Contributed by RVK:
Some words have simple meaning at a first glance. But have a much deeper meaning when studied carefully. The word ‘silence’ is one of them.
The dictionary meaning for silence is the absence of sound. This implies that human hearing is necessary for silence. Secondly, it also implies that silence relates only to sound. Both are potentially insufficient.
Sound occurs due to disturbance. Such disturbance can occur in any type of wave or motion. In case of sound, the waves are longitudinal (or compressional) and need a medium for propagation. In case of light the waves are transverse (amplitude is perpendicular to wave motion) and do not require a medium.
In addition to these two types of waves, practically any motion can cause a disturbance. For instance, motion of atoms and molecules also cause disturbance. These motions get still more complicated due to the fact that they are interconnected by bonds.
In crystals, these oscillatory motions of atomic lattice are called acoustic modes. These modes are not audible to human hearing but still are compressional or shear waves. In ordinary materials (such as metals) the grain boundaries inhibit these oscillations and can be considered as noise which is also random disturbance.
Even this is not audible to human ear. These motions will stop only at absolute zero and their amplitude keeps increasing with increase of temperature.
At sub microscopic state, the perpetual electron motion (assuming a classical model) also causes disturbance. In other words, there is always a disturbance and absolute silence is very difficult to achieve!
The intensity (of sound or light) is measured in watts/meter2. This means, that for a given area, the intensity is directly proportional to the power of the source. In the motions mentioned above, the power is so small that the intensity is not perceptible to human ear but yet it exists and as intensity reduces, the sound (disturbance) only approaches zero but never becomes zero!
This is similar to absolute zero. At least according to theory, one can only approach absolute zero but never reach it. In addition, each material object has a number of so called “natural frequencies or resonance frequencies”.
For example, the beautiful colors of flowers cannot be seen in darkness. When light falls on these flowers, the petals have pigments in them which will absorb only those frequencies which coincide with their resonance frequencies. The rest of the light is scattered. The absorbed frequencies excite the electrons to higher levels and when they fall back to ground state, will emit light (photons) of that particular wavelength (color) and that is how we perceive the color of the flowers.
Similarly, under certain circumstances, light falling on metals can produce photo electrons (Photo electric effect) which can produce current in the metal. All these phenomena in the universe amount to motion and disturb the so called silence.
Absolute silence is what can be considered the limit. As long as material exists, motion exists and sound exists. It is also a wonder what the relationship is between absolute silence and matter - how does one pop out of the other?
On this note, it worth considering our mind as well - one could conceive thoughts as constructive or destructive agitation. Daily occurrences produce more and more disturbance to the mind and more and more inaudible noise is generated in mind. These results in demonstrable physiological changes on the brain. Quietening the mind is intended to reduce these disturbances and calm down the mind.
This is an effort to move the mind towards silence. Once again, absolute silence may not be achievable. But perhaps one can move closer and closer to absolute silence and perhaps move closer and closer to understanding and perceiving what one might consider the substratum on which motion occurs.
Silence, it appears might be a worthy pursuit.
The dictionary meaning for silence is the absence of sound. This implies that human hearing is necessary for silence. Secondly, it also implies that silence relates only to sound. Both are potentially insufficient.
Sound occurs due to disturbance. Such disturbance can occur in any type of wave or motion. In case of sound, the waves are longitudinal (or compressional) and need a medium for propagation. In case of light the waves are transverse (amplitude is perpendicular to wave motion) and do not require a medium.
In addition to these two types of waves, practically any motion can cause a disturbance. For instance, motion of atoms and molecules also cause disturbance. These motions get still more complicated due to the fact that they are interconnected by bonds.
In crystals, these oscillatory motions of atomic lattice are called acoustic modes. These modes are not audible to human hearing but still are compressional or shear waves. In ordinary materials (such as metals) the grain boundaries inhibit these oscillations and can be considered as noise which is also random disturbance.
Even this is not audible to human ear. These motions will stop only at absolute zero and their amplitude keeps increasing with increase of temperature.
At sub microscopic state, the perpetual electron motion (assuming a classical model) also causes disturbance. In other words, there is always a disturbance and absolute silence is very difficult to achieve!
The intensity (of sound or light) is measured in watts/meter2. This means, that for a given area, the intensity is directly proportional to the power of the source. In the motions mentioned above, the power is so small that the intensity is not perceptible to human ear but yet it exists and as intensity reduces, the sound (disturbance) only approaches zero but never becomes zero!
This is similar to absolute zero. At least according to theory, one can only approach absolute zero but never reach it. In addition, each material object has a number of so called “natural frequencies or resonance frequencies”.
Similarly, under certain circumstances, light falling on metals can produce photo electrons (Photo electric effect) which can produce current in the metal. All these phenomena in the universe amount to motion and disturb the so called silence.
Absolute silence is what can be considered the limit. As long as material exists, motion exists and sound exists. It is also a wonder what the relationship is between absolute silence and matter - how does one pop out of the other?
On this note, it worth considering our mind as well - one could conceive thoughts as constructive or destructive agitation. Daily occurrences produce more and more disturbance to the mind and more and more inaudible noise is generated in mind. These results in demonstrable physiological changes on the brain. Quietening the mind is intended to reduce these disturbances and calm down the mind.
This is an effort to move the mind towards silence. Once again, absolute silence may not be achievable. But perhaps one can move closer and closer to absolute silence and perhaps move closer and closer to understanding and perceiving what one might consider the substratum on which motion occurs.
Silence, it appears might be a worthy pursuit.
16 comments:
It seems, given your thesis above, that any form of disturbance is sound, including thoughts.
Being calm and without thoughts is not equal to being without life.
As one heads towards silence (asymptotically, perhaps), one potentially can 'see' more and more. Is this not termed 'darshan' in Sanksrit?
Very interesting.
I think the more silent you are the brain works more effectively and your thoughts get connected or synchronized well . Any disturbance in mind which is may be equivalent to a small sound but will make you restless and you may feel that there is a tornado in your brain.
Sound waves are acoustic in nature in the sense that they need a medium for propagation. Sound waves cannot be Polarized. On the other hand Light waves are Electromagnetic in nature, does not require medium for propagation. In contrast to Sound waves, interaction of Electrmagnetic radiation with human body is hazardous with probably the exception of Radio waves. Resonance is a popular word in several areas of Physics. Atoms can be excited to higher energy states either by photons, electrons or by collisions. From the excited state if the atom comes back to ground state it is called resonance frequency.
You have made an interesting analysis of Silence. Minimizing sound vibrations is more relevant. The nature of our interaction can be unaffected by Noise or Sound in the outside materialistic world. Let's note that Human body full of activity due to the function of Vital organs when alive comes to standstill when life goes out of body. But it is interesting to note that human body cremated after death is reduced to ash, but the the sub atomic world activities like electron motion, various typed of chemical bonds etc continue!
Both sound and heat have movement as their source. So, the absolute zero, the state at which all movement has to come to a standstill, can also represent absolute silence.
Next take the concept of time; often it is suggested that time is fundamentally connected to movement (such as the hand of a clock, or the movement of cesium atom etc).
The only flaw in this conception sound, temperature and time is that, sound still needs a medium to manifest itself, just the movement is not enough.
What is stated on the subject of the colour of flower, is true only if the flower is fluorescent. However, even in this case, the absorbed frequency need not be the same the emitted frequency. The emitted frequency is likely to be lower than the absorbed frequency (that is energy emitted is lower).
Any radiation of energy comes from an electron jump from a higher level to lower level. So the question then is how did the electron go to the upper level first ? Whether it is jumping to ground immediately or later( Fluorescence), it can only follow an absorption of energy first.
The idea of scattering is used as a model for the sake of simplicity.
What is stated on the subject of the colour of flower - is this not true only if the flower is fluorescent? However, even in this case, the absorbed frequency need not be the same the emitted frequency. The emitted frequency is likely to be lower than the absorbed frequency (that is energy emitted is lower).
There are three kinds of emissions. Simple emission, fluorescence and Phosphorescence. All of them have the same ingredients. The light must be absorbed first by what is called resonance absorption.
All dielectric materials have certain natural frequencies ( This is because of the interconnected bond structure of the material - for instance, in metals, this is not the case as they are all close packed substances ). Energy is transferred from an external frequency ( in this case - a particular frequency from the Sun's radiation) which coinsides with the resonance frequency of the material( in this case the pigment ). That is the only way energy is absorbed by the material. The excited electron Can not stay in that state because the lifetimes of these states are very short (10 negative eight seconds).
When they fall back to ground state they give out the same frequency. In certain cases it will be at a different frequency and in others, slightly delayed in time.
Scattering is a totally different phenomenon. Scattering occurs at all frequencies. There is never a selective scattering.
I think the essay needs to be taken as being assertive on science (albeit speculative on the definition of sound and its opposite, silence). And it is to be taken as wonderous in the second part.
Thus in the second part, I would not presume that RVK is positing 'nothingness' as a philosophy. Rather, he is probably just making a statement that, "boy there is nothing there, and poof then there are all these quantum entities buzzing around."
But by tradition and philosophy, were he to posit something, or accept what his culture posits, it would be, 'it is not nothing, but rather the ground of being, from which all this emanates. (and yes the culture also posits that this ground of being is consciousness, joyousness and the reality - Sat Chit Ananda in Sanskrit)'
But in the essay, he refrained from making that point. Although there is a hint of it on the sentence on 'Substratum'.
My own two cents on this, as far as my logic and intuition will allow me (stated in propositions):
1. It is irrelevant that my consciousness of my self is an illusion; to the degree I am conscious, I am real
2. It is quite incredible that we are 'suspended' in this universe without any fixed coordinates, rather only relative positioning and relationships (earth to sun etc)
3. Opposites are an inviolate law of existence. There is no light without dark.
If I were to draw an implication from the above, it would be: Because there is silence (nothing), something came out of it, which is (kind of) everywhere and it most certainly involves me (at this point in time).
Not that the above statement is profound or anything, rather a fair attempt on my part to express my thoughts on my existential condition, and a backdrop commentary on my dad's essay on Silence.
I think ‘wondrous’ is precisely the word for ‘the second part’. Let me bring in Kant to explain.
Kant was only a philosopher in later life. Most of his career was spent as a mathematician and physicist (which he combined to be one of the developers of the dynamics of nebular formation). It was the shock of Hume’s radical skepticism that caused him to write all the philosophy by which he is now known. He devoted his later life to it because he correctly saw that Hume’s work was a direct threat to science.
In brief, Hume, as an empiricist, claimed that we can only know things through our senses (as opposed to armchair rationalism). Further, in his famous explication of the ‘problem with induction’: he stated that all that can be said about natural phenomenon is that X has always been the case. That is, in no way can evidence that physical law X (phenomenon A is followed by phenomenon B) assure the rational person that it is a causal relationship; that it will therefore continue to be the case tomorrow (i.e., the black swan metaphor).
He asserted that in fact there is no rational defense of any theory of causation. All we can empirically state is that there seems to have been up till now a coincidence of the two events. Our beliefs on these matters are simply the results of custom or habit not reason.
Well, to a scientist, this is was catastrophic! What possible confidence could one have in science if all it was doing was nothing more than that which it hoped to displace (myth and superstition)? Is science simply old wine in new bottles? Was it too mere custom and habit?
So Kant’s first priority was to find an answer to Hume, without which neither science nor philosophy could claim any general knowledge of reality. In forging an answer, Kant changed philosophy forever by arguing that the human mind does not passively receive sense experience but actively constructs it. The mind was not soft wax into which, like a locksmith does with a key, you impress the outside world. Rather it is actively reaching out to reality and shaping it into categorical organizations which will best enable our survival.
He was no naturalist, but later evolutionary psychologists would say our minds are the product of our evolution, most of which was spent hunting and gathering on the African savannah. Our brains weren’t honed to grasp reality at the macro level (cosmology) or micro level (particle physic) but rather to make quick, emotive (as in, motility/movement) reactions in a difficult and dangerous ‘mezzanine-level’ of reality. And this does not require being able to experience things ‘in themselves’.
If our cognition passively receives information from the world, then Hume would be right that nothing can be known about the world independent of experience, hence universally or necessarily. But if our cognition actively organizes its sensations into what we call the objective world – if our experience of the world is partly the product of our mind – then we could have universal and necessary knowledge, including knowledge of what we have not experienced yet, for we would know that all experienced objectivity must conform to the mind’s categories of organization.
Substance, causality, space and time are features of our cognition: the way our mind knows. We know all future experience must fit them. Thus we have at least some necessarily true knowledge of all experience, and Hume has been outflanked.
But, Kant’s answer to Hume comes at a price. How can a deterministic science be compatible with free will, ethics, and religion? We can only experience and know appearances – how the world appears to our sensation and cognition – not reality independent of our experience, or “things in themselves.” Of the latter, we can know nothing. That means as well that we cannot know, nor can science ever investigate, things that do not appear in experience, such as whether my mind or soul exists independent of nature (and hence is immortal), whether it has free will, or whether God exists.
However, this is where he brings in Reason – the capitalization of it here is to denote a different meaning for reason than is customary, e.g., logical analysis. Reason, in Kant’s definition, was ‘tragically flawed’. Reason, for Kant, means our desire to ‘read God’s mind’, as Hawking might put it, that is, we want to know the big questions: How did something come out of nothing, if that in fact is the case? Why are we here? Is there, and if so, what is, the meaning and purpose of existence? Before reductionist physics, there was mysticism.
Reason, in this case isn’t about the science of how bodies move through the heavens; it’s the build-in need to know the alpha and omega of it all. Reason inevitably and always tries to know such things, whether we call it ‘ground of being’ or ‘unified field theory’. But because we can never know things ‘in themselves’ it is in principle impossible. This is the tragedy of Reason.
But Kant turned this debility to his advantage. For if science can never prove the soul, free will, or God, it can also never prove them false. Such issues are forever beyond the reach of inquiry: thus we are free to believe in them without fear of contradiction. Indeed, Kant held, for practical reasons, to live a moral life, we must believe them. Practical ethical necessity is then free to posit free will, the soul, and God (btw, Kant also called God “The Ground of Being”) without violating rational inquiry.
Remarkably, acceptance of the tragic nature of wondering about such ‘deep down things’ is what unites Hume and Kant. Hume never fell into the solipsism (nothing outside the mind) of his fellow empiricist George Berkeley (the first idealist really) in that he knew there was an actual world outside his mind. His argument wasn’t against realism so much as rationalism, the belief that we can, through mere thinking, know reality.
His way of expressing the tragedy of the human condition was to insist that though we can’t know about things ‘in themselves’ (as Kant would put it later), still, he famously said, “nature overcomes principle”. That is, I may not, in principle, know for sure that if I drop this bowling ball hovering above my foot that it will once again smash down on it as it did the last ten times I dropped it Nonetheless, I’m just not gonna do it again.
Again, he wasn’t saying that my decision not to hope for a ‘black swan’ to appear and keep the ball suspended in air after letting it go is in any practical way unreasonable, but rather, that living your life ‘against nature’ because of some radical new set of ‘rational’ principles (logic, math, reason, science – all of which were in fact later found to be without strong foundations) is naïve – as the 20th century showed quite graphically.
This combination of Hume’s ‘nature overcomes principle’ and the futility in Kant’s notion of ‘tragic Reason’ is what prepared the way for America ’s contribution to Western philosophy – Pragmatism. Hey, if nature’s gonna overcome principle, let’s go with nature – you know, just tell me what works!
It’s not that Pragmatism suggests you put aside Reason (again, as Kant used the term), but just keep it where it belongs: in church (temple, synagogue, mosque, ashram, etc.) and in the sublime arts. All of which are more than just healthy – they’re, in one form or another, as unavoidable as breathing. Let’s just take to heart the tragic nature of their pursuit along with their spiritual uplift. And for God’s sake, let’s not try to build society on it! That is, let’s keep both Sharia (Phase I metaphysics) and Marxism (Phase II metaphysics) in the dustbin of history.
The philosopher Lawrence Cahoone summarized Western philosophy and culture by noting how it has evolved its understanding of the nature and cause of design or order in the universe. Phase I: design/order is the product of the mind of God (paganism, mysticism or monotheism). Phase II: design/order is the product of the mind of man (French Enlightenment to Marxism). Phase III: design/order is the product of nature (Darwin, Smith, classical liberalism, English Enlightenment).
Just as it took centuries to not see the design/order of every natural event to be the product of God’s mind (and it still holds-on in movements like intelligent design), so too, it will take centuries to fully grasp the implications of ‘spontaneous order’ (classic liberalism, complexity, etc.) as we see today with the current retreat back into human-driven design/order (e.g. the return of socialist statism so soon after the collapse of communism).
It seems that, just as we can’t fully grasp the futility of such ‘immantentizing of the eschaton’ (bringing God’s paradise to earth through ‘rational’ utopianism), so too we can’t seem to fully grasp the futility of experiencing the ‘ground of being’. Still!
To which, Kant would add, “And we never will. You see, we can’t help but wonder. No matter how schooled in science we become.”
After all, isn’t the fact that our reach exceeds our grasp what defines us as a species?
But as for me, I’ll trade in Brahman for Shiva. Give me the noisy dance, keep your silent ground of being.
Metaphorically speaking….
--- Nimrod Nemesis
In the case of object such as a flower or my wooden chair, is not the colour that we get to perceive is the spectrum that is not absorbed? (which is reflected). In this above case, does it follow the phenomenon of energy absorption, excited electron releasing photon on falling back to ground?
There is a fundamental difference between a chair(wood - insulator), the flower(dielectric) and a metal. The wood and metal are not dielectrics. They either simply reflect or absorb the incident energy (all frequencies) and get converted into heat(very small) or simply reflected (except in the case of very thin metals which is an entirely different phenomenon).
There is a difference between dielectrics and insulators such as wood. Dielectrics are materials ( usually with covalent and hydrogen bonds - water,mica sheet etc are examples of dielectrics- apart from dyes), where the electronic orbits will be deformed in complex ways when exernal frequencies are applied to them.
When the incident frequency is an alternating frequency such as light, coincides with the resonence frequency of the material, the dielectric constant becomes a complex quantity and only the imaginary part will be absorbed by the material. It is this that absorbes the particular light frequency by resonence absorption and sends the electrons to a higher orbit and when they fall back,emit the same frequency ( or a different frquency in the case of fluoroscence or with a time lag in the case of phosphorescence).
The theory of dielectrics is quite complex as there is more than one kind of polarization (which leads to the deformation) which changes the dielectric constant which in turn is related to the refractive index of the material. The complete theory can be read in: Elements of materials science by Van Vlack.
Your guest column, “Silence,” in the Aging on the Vine blog, is an intellectually stimulating and thought-provoking exploration of a concept that resonates on both a physical and philosophical level.
The column transitions seamlessly from the dictionary definition of silence to its deeper implications, exploring physical phenomena like sound, light, and atomic motion. This scientific grounding enriches the discussion and challenges readers to reconsider the concept of silence beyond everyday assumptions.
Silence, like the calm surface of a lake, may seem still to the eye, yet beneath it, unseen currents ripple and flow, echoing the constant disturbances in matter and energy. Comparing silence to absolute zero, an ideal state that can only be approached but never reached, offers a profound metaphor for human experience and our perpetual search for stillness.
Kahlil Gibran wrote of silence as the soul’s profoundest expression, more eloquent than words could ever be. Similarly, Erling Kagge, in Silence: In the Age of Noise, describes silence as not just an external absence of sound, but an inner sanctuary, offering space for thought, clarity, and connection with the self. Simon & Garfunkel’s classic, “The Sound of Silence,” poetically captures the paradox of silence being filled with meaning, reminding us that silence often speaks louder than words.
Examples such as the colors of flowers and the photoelectric effect provide vivid illustrations of how disturbance exists even in seemingly quiet states.
These phenomena are like whispers in a silent room—imperceptible yet undeniably present. The discussion about mental disturbances and the pursuit of quietude ties the abstract concept of silence to practical and spiritual dimensions. Quieting the mind could be likened to calming a restless monkey, a process requiring patience and intention to move closer to inner silence.
Your final reflection on silence as a “worthy pursuit” encourages readers to contemplate their own relationship with noise and stillness. It suggests that silence, like a distant horizon, inspires us to journey ever closer while knowing it may never fully be reached. “Silence” is a compelling and multifaceted exploration of a universal yet elusive concept. By intertwining scientific rigor with philosophical inquiry and enriched with analogies, it invites readers to ponder the nature of silence in both the external world and the inner mind.
Your column excels in provoking curiosity and encouraging reflection, making it a thought-provoking contribution to your blog post.
5 Key Takeaways from Silence
1. Silence as a Universal Metaphor: Silence parallels absolute zero, a state that can be approached but never fully reached, symbolizing our perpetual quest for stillness and understanding.
2. Scientific and Philosophical Dimensions: The column bridges physics, such as sound and light waves, with the philosophical implications of inner and outer disturbances, highlighting silence as both a tangible and conceptual phenomenon.
3. Inner Silence and Mental Calm: Quieting the mind is likened to calming a restless monkey, emphasizing that reducing mental noise is a process that brings us closer to inner peace.
4. Cultural and Artistic Reflections: Gibran, Kagge, and Simon & Garfunkel show how silence has been celebrated across disciplines as an expression of profound meaning and clarity.
5. The Pursuit of Stillness: Absolute silence, though unattainable, is presented as a worthy pursuit that offers insights into the substratum of existence and the relationship between motion, disturbance, and silence itself.
Post a Comment