is a shadow less than nothing?

[fatherpaul]

the material world

including thought

is real,

the space between every thing (material)

is "nothing" (the emptiness that makes the cup useful)

these both seem constant,

but a shadow? is it less than nothing?

[mYTHmAKER]

Only if it's the shadow of the inside of a cup

[Taomeow]

the material world

including thought

is real,

the space between every thing (material)

is "nothing" (the emptiness that makes the cup useful)

these both seem constant,

but a shadow? is it less than nothing?

 

A shadow is actually "something." According to Don Juan of Castaneda's writings, it even has free will and can act independently of the person who's casting it.

 

Then again, there's a Russian play called The Shadow where the shadow of a relatively nice guy becomes separated from him and, in this independent, shadowy capacity, grabs and abuses political power!

 

Then there's Jungian shadows... and the Japanese thing-no-thing... and the annoying vitreous floaters (which can range from insignificant to overwhelming) whose shadows have far greater impact on the affected person's life than the actual "real" object behind them...

 

and, last but not least, I can cause my shadow to wiggle its toes without wiggling my own!

[Eric23]

From an artist's point of view, the cast shadow is very real. They add to the finished piece and they fill in what would be empty space with facinating shapes. From an aerial photography interpretation perspective, shadows give you valuable information on the profile of objects. If you look at a building in an aerial photograph (assuming a vertical view used in mapping) you will only see the roof from the air. The shadow it casts tells you how tall it is.

[fatherpaul]

the something; man, tree, rock, casts a shadow.

the man, tree, rock is real, the light is real, but the shadow....

is like this transient world we live in.

less than nothing.

 

but oh so wonderful.

 

peace

paul

[Pietro]

the something; man, tree, rock, casts a shadow.

the man, tree, rock is real, the light is real, but the shadow....

is like this transient world we live in.

less than nothing.

 

but oh so wonderful.

 

peace

paul

The shadow is a privative,

what exists is light.

While you can only define a shadow in comparison to somewhere where there is no shadow.

But the complete shadow would require no light at all. Not one photon.

That's actually quite hard to reach,

like the 0 degrees kelvin temperature

Edited June 12, 2007 by Pietro

[Taomeow]

The shadow is a privative,

what exists is light.

 

What exists is a relationship between light and shadow. Neither one exists by itself. Modern physics says so.

[Pietro]

What exists is a relationship between light and shadow. Neither one exists by itself. Modern physics says so.

 

Modern Physics says that there are photons. They exist and you can measure them. You can measure a situation where you have more respect to a situation where you have less. But you can also measure them respect to the hypothethical situation where you have none at all. I say hypotethical because I suspect that photons might be produced in small quantities everywhere due to quantum fluctuations, but I am not sure about it.

 

Now both the situation where you have many photons and where you have less photons are situations where you DO have photons. As such they are both part of the + positive side. Then there is zero and there is nothing ont he other side. Of course as we perceive things we do it one respect to the other, but the fact remains that also a shadow has light inside. So the shadow only exists in respect to the light, while if you look at it in respect to the absolute zero (full darkness) is not a shadow anymore, while the light exists both in respect to the light, and in respect to the absolute darkness. It is still light in both cases. So a shadow is a privative, but the light is not.

 

Let me repeat, the light DOES exists by itself, because you can measure it respect to the absolute darkness and it remains 'light'. You can't do that with a shadow.

 

Now you'll grab your copy of the TTC and shout, "but also the light has shadow inside. Because it is not the theorethical perfect light". But you can't measure things in this way, you see.

 

more pragmatically:

infinite divided by 2 is still infinite.

[fatherpaul]

What exists is a relationship between light and shadow. Neither one exists by itself. Modern physics says so.

it is so

 

all of what we call life is the relationship between all things

 

physics and the TTC be damned

I see this with my own eyes

[Tao Parrot]

Depends on what definition of "shadow" we're using here. Assuming the first definition you find at dictionary.com (which lists over twenty):

 

"a dark figure or image cast on the ground or some surface by a body intercepting light."

 

In this case a shadow is an image, and therefore an artifact of human perception, and you can decide how real you think that is. For example, a scientist might say there is no such thing as cold, just heat. Cold is a human perception of a difference in temperatures. Likewise shadows are a perception of a difference in light levels. Is a difference something? It's a measurement, of course, but because we often perceive a shape in the measurement we are tempted to assign greater meaning to it.

[rain]

fatherpaul

 

what is light?

Edited June 12, 2007 by rain

[fatherpaul]

fatherpaul

 

what is light?

 

who is rain?

[Treena]

I've always found shadows fascinating. Sometimes they do what 'you' think they're supposed to and other times they do what 'they' want to do.

[Taomeow]

Modern Physics says that there are photons. They exist and you can measure them.

 

Let me repeat, the light DOES exists by itself, because you can measure it respect to the absolute darkness and it remains 'light'. You can't do that with a shadow.

 

Actually, these are postulates of Obsolete Physics. Modern Physics asserts photons are shadows of antiphotons that derive their existence from antimatter and antienergy which account for most of the main events taking place in the universe as we speak. That's "events," not "objects." Ever seen a picture of Minkovsky's space of events? It typically starts with one photon, and all the subsequent events fall into a cone spreading out into infinity where each event could have interacted with this one photon --

and this cone of events lies amidst an immeasurably larger infinity of events that could not have been influenced by this photon. You know of course if you ever dabbled in the algebra of sets (a branch of calculus) that infinities are measurable and differ in size considerably. E.g., the infinity of irrational numbers is infinitely greater than the infinity of the rational ones. So, basically, the same is true for light and shadow: the infinity of events in the universe with any light in them is infinitely smaller than the infinity of events with no light in them, which still do take place -- go check out the nearest black hole if you don't believe me.

Edited June 13, 2007 by Taomeow

[Pietro]

Actually, these are postulates of Obsolete Physics. Modern Physics asserts photons are shadows of antiphotons that derive their existence from antimatter and antienergy which account for most of the main events taking place in the universe as we speak. ...

 

Hmm, this is getting beyond my level of knowledge, but I cannot avoid to notice that wikipedia carries no trace of antiphoton page, because:

"The photon is its own antiparticle" (from here)

[fatherpaul]

Hmm, this is getting beyond my level of knowledge, but I cannot avoid to notice that wikipedia carries no trace of antiphoton page, because:

"The photon is its own antiparticle" (from here)

 

I must agree, in current Eienstienian Physics a Photon is a no mass particle that is speed of light constant.

It can be measured, however, can a shadows substance be measured?

[Pietro]

I must agree, in current Eienstienian Physics a Photon is a no mass particle that is speed of light constant.

It can be measured, however, can a shadows substance be measured?

 

Com'on, let's be pragmatic on this:

Light can be masured in Lumens

Lumen:

A unit of light flow or luminous flux. The lumen rating of a lamp is a measure of the total light output of the lamp. The most common measurement of light output

(or luminous flux) is the lumen. Light sources are labeled with an output rating in lumens. For example, a R30 65-Watt indoor flood lamp may have a rating of 750 lumens. Similarly, a light fixture's output can be expressed in lumens.

As lamps and fixtures age and become dirty, their lumen output decreases

(i.e., lumen depreciation occurs). Most lamp ratings are based on initial lumens (i.e., when lamp is new). (see Figure 4)

 

The shadow 'substance' is light. And we perceive it as 'shadowy' because we are in an environment with more 'light' than the light of the shadow. If you want to measure how much a shadow is dark you would have to subtract one from the other. Which would give you a negative number. But this number only refers to the current environment we are in. The absolute value of it is not negative and it is its light.

 

So shadow is a relative term, while light is not.

[fatherpaul]

Com'on, let's be pragmatic on this:

Light can be masured in Lumens

The shadow 'substance' is light. And we perceive it as 'shadowy' because we are in an environment with more 'light' than the light of the shadow. If you want to measure how much a shadow is dark you would have to subtract one from the other. Which would give you a negative number. But this number only refers to the current environment we are in. The absolute value of it is not negative and it is its light.

 

So shadow is a relative term, while light is not.

so a shadow is merely the emptiness between photons(light)?

[.broken.]

discussion of these material concepts are of no consequence, shadows are part of what your physical eyes see.

 

 

 

recognise the illusions.

 

Shiva dances.

 

i am.

 

we are.

 

awaken, reflections of light.

 

so simple.

[freeform]

the material world

including thought

is real,

the space between every thing (material)

is "nothing" (the emptiness that makes the cup useful)

these both seem constant,

but a shadow? is it less than nothing?

 

First there is shadow (the empty cup)

 

Then there is light.

 

what's not constant? why less than nothing?

 

 

this leads into privatives...

 

First there is cold (zero kelvin)

 

Then there is heat.

 

the shadow, space, cold are the cauldron for the possibility of light, mass, heat.

 

another thought on privatives - Pietro, maybe you should try it out with using the human body as the instrument of measurement? then "cold" and "heat" take on a different meaning.

[Pietro]

so a shadow is merely the emptiness between photons(light)?

 

Maybe, I am not sure.

You see there are concepts that only make sense at some scales, and not at others. Take temperature, for example. Below a certain size you don't have temperature, but the speed of the molecules. And the molecules themselves only make sense at some scales and not at others. Below you have packets of waves.

 

Similarly the concept of colour only make sense if you are in the uk, and the concept of color only makes sense if you are looking at things at a scale bigger than the wave length of the colored light.

 

So as we change the scale of our investigation we discover different objects and different properties. In science we call them 'emerging properties' and 'emerging objects'. The investigation of how the properties of one level interact, predict, and are predictable depending on the properties of another level is IMO one of the most fascinating areas of modern science. It is actually there that I am spending most of my working life, trying to study the passage between the 'chemical' level, and the 'biological' level.

 

There is a number of barriers in this investigation. One of them is that objects of one level although can theorethically fully describe the situation at any bigger scale, cannot practically be used because the equations becomes intractable way before we can even think of tackling them.

 

So shadow, like light appears at a scale in which you have a bigger space, photons inside, and you can make an average number of photons. Below that scale I have some doubts you can use the same terms/words/objects/way-to-define-reality.

[Spectrum]

We teeter-totter between realms.

 

Shine on the emptiness of a shadow to reveal it's nothingness.

 

Dim your lights to reveal who's in the room around you.

 

Spectrum

 

*Non-dual perspectives have a Way of making eternal dualitities known.

[rain]

who is rain?

 

edit;

"what is rain?"

"who is light?"

father

 

paul

[beancurdturtle]

but a shadow? is it less than nothing?

Yes. When you are looking at it - especially to a blind man.

 

Like every one of the 10,000 myriad things, and all of our interpreted perceptions - it's just another abstraction from the Tao.

 

But it's also the best place to have a siesta in the blazing noon-time sun in Cabo San Lucas. Then it's something to everyone - including the blind man.

 

Context is "reality."

[fatherpaul]

discussion of these material concepts are of no consequence, shadows are part of what your physical eyes see.

recognise the illusions.

 

Shiva dances.

 

i am.

 

we are.

 

awaken, reflections of light.

 

so simple.

 

 

the darkness dawns here

 

edit;

"what is rain?"

"who is light?"

father

 

paul

 

 

rain has fallen on the lawn

the droplets hang on every blade of grass