Reality and energy

  • Thread starter Wolf
  • Start date
  • #36
Mentat
3,918
3
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
Royce
1,514
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
Mentat
3,918
3
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
Royce
1,514
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
Mumeishi
219
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
Mumeishi
219
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
Royce
1,514
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
Mumeishi
219
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
Royce
1,514
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
Mumeishi
219
0
What evidence?
 
  • #46
Royce
1,514
0
Look at the thread "Clarification of QM" in the philosophy archives. Flipton gave some links to some current experiments on this subject.
 
  • #47
Mumeishi
219
0
Thanks. I will.
 
  • #48
Iacchus32
2,313
1
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
Mr. Robin Parsons
1,256
0
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
Mr. Robin Parsons
1,256
0
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.
 
  • #51
Mumeishi
219
0
I can't find any of these articles - can you point me to them please?
 
  • #52
Mentat
3,918
3
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
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.

Not if all space surrounding matter is physical (which Relativity dictates that it is). If all of space is physical, then you are using a physical medium, and I already exposed the folly of this approach in previous posts.

btw, it doesn't help at all for the space to be non-physical either, since it would then fall into the folly of non-physical mediums, also pointed out in previous posts.
 
  • #53
Mentat
3,918
3
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Usually physical means tangible, "light" (EMR) is not tangible, even though you can feel its resultant interaction with you

Not really relevant, since light is composed of wavicles, and is thus physical. However, a concise definition of "physical" is really unnecessary for this particular logical deduction.

Humm you ego doesn't count? HUH??

My what?

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!

First off, the fact that I can't find one says nothing about their existence, merely about their ability to interact with a physical being such as myself (I can't find you a black hole either, can I?).

Secondly, there needn't actually be non-physical entities for their to be deduction as to what their limitations would be if they existed.

Finally, usual philosophers of the mind have postulated that the mind is a non-physical entity. This is what caused Dennett to explain that a non-physical entity could not interact with a physical one, since this precludes the old ideas from being true, and necessitates a more Materialistic approach.
 
  • #54
Wolf
53
0
What is what?

Quick question since you seem to know so "much" what is physical and what in the "nonphysical.?What decides what is what? Are you phyusical or non physical? thease are all words we use to describe things we are not even sure of.What if are defination of "physical" was wrong? are humans physical or non physical? in "reality" we apear to be "physical but has this whole thing started what is reality?we cannot determine what physical and non physical or if they can interact or not before we even know the thing they exist is.well WHAT IS REALITY?answer that fully then we can decided if physical or non physical can interact.
 
  • #55
Mumeishi
219
0
Proposed non-physical entities are generally classed as metaphysics. The modern physical description of reality doesn't seem to need such entities for its explanations to work. If there are such entities they are undetectable and thus, for all human purposes, nonexistent - they have no effect on our reality.

It seems to me though that the (very successful) reductionist strategy of studying things at a very small scale is missing or at least de-emphasising the way that things are put together.

The aspects of reality that were once though of as non-physical - thought, consciousness, perhaps culture - are organisational or informational properties of physical systems. Such systems, although they use physical media could in principle use a virtual medium inside a computer (although that ultimately would have to use a physical medium). In theory, at least, the human mind could be uploaded to a computer of the right sort. This might be the source of Descartes sense of not being identical to his body.

Perhaps, the non-physical that you seek is not identical to the physical, to individual electrons and atoms, but neither is it non-physical - it is a property of the physical - an organisational order that could be r4eplicated or propagated into any appropriate physical medium.

This, perhaps, was the kernel of truth in my previous 'jokes' about TCP/IP and ethernet connectivity between physical and nonphysical.
 
  • #56
Mr. Robin Parsons
1,256
0
Originally posted by Mentat
Not if all space surrounding matter is physical (which Relativity dictates that it is). If all of space is physical, then you are using a physical medium, and I already exposed the folly of this approach in previous posts.
btw, it doesn't help at all for the space to be non-physical either, since it would then fall into the folly of non-physical mediums, also pointed out in previous posts.
And by this (lovely) statement, your premise becomes the Folly...do you realize that?

BTW it isn't either "physical" (Not tactile) or "non-physical", (clearly something is there) it is energetic/EMR.
 
  • #57
Wolf
53
0
I repeat

You do not even know wht reality is so how can you say that " If there are such entities they are undetectable and thus, for all human purposes, nonexistent - they have no effect on our reality." if you do not even know what reality is? you cannot talk about what physical or non physical beings can do to reality unless you know what reality is .answer what reality exacly is then we can continue the discusion of what physical and non physical beings can do to reality
 
Last edited:
  • #58
Mumeishi
219
0
To define whether something is physical or non-physical, I need to know what those terms mean. I don't need to know what the ultimate nature of reality is.

To determine whether a card you are looking at is a diamond or a spade, you need to know what those terms mean and how to differentiate between them. Or do you think that you also need to know the 'ultimate nature of reality' to answer that question too?
 
  • #59
Wolf
53
0
Technically yes

you make a good point with the card bit...one problem before you can speak of the type of card you first must know what a card is..and the game you are playing in this case the game and what a card is reality and spade and diamond are physical and non physical what would be the point of knowing what a diamond or spade is if you do not even know what a card is?in this case what would be the point of knowing what physical and nonphysical beings can do if we do not even know what reality is?
 
  • #60
Hegira
38
0
Common saying:
Its better to be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and prove it!

This goes for everyone, including myself... So I've come to be the next fool!

Wolf, none of us could ever give you the absolute correct response to your original question of "What is reality". Reality simply is whatever you make it out to be and it is forever changing. When you were younger and thought of things in such a way that gave reality a certain kind of sense, much of the world seemed magical in many ways. Now, you've evidently traveled a far way in a short time through your extensive training and honing of your personal chi. I'd say that a lot of the things that you experience as an individual don't exactly "compute" with your previous notions of reality. The fact is that you are coming into a time within your life where you are "breaking" the "laws" that constructed your early life. This leaves you with a strong confused feeling and troubles your ego, because most of the world does not understand how to step their minds outside of their own built-up realities.

We all search for clarity on what makes sense to us as individuals, yet where we are having so much trouble is that this has been going on since the beginning (whatever that may be). Ever since we (humans) began asking "WHY", we have sought answers and have come to conclusions or acceptance from somewhere within ourselves. Right now, we seem to be traveling in so many directions that it has become difficult for us to get back on the same sheet of music and re-analyze/rethink the basic building blocks from a more nuetral perspective.

What is Reality!? I have no clue! Just ideas, thoughts, experience, fading memories, hopes, etc... And none of them seem to matter to anyone else but myself! I have to find peace with that. And so do you! We may be fighting a similar battle, but overall... You're on your own within your personal reality!

I hope you make it to be a rather nice place.


--------------------------------
I try to think of everything, only to find that I never KNOW anything!:wink:
 
Last edited:
  • #61
Mumeishi
219
0
Our understanding of such terms is necessarily pragmatic. I understand what a card is for all practical purposes. Similarly we understand what a physical object is, according to our best, most impartial and accurate testing, whatever 'physical' ultimately turns our to mean.

(superstring/M-theory looks promising)

There is simply no evidence of people breaking the laws of physics or performing acts which are inexplicable in physical scientific terms - whatever the fundamental nature of the universe turns out to be.

That's the bottom line my friend.
 
  • #62
Wolf
53
0
the begining

In the beginning i wanted to know others beleives on what they think reality is
 
  • #63
Mumeishi
219
0
I don't think its a meaningful question. It depends how you define 'reality', so its circular. Reality is that which exists.

Some people define reality in phenomenological terms, in other words it includes things usually classified as psychological events. My criticism of that definition would be that a word is useless and meaningless if it does not discriminate between one thing and other things. Thus, for 'reality' to have a meaning, there has to be something which is non-reality.

What is non-reality? Do any things exist that do not exist? No, by logical necessity. So the only meaningful use of the trem 'unreal' is to apply to such things as 'Santa Clause', 'fairies' etc, which exist as psychological and sociological phenomena, but not as physical objective phenomena in a direct, literal way. All psychological and sociological phenomena exist ultimately as physical phenomena because they are based on physical media, brains, TV etc, but they do not necessarily refer to entities existing physically in the way they are imagined to exist.

In terms of what physical reality ultimately consists of I would suggest again that superstring and M-theory look promising. Everything may ultimately consist of a sort of symphony of vibrating multidimensional strings and membranes. But it will take decades to test this theory.

If you decide that 'eveything is reality' then the word is redundant and you have no use for it. Perhaps in this state you could be said to be 'enlightened' in the Buddhist sense, but you would have sacrificed your ability to discriminate between subjective and objective. For those who seek to build upon understanding of that which exists independently of our perceptions, this attitude is useless. Indeed, this 'magical' sort of existence is the 'primitive' state which science has pulled away from in order to improve our understanding.
 
Last edited:
  • #64
Wolf
53
0
youre right

your right there is no "proof" but has Hegira

that is because people keep to them selves in there own reality.

Look all i am saying is all thease rules of physica and more commonly known as "reality" are false or need to be improved or added to because thease rules are not as solid as stated by physicist there are force that can be honed by people through chi that can break thease "laws" and as far as i have seen there has been no scientific proof of this.i believe there is no scientific proof of this because scientist or anyone else that thinks scientifically ignore even the remote posablity of thease things happening or will argue that what they are seing is something else.Something like you do in one of your post you tried to even argue that they all had a "lotgical explanation" and that they where not what i was saying but something else.people will not except what we can do because science has not proven it.And since science has not proven it then it is not excepted and science has not proven it because they ignore it or the only way they will except it is if they change what we say you did this by saying something like "your where not floating it just seamed it because you had not stopped moving forward in the air" that was not excatly what you said put it is good enough.what i said was not "science" or not reconized by science so you tried to make me see it a diferent way a scientific way...Btw when you asked why we just don't prove ourselves well that is easily answered it is because we would not be excepted.we would be seen has "wicthes" where in the medival days.'TIME IS A RIVER AND HISTORY REAPEATS IT'S SELF" that is still true today in the times of medival it was "witches" now it is us.And for a closing statement i will say again that the only reason science has not proven chi or the things i do i because science has never excepted us if they did then we would work with them to prove what we do scientifically.But beforethat we need to be excepted by science and then and only then we could prove ourselves Just to make society happy because believe me we are quite happy living on our own we do not believe we need to prove ourselves.
 
  • #65
Mumeishi
219
0
only if you can repeat these feats and record or measure what has occurred, can it be acetained whether the understood laws of physics need to be adjusted.

It may only be your understanding of what 'is supposed' to be possible that is inaccurate.
 
  • #66
Mr. Robin Parsons
1,256
0
Originally posted by Mentat
(SNIP) My what? Your EGO (an Acronym{?} Everyones Got One!)

Secondly, there needn't actually be non-physical entities for their to be deduction as to what their limitations would be if they existed. Now this is a statement of Folly if I had ever heard one, "deduction"?? Based upon nothing?? or whatever your imagination can come up with?? "Imaginary" or not?? this is not an answer...

Finally, usual philosophers of the mind have postulated that the mind is a non-physical entity. This is what caused Dennett to explain that a non-physical entity could not interact with a physical one, since this precludes the old ideas from being true, and necessitates a more Materialistic approach. (SNoP)
Yup! O'Key Dokey, then let him be the very first one to Demonstrate that he can remove only the water from an ameoba and then put the water back into it and get that (silly) MECHANISM to go again!

"Explain it" he might have, proven his explanation to be the truth, doubt that cause when you take the water out of any single Living cell, the "Wave Function Collapses" and whatever it was that was in there that was the "power/force/motivator" (of life itself) is now gone...till someone can prove differently, this stands as a proof against the Idea of 'simple materialism' being the "Source of Life Itself"
 
  • #67
Royce
1,514
0
Originally posted by Mumeishi
only if you can repeat these feats and record or measure what has occurred, can it be acetained whether the understood laws of physics need to be adjusted.

It may only be your understanding of what 'is supposed' to be possible that is inaccurate.

This last week The Discovery Channal had a program on called Extreme Martial Arts in which they showed many of the things that wolf is talking about and scientifically measured the amount of force some of the blows and kicks actually had. That is until one kick broke the measuring device.
 
  • #68
Mentat
3,918
3
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
And by this (lovely) statement, your premise becomes the Folly...do you realize that?

BTW it isn't either "physical" (Not tactile) or "non-physical", (clearly something is there) it is energetic/EMR.

Energy is physical, Parsons. Where've you been for the last century of scientific development (no offense, but Mumeishi already touched on this, and so did I; according to modern science, anything composed of wavicles or spacetime, is physical)?
 
  • #69
Mentat
3,918
3
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Your EGO (an Acronym{?} Everyones Got One!)

But what is it?

Humble point of advice: It is probably not a good idea to post your replies inside of my quote-box, since I then have to copy/paste them into the reply-box in order to respond. Just a thought.

Now this is a statement of Folly if I had ever heard one, "deduction"?? Based upon nothing?? or whatever your imagination can come up with?? "Imaginary" or not?? this is not an answer...

Think, Parsons! The fact that some idealists postulate the existence of something that doesn't meet the standards of being called "physical" is enough for logic to be used as to the relationship that such things would have if they existed at all (and it doesn't matter whether they do or not, so long as someone has postulated that they do).

Yup! O'Key Dokey, then let him be the very first one to Demonstrate that he can remove only the water from an ameoba and then put the water back into it and get that (silly) MECHANISM to go again!

What does this got to do with the price of eggs?

btw, with all due respect, there's a place for sarcasm, and this isn't it. I've been hoping that your answers would get more serious as the discussion progressed, but this isn't happening. When one uses sarcasm in every post, they give the message that they don't care about what they are saying but are posting just to be pain in the neck. I don't think that this is the case with you, but that's the vibe your giving off.

"Explain it" he might have, proven his explanation to be the truth, doubt that cause when you take the water out of any single Living cell, the "Wave Function Collapses" and whatever it was that was in there that was the "power/force/motivator" (of life itself) is now gone...till someone can prove differently, this stands as a proof against the Idea of 'simple materialism' being the "Source of Life Itself"

I still don't get this whole "water out of the living thing" problem...he never said anything about taking water out of anything.
 
  • #70
Mumeishi
219
0
Originally posted by Royce
This last week The Discovery Channal had a program on called Extreme Martial Arts in which they showed many of the things that wolf is talking about and scientifically measured the amount of force some of the blows and kicks actually had. That is until one kick broke the measuring device.

I've seen people do some amazing things too. And with martial arts training I became able to do many new things too. I've never said that martial arts training cannot allow you to do some things which ordinary people cannot do. What I said was that these abilities are explicable in terms of mastery of ordinary physical forces and that the invokation of mysterious 'chi' energies is uneccessary and unevidenced.

This measuring device could not have been very strong.

We are bound by ordinary physics and this puts limits on what a martial artist can do. He cannot deflect an oncoming vehicle, or defeat an army in an open fight or an elephant or fly or leap 50 feet like in Crouching Tiger. Its just myth and fantasy.

I'd put money on a good boxer, Vale Tudo expert or Thai boxer rather than a Shaolin monk or karate black belt.
 
Last edited:

Suggested for: Reality and energy

  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
432
Replies
4
Views
443
Replies
5
Views
671
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
390
  • Last Post
Replies
32
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
514
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
632
  • Last Post
3
Replies
80
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
795
Top