Discussion Forum Discussion Forum

Miscellaneous

Is emptiness = space?

Is emptiness = space?
Answer
3/17/10 5:31 PM
Physicists talk about it all the time, they call it "space," it is the place where things happen.

Could it be that the emptiness/awareness aspect of experience is the actual "space" the physicists talk about?

It seems like it could fit...

Just some random theoretical question :-)

RE: Is emptiness = space?
Answer
3/17/10 6:50 PM as a reply to Bruno Loff.
Bruno Loff:
Physicists talk about it all the time, they call it "space," it is the place where things happen.

Could it be that the emptiness/awareness aspect of experience is the actual "space" the physicists talk about?

It seems like it could fit...

Just some random theoretical question :-)


My opinion: doubtful.

Whereas those who realize Emptiness describe a spacious characteristic, I think it would be an error to conclude that space and the Divine Nothing are one in the same. The error being made here is akin to Wilber's pre/trans fallacy. To equate space and Spirit, we would be treating a gross level reality (space) as if it were the Transcendent (Emptiness). This is like glorifying the moral character of a toddler over that of a mature adult.

It seems more likely that Emptiness gives rise to space in a top-down manner. Besides, we often use gross realm terms to describe subtle, causal, and non-dual realities. Just the limits of language and symbolic representation.

Like I said, it's just my opinion.

Jackson

RE: Is emptiness = space?
Answer
3/17/10 8:28 PM as a reply to Jackson Wilshire.
Sensations that imply space and time and volume and perspective and all that arise and vanish.

In truth, there is no time, no space, no perspective, just the transient phenomena.

However, one must avoid category errors, those logical problems that arise when one takes a concept that makes sense in one context and tries to apply it to another in which it just doesn't apply.

Most of the modern physics things apply that way, though there is some valid fundamental crosstalk that occurs at times.

RE: Is emptiness = space?
Answer
3/18/10 8:34 AM as a reply to Bruno Loff.
Hmm ok thanks.

So we could say that "emptiness" is the place where things manifest, including space-time, which itself is not emptiness? So space-time is theoretically regarded as a phenomenon in itself, rather than the absence of phenomena.

But how do we distinguish both? I mean it is clear that space has arisen, but how do we know that it will pass away? Because it changes with gravity, while emptiness (supposedly) remains the same?

I mean, it is clear that our perceptual _representation_ of time and space change during meditation, but time-space itself? We are hard-pressed to find an example of such a change without going into stories of siddhis and similar descriptions. Interesting
emoticon

RE: Is emptiness = space?
Answer
3/18/10 5:04 PM as a reply to Bruno Loff.
Hello,

To avoid the "category errors" mentioned by Dan, it is important that we properly understand what "Emptiness," "Awareness," and "Void" (all the same thing in this situation, and I will cease to use quotations/capitalization for them from here on out as a matter of convince) actually are.

Emptiness, awareness and void (all referred to from here on as "awareness") are seen to be "something other" and yet "nothing at all," which is the basis that all "transient phenomena" arise and vanish from and into. The experience of awareness as spoken of in context is correctly seen as such, because that is what it is. Awareness as spoken of in mystical context is actually just the body's innate sensual awareness, it is the mind without the self and/or the underlying, baseline level of awareness seen to be underneath the self/Self. This mind-- a function of the brain-- is capable of thinking, reflecting, etc and this body is always sensing (hence the "something other" that "always is" when conscious). If conscious at all, the senses in some capacity are present; hence: the baseline awareness of the mind. So, when speaking of an awareness which sees the jhanas, for instance, it is the body's baseline awareness witnessing the various formations of one faculty of the mind (the affective/instinctual/identity/self or Self) as it morphs. Notice that no matter how much the self morphs -- in the case of jhanas for example -- the baseline awareness remains the same. It simply isn't a structure that morphs (your eye, for instance, are not structurally changing without outside influence of an eye poking it, for instance); it is static awareness. This does not mean awareness is some mystical or divine "otherness" or anything of the like. It is just the body's baseline awareness. Now, the reason why this is seen as mystical and foreign and as an "other" is because it is actually an other. It is not "you," it is the universe itself (what you actually are as a flesh and blood human being). Your body, which includes the brain which gives rise to this stable awareness, is the same perdurable matter which constitutes the rocks and trees and animals and oxygen and water and so forth. And there -- here, now, as the universe experiencing itself as a human being bereft of identity -- is where no self is experienced as an actuality.

As an aside, if you reflect on that in regard to Jackson's comments of "emptiness giv(ing) rise to space in a top-down manner," it holds water in that the body's base awareness ("emptiness") is there prior to an intellectual recognition of space or an intuitive identification with said space. Because, again, if you are conscious at all, this baseline awareness is present. Though it does not make much sense to say that it "gives rise to ;" it is simply part of the experience of recognizing space as space.

With that out of the way, we can move on to answering the question "Is emptiness = space?" The answer is: no. Emptiness/awareness/void/oblivion/whatever is the suspicion or experience or intellectual reasoning that there is an awareness beneath one's self (normal, ego structured, personal identity) or Self (abnormal, ego abandoned, enlightened, unpersonalized identity). And, as this body is not space itself, but is rather a composition of molecular arrangements fueled by caloric foodstuffs, I suspect that it is pretty clear to see how that arrangement of matter is not space itself but rather exists within the space of this universe. And this indeed "is the place where things happen."

With that said, I disagree with Dan's sentiments that "...there is no time, no space..." as this "place where things happen" is the actual universe wherein time is eternal and space is infinite. Time and space are not "missing," it is that they of the breadth that can only be experienced sensually when the identity is gone or in temporary recession (any other way of trying to recognize it won't work, because, for instance, the intellect/instincts use causality for their products). We can take steps to recognize this through various means. For instance, my body recognizes that there is a monitor in front of it, and there is apparently space between the two. If I had my companion enter the room, she would verify that I am not hallucinating-- there is actually a distance between this body and the monitor. This space is objectively verifiable. Hence, there is space, it's just that this location of space is not anywhere specific at all. In regard to time, ponder this: have you ever noticed how the moment is never not now? It has been now the entire time I typed this response, and it will be now when I click "send/save" and it will be now in a few hours when I check to see if there is a response. This is a demonstration of how time is eternal, meaning that this moment has no duration. I also challenge the statement that it is ..."just transient phenomena." Because although the individual compositions of matter in the universe are the way they are for finite periods (this body will eventually cease to exist and become food for plants or whatever), or are only recognized by this body for finite periods of time, the totality of the matter in the universe is not transient in the sense that it is coming or going anywhere specific. With the basis of rationale being that time is eternal and space is infinite, it follows that matter is also perdurable; and thus this actual universe that we're living in is indeed permanent. Infinity has no opposite, after all. We can verify that, at least a bit, by simply seeing that I was born and that I will die, and also paleontology shows that there was a universe here before we humans, despite all of our imaginative cosmogony about "big bangs" and the like.

Regards,
Trent

RE: Is emptiness = space?
Answer
3/19/10 3:55 AM as a reply to Trent ..
Interestingly, yoga theory (at least in the "layayoga" reference I've been reading) also distinguishes various kinds of awareness: as a cognitive phenomenon, as awareness itself, and as ultimate awareness (Paranashiwa).

But when I ask is "emptiness = space", I'm not asking if "emptiness = our cognitive perception of space." I have had experiences of this coming and going etc. When you look at the TV and judge that there is space between you and the screen, you are actually making a cognition about the signal going into your visual cortex through the nerves. Still you know that this cognition "is" somewhere, and that somewhere would be awareness.

I'm just posing this question because: physics will study matter on one hand, space-time on the other, it also has this "duality" between phenomena (particles etc) and place where phenomena happen (space-time). I was just wondering whether it is the same duality that meditators talk about, i.e., our internal sense of awareness is this very same space-time which physicists study. So far, I have experienced emptiness every-other day, and although it is a very uncanny feeling, I have not found it so transcendent that we couldn't say that it was space itself.

The parallel is very compelling, since it does not go anywhere outside current scientific knowledge to explain consciousness. Many scientists and philosophers have tried to explain consciousness. Some believe Consciousness is something which emerges from complex phenomena, in a way that feels more than the sum of its parts. It could be proposed instead that Consciousness is space, the space we live in.

This in opposition to Consciousness is something that transcends even space, which could very well be true. Maybe I'm going to fast in this process of formulating hypothesis, though, and they will all prove foolish in a few years emoticon Thanks for the patience.

Bruno

RE: Is emptiness = space?
Answer
3/19/10 11:57 AM as a reply to Bruno Loff.
All objects can move freely through space. This does not seem to be the case with awareness. The phenomenal objects of 'my' awareness cannot manifest in 'your' awareness. In this sense the contents of awareness are bounded in a way that objects in space are not bounded, suggesting space and awareness are not identical.

RE: Is emptiness = space?
Answer
3/19/10 1:32 PM as a reply to Brian ..
Let's me try to come up with an answer :-)

First of all, as theory goes, it is all the same awareness. If you bare it down to what awareness actually is (say, through meditation practice), it seems that you will find that it not only is your awareness everywhere, but it is the same awareness everywhere (thus unbounded). Then you have the feeling that you are everything, and vice-versa. That is why "religion" and "yoga" mean "union".

And second, isn't what you are saying: "the awareness of my own body-mind phenomena can not manifest as awareness of your own body-mind"? But this is just like saying that an object, such as a stone, does not manifest inside another stone. That doesn't mean that the physical space containing the first stone is any different than the physical space containing the second stone.

Hmm... this isn't getting any easier emoticon

RE: Is emptiness = space?
Answer
3/19/10 4:37 PM as a reply to Bruno Loff.
It may be that there can arise an experience of unbounded awareness. But this sense of unbounded awareness does not grant you access to the objects of my awareness, or vice versa. In that sense, the boundedness I am speaking of persists. The contents of 'this' awareness (however you want to conceive of that exactly) cannot be contents of 'that' awareness. Even if they are really the 'same' awareness in some sense, there is still this boundary. There is no such restriction on objects in space. An object in 'this' location can always be moved to 'that' location.

RE: Is emptiness = space?
Answer
3/19/10 9:48 PM as a reply to Brian ..
hi bruno,

Brian M:
It may be that there can arise an experience of unbounded awareness. But this sense of unbounded awareness does not grant you access to the objects of my awareness, or vice versa. In that sense, the boundedness I am speaking of persists. The contents of 'this' awareness (however you want to conceive of that exactly) cannot be contents of 'that' awareness. Even if they are really the 'same' awareness in some sense, there is still this boundary. There is no such restriction on objects in space. An object in 'this' location can always be moved to 'that' location.


furthermore, from a vipassana perspective, the quality of unboundedness is part of the content of the awareness, so from that angle, the usual thing about the three characteristics applies, while any importance of the quality of unboundedness does not. it's a point that's worth understanding well, particularly for the purpose of getting the higher paths.

an ability to exercise fine discernment is required in order to get enlightened without also committing to full-blown solipsism, which is useful as such committal can negate the more down-to-earth and practical benefits of the attainment and resultant condition.

as for my take on your original question: i don't think the awareness aspect of experience is the same thing as space, no, as the awareness aspect of experience is something limited to experience (which requires sentience, which requires the body and its mind), whereas space is not (and does not). while the perception of space requires one to be living and functioning, when one dies, the perception of space will cease.. yet (and this will be verifiable by anyone else still living), space will still be here.

tarin

RE: Is emptiness = space?
Answer
3/22/10 1:36 AM as a reply to tarin greco.
Alright, let's try this again.

From a vipassana or insight-practice oriented point of view: sensations aries and vanish rapidly. A steady stream of these is required to make up what would appear to be space, using sensate reality as it actually manifests as the first basis of reality, as it actually is, not meaning to imply anything related to AF.

Thus, as all phenomena are empty, meaning that all phenomena are not a separate, permanent Self or observer, all the sensations that imply things like volume, time, space, etc are also just as empty as the rest.

If we use the word emptiness to imply something grand and mythical, like Primordial Awareness, or the Infinite Potential that creates reality, or something like that, those can't be found as something separate from the sensations that comprise experience, by definition and also in practice, so that definition doesn't help with insight practice.

From a relative point of view: of course space exists, just as we do: that is obviously not what this question is about.

The trap that people get into in insight practice is that they solidify space or volume or fail to investigate space, and thus fail to get Fruitions or at least make it less likely. This is particularly true of those in Equanimity who have decided to rest there, as well as those who can get the first two formless realms and get fascinated by those being more than what they are, as well as anagamis who want to become the vast luminous super-space that is only touched by nice things: all are golden chains. This is the practical implication of saying that while space is empty (the fresh and transient self-aware sensations that imply space or volume are not a permanent self or subject), it is not true that some grand and mythical emptiness is space.

As one who has been in boundless space and consciousness and gotten insight practice strong enough to see that whole thing arise and vanish in its component parts and get Fruitions off of that, I can tell you: seeing the sensations that make up what appears to be solid space or volume is powerful and fun practice and is enlightening in various ways.

RE: Is emptiness = space?
Answer
3/22/10 6:37 AM as a reply to Daniel M. Ingram.
Thanks Tarin and Daniel,

1. I still have the impression that I didn't make myself clear. It is clear for me that the subjective, sensorial sensation of space is not permanent, or self, or ultimately satisfactory. I have seen this arise and pass away during my last meditation retreat (thanks again Tarin :-), during equanimity and the few days after stream-entry. I am still to see such a thing with "awareness itself," as I have never singled out "awareness" very clearly during meditation.

What I mean is that nowadays, I will have moments during which I have a feeling of "emptiness," a sensation will come up, say, in my torso, or head, and it will feel like it is void, but still happening somehow. I guessed this might be the emptiness everyone talks about.

Regardless whether that is so, emptiness has been described as the place where phenomena happen (e.g. by Duncan on openenlightenment.com: http://openenlightenment.org/?p=354). This is including our perception of (3d or boundless) space, our perception of time, full-bladder, and so on. So I am not asking: "Is our perception of space the same thing as the space-time physicists study," I'm asking whether there is evidence that "emptiness" is not the same thing as this very same space-time.

Physics describes "space-time" in the same way: it's where stuff happens (particles, fields, etc). Including the electrical impulses in our brain that correspond to our perception of space.

2. I understand that I am writing as if emptiness was somehow distinct from phenomena, when I will be able to see for myself, in a few years, that this isn't the case. Maybe that's where I'm making a confusion, either in explaining what I mean, or understanding what you mean.

3. But I still get the impression that I'm asking "Is emptiness = (physical) space?", and getting the answer "No, your perception of volume is not emptiness," or "your perception of volume is not physical space," or even "your personal consciousness is not physical space." I understand that both volume and personal consciousness arise in emptiness, and are themselves emptiness.

4. With regards to the answer No, awareness is not space because space goes on when you die I would answer: If by "awareness" we mean "emptiness," rather than individual consciousness (and again my question is whether "emptiness = space," not "individual consciousness = space"), then it will go on happening in other people when you die, as any accomplished meditator should be able to confirm.

5. With regards to stuff move around in space but my experience can not manifest in your awareness, I would again say that, theoretically, we could very well postulate that it is the same awareness, just that what we call "my experience" is the body-mind phenomena we call bruno arising from emptiness, while your experience is your own body-mind phenomena arising from emptiness. It is as natural that your body-mind phenomena don't arise in mine (in terms of awareness), as it is that a piece of rock doesn't arise inside a tree (in terms of space-time).

6. (sorry!) Maybe I shouldn't have asked "is emptiness = space." I don't mean to force anyone into an ontological position. What I mean to ask is: is there any experiential incongruence or inconsistency that you can come up with in POSTULATING that "emptiness = physical space-time".

Because us mathematicians often take the position that if nothing can be found to distinct two things, then they must be one and the same :-)

RE: Is emptiness = space?
Answer
3/22/10 2:55 PM as a reply to Bruno Loff.
Hello,

Dan,

Can you talk more about this "...first basis of reality, as it actually is?" I would not want to put words in your mouth, but are you saying "the way in which subjectivity is experienced?" I ask for a specific reason. To point: if we replaced the last portion ("AF") of your sentence to say "...not meaning to imply anything related to [the actual world]," which seems to be what you meant, then I would have to ask: how is anything related to consciousness not related to the world that actually exists? And, the practical reason for pushing this query deeper being: when everything is taken in context of what actually is, then everything can be demystified and made sensible in the enlightenment traditions. For instance, given my response in the post above, 6th jhana would need to be renamed something like "boundless presence" rather than "boundless consciousness," because that is far more accurate. That's just one example...what do you think about all that?

Bruno,

Perhaps this will help...Physics by rough definition (dictionary.com): "the science that deals with matter, energy, motion, and force." In other words, the context of the field of physics has to do with the objectively verifiable, empirically measurable universe. Enlightenment traditions that would speak about "emptiness" is given in the context of subjectivity; a hallucinated world personal only to the brain that it is being manifested through and imagination it is being seen within. So with that in mind: subjective, personal space and objective, universal space are two different things.

The confusion could also be related to this: "I understand that both volume and personal consciousness arise in emptiness, and are themselves emptiness." Are you using "volume" to mean "objective space" in this case? If so, that is likely another hint at where the confusion lies: one cannot mince subjectivity and objectivity in such a way. Further, to derive any outcome based on a false premise could only lead to fallacy. With that in mind, it would be silly to "postulate" that " emptiness = physical space-time." But perhaps that is not what you are saying at all?

Regards,
Trent

RE: Is emptiness = space?
Answer
3/22/10 7:54 PM as a reply to Trent ..
You guys are hurting my brain. This is not complex. The question is not valid.

Bruno, you obviously have some idea of what you mean by these two terms as you are the one that is asking the question. So you are the one that needs to solve it. So set out some buckets for each of the sense doors for both terms (12 buckets altogether) make it simpler by throwing away all but the thought buckets and the physical sensations buckets (4 buckets instead of 12) and then combine the two thought buckets into one (use the same thought bucket for thoughts about both terms (so now 3 buckets).

Now reflect on how you 'know' there is this quality you call 'emptiness' and this quality you call 'space'. All that you know must be known through one or more sense doors - for simplicity we are just using physical sensations and thoughts. If it is a physical sensation then throw it in the appropriate bucket. If it is a thought then crack it open, throw away the insides (thoughts are real but their content is always false) and throw the shell in the thought door bucket.

Now you have two buckets of physical sensations and one bucket of empty thoughts to compare. Throw away the bucket of empty thoughts (if you did this experiment there will be lots of them in there) - now you have two buckets left. Are they equal? Maybe, maybe not - but remember they are just sensations - not some separate existing 'emptiness' or 'space'. This is why the question is invalid. A similar experiment can be carried out with Trent, his monitor, and his girlfriend.

RE: Is emptiness = space?
Answer
3/23/10 2:44 AM as a reply to Chuck Kasmire.
Non-Sequitir News Flash: "Chuck last seen behind Trent's empty house carrying out Trent's monitor and girlfriend..."

Anyway, I agree, pretty painful.

RE: Is emptiness = space?
Answer
3/23/10 10:01 AM as a reply to Daniel M. Ingram.
Daniel M. Ingram:
Non-Sequitir News Flash: "Chuck last seen behind Trent's empty house carrying out Trent's monitor and girlfriend...


That was not easy. Thanks to Trent for carrying the buckets.

-Chuck

RE: Is emptiness = space?
Answer
3/25/10 11:25 PM as a reply to Bruno Loff.
hi bruno,

it's not possible to answer your question conclusively because it revolves around the following assumptions: 1- that there is a place where phenomena happen (an ultimate, some sort of non-phenomena); and 2- that such place (such an ultimate/non-phenomena) can be alluded to with a word or concept. i will leave aside assumption 1 and will only address assumption 2.

now, every attempt at a language operation that involves such a notion (as an ultimate/non-phenomena) necessarily picks a pre-existing word or concept to signify it. this creates difficulties because ordinarily (that is, in other contexts), that word or concept (whichever one is chosen) already signifies something else (that is, some particular phenomenon), and that particular phenomenon (from which the word or concept has been hijacked to signify the ultimate/non-phenomena) which still exists, cannot now be discussed on its own terms, because in the context of this discussion that word or concept will automatically signify the place where phenomena happen (the ultimate).

a solution that is sometimes found for this difficulty is to discuss the particular phenomenon (for which the word or concept has been appropriated to be a signifier of the ultimate) as an aspect of the ultimate, rather than as something distinct from, yet contained in, it; such signification seems to wrap up the problem nicely and highlights a subtle aspect of the relationship between the two, to boot. however, this solution, rather than narrowing down the ambiguity, actually opens it up even further: the word or concept (which ordinarily signifies a particular, yet in the context in question, also possibly signifies the ultimate) here ends up also possibly signifying the relation between the particular and the ultimate. so now there's two, rather than just one, ways to be confused about how the word is being used. this is what happens when we try to solve this problem (and is why we can't have nice things).

so, with that in mind, back to your thing about space being emptiness..


Bruno Loff:

3. But I still get the impression that I'm asking "Is emptiness = (physical) space?", and getting the answer "No, your perception of volume is not emptiness," or "your perception of volume is not physical space," or even "your personal consciousness is not physical space." I understand that both volume and personal consciousness arise in emptiness, and are themselves emptiness.

4. With regards to the answer No, awareness is not space because space goes on when you die I would answer: If by "awareness" we mean "emptiness," rather than individual consciousness (and again my question is whether "emptiness = space," not "individual consciousness = space"), then it will go on happening in other people when you die, as any accomplished meditator should be able to confirm.


yes.. unless everyone else dies too, in which case no awareness will go on whatsoever.

i have no problem equating 'emptiness' with space so long as it is already understood clearly that space is not aware, and that neither would 'emptiness' be were it not for the humans perceiving it.


Bruno Loff:

6. (sorry!) Maybe I shouldn't have asked "is emptiness = space." I don't mean to force anyone into an ontological position. What I mean to ask is: is there any experiential incongruence or inconsistency that you can come up with in POSTULATING that "emptiness = physical space-time".


yes; the incongruence is that emptiness'' is taken to exist and to be aware on its own right, which means that by equating such 'emptiness' with physical space-time, physical space-time is taken to be aware as well.. which it simply is not, despite any amount of wishing for it to be otherwise (though such wishing can, admittedly, make for clever religion).

tarin

ps chuck and dan - you guys find it difficult to think..?

RE: Is emptiness = space?
Answer
3/26/10 3:34 AM as a reply to tarin greco.
I think I understand what Bruno is saying and I'm wondering why its hard for everyone else to understand.

Trent said:

Perhaps this will help...Physics by rough definition (dictionary.com): "the science that deals with matter, energy, motion, and force." In other words, the context of the field of physics has to do with the objectively verifiable, empirically measurable universe. Enlightenment traditions that would speak about "emptiness" is given in the context of subjectivity; a hallucinated world personal only to the brain that it is being manifested through and imagination it is being seen within. So with that in mind: subjective, personal space and objective, universal space are two different things.



I think Bruno is trying to say what if they aren't two different things.What if somehow those objective scientific arguments are in reality measuring some aspect of consciousness itself? Is this what you mean Bruno?

If you need another example of what I mean, what about this:
What if the curvature in space time is really because of how the brain itself is shaped? Or maybe it reflects how the mind itself has no boundaries? Wouldn't that be a way science is implicitly measuring consciousness?

This also opens up a myriad of other topics over common themes or relationships between microscopic / macroscopic science and consciousness (like quantum physics, or relativity theory). This would make an amazing discussion topic.

Thoughts? Ideas?

P.S. Did you know that the amount of stars in the galaxy is the same amount of neurons in your brain? Crazy-ness!!!

RE: Is emptiness = space?
Answer
3/26/10 10:31 AM as a reply to tarin greco.
the prisoner greco:
ps chuck and dan - you guys find it difficult to think..?

Hi Tarin,
No, I don't seem to have difficulty thinking. I do find it difficult to believe my assumptions though.

For example, your statements to Bruno in your above post:

yes.. unless everyone else dies too, in which case no awareness will go on whatsoever.

This may be clear to you but for me I could only make such a statement as an assumption as my own experience is unable to prove this one way or another.

i have no problem equating 'emptiness' with space so long as it is already understood clearly that space is not aware

same here.

and that neither would 'emptiness' be were it not for the humans perceiving it.

same here.

yes; the incongruence is that emptiness'' is taken to exist and to be aware on its own right, which means that by equating such 'emptiness' with physical space-time, physical space-time is taken to be aware as well.. which it simply is not - despite any amount of wishing for it to be otherwise

and same here.

If you are not making assumptions then I humbly bow before you sir!

-Chuck

RE: Is emptiness = space?
Answer
3/26/10 12:37 PM as a reply to Chuck Kasmire.
hi chuck,

Chuck Kasmire:
the prisoner greco:
ps chuck and dan - you guys find it difficult to think..?

Hi Tarin,
No, I don't seem to have difficulty thinking. I do find it difficult to believe my assumptions though.


that's good to hear. i asked because both you and dan mentioned your heads hurting, so i wondered why.

before i set about answering your questions regarding assumptions, let me ask you this one, as it may save us some time: are you willing to operate on the assumption that a tree is able to fall in a forest, independent of a human's presence, and in doing so, produce effects which would be audible to a human were one to be present?

peaceably (neither humbly or pridefully) awaiting your reply,
tarin