What Have YOU Determined is the Meaning of WLife? WHY Does Life Exist on This Planet? What is the Point? (applied, purpose)

[Ironman2]

Originally Posted by TotallyTam

This will be one strange ramble--but my head is spinning with ideas and thoughts on this topic. Ok....so, my take on "what's it all about" consists of a hodge-podge of influences over many years and many books about about science, religion, history, meditation, shamanism, and of course my own intuition about why we're here. Quantum physics/theory is a good place to start pondering reality as we perceive it. (There have been fascinating breakthroughs in quantum studies since before Einstein's time to the present.) One thing we know for sure is that humans are experiencing and conscious beings. But as real as our perceptions seem to us, modern quantum science has shown the world "out there" to be very different than what we experience. Apparently, all matter (including us!) is merely energy vibrating at different frequencies---and that we are all made of essentially the same energy particles, but resonating at different vibrations. (Obviously a rock vibrates at a denser frequency than a soft-gooey human does...) Scientists have proven this. But for all the scientific breakthroughs and viable quantum theories---consciousness is still one big anomoly. That is the bigger question, in my opinion. But the reason we don't know is because we are still evolving. And, I believe there are new, undiscovered (or forgotten, perhaps?) levels of consciousness that await us. But, my heart tells me that one good way to get to a higher level is to stop all the hate and simply be kind and love one another. That's sounds like a good start to me. Gotta go....but I could go on & on. Love this topic!

I find this topic very interesting from a spiritualist's point of view because we don't really know what the basic material of the universe is. I can see how whatever it is can be measured as mass or energy or myriad other useful measures. Calling it energy is not unreasonable, but neither is calling it mass. The problem with mass is that it is just that, a massing of something, so we are back to square one again. What is massed into matter? They think they have found one candidate, the Higgs boson, but they are then talking about something beyond it. I think your umbrella term energy, TotallyTam, is as good as any. It does have a lot of alternative uses and meanings that can confuse the idea of substance, though. I am not sure vibrating strings aids the imagery much either. Whatever it is, it is definitely vibratory. I can accept energy because it fits with my spiritualist worldview.

Originally Posted by RememberMee

As they say - "Never underestimate the power of carefully worded nonsense".
"Energy vibrating" is good for midnight radio, but it's just nonsense. Beside, there is NO understanding what energy is. There is circular definition. Energy - capacity to do work. Work can be defined as transfer of energy . Energy could be nothing more than a parameter that is very useful for simplifying physics and engineering theories and calculations.
It is absolutely possible to rewrite each and every theory of physics, etc. as not to use concept of energy at all, but they will not look pretty or concise. Concept of energy is 100% REDUNDANT and 200% Practical. You ask what about the law of conservation of energy? I would ask you what about the law of conservation of impulse? Nobody on midnight radio insists that impulse is something "real", a thing in itself. Why? Obviously, because concept of energy "clicked" with scientifically illiterate masses, quacks and rip off artists.

This is like bemoaning our lack of knowledge because the words we chose to describe our reality are just created by us. We have to call it something because it exists. We know it is vibratory because our measures of it reveal that characteristic at the subatomic level. I agree that energy "could be nothing more than a parameter that is very useful for simplifying physics and engineering theories and calculations" But since it is clearly measuring something about our reality, if you don't like energy, what would you call it? You seem to ignore whatever the underlying "thing" is that we see as energy when we measure it, or mass when it aggregates into matter. Ignoring it because you don't like the word used is not helpful. Ignoring it because it appeals to spiritualists like me, or as you dis them "the illiterate masses, quacks and rip off artists" is rejecting users of the term, not the appropriateness of the term.

An average person can use "energy" as a mental shortcut in his/her everyday life (Sun is shining, stove is burning, hungry, exhausted, etc.). An average person is dumbfounded by the concept of impulse that has no relation to his/her everyday life. Thus no quack on midnight radio appeals to "impulse" to legitimize his delusions.

Actually that is not correct. Energy and momentum (what you seem to be calling "impulse") are again measures of the same underlying "something" that comprises our universe. Answering that question is what will give us the answer to the OP, in my opinion. What if it is simply life itself? That would render some of the OP moot. As a spiritualist, I tend to favor such speculations, obviously.

[RememberMee]

Originally Posted by Ironman2

This is like bemoaning our lack of knowledge because the words we chose to describe our reality are just created by us.

Nope, wishful thinking (metaphysics) crowd was not using the term "energy" 200 years ago. It embraced the term "energy" relatively recently.

We have to call it something because it exists.

You mean, Energy exists? Does temperature exists too? What about light intensity? What about arbitrary products of two or more physical quantities? Do those exist too? No, they don't exist outside of your mind or a piece of paper.

We know it is vibratory because our measures of it reveal that characteristic at the subatomic level.

What type of energy you call vibratory? Elastic, plastic, kinetic, potential, thermochemical, magnetic, sound, etc.? Do all of those energies "vibrate"? I don't recollect that definitions and formulas for those energies imply any sort of vibration. I don't recollect any "measures" that revealed that kinetic energy, for example, is vibratory, quite to the contrary it's a constant if your mass and speed are constant. Please, do share your insights.

I agree that energy "could be nothing more than a parameter that is very useful for simplifying physics and engineering theories and calculations" But since it is clearly measuring something about our reality, if you don't like energy, what would you call it.

Mass*(Time Square)* (Square Root of Length)*(Acceleration Cubed) is measuring something about this world. Does it mean that this arbitrary product of physical parameters exists somewhere out there in the wild? Modern "metaphysicists" picked the quantity that physicists call "Energy" and designated it as a thing in itself that "exists" and moves, shakes and vibrates Universe. Of course, it's mainstream "school". Smaller number of ponderers implicate (wishfully) "entropy", "information", etc. as movers and shakers.

You seem to ignore whatever the underlying "thing" is that we see as energy when we measure it, or mass when it aggregates into matter.

Physicists do NOT see energy, physicists do NOT measure energy, physicists DO CALCULATE energy using many formulas they worked out for different physical processes. Those formulas can be used to relate different physical processes, and that is #1 practical application of Energy as a physical quantity. For example, one can relate motion of a flying bullet to heating and melting of bullet' metal using formulas for kinetic and thermal energies + the law of conservation.

I'm not sure what "metaphysicists" see and measure though. I don't recollect anybody observing the process of "energy aggregating into matter". If E=m*c2 is a sufficient foundation to claim that Energy aggregates into matter. What about E=I*U? Does energy aggregate into current and voltage too? Here we go, 200 years metaphysicists called it (holy) spirit and essence. Why don't you all stick to your origins? Why do you need to borrow scientific terms and come up with this pseudo scientific nonsense? You had it so good in the past, spirits and essence could materialize into whatever at whim of invisible forces. Had you use "spirit" and "essence" I would have no ground to argue, it's 150% wishful thinking, everything is possible in the wishful world.

Mass, matter are purely intuitive concepts given to us by our perceptions, we cannot define and explain either. Mass and matter are basic building blocks of physics, they are unexplainable. Introducing another unexplainable quantity you call energy to "explain" mass and matter. That makes sense to spiritualists only.

[Ironman2]

Originally Posted by RememberMee

Nope, wishful thinking (metaphysics) crowd was not using the term "energy" 200 years ago. It embraced the term "energy" relatively recently.

You mean, Energy exists? Does temperature exists too? What about light intensity? What about arbitrary products of two or more physical quantities? Do those exist too? No, they don't exist outside of your mind or a piece of paper.

What type of energy you call vibratory? Elastic, plastic, kinetic, potential, thermochemical, magnetic, sound, etc.? Do all of those energies "vibrate"? I don't recollect that definitions and formulas for those energies imply any sort of vibration. I don't recollect any "measures" that revealed that kinetic energy, for example, is vibratory, quite to the contrary it's a constant if your mass and speed are constant. Please, do share your insights.

You seem rather hostile to speculating about the composition of our reality using what science currently measures. Why is that? I said that at the sub-atomic level what we measure are vibratory phenomena expressed in wave equations. If we probe deeper we try to conceptualize them as vibrating strings. I see at the end of this rant you admit to the unexplainable nature of what comprises the composition of our reality. So perhaps we cannot find common ground.

I agree that not all formulations of energy reveal the underlying composition. I admitted that there are so many that it can create confusion. But Einstein's equation that you cited does a pretty good job of it in my opinion. It has two formulations that taken together reveal the attributes TotallyTam assigns to it. E=MC^2 reveals the substance nature (mass) and E=hf reveals the vibratory nature. The use of it in the creation of the most awesome release and display of energy (the hydrogen bomb) seems to speak volumes for its tapping the essence of the composition of our reality. The fact that the reaction (Fusion) provides the source of life on earth argues strongly for life as the ultimate substance of our reality, in my opinion.

[RememberMee]

Originally Posted by Ironman2

You seem rather hostile to speculating about the composition of our reality using what science currently measures. Why is that?

As I said, speculations are boundless, fruits of wild imagination are countless.

I said that at the sub-atomic level what we measure are vibratory phenomena expressed in wave equations. If we probe deeper we try to conceptualize them as vibrating strings.

And exactly who are "we" who measure sub-atomic levels of atoms? Again, physicists do not measure anything of that sort. Physicists measure macroscopic parameters of matter and compare those parameters with results of calculations based on their particular models of subatomic world. If there is a reasonable fit, it's assumed that a model has merit. Which is not the case for string theories. String theories are off not by just an order of magnitude, they are off by many orders of magnitudes. For all practical purposes, string theory and spiritualism are equivalent, both explain and predict nothing. Except that certain funding agencies fell in love with strings.

I see at the end of this rant you admit to the unexplainable nature of what comprises the composition of our reality. So perhaps we cannot find common ground.

I wrote about unexplainable nature of our perceptions we call reality in the very first post in this thread. We can approximate, we can use, we cannot explain.

I agree that not all formulations of energy reveal the underlying composition. I admitted that there are so many that it can create confusion. But Einstein's equation that you cited does a pretty good job of it in my opinion. It has two formulations that taken together reveal the attributes TotallyTam assigns to it. E=MC^2 reveals the substance nature (mass) and E=hf reveals the vibratory nature.

So energy exists as a thing in itself just like a spirit and Einstein' formulas prove that somehow. Very interesting. If so then F=m*a (as revealed by Newton) prove that Force is a thing in itself, S=k*Ln N prove that entropy S is a thing in itself, P= F/S prove that pressure is a thing in itself and so on. First, you anointed energy as a mover and shaker of Universe, a cousin of spirits and essences, and then you try to stir up semi-scientific speculations. That's little bit presumptuous. Energy of Physics is a redundant (but very convenient) concept. Energy of metaphysics is a cousin of spirits and essences. You use language of Physics in to speculate about metaphysical concept formerly known as spirit and essence, and vice versa.

Again, mass is a semi-intuitive concept (define mass, you can't), length is a semi-intuitive concept (define length, you can't), time is a semi-intuitive concept (define time, you can't), speed = length/time. However, if you combine these semi-intuitive basic blocks of Physics into formula E=m*c2, that somehow sheds light on the nuts and bolts of universe. Because why? Because E stands for energy - another concept you cannot define and explain? Very interesting. Besides, electromagnetic frequency has NOTHING to do with vibrations in original sense of the word, electromagnetic wave (another approximation of reality, it doesn't exist) doesn't vibrate, it doesn't oscillate, it doesn't have vibratory nature of a bumpy ride.

[Glad2bHere!]

From a Psychological perspective answering this question becomes a function of the ability of Human Beings to find meaning in patterns. I think we are all familiar with the playful activity of laying on ones back and finding faces and shapes in the arrangment of clouds, right? The Zen koan of "If a leaf falls in the forest and nobody is around, does it make a sound?" rathermuch touches on this.

On a more sophisticated level when such patterns are recognized as expressions of ourselves (for instance, "self-awareness") things become much more difficult and then we say that the questions become "Existential".

In the final analysis, though meaning is an evaluation that we apply to a phenomenon ---either real or imagined--- and not an intrinsic quality of a thing or system.

FWIW.

[sulkiercupid]

In my view life just exists as a feature of the Earth, and possibly other planetary bodies. While there probably is a wider meaning to our existence I think we can only speculate as to what this actually is.

[RememberMee]

Originally Posted by sulkiercupid

In my view life just exists as a feature of the Earth, and possibly other planetary bodies. While there probably is a wider meaning to our existence I think we can only speculate as to what this actually is.

Yes, speculations is all we can do. As of 2012 scientists could not come up with universal definition of life. So possibilities for speculations are truly astronomical.

[Ironman2]

Originally Posted by RememberMee

As I said, speculations are boundless, fruits of wild imagination are countless.

And exactly who are "we" who measure sub-atomic levels of atoms? Again, physicists do not measure anything of that sort. Physicists measure macroscopic parameters of matter and compare those parameters with results of calculations based on their particular models of subatomic world. If there is a reasonable fit, it's assumed that a model has merit. Which is not the case for string theories. String theories are off not by just an order of magnitude, they are off by many orders of magnitudes. For all practical purposes, string theory and spiritualism are equivalent, both explain and predict nothing. Except that certain funding agencies fell in love with strings.

I wrote about unexplainable nature of our perceptions we call reality in the very first post in this thread. We can approximate, we can use, we cannot explain.

So energy exists as a thing in itself just like a spirit and Einstein' formulas prove that somehow. Very interesting. If so then F=m*a (as revealed by Newton) prove that Force is a thing in itself, S=k*Ln N prove that entropy S is a thing in itself, P= F/S prove that pressure is a thing in itself and so on. First, you anointed energy as a mover and shaker of Universe, a cousin of spirits and essences, and then you try to stir up semi-scientific speculations. That's little bit presumptuous. Energy of Physics is a redundant (but very convenient) concept. Energy of metaphysics is a cousin of spirits and essences. You use language of Physics in to speculate about metaphysical concept formerly known as spirit and essence, and vice versa.

Again, mass is a semi-intuitive concept (define mass, you can't), length is a semi-intuitive concept (define length, you can't), time is a semi-intuitive concept (define time, you can't), speed = length/time. However, if you combine these semi-intuitive basic blocks of Physics into formula E=m*c2, that somehow sheds light on the nuts and bolts of universe. Because why? Because E stands for energy - another concept you cannot define and explain? Very interesting. Besides, electromagnetic frequency has NOTHING to do with vibrations in original sense of the word, electromagnetic wave (another approximation of reality, it doesn't exist) doesn't vibrate, it doesn't oscillate, it doesn't have vibratory nature of a bumpy ride.

It seems to me that you are almost an anti-empiricist empiricist who denies the existence of a reality separate from our measures and experiences of it. Usually spiritualists are guilty of this because it borders on solipsism. Empiricists usually believe that they are actually measuring something. They are like the blind monks around the elephant. Each individual measure only produces part of the picture. You seem to be saying because X measures a foot and Y measures a trunk there is no elephant to talk about.

Originally Posted by Glad2bHere!

From a Psychological perspective answering this question becomes a function of the ability of Human Beings to find meaning in patterns. I think we are all familiar with the playful activity of laying on ones back and finding faces and shapes in the arrangment of clouds, right? The Zen koan of "If a leaf falls in the forest and nobody is around, does it make a sound?" rathermuch touches on this.
On a more sophisticated level when such patterns are recognized as expressions of ourselves (for instance, "self-awareness") things become much more difficult and then we say that the questions become "Existential".
In the final analysis, though meaning is an evaluation that we apply to a phenomenon ---either real or imagined--- and not an intrinsic quality of a thing or system.
FWIW.

I think it is worth much, but as a spiritualist, I am biased. We cannot escape our psychology and perceptual biases. It seems foolish, though, to ignore or deny an underlying existence because of it, as RememberMee appears to want to do.

[TotallyTam]

I am getting some fairly hostile vibes from you, RememberMee. It is interesting that this topic pushes hot buttons for you. Are you a regular listener of this radio program? You seem to know a lot about it. Again, I have never heard of it. You do not know my level of education and knowledge of physics. So it's somewhat assaultive to use such presumptuous language to describe my lack thereof. Your strong opposition to the words I have chosen to ponder the universe do not upset me. It's nice to see IronMan giving you a run for the money though...

Originally Posted by RememberMee

Official name of the radio is "Cost to Coast AM" Home - Coast to Coast AM it broadcast after midnight, that's why midnight radio. Lots and lots of homegrown metaphysics share they very unique ideas about universe, aliens, government, extra dimensions, infinite oil supplies, etc. without offering a shred of evidence, common sense or knowledge of basic science. You see, the number of improbable possibilities is truly infinite, the number of wishful ideas is infinite, and midnight radio is truly wishful thinking fest, no lunacy ever get cut off by the hosts, all ideas and wishful thinking are broadcast.

NO. It's not my "Framework" that is uniquely "Mine", it's framework of physics you are not quite familiar with. Yet, despite the lack of basic knowledge, people use scientific terms (like energy, dimensions, etc.) to wrap their wishful ideas about universe etc. in. Rip off artists, cranks, quacks, holistic healers and hometown metaphysicists fell in love with the term "Energy", they absolutely love it. I feel that without this term whole holistic biz would go bust. And it's no wonder, scientific terms bring sort of "legitimacy" to wishful ideas and rip off schemes, since they help to concoct the proverbial "carefully worded nonsense".

Isn't it common sense, if you don't know the meaning of a term, don't use it to express your wishful ideas, sum up your ideas using the terms you understand +/-. But if one would introduce this constraint "Cost to Coat AM" would have no callers . Remember, Carl Sagan's "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", it applies to religion, and it applies to "vibrating energies" too.

[nurider2002]

do we even exist? perhaps we are part of someone's/something's imagination or dream. We may think we exist because, in the mind of the dreamer, we are real. When in fact, in the blink of an eye, we may all cease to exist, to have never existed. And does it matter? What we perceive as our "lives" is fleeting. It's all over in a heartbeat. Enjoy what you enjoy.