Scientists discover Nihilist particles

[Veritas]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

A meeting at Cern, the world's largest physics lab, has addressed results that suggest subatomic particles have gone faster than the speed of light.

Most stuff defines its limitations in terms of what it can see. And all we see is light, so everything assumes light is its limit point.

However, it seems that some other stuff just assumes there is a limit point which it can't see, and so reaches into its own potential to jump beyond this limit. This usually ends up with essential destruction (eternal alienation of the particle in question), but sometimes leads to true greatness - a breaking of the laws of the universe.

I suspect that this may have important philosophical rammifications.

(I even see a generalisation into a statistical explanation of the big bang, as well as multiverse theories, though this may not be possible)

[diesel]

nothing is real

[wood]

Only death is real.

[Bondage]

nothing doesn't exist, therefore it is not real.

[Veritas]

What we experience is clearly real.

Basically it comes down to: that which exists which is known vs. that which exists which is unknown.

There there are different levels of this.

The idea behind the Nihilist focus on "nothing", is that negation of anything always gives you the same thing - absence of anything. If you therefore master the notion of negation, you have a tool for understanding anything that exists.

The problem is that if negation points to nothing, and there is no nothing, knowing about nothing gets us no where. However, the optimal trade off will always exist somewhere between absolute intensity and absolute nothingness. This is the gold mean notion of ethics - that goodness is found either by complete elimination, or by allowance up to a certain value, depending on other conditions.

The relevant optimisation to be performed here is that between focus on what is known to exist, and focus on what is not known to exist. If you imagine the greatest thing you can, which is not everything, and then randomly deviate from this structure, you will -eventually- (given increasing jumps over time) reach something even greater.

[indjaseemun]

I wish I could understand this stuff but I never do.

I read the book Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot and enjoyed the ideas and information, so I acquired his other book "Mysticism and The New Physics". While I could gain some interesting information, a great part of the book remains a mystery to me because it is complicated physics, specially the beggining.

But I remember the book touches on the subjcet of faster than light particles (whatever the implications for this are), and said something about tachyons. In a revision on the end of the book made years after it was published, the author analyzes some concepts exposed and shows by scientific news which ones were being discredited and which were being endorsed. He said the possibility of tachyons was waning. I don't know if the particles in the link have something to do with tachyons.

[Cargést]

What we experience is clearly real.

Explain this, please.

[black_rose_immortal]

What we experience is clearly real.

Explain this, please.

Our experience has no reality outside of that which is experienced. Think of it this way. You experience life. Your experience is not limited to what you perceive with the senses. What you perceive with the senses is but one part of your overall experience. The conscious/sensory and the unconscious together constitute the entirety of your experience. Yet, your personal experience is but one component of the overall fabric of existence. The overall fabric of existence also includes my experience, and everybody else's. So what can be said to exist independent of everything? As in existing on its own and not depending on anything else? Our experiences would not have been if it wasn't for that which is experienced. It is that which is real and the rest is just a part/component of it.   

[Cargést]

See, I'd say that what we experience is not only clearly unreal, but is also clearly immaterial (that is, unimportant and "incorporeal").  The "reality" here is in experience itself - consciousness is "real", and is, really, the only thing that can be known to be "real" and that should be considered to be "real" - cogito ergo est.  This mundane, physical world is an illusion; concepts of self separate from all else are illusory; solipsism is misleading/incomplete.  All of this points towards some kind of monism, with the singular substance being of a pretty interesting nature.  I'm still figuring it out.

[K. Sear]

I suspect that this may have important philosophical rammifications.

(I even see a generalisation into a statistical explanation of the big bang, as well as multiverse theories, though this may not be possible)

It's too early to be finding great implications of anything in this report.  The findings are considered rather suspect by the majority of the worlds scientists.  A lot of careful work is still called for.