|
|
|
|
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/8/2008 5:11:48 PM |
Saint--- I have a question for you... What do you think Max Plank (The father of quantum physics) meant when he said this:
"Science means unresting endeavor and continually progressing developement toward an aim which the poetic intuition may apprehend, but which the intellect can never fully grasp."
I think he was trying to convey a feel-good bit of fluff that makes not one lick of sense.
He may be the father of quantum physics, but even the founding fathers of great scientific movements can be idiots in certain contexts. Newton's strange religious fundamentalism is one example.
Here's a question for you, though, Stonestongue:
Why was nothing Planck said in the previous quote ever validated with empirical evidence? Why was nothing said in the above quote ever vindicated through any of his observations or experiments? Why wasn't it ever published as the grand thesis of a theory about the epistemic limitations of human beings?
I can answer that for you: because the remark is not scientific, and is obviously the babbling of someone trying to put together a good sound byte rather than add to our knowledge of the world. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/8/2008 6:03:05 PM | Rainsands
''I'' am the 'laywoman' that I referred to in my post
As for the 1st misconception,,,I was aware that it's not all about me
BTW,,, In reference to Max Planks's quote,,,,
If the intellect 'could'
fully grasp,,,,, Science,,,,,
would we just stop looking???,,,,standstill,,,,inertia,,,,
There sure would be a lot of 'unemployed' researchers
And,,,,what is it that motivates a 'hypothesis',,,other than 'intuition'
There is HISTORICAL emperical evidence that validates Plank's quote
I really have trouble understanding you Saint,,,help me out but be 'gentle'
Sorry Rain,,,'they' started it,,,lol
| |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/8/2008 8:49:52 PM | Soz... Not sure if the points I'm about to raise has already been raised, but according to Einstein's General Relativity, matter and energy are basically one and the same. A bit like the space and time concepts, which under relativity, simply becomes the combined concept of "space-time", we have a similar analogy with "mass-energy".
Taking this one step further, Einstein concluded that indeed, mass-energy is actually a manifestation of "warps" and "deformations" in the space-time continuum itself. So really, on a fundamental level, everything is really just space-time. The pure space-time of empty space and the "jumbled up" warpiness of matter and energy.
Of course, Superstring Theory (or it is M-Theory now LOL!) takes all this ONE step even further, and postulates that all matter, energy and space-time itself consists off vibrating strings and "membranes" living in 11 dimensions of space-time.
Just what the heck those other 7 dimensions are doing is anyone else’s guess. Supposedly they're curled up sooo small as to be virtually undetectable by our current instrumentation.
The Large Hadron Collider in CERN, goes online later this year and could throw up some interesting results. So watch this space! | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/9/2008 7:02:42 AM | I think he was trying to convey a feel-good bit of fluff that makes not one lick of sense.
Nice try man.... The problem with your argument is that you don't know how to think outside the box... You have to keep the box tethered, but you can't bring it with you... Feel good fluff? He was explaining why we can feel certain things we can't count.
He may be the father of quantum physics, but even the founding fathers of great scientific movements can be idiots in certain contexts. Newton's strange religious fundamentalism is one example.
All great thinkers contemplate religion... If you think that makes them idiots, It could just mean you aren't one of them.
Why was nothing Planck said in the previous quote ever validated with empirical evidence?
Read above.
I can answer that for you: because the remark is not scientific, and is obviously the babbling of someone trying to put together a good sound byte rather than add to our knowledge of the world.
Of course the remark is scientific... It's kinda like the sign Einstein had on his wall... "Not all things that count can be counted and not all that's counted counts"
Do you think Einstein is an idiot because he knew intuition and spirituality counts?
Empirical value is something mankind came up with and doesn't reflect the nature of the world in it's full context. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/9/2008 8:44:09 AM |
He may be the father of quantum physics, but even the founding fathers of great scientific movements can be idiots in certain contexts. Newton's strange religious fundamentalism is one example.
But yet, despite his strange fundamentalism, he still managed. Funny how that works.
Empirical value is something mankind came up with and doesn't reflect the nature of the world in it's full context.
yup, what he said.
Cheers, Raven | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/9/2008 9:49:58 AM |
Nice try man.... The problem with your argument is that you don't know how to think outside the box
Ad hominem. Doesn't address the conclusion, just the "value" of the person making it.
Feel good fluff? He was explaining why we can feel certain things we can't count
Non sequitur. That's not evident from the statement. It looks an awful lot more like a fluffy way of saying "science is a method of seeking knowledge". If you are seeking it, you obviously do not have it yet. The quest is eternal, since it is not possible to "grasp" all. There's nothing there to indicate anything "unknowable" was being addressed.
All great thinkers contemplate religion
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, argumentum ad verecundiam, argumentum ad numerum, argumentum ad antiquitatum, non sequitur, dicto simpliciter, argumentum ad hominem by proxy...and those are just the fallacies which pop instantly to mind. The statement is unsupported, and insults anyone who disagrees with your argument. It also has absolutely no relevance.
Of course the remark is scientific
No, it's not. It's simply a statement about the goals of science. There's nothing scientific about the statement itself.
Do you think Einstein is an idiot because he knew intuition and spirituality counts?
Argumentum ad verecundiam. Einstein's thoughts on spirituality are of no value or relevance to a discussion of science. There is also a mistaken equating of spirituality with intuition and science.
Science is not spiritual and cannot address the spiritual. You may attach spiritual meaning to it if you wish, but that has no influence on the scientific method. Nor is any spirituality a requirement at any stage of the process.
Intuition is not spiritual. You may attach spiritual meaning to your intuition, but it's fallacious to equate the two. There is no rational reason to conclude that intuition is anything more than a subconscious awareness of patterns. Not being able to consciously recognize those patterns does not mean they are absent, and it does not mean your hunch is god-given. In fact, such a conclusion is illogical in light of a few facts: we have many senses and we not use them equally nor apply them consistantly. When we look at something, we give the point of focus most of our attention. We still have peripheral vision, but we become less conscious of it because we are focussed on something particular. Likewise, our hearing and heat sense work fine, but while we focus on one thing, we fail to hear or see the truck about to run us down, or feel the stovetop we've set our hand on. The senses are reporting the information, the mind recognizes the information - but it is tuned out for one reason or another. That "intuition" that something's "wrong" is just mental processes which you are not fully aware of. This applies equally to "pure" information. When something clicks or seems odd, whether reading a novel or reviewing a stack of papers on synthesis of gephyrotoxins, it's just your mind detecting a pattern, probably a familiar one.
Empirical value is something mankind came up with and doesn't reflect the nature of the world in it's full context.
It reflects everything which is observable and measurable. If you can't do either, good luck showing something even exists. Supposition and faith are not proof. As it stands, there is no reason to believe your statement to be true, and it is an "extraordinary claim". Because we do not know everything about the world does not mean that there is anything which cannot be known.
Put simply...
Can spirituality lead one to science? Sure, but it tends to do the opposite. Spirituality involves belief without evidenciary support. Science leads to evidenciary support regardless of beliefs. When faced with a choice between unsupported belief and evidence, people tend to choose based upon which is more important to them. The deeply spiritual will ignore the evidence, the strongly scientific will choose the evidence. There are a great many spiritual people who use the scientific method. The degree to which the separate them varies, but when they mix, logical fallacy is almost inevitable and glaringly obvious [read some Dwayne T Gish for a good example of this].
Can science lead to spirituality? Yes and no. Science cannot, but your own beliefs may be compatible enough with the evidence for you to draw unscientific spiritual conclusions based upon scientific evidence. For young Earth creationists, this is evident and wrought with fallacy. For something relevant to this thread, there's no inherint incompatibility. Believing, for instance, that "strings" are the meandering thoughts of "God" probably wouldn't have much effect on one's studies of physics, even though it's a clearly spiritual belief.
Is intuition spiritual? By definition, no. By your personal experience? That's a subjective answer. If you find it spiritual, it's spiritual. If you find freight trains spiritual, then for you they're spiritual. The train, however, is still a scientifically engineered mass of steel with no agreed upon spiritual component.
Is matter a form of energy? No. Matter and energy are effectively one and the same. They are built of the very same components, assembled in a different manner. "Matter" and "energy" are how we view the outcome. At their most basic foundation, they are both and neither. At their most basic, are they aspects of God? Perhaps, but there can be no single supportable answer to that without first defining exactly what "God" is. However you answer this is subjective and personal, and has no actual connection with science.
Perhaps most of this thread should be cut out and moved to a new thread :P | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/9/2008 11:23:19 AM |
"Science means unresting endeavor and continually progressing developement toward an aim which the poetic intuition may apprehend, but which the intellect can never fully grasp."
In my opinion, we're just dancin with semantics here.... this is a quote that is wide open to interpretation due to the very nature of its figurative wording. Some will look at it and read ~
Science is an ongoing work of progressive steps toward an aim which the spiritual may fathom, but which the intellect can never fully realize.
while others will see ~
Science is an ongoing work of progressive steps whereby we may think we understand why something might be so but upon which we can never write the final definative word.
Again in my opinion, this statement is no more a vote for the spiritual than it is for the scientific ~ it's just too ambiguous. Substituting synonyms for the key words "poetic, intuition, apprehend" and "grasp", one can virtually read just about anything into it. As well, Planck hedged his bets with the judicious use of the word "may". We can debate this one till hell freezes over but really, what is the point ? And... it's a little late for us to ask him "Dude, just what exactly did you mean by that ?
Perhaps most of this thread should be cut out and moved to a new thread :P
hey FrogO ~ I second your motion.... | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/9/2008 3:24:04 PM | your answer whilst fundementally correct are bound by the regidity of their construct.
energy is not created just changed from one state to another, so therefore when nuclear fission/fusion takes place energy is converted from the disintegration of the matter. but all matter is simply atoms vibrating, higher vibrations more energy. atoms made of protons/neutrons/electrons, these made from quarks. quarks made posotive/negative varieties. but he raises a fundemental question, is matter not condesed energy. well in theory it is phesable. anything that gets enough energy becomes white, it gives off light. its energy level reaches such a substantal level that its matter is convereted to light, the purest form of energy. it is not science but it is a debate of meta physics and the way we see this world.
there are alot of schools of thought that view all matter as condensed energy and theortically it stands to reason. it also holds up when applied within the bounds of string theory and m theory.
the light and god is a very interesting idea and on i have had myself, more so light is a represention of the consiousness we call god or the iteration any human my have from the name.
this is a philosiphical debate, not a realigous debate as religon operates within the construct of its rhetoric. to believe in god does not mean you have to subscirbe to a particular religon, just accept the univeraliltes of this universe. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/9/2008 5:10:57 PM |
The problem with your argument is that you don't know how to think outside the box... You have to keep the box tethered, but you can't bring it with you... Feel good fluff? He was explaining why we can feel certain things we can't count.
I always laugh at people who use the phrase "think outside the box" because it's the most cliched and trite sentiment and saying possible. In essence, to use that phrase proves that you are incapable of doing what the phrase itself dictates.
Regardless, appeals to open-mindedness are worthless to scientific thinkers. We believe where the evidence leads us. Unfortunately the evidence doesn't alway support the alternative views you'd like me to be open to.
Also, I disagree that Planck was "explaining" anything in that quote. He offered no evidence in support of his claim, did not propose any method to test it, and so on. As I said before, this quote obviously has nothing to do with his scientific achievements, because it is not itself scientific. Even great scientists, for instances, have made errors in mathematical calculations, but only a fool would appeal to their authority to justify a mathematical error they have made.
All great thinkers contemplate religion... If you think that makes them idiots, It could just mean you aren't one of them.
I never said they were idiots because they contemplated religion. The "idiots" are those who think spirituality is somehow compatible with the scientific method.
With that said, it should be quite obvious that I do contemplate religion profusely--I just happen to reject it, along with a whole line of other great thinkers, from Hume to Bertrand Russell.
Of course the remark is scientific... It's kinda like the sign Einstein had on his wall... "Not all things that count can be counted and not all that's counted counts"
Do you think Einstein is an idiot because he knew intuition and spirituality counts?
Now I can finally understand why you think science and spirituality are compatible--you obviously have no clue what science really is if you think that quote on Einstein's wall is scientific. If Einstein had a picture of Renee Magritte's famous "Apple head man" on his wall, I'd bet you think that is scientific as well, portraying a legitimate biological classification of apple-human hybrids. Hell, anything hanging on his wall must be scientific, simply by virtue that it is a scientist's wall!
Obviously, your claims are downright wrong. Einstein's quote is not scientific, as he cannot demonstrate scientifically that there is an unknowable, spiritual realm. He may have BELIEVED this, but he could not DEMONSTRATE it, which is where the fundamental divide between science and spirituality comes in.
Empirical value is something mankind came up with and doesn't reflect the nature of the world in it's full context.
And how do you KNOW there is more to the universe? If you KNOW that there is a supernatural realm, then obviously it isn't really "supernatural" by the mere fact that you are capable of knowing about it, observing it, and so on. If you do NOT know, then what are you babbling about?
See Frogeyes post for a less snarky response. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/9/2008 6:09:37 PM | Ad hominem. Doesn't address the conclusion, just the "value" of the person making it.
True enough... I'll give you that.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, argumentum ad verecundiam, argumentum ad numerum, argumentum ad antiquitatum, non sequitur, dicto simpliciter, argumentum ad hominem by proxy...and those are just the fallacies which pop instantly to mind. The statement is unsupported, and insults anyone who disagrees with your argument. It also has absolutely no relevance.
Oh geez! Good job on the calls Froggo... I should have said "most" and "in my opinion"... Something very lacking in alot of the posts so far and not just mine may I add.
No, it's not. It's simply a statement about the goals of science. There's nothing scientific about the statement itself.
In my opinion, any remark which uses observation to form a conclusion is scientific... Empirical or otherwise... Did I perhaps hit the chip on your shoulder when I pointed out the fallacy of separating intuition from science?
Argumentum ad verecundiam. Einstein's thoughts on spirituality are of no value or relevance to a discussion of science. There is also a mistaken equating of spirituality with intuition and science.
You are reaching... If Einsteins beliefs include the notion of spiritual insight and scientific discovery going hand in hand, it is indeed relevant... There is no mistake in equating spirituality with intuition... As for science, without the quest, there would be no science.
It reflects everything which is observable and measurable.
Correct... That's why it doesn't reflect the full context.
Because we do not know everything about the world does not mean that there is anything which cannot be known.
Yeah..? Show me where I said otherwise.
I always laugh at people who use the phrase "think outside the box" because it's the most cliched and trite sentiment and saying possible. In essence, to use that phrase proves that you are incapable of doing what the phrase itself dictates.
Really? How so? Laugh it up... But by all means, back it up.
Regardless, appeals to open-mindedness are worthless to scientific thinkers. We believe where the evidence leads us. Unfortunately the evidence doesn't alway support the alternative views you'd like me to be open to.
Which evidence are you referring to? We can only see up to the big bang... At the moment, to try to look past that you need to let go of empirical value.
Also, I disagree that Planck was "explaining" anything in that quote. He offered no evidence in support of his claim, did not propose any method to test it, and so on. As I said before, this quote obviously has nothing to do with his scientific achievements, because it is not itself scientific.
Silliness... He quite simply stated the goals of the scientific quest... Why do you think Einstien (yes, there's that name again... And in a science forum! LOL) couldn't come up with the math for his Grand Unification Theory? Is that theory unscientific because it hasn't been proven empirically? It has been documented many, many times over through intuition... There is math in there somewhere.
And how do you KNOW there is more to the universe? If you KNOW that there is a supernatural realm, then obviously it isn't really "supernatural" by the mere fact that you are capable of knowing about it, observing it, and so on. If you do NOT know, then what are you babbling about?
More to the universe? You mean more than empirical value? Come on!
When did I say I believe in a supernatural realm? I believe there is a realm of potential, but wouldn't call it supernatural... If naturally there, it can't very well be supernatural... Before anything there was the potential for something.
But yes... We may have careened off topic somewhat.
Either way, matter and energy are just different aspects of the same thing.
Duality is so much fun to play with!
| |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/9/2008 6:24:30 PM | Anyway guys remember, we're still trying to work out the exact nature of "mass". What gives mass to sub-atomic particles? Hopefully the LHC at CERN can raise some of those answers by detecting the Higgs particle.
So this debate is on going (although to be frank... I'm not quite sure what you guys are debating about LOL!) | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/9/2008 8:16:48 PM |
matter and energy are just different aspects of the same thing.
Duality is so much fun to play with! Indeed.. only much more fun when you can see beyond it ;) | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/10/2008 2:40:21 AM | ive been to cern man, it is absolutely amazing. some of the detectors are 35-30 ft in diameter. the whole complex is amzing and there are some of the greatest minds there in the world.
anyway just to throw the antinutreno in as this seems to have evolved into a kent hovind ad homemiuno kind of debate, where the religous side runs out of ammo and takes everything as a personal attack.
the antinutreno is a particle produced in various circumstances, but from recorded observations has no mass can bee seen to have both a posotive and negative charge and can spin both clockwise and anticlockwise boarding on the speed of light.
mental | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/10/2008 9:07:55 AM |
anyway just to throw the antinutreno in as this seems to have evolved into a kent hovind ad homemiuno kind of debate, where the religous side runs out of ammo and takes everything as a personal attack.
Not sure who the religious are that you're referring to... This has turned into more of an intuition/empirical value debate... I think they're both very valuable as they relate to different aspects of the "Why".
the antinutreno is a particle produced in various circumstances, but from recorded observations has no mass can bee seen to have both a posotive and negative charge and can spin both clockwise and anticlockwise boarding on the speed of light.
Going to have to read up on this as it sounds very intriguing... But any particle is still a form and form includes both matter and energy. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/10/2008 12:41:29 PM | well i guess im not refering to a specific religon as the catholic church accepted the big bang theory and they where the last great bastion.
more in reference to Kent Hovind and other's who use the ad homien defence, well for everything. he even used it as a defence for his tax fraud.
indeed the intuition/empirical debate. i do belive in god, but i believe heavily in science. i think my ideas on god don't fit with what most people can comprehend, but are confirmed by the religous texts i have read and the science i have studied.
it is impossible to believe we can ever understand god. but steven hawkins wrote at the end of a brief history of time. "if we can truly understand the nature of the universe, we will truly understand the nature of god"
they are one in one the same. such as the ying and yang sign. science and religon or intuition/empirical are two halves of the same whole. both occupying a little of each other. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/10/2008 3:26:55 PM | | Let us consider. On the subject, matter, energy and spirit. As we know, all matter has substance. Broken down into sub-atomic particles it transforms into energy. What (prey tell) holds it together if not spirit? | |
|
| |
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/10/2008 3:51:33 PM |
In my opinion, any remark which uses observation to form a conclusion is scientific... Empirical or otherwise... Did I perhaps hit the chip on your shoulder when I pointed out the fallacy of separating intuition from science?
Then your opinion is wrong. Let's say I observe my dog sneezing. In order to "explain" this empirical observation I form the conclusion that mystical, unobservable leprechauns shaped like square circles tickled its nose hairs.
Obviously, this is not a "scientific" theory at all. And yet according to your standards, it would be as legitimate as anything else because it "uses observation to form a conclusion".
I will give you a brief summary of what distinguishes nonscience from science now, and perhaps this will remedy your claim that spiritual beliefs are compatible with science. It is only compatible with science if you have defined it as you do above, but your definition is obviously flawed.
Now, a claim is scientific if it can be tested against reality. Positing something like "unobservable, spiritual leprechauns" as an explanation is not scientific for the express reason that we cannot test the claim against reality. If someone posits dust particles stimulating a certain muscle that causes the forceful expelling of gas to explain a dog's sneeze, then we can test that explanation. We can observe dust particles going in, see the muscles contract and expand, and so on. The same cannot be done for an explanation involving spiritual entities. It is not enough to posit an explanation for observable phenomenon--the explanation itself must also be independently confirmable outside of this. Your idea of science only touches upon the "hypothesis" level of science, and does not venture further into the realm of observation, testing, and theory-forming, which can only be done by testing the hypothesis further by looking for more confirming evidence. But positing a supernatural entity totally limits any confirming evidence. And not only that, you would be unable to explain philosophically how an immaterial, spiritual entity affects physical reality. You're up a creek in more ways than one!
We can only see up to the big bang... At the moment, to try to look past that you need to let go of empirical value.
Letting go of empirical value does not allow you to "look past" the big bang. It isn't a method of "looking" or "explaining" at all, because we can't confirm it. A scientist looks at the scenario and says, "Well, I can't see any further." It takes a spiritualist to go blind and then claim, "Oh, I think I see something!"
Why do you think Einstien (yes, there's that name again... And in a science forum! LOL) couldn't come up with the math for his Grand Unification Theory? Is that theory unscientific because it hasn't been proven empirically?
Actually, the grand unification theory is not even a theory. No unifying theory has even been proposed yet! This is why scientists continue to this day to recognize that the incommensurability of quantum physics with relativity is a major problem. No one has proposed a theory to unify these two, yet people suspect that one day they may be. But right now there is no grand theory that does so, and to claim that there is and that it is also empirically unproven only goes to show that you have a very silly conception of science. Einstein couldn't come up with such a theory not because it is somehow "spiritual," but because he simply failed to hit on the right testable hypothesis. The whole quest may even be misguided. Who are we to say that the quantum and macroscopic world are not inherently incommensurable?
When did I say I believe in a supernatural realm? I believe there is a realm of potential, but wouldn't call it supernatural... If naturally there, it can't very well be supernatural... Before anything there was the potential for something.
Ah, so you believe in a realm of "potential". The problem, however, is that you treat this "potential" as actual. Consider the following scenario:
Say I offered to buy something very expensive you owned for one million dollars.
You accept, but want the cash up front.
Instead of offering you the cash, I plead that it is not in this realm, but in the "potential" realm of existence. I could potentially have one million dollars at some point.
Now, if you wanted cash up front, would you accept my "potential" one million dollars? Of course not. The reason is because saying that the million is just a "potential" is just another way of saying that, at present, it is NOT actual. In other words, it's just another way of talking about a sum that currently does not exist.
To believe that the "potential" exists is a category mistake akin to believing that "nonexistence" exists. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/10/2008 8:13:10 PM | .
I think for the most part matter can be said to be potential energy, while energy is actual work being done, (power kinetic energy), by the / of the matter.
What puzzles me is that everything we know is based on particle physics.
the question I find most intriguing is; what of the primordial stew?
Are we looking for increasingly smaller particles or could this go yet another direction?
What would be the nature of these particles?
. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/10/2008 10:55:36 PM | Then your opinion is wrong. Let's say I observe my dog sneezing. In order to "explain" this empirical observation I form the conclusion that mystical, unobservable leprechauns shaped like square circles tickled its nose hairs.
Not sure if you're deliberately being obtuse, but of course the conclusion would have to have bearing on the observation and not contradict what we already know to be false in this universe... Nice try tho.
If you use observations to form a conclusion, you are using reason and forming a hypothesis which can then be tested... That is science.
Letting go of empirical value does not allow you to "look past" the big bang. It isn't a method of "looking" or "explaining" at all, because we can't confirm it.
You're talking nonsense... You can't confirm anything that doesn't use empirical value because you are using empirical value to confirm it... The only way to speculate about what was before the big bang (at the moment) is to use intuition so empirical value alone has no value there... If empirical data can reflect shared intuitive insights we may be on to something, but as long as eyes are closed to new ways we will never discover anything new.
Actually, the grand unification theory is not even a theory. No unifying theory has even been proposed yet!
You are so wrong it isn't even funny! There are many unification theories proposed! Have you never been involved in a talk of the interconnectedness of all things? Have you never heard someones view on why they believe we are all one?
This is why scientists continue to this day to recognize that the incommensurability of quantum physics with relativity is a major problem.
It isn't a major problem... The math just hasn't been found yet... There are some things that we can't grasp using math alone but with shared spiritual insights we find sameness within difference... The only problem is recognizing that there is no problem.
No one has proposed a theory to unify these two, yet people suspect that one day they may be.
My dear fellow... There are many theories which unite everything... Not just science and spirituality.
But right now there is no grand theory that does so, and to claim that there is and that it is also empirically unproven only goes to show that you have a very silly conception of science.
Whatever you say... I believe there are many and that the fact that there are so many shows that there is empirical value in the many intuitive views... Closing your eyes to so many people of different walks of life sharing the same notion that we are all part of the same thing is quite silly in my eyes.
To believe that the "potential" exists is a category mistake akin to believing that "nonexistence" exists.
And you are calling my ideas silly? Pulease! Riddle me this, Saint... How can something exist without there being the potential for it first?
Your argument is getting pretty thin. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/11/2008 2:39:20 PM | i have to say there have been many many many unification theories present through out our recorded history. the one that has stuck is god. just because it has stuck doesnt mean it is right, just the logic used to disprove it is the same logic that can be used to prove it.
the best theory at the moment that is being worked on that is tangable and i use this word lightly is string theory and the greater over arching M theory, which in theory is the formula of everything
but as have said and believe. the nature of the universe can no more be described by numbers, than god can be by words. they are the two sides of the same coin. yet most camps will argue till blue the falseness of each. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/12/2008 8:36:35 AM |
If you use observations to form a conclusion, you are using reason and forming a hypothesis which can then be tested... That is science.
Now you've formulated it correctly. The problem is that the inclusion of "spiritual" insights violates the provision of testability. You would beproposing a hypothesis based on observations that CANNOT be tested, which makes it non-science.
What I suspect is that you are simply misusing the word "spiritual". What I mean by this word is an immaterial and hence unobservable and unknowable realm of existence. If it is unobservable and unknowable to us through our physical sensory apparatus, then obviously it cannot be a part of science. There is no method to test such claims.
If you define the human mind as something spiritual, then I must insist you are simply wrong to define it that way. We can know about the human mind. It produces observable, physical effects in the brain, and is ultimately reducible to brain states. If the "spiritual" things you are positing boil down to mind-stuff, then in reality you are not positing anything spiritual at all. It would be as if you were calling the mechanism of natural selection or gravity "spiritual". The problem is that you are misusing the word to apply to something that is actually a part of the natural world, and in no way "beyond" it in some unobservable realm.
The only way to speculate about what was before the big bang (at the moment) is to use intuition so empirical value alone has no value there... If empirical data can reflect shared intuitive insights we may be on to something
If empirical data can reflect intuitive insights then the insights are NOT spiritual, my friend. There is no reason to posit some spiritual realm if it has effects on physical reality and produces observable, empirical evidence which can support it, which is exactly my point. Either you believe spirituality is a part of science and hence there are non-testable aspects of science, or you are misusing the word "spirituality" to apply to physical concepts that have obvious physical implications. Either way, you're wrong.
There are many unification theories proposed! Have you never been involved in a talk of the interconnectedness of all things?
I am using the word "theory" in its scientific sense, indicating a testable, empirical framework that makes observational predictions. An example would be a mathematical structure that perhaps explains a new observation not entailed by relativity or quantum physics that in the process unites all the observations separately made by the two theories.
What you mean to say is that there are many unproven and untestable CONJECTURES for unification theories. But I assure you that ANY scientist involved in these fields will tell you that they are conjectures and that they have not been proven adequately with empirical predictions.
Riddle me this, Saint... How can something exist without there being the potential for it first?
You are misconstruing my argument, my friend. I never said that the logical possibility or potential for things to exist is not there. Anything that is not a logical contradiction has the potential to exist. However, the mistake that you have made is to assume that potential existence is the same as actual existence. The fact that there could potentially be a green horse in your closet does not mean that there is, in fact, a green horse in your closet. Notice that I am not denying that there is a potential. Rather, I'm denying the actuality. You seem to refuse to make such a distinction, though.
Here's what you need to do for the next post:
Define for me what you mean by "spirituality" or "insight". I'm thinking you are just applying these words erroneously to entirely natural empirical phenomenon.
Then read up on the difference between a scientific theory and the way the word "theory" is used in everyday conversation to understand that there are NOT many grand unification theories in science, but in fact none.
And finally, distinguish between potentially existing things and actually existing things. Otherwise I'll be inclined to offer you a potential million dollars and receive an actual service worth that much in actuality in return. Your refusal indicates that you do not accept your own argument. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/12/2008 12:43:23 PM | Now you've formulated it correctly. The problem is that the inclusion of "spiritual" insights violates the provision of testability. You would beproposing a hypothesis based on observations that CANNOT be tested, which makes it non-science.
Cannot be tested at the moment, you mean... Like I said before, without the ability to wonder, there would be no science... If there seems to be something more to the life lessons you're taught, you ask about the "why" of things... This sense of wonder is the seed of science... Making sense of wonder is spirituality working through science... Without the spiritual sense to care, there would be no science or religion.
What I mean by this word is an immaterial and hence unobservable and unknowable realm of existence. If it is unobservable and unknowable to us through our physical sensory apparatus, then obviously it cannot be a part of science. There is no method to test such claims.
So when you "feel" something just isn't right, or that you're being watched... What part of you are you feeling that with? The sixth sense is the sense which is beyond empirical measurements so far... The mind cannot be found within the body... using your mind to go beyond what you have been taught is indeed a spiritual thing... To care about anything is to be spiritual(imo).
If you define the human mind as something spiritual, then I must insist you are simply wrong to define it that way. We can know about the human mind. It produces observable, physical effects in the brain, and is ultimately reducible to brain states. If the "spiritual" things you are positing boil down to mind-stuff, then in reality you are not positing anything spiritual at all. It would be as if you were calling the mechanism of natural selection or gravity "spiritual". The problem is that you are misusing the word to apply to something that is actually a part of the natural world, and in no way "beyond" it in some unobservable realm.
Like I said, we can't even find the human mind within the brain... Picture a sphere in your mind... Can you measure the dimensions? What type of measuring tool would you use? Can you picture a sphere in your head that's bigger than your head? Since we can't fit a sphere bigger than your head inside of your head, you must not be able to imagine the sphere at all according to empirical values... The mind sends signals to your brain just like your fingers do... It's just that we cannot locate the actual mind/self within a host.
Spirituality is not about what is beyond the natural world, it is what makes us care about the natural world...
If empirical data can reflect intuitive insights then the insights are NOT spiritual, my friend.
I disagree... All insights are spiritual until they are tested with empirical value and empirical value is the result of spiritual insights.
There is no reason to posit some spiritual realm if it has effects on physical reality and produces observable, empirical evidence which can support it, which is exactly my point.
Again, belief in the supernatural is a by-product of some folks spirituality and doesn't equate to spirituality... I have met alot of spiritual Atheists(even if they didn't realise they were spiritual).
Either you believe spirituality is a part of science and hence there are non-testable aspects of science, or you are misusing the word "spirituality" to apply to physical concepts that have obvious physical implications. Either way, you're wrong.
I don't think so... Spirit is not the opposite of physical... It is what allows for the questioning feelings you get from being physical.
I am using the word "theory" in its scientific sense, indicating a testable, empirical framework that makes observational predictions.
I predict that there will be many people with many more feelings of being one with the universe... We have the potential for an infinate amount of humans right now if we take into consideration the ones who've passed on... Out of that infinate number a percentage of them will have a sense of being at one with all things... What is any percenatage of infinity amounted to? An infinate amount of people could potentially feel at one with all that is... And what would they "feel" this with?
Any mathematician worth their salt believes in infinity... Do you realize the complete implications of that? Neither do they! A number which can only be used with intuitive science.
However, the mistake that you have made is to assume that potential existence is the same as actual existence.
No, no I haven't... I am saying that actual existance requires the potential to exist... What was before the physical world? The potential for it.
Since I believe in an infinate amount of universes, yes, in a way I believe that the potential equals the actual, however I am keeping my argument to this universe so I am saying that the actual requires potential in order to actualize... Are you following?
The fact that there could potentially be a green horse in your closet does not mean that there is, in fact, a green horse in your closet.
And just how would there be potential for there to be a green horse in my closet? What is with the non sensical analogies? They don't work, ok? Geez!
If a seed falls off of a tree, it has the potential to root... It doesn't mean it will, but the tree would still have to drop it in order for the potential to be there... I am running out of ways to explain this to you... In order for your analogies to work, they have to make sense.
Define for me what you mean by "spirituality" or "insight". I'm thinking you are just applying these words erroneously to entirely natural empirical phenomenon.
Of course you do. That's because you still think spiritual implies the study of the non physical... You are mistaken.
Then read up on the difference between a scientific theory and the way the word "theory" is used in everyday conversation to understand that there are NOT many grand unification theories in science, but in fact none.
Consciousness equals one. One divided by all it's parts equals infinity.
In the world of absolutes, there is no two... Just one and many... There will never be something that is exactly the same as anything else, so the number two is a necessary illusion used for empirical value, therefor, empirical value depends on the illusion of separation.
And finally, distinguish between potentially existing things and actually existing things. Otherwise I'll be inclined to offer you a potential million dollars and receive an actual service worth that much in actuality in return. Your refusal indicates that you do not accept your own argument.
You're still on this? This argument just doesn't have any logic to it whatsoever... I would not accept the potential for a million dollars as equaling the actualization of a million dollars... You have the potential to fail in your endeavors... That is not to say you would fail, but hopefully you are understanding what I'm saying now.
You have the potential to, lol! | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/12/2008 3:32:22 PM | Sorry folks... I just wanted to add something to one of those paragraphs... My bad.
In the world of absolutes, there is no two... Just one and many... There will never be something that is exactly the same as anything else, so the number two is a necessary illusion used for empirical value, therefor, empirical value depends on the illusion of separation[edit]--the duality tool we have, which lets us make the distinction between matter and energy and everything else... We do this in order to learn about the world by trying to share and compare our perceptions of the world but of course, nobody can ever share -absolutely- your perception | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/13/2008 10:44:54 AM |
Cannot be tested at the moment, you mean... Like I said before, without the ability to wonder, there would be no science...
No, something spiritual cannot be tested at all, by definition. For instance, it is obvious that you think of the human mind as something spiritual in the sense that it seems to be immaterial and unmeasurable. What you don't seem to understand is that people study the mind not by talking of immeasurable nonsense, but by looking at physical observations, such as people's actions, creating electrical impulses in a brain and noting the physical effect it causes in the person, observing the sorts of impairments that arise after certain brain areas are damaged, and so on. Notice that the scientist does not attempt to measure or consider the "immaterial" aspect, because he can't. (And further, there is no reason to think the mind is somehow spiritual, but more on that later.)
So when you "feel" something just isn't right, or that you're being watched... What part of you are you feeling that with? The sixth sense is the sense which is beyond empirical measurements so far...
That "feeling" you get is an emotion, or a thought. Physical descriptions of minds are not incapable of explaining the phenomena you mention. The problem, of course, is that when you start claiming they are "spiritual" you render them untestable, and silence all inquiry. In reality, your proposals are not helping science, but hindering its progress.
The mind cannot be found within the body...
You have no reason to assert this, and in fact the evidence goes directly against this claim. If you damage a person's brain, they can lose parts of their personality, functions of the mind, and so on, and this is a HUGE indication that the mind IS equivalent with brain states, reducible to an emergent property of a physical brain.
Picture a sphere in your mind... Can you measure the dimensions? What type of measuring tool would you use? Can you picture a sphere in your head that's bigger than your head? Since we can't fit a sphere bigger than your head inside of your head, you must not be able to imagine the sphere at all according to empirical values...
The thing is, though, there is no sphere in your head, and that's why it can't be "measured". It is a product of neurons firing in a certain pattern, in much the same way that the image on a TV is an emergent property of lots of little tubes flicks of light. You can't really "measure" the tree that is pictured in a movie because it isn't actually there, unless you measure it relative to its surroundings by filming a measuring stick next to the tree. But then you can "measure" the sphere in your mind in this manner, too, by imagining a measuring stick next to the sphere. But it makes no sense to try to measure it as a physical object when it isn't even a thing that really exists.
Spirit is not the opposite of physical... It is what allows for the questioning feelings you get from being physical.
Then you are misusing the word, my friend. You're defining "spirit" as something physical and as what allows for questioning. I would call that "curiosity", not spirit. I suggest you should refrain from using this word in such a confusing manner.
Any mathematician worth their salt believes in infinity...
That's not true at all. Any mathematician worth their salt realizes that, simply because a certain mathematical entity is consistent doesn't mean it is real. For instance, mathematicians can come up with perfectly consistent zero-, three-, or hundred-dimensional geometries. Obviously, the fact that we can create such different mathematical models doesn't imply that they all exist.
And again, you seem incapable of understanding what "potential" means. Something is "potential" if it is logically possible--that is, if it does not entail a logical contradiction. A green horse in your closet is NOT a logical contradiction. It is logically possible for such a thing to occur. But it is not LIKELY to occur, and in fact has not.
Now, when I originally brought forth my argument, its because you claimed a realm of potentiality existed. And I remarked that this is not true, in the same way that a "potential" million dollars does not exist. To say that a realm of potentialiaty exists is really a contradiction in terms. A potential does not exist until it is made actual.
Then you say the following is an example of a grand unified theory:
Consciousness equals one. One divided by all it's parts equals infinity
Here you are misusing terms again. In science, the "grand unified theory" is a theory that would unify the discrepancies between relativity and quantum mechanics. What you've posited has nothing to do with this, and neither is it scientific at all. Honestly, much of this misunderstanding can be avoided if you chose your words more carefully. | |
|
|
| Page 3 of 5
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
Home
login 
