- #36
- 8,142
- 1,760
geometer said: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.
Last edited: