|
|
|
|
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/13/2008 12:29:01 PM | 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.
Ever stop to think that's maybe the reason the mind (and the brain for that matter) are not fully understood?
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.)
Again... It is you who are misusing the word "spiritual" in my opinion(not to mention the word "mind")... It isn't the search for what isn't physical, it is the search for what is physically unknown... I am just repeating myself here... Spiritual does not equate with "otherworldly"... It is what makes us want to understand this world.
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 very fact that we look for answers to questions shows the spiritual side of things... New ways of looking at things are not testable at the moment because they are (get this) new! I don't understand how you think you could find the "self" or the "mind" on a graph.
Physical descriptions of minds are not incapable of explaining the phenomena you mention.
Dude! There are no physical descriptions of the mind... The brain is not the mind and neither are the chemical reactions caused by using the mind the mind.
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.
You just stuck your foot in your mouth... They use it even though they know it may not exist... That goes back to the faith issue don't it? They use it because it works so far so up until it is proven otherwise it is believed in... Runnin in circles over here.
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.
Yes... And what(this is getting tiring) do the discrepancies between relativity and quantum mechanics relate to? The workings of the universe perhaps? What does Grand and Unified mean? Geez!
Matter and energy arise from the same source just as science and religion does.
Any quest for the unknown (or the unknowable) is a spiritual quest.
| |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/13/2008 1:10:46 PM | Let me try to simplify...
Ever stop to think that's maybe the reason the mind (and the brain for that matter) are not fully understood?
No. No objective understanding can be obtained by studying that which is undefined, unmeasureable, immaterial, and...subjective. When it's not limited to what is solely a personal and unsharable experience, it may be objective and subject to scientific appraisal.
It isn't the search for what isn't physical, it is the search for what is physically unknown.
The misuse is yours. Science deals with a search for that which is unknown, but which is physical or demonstrably and objectively part of the physical. There is NO requirement of spirituality that it be limited to the "physically unknown", and it frequently DOES entail a search for or assumption of "what isn't physical". The overlap doesn't make them equal. The differences make them non-integrable.
Your mind is closed to new ways of looking at the world and are wasting my time
It's not an issue of new ways of looking at the world. It's about how to objectively test and explain the world. Science can do that, spirituality cannot. Spirituality may inspire you, but it will NEVER give an objective explanation for all to see. Shoulda taken that left turn at Albuquerque.
Dude! There are no physical descriptions of the mind
Bingo. Undefined, unmeasureable, and untestable. Therefore, by definition, excluded from science. Get back to us when these three factors change.
You just stuck your foot in your mouth... They use it even though they know it may not exist...
Mm...not quite. Math is all about rules of logic, not reality. Reality depends upon those rules, but that does not mean that the rules themselves are "real". "Unreal" concepts of logic are sometimes required to explain reality. The square root of a negative number is by definition an impossibility, but that does not prevent it being a requirement in many calculations which apply to the real world.
The very fact that we look for answers to questions shows the spiritual side of things...
Not necessarily. Regardless of your particular color of "spirituality", I seek answers because I want predictability and understanding. I seek answers because observations leave gaps in knowledge and understanding and create new questions. I think I see what you mean by "spiritual" here, I just don't see it as such. Such a definition of "spiritual" also needlessly [and deliberately?] creates a confusion with more common usages of the term, related to faith and religion. That breadth of application is a major stumbling block, and one which is similar to the correct scientific definition of "theory", versus the creationist definition of the word. An extreme definition is used to establish validity, and then that validity is falsely extended to every definition of that term. That's why YOUR usage of "spirituality" is unacceptable - even if it is marginally acceptable, it will inevitably lead to completely false and unacceptable conclusions.
New ways of looking at things are not testable at the moment because they are (get this) new!
But they're NOT new! If anything, they're among the oldest ways of looking at things. They just carry no objective explanatory weight. Refer back to my first comments.
I don't understand how you think you could find the "self" or the "mind" on a graph.
If you can't find them objectively, you can't find them scientifically. By definition. Make your choice - approach it scientifically, or don't, but you can't take a subjective and unscientific approach and call it objective science.
Matter and energy arise from the same source just as science and religion does.
Which does NOT make them equal. Science is explanatory, predictive, and objective. Religion is unpredictive, subjective, and only purports to be explanatory.
Any quest for the unknown (or the unknowable) is a spiritual quest
A "spiritual quest" normally involves the unknowable and carries an entirely different set of implications. You're deliberately and incorrectly obfuscating. See above.
I'm seriously thinking you're just deliberately trying to cloud the issue
He does that, though not to save face, and he's generally correct. Notwithstanding our far-from-universal agreement, nor our different debating styles. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/13/2008 4:26:31 PM | Frog0eyes:
The overlap doesn't make them equal. The differences make them non-integrable. Apply that to matter and energy... and what do you have?? Are they non-integrable?
That has been my point all along...
You can separate matter and energy.. but they are one and the same... we can learn from both aspects..
Just as in science and spirituality...
It's about how to objectively test and explain the world. Science can do that, spirituality cannot. Spirituality may inspire you, but it will NEVER give an objective explanation for all to see. And that is where imo (notice that?) they compliment one another...
Just as theory and experiment work together for answers.. how can you have one without the other? Certain assumptions must be made in order to make any kind of progress...
Undefined, unmeasureable, and untestable. Therefore, by definition, excluded from science. Get back to us when these three factors change. These three factors at the present time all describe the Higgs boson.. also known as the "God particle"... yet the search continues ;) | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/13/2008 5:03:39 PM | You can separate matter and energy.. but they are one and the same... we can learn from both aspects..
Just as in science and spirituality...
The trouble is that you can't show subjective spirituality to be either required nor an actual source of learning. Some will gain by it, some will require it, and some of us have absolutely no need for it. Conversely, objectivity is required for survival. To tell you rat poison is NOT food, and standing in the middle of a highway is a bad idea.
CAN they complement? Probably. Is either part of or required for the other? No. Spirituality may give one direction for objective enquiry, but it doesn't actually contribute anything to the process or results. It can't
how can you have one without the other?
Science has no requirement for a completely subjective component. It has no use nor applicability to intangible and undefinable concepts. In some cases, the two may be compatible, but their differences prevent either being required for the other.
These three factors at the present time all describe the Higgs boson
Not true at all. The Higgs boson IS defined. It is named and conceived because it fulfills a mathematical requirement of particle physics. That mathematical requirement has a definition, and it has been named. It is also NOT untestable, NOR unmeasureable. The means to do both is known. It simply has not been done yet. Maybe I should clarify that "unmeasurable" and "untestable" mean inherintly unmeasurable and inherintly untestable. That is, the inability to test or measure is due to properties of that which is to be measured, not due to a lack of tools to do it. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/13/2008 5:22:03 PM |
Conversely, objectivity is required for survival. And yet, how can we achieve objectivity without first having subjectivity?? I will take that a step further in saying that there is subjectivity present within objectivity and vice versa... the lines blur..
To tell you rat poison is NOT food, and standing in the middle of a highway is a bad idea. Entering the middle of a highway when your small child has run into it is a GOOD idea. Not sure where you were going with the rat food thing though...
Spirituality may give one direction for objective enquiry, but it doesn't actually contribute anything to the process or results. It can't Was the impetus or direction not enough? And as I said before.. the viewpoint of the observer of any experiment is of the utmost importance.. so I'd say it comes into play... there is that subjective within the objective thing again...
Not true at all. The Higgs boson IS defined. Alright.. then I stand corrected, BUT there is still no proof of its existence... it exists only in the minds of the physicists... | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/13/2008 7:24:20 PM | "Is Matter a form of Energy?"
Yes.
Any basic science book would tell you this well-known fact.
....NEXT...! | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/13/2008 7:52:46 PM | Interesting thread with interesting perspectives.
These are two apparently mutually exclusive topics that are often at loggerheads in our society. Science versus religion.
This subject takes on special meaning for myself as 4 years of study in engineering physics and years of study of various world religions and avatars leave me feeling that the subjects are not mutually exclusive.
Two quotes that peaked my interest on this subject that were made by saintgasoline in different posts:
Science is not compatible with the spiritual because the spiritual realm is unobservable and unknowable, and hence unaddressable by the scientific method.
Perhaps it is worth considering the possibility that the spiritual realm is actually observable and knowable?
Most quantifiable scientific discoveries are proven by one person and shared with many through book learning, theories, laws and empirical evidence.
But what if the spiritual realm (i.e. defined here as God, spirit, love or that unifying force that runs through all creation if you believe in one) is something that must be experienced (internally proven)?
Then the proof could not be shared as can quantifiable scientific discoveries, rather it can only be experienced. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/13/2008 7:54:55 PM | saintgasoline wrote:
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.
Does not every scientific principal that was proven throughout history start with someone believing something to be true prior to demonstrating something to be true?
For instance, Einstein had to believe there was a direct correlation between energy and matter prior to being able to demonstrate that E=mc^2.
Now I know this may not sit well with some people, but bear with me.
Words, descriptions or proofs impose limitations by nature as they describe something. A description is a label which can be quantified. If you agree with this statement (and you may not), then how can you demonstrate something that is limitless (the spiritual realm or God) using words and theories that are limited by nature?
Perhaps this is why the avatars (i.e. Krishna, Buddha, Jesus) have suggested that God can only be experienced rather than proven or demonstrated?
To end with, let me give you one other quote by Einstein that I enjoy:
"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man...In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive." [Letter to a child who asked if scientist pray, January 24, 1936; pg. 152 Calaprice]
Link:
http://www.tricity.wsu.edu/~dcarrell/einstein/quotesaboutgod.htm
Thank you to all who shared your perspectives in this thread. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/13/2008 8:40:31 PM |
Does not every scientific principal that was proven throughout history start with someone believing something to be true prior to demonstrating something to be true?
No. It is sometimes true, but either way, it has no influence on the outcome. The "proof" may just as well prove the initial belief wrong. The scientific process is pretty straightforward. You create one choice, and you create an alternative which covers all other possibilities. Now you prove one or the other wrong. That which remains is true, although on the first run your truth may be somewhat vague. There is no requirement for belief, just a definition of two mutually exclusive choices.
For instance, Einstein had to believe there was a direct correlation between energy and matter prior to being able to demonstrate that E=mc^2.
Also no. The simple formula is a reduction of a much more complex one which took Einstein some time and work to figure out. I don't know what he believed or assumed, but it would not have affected the outcome. As a mathematical relationship, it would come out the same, regardless of initial assumptions. In addition, if he DID believe there was relationship, it is highly likely that he believed so based upon evidence, not faith, assumption, or spirituality.
Words, descriptions or proofs impose limitations by nature as they describe something. A description is a label which can be quantified. If you agree with this statement (and you may not), then how can you demonstrate something that is limitless (the spiritual realm or God) using words and theories that are limited by nature?
That's something of a truism at this point. No agreement, no definition, no objective proof of reality. If it is real, then it is subject to objective verification. Thus far, there is nothing to show that anything in the spiritual realm is objectively real.
Perhaps this is why the avatars (i.e. Krishna, Buddha, Jesus) have suggested that God can only be experienced rather than proven or demonstrated?
Perhaps, but many consider their gods to be "real". They certainly haven't defined such gods in an objective manner, so proof is impossible, even though they often claim it to be self-evident and cite "science" as evidence.
"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man...In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive." [Letter to a child who asked if scientist pray, January 24, 1936; pg. 152 Calaprice]
Although this is a false appeal to authority, in context I would let it pass. Except that the content of the statement doesn't work so well. First, adults OFTEN tell children that Santa, the Tooth Fairy are real. Generally, these adults don't believe their own statements. 80 years ago, it would be quite controversial for an adult to advocate to any child that God was anything BUT real. In this context, I would take this statement with a small pile of salt. Einstein was also wrong, the moment he said "everyone", although his comments on "spirit" and "religious feeling" are decidedly vague. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/14/2008 12:37:32 PM | I am with living Dharma on this subject. I am avid beliver in science and the knowledge we have found from it. But from my studies and readings and own talkings it is more than apparent to me that there are greater forces at work within the Universe.
The problem with anything wether it be scientific or religous is that all quantities or any kind of proof is just a matter of perception. In fact all idea's about reality simply boil down to perception and the individuals take on any one matter. Language in itself, argubly not maths as it is pure, but all languages are subjective as any terms using are simply the matter of the individuals perception of what is being said. So from the basis of that we only ever stand on the brink of knowing what someone is thinking, feeling or experiencing as all matters of descripton are based on the induividuals perception and subjection.
So from this we can see that one's ideas or beliefs are formed from the individuals own perception of them. Simply one person may see a mental brick wall, another may see nothing more than a brick. But both are equally valid to the individual experiencing them.
So with religon and science both sides are in essence eqully valid at a fundemental level to the individual as they are simply the culmination of the individauls perceptions built up over time.
But just because they feel them doesn't nesseceryily make them an absolute within the wider context of society and the collective consiousness of man. This is where idealogy becomes distilled, as what is good for the group is very rarely good for the individual. Yet the individual, well at least in western society for the last 100-200 years or so, has been able to voice any ideas in disscusion.
What im trying to get at is that there is no and will never ever be any absolutes and definitive answers. To me at least it seems that there are forces, gods, divine spirits at work. They/it/him/her can no more be described by words in a book, than the universe can ever be defined by one mathmatical equaltion. Both finalities for the answer miss the whole point of the question. This is what it means to the indiviual and their perception of this.
You can bust semantics and quotes all day and this kind of debate, aubaly within the religously devoid times we live in are great, but no one person holds the answer. For a master only know he is a master when he is placed in checkmate. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/15/2008 8:59:41 AM | Geez, Froggo... I knew someone was going to be quick on the draw and comment on my post before I was done editing... Figures it's the guy with the cowboy hat, lol.
I won't comment on the replys you gave me that I already edited... Let's just say my tiger sometimes obscures my thinking and I appologize for any remarks taken personal.
That being said, let's get to the fun part.
When it's not limited to what is solely a personal and unsharable experience, it may be objective and subject to scientific appraisal.
That's my whole point on that matter... It has been shared by many... Poets, mystics, philosphers, quantum physicists, physicians... Well, this is just a short list of the diverse paths taken all over the world... Many people from each has shared their feelings of being at one with all that is... It is not unsharable any more than other personal observations.
The misuse is yours. Science deals with a search for that which is unknown, but which is physical or demonstrably and objectively part of the physical. There is NO requirement of spirituality that it be limited to the "physically unknown", and it frequently DOES entail a search for or assumption of "what isn't physical". The overlap doesn't make them equal. The differences make them non-integrable.
Ok... I'll try this again... The act of reaching beyond what you know is a spiritual one in my opinion... That is what this part is... my opinion and I think "spiritual" is mistakenly defined as limited to the mystical... In my mind, spirituality is the seed of seeking more than is known... What comes after is the developement of the scientific method, philosophy, religion and mysticism.
It isn't about them being equal, it's about the spiritual quest for the "why" existing before science could have... Science is an effect of our spirituality... That is how I see it and it makes sense to me... I don't expect it to make sense to you, but it is not wrong.
I seek answers because I want predictability and understanding. I seek answers because observations leave gaps in knowledge and understanding and create new questions. I think I see what you mean by "spiritual" here, I just don't see it as such.
That's ok...
Such a definition of "spiritual" also needlessly [and deliberately?] creates a confusion with more common usages of the term, related to faith and religion.
Faith and religion are also effects of spiritualism, but they are happy to ignore the further questions... Spirituality simply questions... The paths grow from there... That's why I make the distinction.
Again, this is my opinion.
Bingo. Undefined, unmeasureable, and untestable. Therefore, by definition, excluded from science. Get back to us when these three factors change.
The mind is only excluded from science because we haven't figured out how yet... Does that mean you don't believe the mind exists?
Mm...not quite. Math is all about rules of logic, not reality. Reality depends upon those rules, but that does not mean that the rules themselves are "real".
However, they are believed in up until they are proven to be unreal...
"Unreal" concepts of logic are sometimes required to explain reality. The square root of a negative number is by definition an impossibility, but that does not prevent it being a requirement in many calculations which apply to the real world.
Hey, I get that... I'm all about the paradox... But if something is regarded as being possibly unreal, but believed in anyways, that is a type of faith... I'm not saying it doesn't work.
But they're NOT new! If anything, they're among the oldest ways of looking at things. They just carry no objective explanatory weight. Refer back to my first comments.
No two people will look at something from exactly the same perspective, therefore there is an infinate ways to look at things! Even if they are the same in alot of respects... Just like the feeling of being one with all that is.
If you can't find them objectively, you can't find them scientifically. By definition. Make your choice - approach it scientifically, or don't, but you can't take a subjective and unscientific approach and call it objective science.
This is a long post so I don't recalled who already answered this but they worded it almost the same as I would... To be at one with it all, you have to do it from a perspective that's neither subjective or objective... You have to feel it.
A "spiritual quest" normally involves the unknowable and carries an entirely different set of implications. You're deliberately and incorrectly obfuscating. See above.
I think it was done years ago... Only the other way around.
You can bust semantics and quotes all day and this kind of debate, aubaly within the religously devoid times we live in are great, but no one person holds the answer. For a master only know he is a master when he is placed in checkmate.
Very wise words! But although no one holds the answer, it's still fun to try!
Fun is all I'm here for... I think we all should have that right. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/15/2008 2:28:20 PM | true buddy, i love to try and find the answers and have been on many journeys through my mind and through the words of other to find them.
your right on the fun part.
i essentially believe that energy is the consiousness of the universe or at least the physical manifestaion that we as humans can see and have effect upon.
that humans lie in three states.
that of negative energy, consuming more than they and those around them can eminate. taking from others, they only steal from themselves.
those who neither take nor give out. they blend in and could go either way, more often than not they go up when they break through their own mental barriers.
and those who eminate and radiate energy and light. they are easy to spot and resonate with most people, they leave you feeling empowered, charged and are good people to know.
it is only in the last state that we as a human or more importantly as a soul can transcend our human bodies and join with the essence, beginging and what ever it is that exists outside of the closed system that is our universe.
so to me religon as a mass ideology and as more subjective seculars, bound by books and culture only hold fragments of the key.
since the realisation i have found the truth in may scriptures and holy texts i have read, in and in people who are truly holy without them considering themselves the slightest bit religous.
within us all are the shards of something bigger than our imagination. it is the culmination of evolution to allow our brains to become functional enough to have self awareness and that of maybe a little divine inspirtation.
but these shards are nothing more than embers, the kindling, twigs, logs and coal needed to main a fire are upto use to provide.
but this is my opinion. mine and mine alone, i have come to these conclusion from the people in my life and the teaching i have read.
but it makes a lot of sense to me. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/16/2008 4:52:27 PM |
i essentially believe that energy is the consiousness of the universe or at least the physical manifestaion that we as humans can see and have effect upon.
It makes sense to me too... I am often of the perception that we (like...Everything... All matter) are what happens when Love decides to get physical.
Yeah, the theory could be "out there"... But what isn't? | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/17/2008 4:18:07 PM | [Quote] Creationism is really just arrogance. "If something such as evolution is so complex that even I can't explain it, then that is proof that something with even more intelligence than I must have created it"
Matter and energy are one and the same.[/Quote]
I disagree wholeheartedly. I'm not saying god staged earth like in the bible when I say the word creationism. I mean to say that the universe is the work of higher power and the interworkings of the universe and life are the results of the labor. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/17/2008 4:21:12 PM |
This is not correct. Probability most certainly does not lean on the side of creationism. Considering all the evidence we have for evolution, from homologies across all species to vestigial structures to the sequence of life's arrival, it is vastly improbably that all of these observations in support of evolution could be made and yet the theory still be false. The problem with your own probability calculation is that you are setting up a false dichotomy. (Remember what I said earlier about mathematics not necessarily modeling reality? You've done that right here by imposing a false either/or scenario, ruling out other possibilities a priori without any appeal to evidence. That's why your remarks are not "scientific".)
You missed my point. Saying that creationism is the force behind the universe and life doesn't rule out evolution as a method for breeding life forms. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/17/2008 4:23:50 PM |
Yup I tend to agree with Harry^^^^^^^^^
I heard a rumour that Ms Spirituality and Mr Science
are exploring the 'possibility' of ,,,,'Reconciliation'
Now that will be a 'humdinger',,,'re',,,Wedding
Those who successfully reconcile
usually have experienced growth in 'awareness' first
And,,,,then,,,the 'second' marriage' of Science and Spirituality
will be much different from the first,,,thank God,,,,,
ooopsie,,,not sposed to say the G word,,,old habits die hard,,,(he he)
I feel like spiritual forces are no more than some kind of schizophrenic brainwashing of society. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/17/2008 4:45:40 PM | I don't know what we're talking about anymore... spirituality?
I think that its harder for people to grasp when they're right because there are so many ways to go wrong in life.
Somehow, our biological system is tuned to a very stable, yet mobile and conscious state. Much of our efforts as newborns to accept the environment we enter the world in and cope with the forces such as gravity, heat, air, etc... sticks with us and matures as we mature as a great accomplishment to which we rarely ever acknowledge except for the usual unusual ones who dare to brave the extremes. So all this that we do right, we ignore passively and we focus consciously on what is wrong. When we actually encounter a situation that is "right" we're entering unfamiliar territory and reasoning often beheads logic and carries on to settle newfound things in our passive consciousness.
This concept of spirituality is so far off from things that are truly important that I've become disgusted with the world, including my own self. Individuality > Spirituality. Self > Unknown God. Self nurtures Self. Choosing to believe in things that lead to fantastic tales of events that supposedly happened and will never be repeated, unless you have faith that they're real and will occur again is ignorant to me.
"Out with the ignorance, In with deliverance." Deliver yourselves from ignorance. Focus on your physical and mental health and abilities and develop methods for improving the world around you. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/17/2008 5:11:39 PM | If string theory were true, I could accept a belief system founded on maybes, but I wouldn't attach rituals to it and try to collect money in a basket after babbling whatever I feel like to a crowd of people.
"Thank you for coming to the place where I lift some pocket change off of you and babble on about something in this great enormous book of non-sense and hopefully you will grow accustomed to me preaching to you about your behaviors and morality so that you'll come again and again every 7th day of the week and a few extra ones."
I'm so weirded out by life and living. Life with a good conscience built up by the respect of people that I encounter is plenty for me to die happy with.  Legalize freedom. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/17/2008 7:04:56 PM |
Is Matter a form of Energy?
Simply yes or more specifically it appears so.
Mostly matter is empty space. The only difference between a vaccuum and matter is the properties of the matter. Specifically the quantum fields of the matter.
I can't give you a definate yes due to the fact that general relativity is exclusive of exotic matter.
Those seeking some kind of spiritual connection between science and spirituality should concentrate on. Aether/Akasha and avoid violating Occam's razor. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/17/2008 7:48:19 PM | Matter being mostly empty space I can agree with.
Those seeking some kind of spiritual connection between science and spirituality should concentrate on. Aether/Akasha and avoid violating Occam's razor.
Occams razor is pretty much the KISS system... Keep It Simple, Silly. Or as Wiki puts it;
"All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."
Saying that spirituality came before and is the seed of science is simplifying and bringing the two together... That actually compliments the razor.
The more division you have, the more you complicate... That's the basis of Occams Razor.
Even if form was born from the Akasha or aether, matter and energy are still aspects of form.
Peel the onion. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/18/2008 1:36:18 AM | You're off a bit on Occam's razor.
It's simply a principle based on not making wild unsupported assumptions. It has KISS built in but the core is the rejection of any wild assumption. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/18/2008 9:00:49 AM | Lol... Show me how saying the spiritual quest for the "why" came before the methods of finding answers is a wild assumption! Lol!
It makes more sense than saying spirituality is not compatable with science... How do you reconcile that? When it is said that all is relative, that means all is relative... The idea that we are all part of a whole is more supported than other theories.
Science and mysticism may not be compatable, but they arose from the same question(Why are we here and what are we)... I still say our spirituality is the source of all quests for knowledge... It may not be proven yet, but it makes more sense than ignoring what came first and spirituality is not the same as mysticism... It is the seed of all questions.(Again... My opinion)
Wild, unsupported assumptions indeed!
Saying spirituality and science can never be reconciled is a very wild assumption!
Reaching out to pose questions definately came before the means of answering them.
Reaching beyond what is currently known and the ability to care about each other and our surroundings is the human spiritual condition (imo)
I will say it again... The more you divide, the more you complicate... The more you complicate, the wilder the assumptions(only makes sense)...That goes very much along with Occam's Razor, thank you very much. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/18/2008 10:24:43 AM | | Spirituality seems to me like the chains that tie people down. It seems like politicians will often use religion to tip the scales when making judgements and the outcome of doing things this way is like trying to run a car with square blocks instead of tires. | |
|
| Is Matter a form of Energy?
Posted: 1/18/2008 11:22:35 AM | ^^^That's interesting... I kinda see it in the opposite light... Religion can tie people down and make us divide ourselves into groups and spirituality does not equate religion any more than it equates scientific method... I believe it is the cause of both.
To me, spirituality is just our questioning nature.
By the way, I'm sorry if it appears we've taken your thread off-topic, but matter and energy makes me think of duality and that's what divides all things... And it is an illusion. | |
|
| |
|
| Page 4 of 5
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
Home
login 
