Does this even make the remotest of sense?
Yes, because you are talking about levels as defined by language. Such levels do not exist, they are just practical and arbitary conventions we agree on.
What makes a city different from a town different from a village?
That’s nice, but isn’t it too bad that experimental observations don’t confirm this on a microscopic scale? Sorry man, thats just the way it works. Spouting metaphysics won’t change that.
An intelligent man once said physics is bordered on both sides by metaphysics 
Try and work out what that means 
While there is experimental evidence for the argument that all of reality is one fundamental substance, let us first look at some logic. Because as a Hindu you should be less concerned with experiments, and more on logic(We are rationalists, not empiricsts) Follow the logical steps
- All things are produced out of other things
- All other things are produced out of yet more things
- Therefore, all things must have come out of one original thing, else we would have an infinite regression.
Do you agree? Next step:
- If all things came out of one original thing then this means all things are made out of one original substance. Thus they are just transformations of the same substance.
- This original substance must have contained all things within it in a state of potentiality.
- All things must of then issued out of the original thing from simple things to complex things increasing in density, size, dimension and mass
- Therefore the original thing must have had no density, size or mass. It must be potential only.
If you can follow this chain of reasoning you will arrive at what we Hindus call multaprakriti. It a central tenet of Hinduism, so I would have to question how Hindu you are if you denied it Mulaprakriti is the original and primordial substance from which the entire universe has arisen. It is also called Adishakti.
Now for your empirical validation. To be honest I am quite surprised you would even question that all matter is made out of the same one substance. The third law of thermodynamics says that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transformed from one form to the other. In relativity it is said that all matter is simply just condensed energy. Thus from this one would not one conclude that energy is the primal substance and everything is just a transformation of this?
I will show you next how there is something even more finer than energy:
Uhm, the quantum world does indeed have mass, substance, space and time considerations, and so on.
You don’t know your physics.
Dear, you should know as a physicist familiar with quantum mechanics that prior to matter becoming a particle it is a wavefunction. It exists in a superpositioned state. You should know about the uncertainty principle how we can never actually measure the position and momentum of a particle and how we must use probability to determine where it is going to be found. In other words we cannot measure the quantum. The act of measurement collapses the wavefunction and the particle is created So prior to the particle appearing, the particle has no position and no mass.
Again follow the logical argument. Prior to anything existing it is potential. Prior to the particle existing it is potential only(a wavefunction). If it not yet existent then how can it have position and mass?
Do you follow? I am having to walk you through this because although the arguments are water tight to me, I think you are having problems following it.
Therefore, if it has no position and mass then it means something has to happen that collapses the wavefuction and position and mass to happen. Yet, how can anything happen when everything is in a state of quantum entanglement? If everything is entangled there cannot be a self-collapse. There has to be external agency.
Do we have empirical validation for this? Yes, hidden variable theory has been disproven and it was first done by John Bell. It is ironic that I mentioned this twice or thrice in this thread already and you and Q have not acknowledged it. Do you understand what Bell’s experiment has proven? It has proven that there is no space, time and mass and most probably no physical reality. Then I cited Legget’s experiment in the article, “Quantum physics says goodbye to reality” which has now proven reality does not exist - if it is not being observed.
Do you know the term we use for quantum interactions? “Virtual quanta” It is virtual because it not existent. In quantum field theory it is stated that virtual quanta appear in and out of reality(known as quantum flux) and it is possible to capture them in a “fuzzy state” Has this been empirically validated? Yes, by the casimir effect - who proved that in a pure vacuum, only consisting of pure space - there was still energy. This means there is a reality beyond physical space - which is now called the quantum field/zero point energy field.
Ditto.
Well now you have to ask the obvious question if space, time, mass and energy do not exist and actually all of reality is made out of virtual stuff - then how heck does virtual stuff become physical stuff. And if reality if the fundamental level of reality has no mass, space, time, energy then how can the macroscopic reality have mass, space, time, energy? Again, can you have a building with no foundation?
False. Once again, quantum irregularities and unpredictability don’t manifest on a macroscopic scale. This is basic quantum mechanics.
I do know of these experiments and know their results. The problem is that your lack of knowledge in physics is causing you to draw the wrong conclusions.
Yes, they do not manifest on the macroscope scale because you cannot observe them - they are still going on. Even when you swing a pendulum, it appears to have a continious motion, but we know it is not really continious down there on the atomic level with electrons jumping about from one level to another. You know at the atomic level matter is 99% empty space, but does the world look like empty 99.9% empty space to you?
We know that matter and energy are always being transformed to one another and any object with a momentum is actually gaining mass - but does a car look like it is gaining mass? No, because we cannot perceive it. Similarly, the macroscopic world is also experiencing quantum effects, but you simply cannot see it.
There really is no dispute between us if you look at this discussion carefully. You are talking about reality as it appears; I am talking about reality as it is.
With respect to his statement, yes. With respect to the literal End of Physics, not really.
It is the literal end of physics because when you come to the fundamental level of the wavefunction or what is called the quantum field you no longer have a physical reality - thus you cannot measure it. How do you measure something which is virtual, is everywhere at once and nowhere - you cannot. Thus prior to matter in the particle stage, we cannot measure it. Thus physics cannot go beyond it. It is a barrier.
No. I did not admit that. And I derided metaphysics and religion in general when I said “symbolic reality.”
What you do not realise is that physics has become metaphysics today. We are talking about a level of reality where there is no space, time, mass, dimension, position - that we call virtual. We are saying very categorically now that physical reality is an illusion - it does not exist.
Physics has ended. Metaphysics has begun. Hence why you got people like Max Planck talking about inteligent fields underlying matter. Hence, why you got a huge movement of scientists and physicists now exploring physics through mind sciences.
[/quote]
Debatable. Confer with a physicist who is also familiar with Yoga/metaphysics. I am not knowledgeable in this area and our discussion has to stall in this area.[/QUOTE]
It is blatantly clear you are not familiar with Yoga and Hindu metaphysics. I think you should read on it. It is our heritage and it is key to understanding Vedic dhama. I really think you are Hindu in name only to very honest. A lot of your views and attitudes are very Western.
It is obvious to me from the above how vastly superior Indian culture is - it is more nuanced, more complex, more refined, more rich in everything you can see. The dance is more expressive and uses the entire body eyes, face, expressions, hands, legs, even fingers, very slightly finger movements convey a sense, it even utilises very gracefully Yoga postures in smoothe movement. It brings out the sensuality in the women dancing in the clip without coming across as lewd. On the other hand, poledancing which is now a popular form of dance in the West is nothing but lewd. I also referenced Madonna, Rhiana and Jennifer Lopez, and it does not go amiss that the main emotion being created is lust.
Tho’ I am sure India must have its own Bollywood version of Jerry Springer
