Is there a spirit world?

[Ivan Seeking]

Further, postulating the existence of beings composed of energy indicates a serious misunderstanding of the nature of energy (I'll admit, this misunderstanding could be mine!) Energy is not a THING, it's a CONCEPT. It's always associated with a particular system and does not have an independant existence. Further, a system can possesses or not possesses energy simply by changing the definition of the system. A classic example would be an object on a table. The object possesses energy with respect to the floor (gravitational potential energy), but has no energy with respect to the table.

So you are demanding a ghost particle? The ghosticle? Really though your point is completely valid.

1. How does the existence of spirits square with the Laws of Thermodynamics?

2. What is the physics by which we see spirits/ghosts?

3. What is the physics behind their (the spirits) interactions with the material world? How do they satisfy Newton's Laws?

Clearly, if they even exist no one knows these answers; less one's that assume omnipotence in a creator that makes all things possible. But I don't think we can get into omnipotence in a very scientific way, less perhaps by example from Michio Kaku and others by using the idea of Type IV Beings. So, first and foremost, we might consider the scientific equivalent notion of a god as a T4 Being. This was also the model for Star Trek's Q. Are you familiar with any of this? Do you care to tell me the rules? Where do you start? Hasn't this question of a omnipotentence been a problem for theologians for thousands of years?

No matter what we argue we can only guess. If we had a complete TOE we might feel a bit of confidence to proceed, but given that we can always point to unanswered issues like the possibility of parallel universes for example, we always have wiggle room, as Zooby says. If I say that ghosts come from a parallel universe, prove me wrong. Where do we go from here? Obviously I can't prove such a thing.

Next, if we assume some sort of dimensional argument then we are immediately in trouble because we don't know what we mean. The "metaphysicists" talk of higher planes of energy, and higher vibration frequencies of existence, for example, which clearly I can't know what the heck they mean. It sounds like nonsense to me. Then it hits me, all of this time they have been talking about the vibrations of strings.

 

[geometer]

Clearly, if they even exist no one knows these answers; less one's that assume omnipotence in a creator that makes all things possible. But I don't think we can get into omnipotence in a very scientific way, less perhaps by example from Michio Kaku and others by using the idea of Type IV Beings. So, first and foremost, we might consider the scientific equivalent notion of a god as a T4 Being. This was also the model for Star Trek's Q. Are you familiar with any of this? Do you care to tell me the rules? Where do you start? Hasn't this question of a omnipotentence been a problem for theologians for thousands of years? [/QUOTE}

You don't need to have the detailed answers right off the bat. The first thing to do is to look at the big picture. Is the existence of spirits even consistent with physical law. If the answer is yes, then apply for a grant and start looking for the detailed answers. However, I find nothing but inconsistency when I consider this issue.

 

[geometer]

No matter what we argue we can only guess. If we had a complete TOE we might feel a bit of confidence to proceed, but given that we can always point to unanswered issues like the possibility of parallel universes for example, we always have wiggle room, as Zooby says. If I say that ghosts come from a parallel universe, prove me wrong. Where do we go from here? Obviously I can't prove such a thing.

Here's my proof: See Assumption 1. Granting that, no parallel universes exist.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't need a theory in order for them to exist.

Is the existence of spirits even consistent with physical law. If the answer is yes, then apply for a grant and start looking for the detailed answers. However, I find nothing but inconsistency when I consider this issue.

Then you assume too much. Sure, we can't explain this stuff, in fact we don't even know where to begin. We can't even prove that ghosts exist. This doesn't mean that they don't. Many people believe that they know otherwise. Prove they are all lying. If you can do this then you should go and get a grant and save us all from this nonsense.

Edit: In fact this brings up an interesting point. The means to do this may soon be within reach. Lie detection is a rapidly advancing field, according to some recent reports in the tech news.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here's my proof: See Assumption 1.

An assumption is not a proof. You have things a little mixed up.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Is is pretty clear to me that neurology provides more than ample evidence to conclude that the entire concept of spirits, afterlife, magical beings etc. originally arose from neurological malfunctions (including drug-induced ones) which, up to the 20th century, were not able to be conclusively linked to pathology, and therefore, gained an enormous head of steam: millenia of being taken as "real". The momentum these ideas have gained is tremendous. For millenia parents have taught their culture's version of the spirit world to their children. It is extremely difficult to completely deracinate beliefs we acquire as children. They are always there, lurking beneath the adult overlay.

I think this is as far as anyone looking for a scientific explanation need go. The notion of inviting believers to explain their beliefs interms of physics is to invite a lot of very unclear thinkers into physics, which I don't find to be a desirable prospect.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Only if we assume that a large percentage of people are lying. Too many cases leave no doubt: Either the witnesses are lying or not. Where is the evidence that they are all lying? The burden of proof lies with you.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The answer is that you can't prove that anyone who reports something that you don't like is lying. There is not ample evidence to suggest any conclusions. If there is then present your evidence.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I'm not sure who or what you are adressing, Ivan, in your last two posts.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I was addressing your last post.

Is is pretty clear to me that neurology provides more than ample evidence to conclude that the entire concept of spirits, afterlife, magical beings etc. originally arose from neurological malfunctions...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I actually find your comments outrageous.

Edit: Okay, maybe I should tone that down a bit, but we are hardly in any position to declare God dead based on science. To say that all spiritual experiences can be attibuted to physiology is going way, way too far. This is more like the wishful thinking of guys like Persinger and others, at best.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Only if we assume that a large percentage of people are lying. Too many cases leave no doubt: Either the witnesses are lying or not. Where is the evidence that they are all lying? The burden of proof lies with you.

I don't think any of them are lying. In general, I automatically assume that people now and in the past who report this kind of thing are telling the truth as they experienced it.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The answer is that you can't prove that anyone who reports something that you don't like is lying. There is not ample evidence to suggest any conclusions. If there is then present your evidence.

You mistook me as saying something I didn't say. In answer to geometer's quest for a scientific explanation for the spirit world, I am saying, if you're interested in a scientific explanation look to neurology.

What I meant about inviting mystical types to defend their beliefs in terms of physics was "Don't bother, because what you'll get are people speculating about the existence of quantum ghost particles and Human Telepathic Field Wave Energy which is unrelated to any energy, or field known to science, and so forth."

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Like I said, this ignores too many examples where, for example, multiple witnesses are involved along with observed physical phenomenon.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You mistook me as saying something I didn't say. In answer to geometer's quest for a scientific explanation for the spirit world, I am saying, if you're interested in a scientific explanation look to neurology.

Whewww! You scared the Jesus out of me there, but I see where you are going. I still don't agree entirely but I can see your point. I have always believed that we may find "physical" explanations for "genuine mystical" phenomenon, but this is certainly a personal bias. Still, based on some of the most extreme ideas from physics we are starting to see some potential cracks in the lining to explain some claimed phenomenon.

What I meant about inviting mystical types to defend their beliefs in terms of physics was "Don't bother, because what you'll get are people speculating about the existence of quantum ghost particles and Human Telepathic Field Wave Energy which is unrelated to any energy, or field known to science, and so forth."

I understand. This is most frustrating in that by many belief systems, people make all sorts of silly statements that are indefensible by any scientific standard. I do try to keep an open mind that people may recognize some essential truth even if they can't explain it in sensible terms.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Whewww! You scared the Jesus out of me there, but I see where you are going. I still don't agree entirely but I can see your point.

OK.

I have always believed that we may find "physical" explanations for "genuine mystical" phenomenon, but this is certainly a personal bias.

Actually, I'm right with you on this one. I think that if any phenomenon turns out to be "genuine" it will have properties that are detectable in terms of conventional physics.

Still, based on some of the most extreme ideas from physics we are starting to see some potential cracks in the lining to explain some claimed phenomenon.

Without knowing what specific extreme ideas you mean, I can only say that, in general, as long as they remain extreme they are as fragile as they are extreme, their potential subject to whether or not someone comes up with a better different theory.

I do try to keep an open mind that people may recognize some essential truth even if they can't explain it in sensible terms.

Same here.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

With the understanding that tomorrow's conventional physics might be considered voodoo today, I think we agree. As for the potential cracks, the emphasis on these two words was meant to make clear that as you said, these are fragile ideas for now at least. I read and consider but surely don't adhere to ideas like a conscious universe, quantum telepathy, or spontaneous parallel worlds hopping, but these are the sorts of things being kicked around.

One thought on this point of fragile theories, or more appropriately perhaps, fragile suppositions. My first year chem professor once commented that today’s popular literature is like the old fireside and brandy, "gentlemen’s" discussion of the once elite communities of academia. Consider the stuff that today generates lots of book sales for subjects like physics but that officially are fringe; say for example some of the discussions found in books by Michio Kaku - perhaps the Carl Sagan of modern physics. My professor’s suggestion was that these sorts of discussion were once kept mostly within the walls of the ivory tower, or even by the fireside, because academic life was so sheltered. Now, with the advent of the university systems and mass education, academic life has spread out over the globe. The fireside chats wtihin this once closely knit community of academics has been replaced with the popular “scientific” literature of today that raises eyebrows in any serious scientific discussion.

 

[geometer]

Actually, I'm right with you on this one. I think that if any phenomenon turns out to be "genuine" it will have properties that are detectable in terms of conventional physics.

Had a couple of the wife's girlfriends for the weekend, so I have been out of the loop here for a bit. Zooby makes a critical point here, and more clearly than I made it earlier. Any true phenomenon must satisfy ALL the laws of physics.

Given this, I find many of the phenomena postulated by "spiritualists," using the term very loosely, to be impossible on their face. For example, consider the idea of poltergeists; to change an objects state of motion requires a force to be applied by Newton's 2nd Law, and this requires that the object applying the force have some mass. However, spirits, as I understand their current definition are massless.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, this sort of supposition about what a ghost is or is not is rather insignificant given the lack of data. This is the problem. If there is such as thing as ghosts we don't know enough to suggest the physics of them [the Casper kind]. We can say that we have no generally accepted physical evidence that they exist but it is fallacious to argue that for this reason ghosts don't exist. This I think is the core of your argument and it simply doesn't hold.

All that we can say is that we don't have enough data, and we can't imagine an explanation consistent with known physics to explain ghosts. Or simply, we have no physical evidence to suggests that ghosts exist. But that's it. If they don't exist, we will likely never do better than this unless all of the reports simply go away, or until we can scrutinize people's honesty and memories so as to determine exactly what they really may have, or may not have experienced.

spirits, as I understand their current definition are massless

For example, says who? Who would know and how would they know?

 

[zoobyshoe]

For example, says who? Who would know and how would they know?

Ivan, I had the ghost of Isaac Newton over just the other night. Just for the hell of it, I put him on the bathroom scale. Believe me: he weighed nothing.

 

[geometer]

For example, says who? Who would know and how would they know?

Well, after a quick search for a definition, I found the following from the American Ghost Society:

"A ghost is by definition, a disembodied spirit or mind." And, from Websters Unabridged Dicitionary of the English Language, a spirit is: " A concious, incorporeal being, as opposed to matter."

Certainly implies masslessness (Is that even a word?)

 

[zoobyshoe]

The thing is, those definitions are delineating the current usage of the word "ghost" by the general population. The general population is not physics savy, and by saying "incorporeal" "as opposed to matter" they are not really alluding to any rigorous physics definition of matter. The opposing pair here is matter vs. spirit, not matter vs. energy.

 

[geometer]

Those were the best definitions I could find quickly. I had a lot of difficulty finding even those (except for the Webster's of course). This is an indication I think of the complete lack of any kind of scientific rigor in the paranormal area. One site I visited had four different, and very vague, definitions of ghost - pick which one you like I guess!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan, I had the ghost of Isaac Newton over just the other night. Just for the hell of it, I put him on the bathroom scale. Believe me: he weighed nothing.

Newton has always been a special case. Did you consider that, less a simple conversion, you were trying to measure Newton in Newtons? This sort of thing is disallowed.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Newton has always been a special case. Did you consider that, less a simple conversion, you were trying to measure Newton in Newtons? This sort of thing is disallowed.

$$ROFLMAO!$$

 

[garfield13]

New thought

I am sorry for joining this thread so late, and referring back quite a few posts, a new thought:

(As a disclaimer, I did study chem in college so I do think logically, but I am not a physicist.)

First, does a shadow have mass?

The reason I ask it: I remember a theory I heard in high school that any object throws a shadow in its next less dimension. That is, 3-D objects throw a 2-D shadow. If the shadow does not have mass in itself, could the apparitions being discusses be 3-D shadows of 4-D objects?

Also, that same theory discussed the concept that the shadow dimension can only see the shadow of the higher dimension, never the objects casting the shadows. So we would be as alien to a living 2-D organism as the "spirit" realm would be to us?

And since this something that may be defendable, do any laws in the 3-D realm defy any laws that may be accepted within 2-D space? So does that help us rationize the same trend between 3-D and 4-D space?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If the shadow does not have mass in itself, could the apparitions being discusses be 3-D shadows of 4-D objects?

My answer is that no good evidence exists that suggests any such ideas are true. However, you are not the first to suggest these sorts of ideas. If something like this is true, scientifically we are completely oblivious to it for now.

Here is some information on Flatland [ a 2D +time world] that I think you might enjoy. Flatland is considered a classic.

Flatland: A romance of many dimensions
by Edwin A. Abbott, a Square
"Fie, fie how franticly I square my talk!"
[Fifth edition, revised.]

Text by Edwin A. Abbott, 1884; copyright expired.
Etext version transcribed by Aloysius West.

http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/flatland/

Time Travel in Flatland:
http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/lctoc.html

 

[mee]

I am sorry for joining this thread so late, and referring back quite a few posts, a new thought:

(As a disclaimer, I did study chem in college so I do think logically, but I am not a physicist.)

First, does a shadow have mass?

The reason I ask it: I remember a theory I heard in high school that any object throws a shadow in its next less dimension. That is, 3-D objects throw a 2-D shadow. If the shadow does not have mass in itself, could the apparitions being discusses be 3-D shadows of 4-D objects?

Also, that same theory discussed the concept that the shadow dimension can only see the shadow of the higher dimension, never the objects casting the shadows. So we would be as alien to a living 2-D organism as the "spirit" realm would be to us?

And since this something that may be defendable, do any laws in the 3-D realm defy any laws that may be accepted within 2-D space? So does that help us rationize the same trend between 3-D and 4-D space?

But it seems to me that a shadow is not 2d when thrown by a 3d object. At any point in the shadow, not merely on a surface the shadow intersects, one will find shade.