Reality and energy

  • Thread starter Wolf
  • Start date
  • #26
3,762
2
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Wouldn't it be fair to say that reality exists in layers? Beginnning with that which is most ineffible and ending with that which is most concrete? Now who's to say we don't have a spirit, or a soul, and that there is an afterlife, which in effect is a return to the beginning of everything we see before us? Indeed, what are mere physical limitations compared to that which is limitless and unbound by matter, The Spirit?

It wouldn't certainly seem like magic now wouldn't it? :wink:

Hmm ... what's that they say? "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak?"
Well, you could be right, but I see adding the assumption of reality existing in such "layers" as you decribed to be an unnecessary addition (violation of Occam's Razor).

Also, I'd be careful of using the term "limitless" about the Spirit realm or anything else, if I were you...Wuliheron may not be too active recently, but...he's still out there .

Lastly, what would connect the physical realm with the non-physical?
 
  • #27
199
0
Lastly, what would connect the physical realm with the non-physical?
Email. IP/TCP technology (broadband).

Jeez, get with the program, dude.
 
  • #28
3,762
2
Originally posted by Mumeishi
Email. IP/TCP technology (broadband).

Jeez, get with the program, dude.
LMBO! I meant that to be a serious question, dude. LOL!

Yes, as we all know, E-mail is both physical and non-physical, so it can interact with the physical but still isn't physical...it's a good thing this whole world really exists in my mind, and my mind is inside a matrix run by large purple cows who exist (of course) only in my mind...
 
  • #29
199
0
There is no logical necessity for data to run on a physical medium is there? It could run on a purely...um...spiritual medium. Why else do you think they call it an 'Ethernet' connection?
 
  • #30
3,762
2
Originally posted by Mumeishi
There is no logical necessity for data to run on a physical medium is there? It could run on a purely...um...spiritual medium. Why else do you think they call it an 'Ethernet' connection?
Alright man, I believe the sarcasm has run its course, don't you? I agree as to the ridiculousness of these ideas, but your starting to get me confused as to when your joking and when your serious . Anyway (merely for the purpose of those who are still confused on this topic), sure, data could run on a "spiritual medium" but it would still have no way of interacting with the physical realm, and would thus never be noticed by physical beings (like us) at all.
 
  • #31
Originally posted by Mentat
(SNIP) sure, data could run on a "spiritual medium" but it would still have no way of interacting with the physical realm, and would thus never be noticed by physical beings (like us) at all. (SNoP)
You keep saying that as if you have some kind of proof, please show it!! otherwise, accept that mabey it does happen, and you just haven't figured it out yet, nor how it occurs.
 
  • #32
1,481
0
Originally posted by Mentat
Alright man, I believe the sarcasm has run its course, don't you? I agree as to the ridiculousness of these ideas, but your starting to get me confused as to when your joking and when your serious . Anyway (merely for the purpose of those who are still confused on this topic), sure, data could run on a "spiritual medium" but it would still have no way of interacting with the physical realm, and would thus never be noticed by physical beings (like us) at all.
What you say would be true, Mentat, if we were purely physical beings; but, we are not just physical but mental and spiritual beings.
We have physical bodies, subjective minds and spirits or souls. All of these interact. We have talked at length about this in other threads and without getting into the objective/subjective thing again, there is more to reality and the universe than merely physical objective material things.

Part of what we are talking about in this thread is mind over matter and the mind and will enabling our bodies to do that which is beyound it's "normal" abilities. There simply is no way to explain what these people can do or make there bodies do in a purely physical or physilogical way. The mind and chi, the life force within, is what allows these things to happen. It is not a trick nor magic but focus and control. I have seen some of these thing happen with my own eyes and have don't a few simple things myself. It is real. It does happen and it is not illusion or delussion.
 
  • #33
3,762
2
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
You keep saying that as if you have some kind of proof, please show it!! otherwise, accept that mabey it does happen, and you just haven't figured it out yet, nor how it occurs.
My apologies. I've explained this point numerous times on other threads, and just assumed most would remember what I'd said before...

btw, Dennett brings out this same point in Consciousness Explained...

P1: Any interaction occuring between physical objects is a "physical interaction".
P2: Any interaction occuring between non-physical objects is a "non-physical interaction".
P3: If a non-physical entity wished to interact with a physical entity, there would have to be an intermediary between the two realms that was neither physical nor non-physical (since a physical intermediary wouldn't be any help since one of the entities is already physical, and the same reasoning applies to a non-physical intermediary).
C: Therefore, a non-physical entity cannot interact with a physical one.

As it is, I omitted P4, which is that there can be no entity that is neither physical nor non-physical, since anything that is not physical is, by default, non-physical. However, this appears to me as much too self-evident for me to add it as a proposition without insulting someone's intelligence :wink:.
 
  • #34
3,762
2
Originally posted by Royce
What you say would be true, Mentat, if we were purely physical beings; but, we are not just physical but mental and spiritual beings.
We have physical bodies, subjective minds and spirits or souls. All of these interact. We have talked at length about this in other threads and without getting into the objective/subjective thing again, there is more to reality and the universe than merely physical objective material things.
This is, to me, a completely unfounded assumption. No offense, but do you really think it is correct to just state these as "truths", when so many, very intelligent, people and I disagree with those supposed "truths"? I don't know, but it just seems like added assumptions with no purpose...

Part of what we are talking about in this thread is mind over matter and the mind and will enabling our bodies to do that which is beyound it's "normal" abilities. There simply is no way to explain what these people can do or make there bodies do in a purely physical or physilogical way. The mind and chi, the life force within, is what allows these things to happen.
First off, there are indeed explanations (I don't know how to explain all of them, but I'm sure somebody does) that fit into a Materialistic paradigm.

But, more importantly, as per deductive logic, along with scientific reasoning on the matter, if these things (mind and chi) really had an effect on the physical realm, then they themselves would also (by default) have to be physical.
 
  • #35
Originally posted by Mentat
(SNIP) P1: Any interaction occuring between physical objects is a "physical interaction".
P2: Any interaction occuring between non-physical objects is a "non-physical interaction".
P3: If a non-physical entity wished to interact with a physical entity, there would have to be an intermediary between the two realms that was neither physical nor non-physical (since a physical intermediary wouldn't be any help since one of the entities is already physical, and the same reasoning applies to a non-physical intermediary).
C: Therefore, a non-physical entity cannot interact with a physical one.
As it is, I omitted P4, which is that there can be no entity that is neither physical nor non-physical, since anything that is not physical is, by default, non-physical. However, this appears to me as much too self-evident for me to add it as a proposition without insulting someone's intelligence :wink:. (SNoP)
So like what??, light (non physical) CANNOT interact with me?? Huh?? What??? (physical)

Aside from that (Don't care what Dennett says!) find me a "non physical entity" to prove your point please
 
  • #36
3,762
2
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
So like what??, light (non physical) CANNOT interact with me?? Huh?? What??? (physical)
Mr. Parsons, light is physical, it's just not material.

Aside from that (Don't care what Dennett says!) find me a "non physical entity" to prove your point please
I can't find you a non-physical entity. In order to "find" such a thing, I'd have to be able to either see it, hear it, smell it, taste it, or feel it. Since all of these are interactions, and my deduction on the previous post shows that we could not interact, I can never prove this to you empirically, merely logically.
 
  • #37
1,481
0
Mentat, There is no proof of your P3 above and plenty of evidence that the opposite is true; therefore, his/your conclusion is in error. As before thought, emotions, mind, consciousness are all nonphysical subjective things yet they all interact with our phgysical bodies everyday every second or we would not be living human beings. Via our bodies we interact with physical reality. This is so obvious to me that I can not understand your unwilliness to accept this as true.
 
  • #38
3,762
2
Originally posted by Royce
Mentat, There is no proof of your P3 above and plenty of evidence that the opposite is true; therefore, his/your conclusion is in error.
P3 is that there would be an intermediary necessary between the two realms. How else do you propose interaction take place? This intermediary couldn't be physical because a physical entity wishing to interact with a non-physical one would be no better-off in this endeavor for having a physical extension...and the same reasoning applies to non-physical entities trying to interact with physical ones.

Where is the flaw?

As before thought, emotions, mind, consciousness are all nonphysical subjective things yet they all interact with our phgysical bodies everyday every second or we would not be living human beings.
First off, you have not proven that any of those things are non-physical, and Dennett (along with Edelman, Calving, LeDoux, and many others working in the field of consciousness and the self) has proposed a reasonable theory that allows all of the them to be completely material functions. Don't state things as definite truths, Royce, you were the one that told me that.

Secondly, why wouldn't we be living human beings if we weren't interacting with some non-physical entities?

Via our bodies we interact with physical reality. This is so obvious to me that I can not understand your unwilliness to accept this as true.
Much as I cannot understand your unwillingness to question it. Especially in light of my having proposed a deductively valid argument against it.
 
  • #39
1,481
0
"P3 is that there would be an intermediary necessary between the two realms." This is what I disagree with, that an intermediary is necessary for the physical and nonphysical to interact. This has been shown in quantum mechanics. Consciousness collapses the wave function.
If pure thought or consciousness is material then all is materialism and materialism loses its meaning. Materialism becomes universe or reality. If it can be shown that the spirit and/or soul is emergent then we can tie it all together in the philosophy of everything.
To me these ideas are merely constructs to support the materialistic view of reality. They have no validity of their own and ignore far to much that is known to be real.
 
  • #40
199
0
but your starting to get me confused as to when your joking and when your serious .
Yes, that's the art. Sorry, mate.
 
  • #41
199
0
"P3 is that there would be an intermediary necessary between the two realms." This is what I disagree with, that an intermediary is necessary for the physical and nonphysical to interact. This has been shown in quantum mechanics. Consciousness collapses the wave function.
No it doesn't.

There is a lot of misunderstanding of quantum physics. The original version of the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM suggested that consciousness collapses the wave function. Not only are there a number of equally valid interpretations, which avoid the paradoxes (eg Schrodingers cat) and begged questions of that interpretation, but the CI itself has been modified so that the the collapse occurs when the 'particle' (not really a particle at all, but a really small wave) interacts with other 'particles', ie. when it hits a detector screen. A superposition of states would thus have to be kept in isolation in the same way as a pair of entangled particles.

Modern quantum physicics simply doesn't use the conciousness idea.

But especially after the publication of 'the Tao of the New Physics' and other silliness that followed, a lot of misty-eyed new age types took on board this idea as they felt it validated their belief that there is no objective reality and everything is illusion/ mind and yes, fairies are real if only you believe in them.

These 'types' (if I may generalise and stereotype) don't keep up with new ideas and most of them probably wouldn't take any notice of new ideas that invalidated their belief system anyway, so the idea has stuck. I suppose it has become a scientific myth.
 
  • #42
1,481
0
I beg to differ, Mumeishi. According to what I am reading it hasn't been decided yet and there is evidence that consciousness does indeed collapse a wave. We have gone around and around on this subject in previous threads and I'm not going to go into it again. It seems to depend on whose book you read. If your interested look it up in the archives.
 
  • #43
199
0
Of course the true interpretation of QM is undecided - that's what I said. And thus its unsafe to conclude anything magical about consciousness from it. I don't really care what the archives say - I would use a well-researched, up-to-date book to settle that one, not the consensus of Physics Forum posters.

What evidence?
 
Last edited:
  • #44
1,481
0
No, we can't come to any conclusions; but it opens an interesting door to the possiblity that consciousness does interact directly with the physical and is more than just an emergent property of the brain.
 
  • #45
199
0
What evidence?
 
  • #46
1,481
0
Look at the thread "Clarification of QM" in the philosophy archives. Flipton gave some links to some current experiments on this subject.
 
  • #47
199
0
Thanks. I will.
 
  • #48
2,225
0
Originally posted by Royce
"P3 is that there would be an intermediary necessary between the two realms." This is what I disagree with, that an intermediary is necessary for the physical and nonphysical to interact. This has been shown in quantum mechanics. Consciousness collapses the wave function.
And yet there's no point in mentioning a spiritual dimension, if in fact there are no spirits that actually dwell there. This is why I suggest there are two domains, the spiritual domain (where actual spirits dwell), and the material domain, which is the "temporal physical plane" we live in now. Whereas between the two there must exist some sort of energy barrier or membrane, by which the design/intent/motive (and hence spirit) passes through, to articulate the material ...
 
  • #49
Originally posted by Mentat
Mr. Parsons, light is physical, it's just not material.
Usually physical means tangible, "light" (EMR) is not tangible, even though you can feel its resultant interaction with you

I can't find you a non-physical entity. Humm you ego doesn't count??? HUH?? In order to "find" such a thing, I'd have to be able to either see it, hear it, smell it, taste it, or feel it. Since all of these are interactions, and my deduction on the previous post shows that we could not interact, I can never prove this to you empirically, merely logically.
If what you tell, after[ b], is true, then your original premise is flawed, inasmuch as it is based upon assumtion(s) of non realities!
 
  • #50
Originally posted by Mentat
(SNIP) P3 is that there would be an intermediary necessary between the two realms. How else do you propose interaction take place? This intermediary couldn't be physical because a physical entity wishing to interact with a non-physical one would be no better-off in this endeavor for having a physical extension...and the same reasoning applies to non-physical entities trying to interact with physical ones. Where is the flaw? (SNoP)
The intermediary medium could very easily be the medium of energy that floods the universe, it is called EMR.........a spectral (non-physical) entity could communicate to you (a Physical entity) through the medium of the energy that permeates all space surrounding matter.
 

Related Threads for: Reality and energy

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
19K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
940
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
6K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
26
Views
7K
Top