, the dualistic view is sufficient for us to perceive the whole multiplicity of things.

In quantum physics, the term duality is used to refer to the (much more mysterious) fact that the fundamental bits of the manifest world behave as both particles and waves simultaneously. There are some other beautiful examples of duality in quantum theory, for example matter and anti-matter, or pairs of entangled particles having complementary spin.

In common experience, the dualistic way of seeing things includes some important distinctions regarding oneself. Firstly, there is a duality of me and you, or more generally, me and not-me. This allows one to feel separate and regard oneself as having free will.

Another significant dualistic pair is mind and body, or consciousness and matter. This is a particularly challenging duality for science and one worthy of a separate article at a later date.

In the field of spirituality the most significant dualities relate to the ground of being. The source of all that is – God – can be viewed as separate to everything manifest – the creation. This source, the ground of being, is then also regarded as separate from oneself.

The Hindu teachings of Vedanta include an assertion of advaita, meaning non-duality. Specifically, this states that oneself (atman) is not actually separate from the ground of being (brahman).

Vedanta is not the only tradition to assert non-duality. In general, spirituality can be regarded as a journey during which we transcend dualities. Ultimately, there is a longing to be reunited with God, to no longer feel oneself as separate from the ground of being.

The understanding of the mystic is that all these dualities are creations of the thinking mind, superimposed on a non-dualistic reality. And in a moment of truth, this is not only a mental understanding but also a felt reality.

emptiness

04/02/2017

In an earlier article, more on symbolic knowledge, we noted that the meaning of symbols (such as words) is usually determined with reference to other symbols. Without such reference, a symbol is essentially meaningless. This is reminiscent of ideas of emptiness and non-self in Buddhist understanding. I am not a Buddhist scholar but I won’t let that stop me presenting my thoughts on such terms…

When considering symbolic knowledge, we can take emptiness to mean exactly what has already been highlighted: that a symbol in and of itself is empty of meaning, is meaningless. Its meaning is in how it relates to other symbols. However, of course, the same can be said for those other symbols. So, in one sense, each individual symbol is meaningless.

The amazing thing is that, although in isolation every symbol is empty of meaning, it does not follow that the whole collection of knowledge is empty. There is meaning given by the network of relationships between the symbols. When taken holistically, there is meaning in the whole collection of knowledge. It is when we try to isolate a part that the meaning disappears.

For a mystic, the concept of emptiness does not just apply to the meaning of symbols but also to things in the ‘real world’, manifest things. We have to be very careful when thinking or writing about this because we use symbols (words) for communicating and thinking about the manifest world. A disciplined mind is needed to maintain the awareness of the difference between the words and the manifest world.

So, for a mystic, the actual existence of something in the manifest world is also empty, in the same sense as the meaning of a symbol is empty. In other words, the existence of anything is totally interdependent on the existence of everything else that is manifest in the moment.

One way to approach thinking about this is to consider obvious material interdependencies. For example, a tree is dependent upon sunlight for photosynthesis, and carbon dioxide in the air, and water, and nutrients in the soil, and certain microorganisms around its roots, and gravity, and a certain range of temperature, and a lack of particular toxins and predatory organisms, and, and, and…

However, such material interdependencies, though important, do not quite capture the mystic’s feel for the emptiness of things. This feeling is more in the moment and more totally holistic. So, for example, the existence of the coffee cup on the table in front of me, in this moment, is totally entwined with the existence of a leaf on a distant tree, also in this moment; as well as everything else in existence in this moment. (Incidentally, we know that we are in difficult terrain when I resort to drinking an espresso!)

To use a scientific analogy for this mystical emptiness, imagine the whole universe to contain only particles which are in a state of quantum entanglement with each other. Instead of the usual pairs of particles, imagine each particle to be entangled with every other particle. That gives something of the feel for the level of emptiness that a mystic perceives in the world.

Hopefully from the comments so far, it is clear that emptiness is not a nihilistic state of affairs. It is a holistic perspective. We could equally well have used the word ‘fullness’. One thing exists because everything else exists.

For a mystic, this view does not just apply to coffee cups and leaves. It applies to everything, including you and me. The individual human being is also empty. We have the attribute of non-self, just like everything else. This leads to the feeling-understanding of non-separation. When put into words, this feeling is stated as “I don’t exist” or “there is no I” or “I am all that is” or even “I am God.” Language fails us at this point.

why do things change?

03/02/2017

This is the third of the fundamental questions which science is not really suited to answer – why do things change?

Science often concerns itself with the ways in which things change. In other words, science looks for patterns in time. That does not really answer the more fundamental question of why things change at all. As with the spatial distribution of stuff, a static universe where nothing moves or changes would seem much more likely than the reality that we find ourselves a part of, where everything is changing all the time.

Indeed, for time to have any meaning at all, there must be change. (Similarly, space has no significance without the non-uniform distribution of stuff discussed in the previous article.) This muddies the picture even further: there is a link between the stuff in space and the structure of space itself, and there is a similar link between things moving or changing and the meaning of time.

Relativity theory has taken this topic into mind-boggling terrain. Not only is there no absolute space, with space itself flexing depending on the distribution of mass within it, there is also no absolute time. Time distorts in the same way as space. Indeed, in the maths of relativity, there is no difference between time and each of the three dimensions of space.

The differentiation of time from space seems to be tied up with our consciousness in some peculiar way. We have a very strong intuitive sense of time passing and having a ‘direction’, ie. we have a completely different relationship with, or sense for, the future compared to how we relate to the past. In science, though, our intuitive sense for things doesn’t count for anything.

There is one physical theory – the second law of thermodynamics – that seems to give time a special status. This law states that entropy always increases. Roughly speaking, this means that things are always tending to get more disorderly. The significance with regard to time is that the law gives a way of distinguishing between time going forwards and time going backwards, that does not depend just on our intuitive sense of time. It does, as expected, link time with change and it states that change is always in a certain ‘direction’.

So much for science. How does a mystic understand time and change?

Recall that a mystic regards the subjective consciousness as the primary truth. And our conscious experience is in the moment, now. It is timeless. We do, of course, have a strong sense of time because we have memory. The recollection of memories, though, is always in the present moment. So, strictly speaking, to a mystic, time is an illusion brought about by memory.

Apart from our normal understanding of the word ‘memory’, there is another aspect of our mind that gives us a sense of time flowing and that is thinking. When we are thinking, there is a stream of words in our conscious experience. That stream of words has a syntactic structure and the understanding of the words relies on us having awareness of more than a single word at a time. It’s as if we have awareness of a few seconds of thought as directly as if it is all in a single moment.

If you have ever meditated and experienced a mind without thoughts, you will know that our sense of time is very tightly linked to thinking. A moment without thoughts is a timeless moment. That is the subjective feeling of it. This leads to a strange phenomenon in organised meditations: If one’s mind has been very quiet during the meditation, when the chimes sound to signal the end of the meditation, the perception is typically that one has only been sitting there for a few minutes, when in reality an hour has passed.

Apart from thinking, our perception of time is even more directly linked to conscious awareness itself. When we are unconscious – for example in deep sleep – that period of time simply doesn’t exist for oneself.

Here we started out with a question about change and soon veered into the tightly related topic of time. To come back to change, a mystic does not really think in terms of change. Each moment is understood to be spontaneously arising in an acausal manner, without reference to past or future. With such a perspective, the concept of change vanishes along with time.

why is stuff not uniformly distributed in space?

02/02/2017

In the previous article, we considered one fundamental question that science cannot answer. Here we take a look at another.

When we look at the distribution of stuff – matter and energy – in the universe, we find that it is distributed non-uniformly. This applies at the cosmic scale of clusters of galaxies, right down to the microscopic scale. This is an odd situation to have arisen. It seems much more likely that stuff would be exactly evenly distributed.

Once there is a tiny perturbation in the field, chaos theory allows for things to get really wild and diverse. The question is, how or why did a tiny variation creep into the system?

From the moment of the big bang, as the universe expands, the scientific approach is looking for physical theories which apply across the whole of space. (This requirement of spatial invariance was discussed in an earlier article.) There cannot be a theory which applies in a spatially invariant way and at the same time explains spatial variation coming into existence in a hitherto uniform field. It is another fundamental question which is simply outside the scope of the scientific approach.

This is a deeply significant question because without spatial variation, the whole universe would be filled with a uniform soup of energy (and matter, if it is possible for mass to come into existence in a uniform field, which seems unlikely). In such a uniform field, there could never be any structure: no galaxies, no stars, no planets, no lifeforms, no you, no me. It would be a very uninteresting existence.

Once there is some perturbation in the universe, once some variation has come into existence, then science can explore how that evolves with time. Like with the last question we considered, it’s the first step which is fundamentally problematic for science.

Once again, the mystic simply states that we will never be able to answer this question. It is, and always will be, a mystery as to why stuff in the universe is not distributed uniformly.