Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Being a physical process, or believing that one is, essentially, a physical process, does not, in any way, prevent a person from having a spiritual life or from having various sorts of spiritual beliefs - although the nature of these spiritual beliefs and feelings are likely to vary quite extensively from most of the traditional spiritual paths that most people have in mind when they use the word 'spiritual'.
For the sake of an example, I will pick what is probably a somewhat extreme case: an atheist who is a very staunch materialist who feels certain that nothing exists other than what the hard physical sciences can, at least in principle, objectively identify and mathematically model. Well, you've already drilled Trans extensively on the emotional/spiritual aspects of his love for music. Just extrapolate from that. Or, another possibility is that an atheist materialist could appreciate what I have been calling the insight of Existentialist Absurdity. I have a feeling that most of you have never really understood what I see as the profound spiritual dimension of that particular form of "enlightenment" but I can assure you that it is fully within the rational and emotion reach of the most hard-core atheist materialist and I'm an convinced that it is no less deep or profound than any other spiritual experience. Atheist versions of spirituality may not seem very deep or meaningful to you but, by the same token, the things you find most meaningful may seem rathertrite or sterile to them. "Different strokes," as the saying goes.
As for myself, in particular, I don't know what to add beyond the many pages worth of stuff I've already said about the fully physicalist/atheist versions of "reincarnation" or "immortality" or "the Divine", etc. All of these relatively traditional spiritual views - with certain necessary tweaks - are possible in a fully physical universe, without any non-physical beings or magical aspects of beings - although, for these options to be real possibilities in a purely physical universe, it might be necessary to come to terms with the dual-aspect and "Self-as-universal" concepts and, frankly, I'm not sure that anyone in this thread (except, maybe, MPhD?) really grasps what I mean by these.
One last tidbit: We are all logically required to accept the reality of some "brute facts" that must be taken as logical "givens" in order for rational thought and other dimensions of conscious experience to exist in the first place (this is what philosophers call Kantian Transcendental methodology - the seeking of the logical or phenomenological "conditions for the possibility" of things). Not everyone realizes that there are these logical conditions for possibility, but once people do realize it, and once it really "sinks in" to their comprehension in a certain sorta emotional way, this knowledge can be experienced as full-fledged mystical or even "magical" in a certain sense, without losing sight of one's essentially materialist roots. This is a highly "intellectual" route to spirituality, but I believe that it is no less spiritual than other routes.
none of this addresses your soul
or your spirit
or religion
or your relationship with the Divine
or your theology
you've listed hobbies such as music, intellectual interests such as philosophy, the mind and emotion of hard core atheists, and have alluded to (=trivialized) meaningful religious experiences as "trite and sterile."
Chaos does not require an outside intelligence to organize it. The principles underlying these spontaneous complex pattern-forming processes are extremely well-documented and mathematically modeled to the point of being able to say that the concepts are fully proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
MPhD has extensively argued that, even if self-organizing dynamical processes don't require an external organizer, the resulting intelligence of the self-organizing nature of natural elements implies that there is, at least, some internal or intrinsic intelligence that is, in some sense, "guiding" the process "from within" the process or from simply "the being of" the process, and this is what he calls "God". This is a complicated discussion that we have had over many different threads. I don't really buy his approach to this, but the differences between he and I on this topic are subtle and, at some points, paper thin. He sees the primordial essence as fundamentally conscious and intelligent, and thus the intrinsic "self-guiding" is understood somewhat literally, whereas I see the primordial essence as unconscious and I see intelligence as a property of systems that emerges from the primordially unconscious brute-fact given "rules" or "laws of nature" so, for me, the "internal guidance" is metaphorical. I see the qualitative possibility of conscious intelligence as primordial, he sees conscious intelligence, itself, as primordial. But I suspect that, despite what I see as the logical requirement of primordial unconsciousness, there was probably never a "time" when consciousness did not exist in the mulitverse. I see the "priority" of unconsciousness over consciousness as "logical" not "temporal" - which leads to some of the "paper thinness" I mentioned earlier.
none of this addresses your soul
or your spirit
or religion
or your relationship with the Divine
or your theology
And my point is that spirituality is not (and ought not be) limited to these traditional concepts. (And I've sketched out some ways in which these traditional concepts can be reinterpreted in light of atheist/physicalist beliefs.)
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 05-24-2018 at 02:59 PM..
And my point is that spirituality is not (and ought not be) limited to these traditional concepts. (And I've sketched out some ways in which these traditional concepts can be reinterpreted in light of atheist/physicalist beliefs.)
Absolutely correct. Militant religious minds can't think outside the box or realize that secular populations and non-religious people are spiritual in ways that work for them. Music, painting, gardening, exercise and yoga, breathing exercises, meditation, learning mind bending science or philosophical ideas or any other practice that gets you in the "zone" and improves your overall well-being and mental wellness.
Tzaphkiel if you view any of the above as a hobby, than religion is also a hobby.
I disagree that you could have written what he wrote because he acknowledges particles within the fields and he acknowledges that matter is made up of stable particles that can be measured and have mass.
In his quote he states: "However, it happens that every known field has a known particle, except possibly the Higgs field (whose particle is not yet certain to exist, though [as of the time of writing, spring 2012] there are significant experimental hints.)" And now we know the Higgs particle exists and a Noble Prize was awarded for its discovery in 2013! Go particle physicists GO!
Do you have any sources for this because particle physics does not agree with this claim?
Mystic your understanding on particle physics is lacking. Of course, they know the mass of the particles they are working with in particle physics. There is no way to have made the discoveries in particle physics if the masses of the particles were not known.
Particle physics (also high energy physics) is the branch of physics that studies the nature of the particles that constitute ***matter*** and radiation.
I don't know where you are getting that we can't measure the mass of particles...we can and do measure the mass of particles...it's fundamental to particle physics research.
How is the mass of a particle determined?
This has been fun Mystic! I hope you are learning some new things just as I am!
I have been enjoying this discussion immensely as well, Mat, but given Mensa's warning, I suggest that you use links without posting science excerpts. I am familiar with most of the literature and I do keep up. In response to your question about the spherical standing wave theory of matter, I suggest Google or use the Title of a work by Dr. Milo Wolf: Solving Nature's Mystery
On the Spherical Wave Structure of Matter and the Origin of the Natural Laws. Explaining the Particle Wave Duality of Light and Matter with the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM).
Milo Wolff, Technotran Press, 1124 Third Street, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
(With editing and further comments from Geoff Haselhurst, Feb. 2003)
It is not a new theory but it has received some recent empirical support and handles the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle and Quantum Entanglement, (spooky operation at a distance), Solves Wave-Particle Duality, and Space Resonance. It originated over 130 years ago, and has some famous progenitors' ideas, like De Broglie, Bohr, Einstein (spherical non-Euclidean space), etc. but it remains controversial (as do my derivative views. IMO, it explains more intuitively the controversial and non-intuitive ideas of QFT, QED, electron and "particle" properties, and the Standard Model anomalies. Wolf's article has critical reviews from both opponents, skeptics and supporters so I recommend you find it. Here is one supporter's reaction to the negative ad hominems.
Go read the papers at wsminfo.org - there are real predictions in these papers, such as the mass of the electron neutrino as 0.065 eV which falls within super kamiokande limits. The cosmological redshift and the so-called "Dark Energy" is completely explained with one formula. Yes, the math is simple and simple is better (any string theorists here want to explain why their advanced math hasn't predicted an observable superpartner yet?). Erik Verlinde is using simple math to produce new string models. If you don't know Eric Verlinde or what SuperSymmetry or Superpartners are (and the LHC results that pertain to them), you are more likely the crank. These simple math models are the new paradigm in physics, nobody is getting anywhere with multiple dimensions, so its back to 3-D models using wave mechanics which explains pretty much everything we have looked at. WSM is simpler than particle-wave duality and explains all phenomena. Special relativity is simple math and everybody believes it. WSM is a real mathematical theory - read the papers!
ps. BTW look at how the so-called "mass" of electron neutrinos are expressed - eV - entirely as energy NOT in units of mass.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 05-24-2018 at 05:39 PM..
I have been enjoying this discussion immensely as well, Mat,...
Me too!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
...but given Mensa's warning, I suggest that you use links without posting science excerpts.
Easy to do but most people won't read links. I posted great links and still found science being misrepresented even when I quoted terms and explanations directly out of the links.
We can't have a meaningful discussion if one refuses to acknowledge the well established scientific evidence and makes unfounded claims about particles and mass/energy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
ps. BTW look at how the so-called "mass" of electron neutrinos are expressed - eV - entirely as energy NOT in units of mass.
I know this but that's not what I was addressing. I was addressing what you stated below highlighted in blue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Obviously, quantum field theory deals with particles and so it does not use mass because they cannot measure any such thing. That is why particle physics is high energy physics.
I know it's allowed to correct statements made about science in the religious forum when they are not accurate.
You made the above statement highlighted in blue and it's it far from being accurate. The very basis of being able to identify the identity of a particle in Particle Physics research is by determining it's mass. How do they determine the mass of a particle? When a charged particle travels faster than light does through a given medium, it emits Cherenkov radiation at an angle that depends on its velocity. The particle's velocity can be calculated from this angle. Velocity can then be combined with a measure of the particle's momentum to determine its mass, and therefore its identity.
You also added to that blue statement something that infers that ALL high energy particles are mass-less and this is why particle physics is high energy physics. This is not accurate either. Please go back and look at the Standard Model of Elementary Particles chart. Every single particle on that chart is a high energy particle. You find that the mass of most particles in that chart is MeV/c^2 which is a unit of mass. Therefore both of your statements are not accurate and I am simply clearing up the inaccuracies so that we can move on to a meaningful discussion. We can't move on to a meaningful discussion if one person is grossly misrepresenting science.
You can't find one credible source that would state what you stated about particles and mass. You can't do particle physics without determining the mass of the particle or the energy it possesses. Of course there are mass-less particles in the Universe that are energy, but there are also particles that possess mass and you clearly see them in the chart I posted.
I'm simply correcting the claims you've made about particles and the study of particle physics.
How can we move on to a more meaningful discussion and relate this to your spiritual beliefs? I really think we can turn this into a very interesting spiritual discussion!
Me too!
Easy to do but most people won't read links. I posted great links and still found science being misrepresented even when I quoted terms and explanations directly out of the links.
We can't have a meaningful discussion if one refuses to acknowledge the well established scientific evidence and makes unfounded claims about particles and mass/energy.
I know this but that's not what I was addressing. I was addressing what you stated below highlighted in blue.
I know it's allowed to correct statements made about science in the religious forum when they are not accurate.
You made the above statement highlighted in blue and it's it far from being accurate. The very basis of being able to identify the identity of a particle in Particle Physics research is by determining it's mass. How do they determine the mass of a particle? When a charged particle travels faster than light does through a given medium, it emits Cherenkov radiation at an angle that depends on its velocity. The particle's velocity can be calculated from this angle. Velocity can then be combined with a measure of the particle's momentum to determine its mass, and therefore its identity.
You also added to that blue statement something that infers that ALL high energy particles are mass-less and this is why particle physics is high energy physics. This is not accurate either. Please go back and look at the Standard Model of Elementary Particles chart. Every single particle on that chart is a high energy particle. You find that the mass of most particles in that chart is MeV/c^2 which is a unit of mass. Therefore both of your statements are not accurate and I am simply clearing up the inaccuracies so that we can move on to a meaningful discussion. We can't move on to a meaningful discussion if one person is grossly misrepresenting science.
You can't find one credible source that would state what you stated about particles and mass. You can't do particle physics without determining the mass of the particle or the energy it possesses. Of course there are mass-less particles in the Universe that are energy, but there are also particles that possess mass and you clearly see them in the chart I posted.
I'm simply correcting the claims you've made about particles and the study of particle physics.
How can we move on to a more meaningful discussion and relate this to your spiritual beliefs? I really think we can turn this into a very interesting spiritual discussion!
Obviously you are enamored with "particles" so perhaps we should wait until you have explored Milo's Spherical Standing Wave Theory of Matter. Here is an abstract to whet your appetite.
Abstract: The structure of the electron is investigated and found closely entwined with the origin of the natural laws. The natural laws had been measured for hundreds of years but no one knew how Nature creates them. Richard Feynman wrote, speaking of the Conservation of Energy, Nature has a hidden accountant who keeps honest books of energy input and output but we don't know how she does it. The origins had been proposed earlier by Clifford and Schrodinger, who pointed out that only a Wave Structure of Matter (WSM), can explain natural laws. Further, Einstein realised that matter was spherical and spatially extended and thus the Electron was not a point particle, but rather, a structure of space. He writes;
Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept empty space loses its meaning. ... Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high. (Albert Einstein)
Einstein's error was to represent matter as a continuous spherical field in space-time rather than as a Spherical Wave in continuous Space which causes the spherical force field effects.
Using the WSM a quantitative origin has been found based on the wave structure of the electron. It is shown that Space (the quantum wave medium) is a single entity underlying electron structure and the laws. Three Principles are found describing the wave medium, enabling calculation of particles and the laws. The predictive power of the WSM is shown by deriving the previously unknown physical origin of electron spin and making experimental predictions which solve the paradoxes of the famous EPR experiment. The WSM has important implications for research, industry, and our human role in the universe.
Calling eV or MeV or GeV "mass" just confuses the understanding of the composition of our reality. The conditioning to a physical world is too strong. As long as you resist seeing yourself as an "energy being" (consciousness) and default to your physicality, we will not be able to resolve our differences about the existence of God.
Obviously you are enamored with "particles" so perhaps we should wait until you have explored Milo's Spherical Standing Wave Theory of Matter. Here is an abstract to whet your appetite.
I'll read it but right now I have to watch my Rockets!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Calling eV or MeV or GeV "mass" just confuses the understanding of the composition of our reality. The conditioning to a physical world is too strong. As long as you resist seeing yourself as an "energy being" (consciousness) and default to your physicality, we will not be able to resolve our differences about the existence of God.
The only thing I am calling a unit of mass is MeV/c^2.
Ev / GeV = electron volt and MeV = Rest Energy and are units of energy.
The chart of particles I posted a few pages back have particles with mass listed on the chart and their mass is denoted in the unit for mass: MeV/c^2.
The chart gives the particles mass, charge and spin.
lmao. electron volts is how we describe "mass", but what does it mean? It means, mass is what we call the effect of energy in a confined space. Its like the color "white". we don't "measure white", we measure the interactions that produce white. There is no color white photon.
but hey, since when do we need facts to drive opinions. personal opinions are much better in producing reality.
Last edited by Arach Angle; 05-25-2018 at 07:46 AM..
Chaos does not require an outside intelligence to organize it. The principles underlying these spontaneous complex pattern-forming processes are extremely well-documented and mathematically modeled to the point of being able to say that the concepts are fully proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
MPhD has extensively argued that, even if self-organizing dynamical processes don't require an external organizer, the resulting intelligence of the self-organizing nature of natural elements implies that there is, at least, some internal or intrinsic intelligence that is, in some sense, "guiding" the process "from within" the process or from simply "the being of" the process, and this is what he calls "God". This is a complicated discussion that we have had over many different threads. I don't really buy his approach to this, but the differences between he and I on this topic are subtle and, at some points, paper thin. He sees the primordial essence as fundamentally conscious and intelligent, and thus the intrinsic "self-guiding" is understood somewhat literally, whereas I see the primordial essence as unconscious and I see intelligence as a property of systems that emerges from the primordially unconscious brute-fact given "rules" or "laws of nature" so, for me, the "internal guidance" is metaphorical. I see the qualitative possibility of conscious intelligence as primordial, he sees conscious intelligence, itself, as primordial. But I suspect that, despite what I see as the logical requirement of primordial unconsciousness, there was probably never a "time" when consciousness did not exist in the mulitverse. I see the "priority" of unconsciousness over consciousness as "logical" not "temporal" - which leads to some of the "paper thinness" I mentioned earlier.
yup, The universe "organized" the "cell phone". The earth didnt have cell phones 500 years ago, and it has them now. To deny the cell phone exists because it didn't exist 500 years ago is silly. Its just as silly to say there must have been cell phones 500 years ago because they are here today. And Starting the universe at unconscious is very valid. It doesn't change what we see today.
hey, I been busy. too many pages to go back through. Did you answer how we would be describe the "chemistry" in a CPU and the misunderstandings we would have if we didn't know the voltage changes were 1's and 0's and represented a langue? in the CPU?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
