The Metaphysical and the Physical

  • Thread starter Mentat
  • Start date
  • #101
597
0
Originally posted by Iacchus32
By the way, would you say the experience the universe is looking for is ecstatic by nature? Indeed, this is what the whole of nature seems to suggest, as everything revolves around "sexual union" -- i.e., the "joining" of the masculine with the feminine. I believe this is one aspect of ecstasy anyway, especially when it involves a larger brain and higher degree of sensitivity.
To tell you the truth -- which is a LIE right there because I don't know -- and, perhaps CAN'T HANDLE -- the truth...nonetheless...

To tell you the truth, I'm beginning to consider that the Universe doesn't CARE what It gets to experience(with and through us); as long as It's having an experience, It's fulfilling Its "Primary Directive".

I've come to this thought reluctantly...because I "prefer to think" that the Universe has "lofty" aims...and prefers to have lofty experiences...but, with all the misery on this planet...and all the beings who take pleasure in doing nasty things ...I consider it POSSIBLE that the Universe is "getting off" as much on what we DO with "hate" as what we do with "love". As I say, I don't like coming to this conclusion...in fact, it isn't really a "conclusion" since its still under consideration as a possibility.

So, in answer to your question, is the Universe looking for "ecstasy"...I would say YES...because the more intense the experience the better...and nothing's more intense than being in reciprocated love. But perhaps the Universe is just as "happy" with experiencing a murderous rampage...or a mother's loss of a child...or a concert under the stars.

I'm not sure whether THIS is the thread to discuss the nature and evolution of spirit or how spirit might "prefer" certain experiences over others. I could come up with a new thread entitled: Does the Universe Give A Damn?...if you think anyone cares ! :wink:
 
Last edited:
  • #102
2,225
0
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
To tell you the truth -- which is a LIE right there because I don't know -- and, perhaps CAN'T HANDLE -- the truth...nonetheless...
Which truth is that? The truth(s) that exist between life and death -- or, if there is a difference -- the truth that always was and always will be? Wow! How is it possible to even conceive of such a thing?!


To tell you the truth, I'm beginning to consider that the Universe doesn't CARE what It gets to experience(with and through us); as long as It's having an experience, It's fulfilling Its "Primary Directive".
Well that makes sense in that you can't have one experience, without the possibility of a whole myriad of experiences occurring at the same time, for nothing could be considered "unique" without the backdrop of diversity (of possibilities). In other words life itself couldn't exist without diversity. While perhaps it's this "very uniqueness" that makes everything real?


I've come to this thought reluctantly...because I "prefer to think" that the Universe has "lofty" aims...and prefers to have lofty experiences...but, with all the misery on this planet...and all the beings who take pleasure in doing nasty things ...I consider it POSSIBLE that the Universe is "getting off" as much on what we DO with "hate" as what we do with "love". As I say, I don't like coming to this conclusion...in fact, it isn't really a "conclusion" since its still under consideration as a possibility.
We can't have our "highs" without our "lows" ... And yet we all have what's called our "ruling love," and it's this "Ecstasy" that we seek (or long for) in everything we do.


So, in answer to your question, is the Universe looking for "ecstasy"...I would say YES...because the more intense the experience the better...and nothing's more intense than being in reciprocated love. But perhaps the Universe is just as "happy" with experiencing a murderous rampage...or a mother's loss of a child...or a concert under the stars.
Yes, all of these might be considered examples of Ecstasy. And yet in order to allow for its "higher proclivity," we must also allow for its "lower proclivity," to set it in contrast. Perhaps we could classify Ecstasy as the "intensity" derived from one's "ruling love?"


I'm not sure whether THIS is the thread to discuss the nature and evolution of spirit or how spirit might "prefer" certain experiences over others. I could come up with a new thread entitled: Does the Universe Give A Damn?...if you think anyone cares ! :wink:
By all means, I think it would make a good thread. Of course I'm not sure whether I would participate or not? ... Will just have to wait and see.

By the way, did you know that Dionysus was the god of Wine and, Ecstasy? And that he was also called the Divine Androgeny, meaning the perfect assimilation of the masculine with the feminine (traits)? I just thought you might want to know this, as this is why I brought up the notion of Ecstasy. I also thought it might be a possible "god-connection," if in fact you were looking one? ... Indeed, there seems to be a strong correlation to what you're trying to relate.
 
  • #103
597
0
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Which truth is that? The truth(s) that exist between life and death -- or, if there is a difference -- the truth that always was and always will be? Wow! How is it possible to even conceive of such a thing?!
Honestly (here we go again), I don't know about "overriding" and "always in existence" TRUTH(S). I'm still dealing with POSSIBILITIES!!! Someday you might want to start a thread: Eternal Truths: Fact or Fiction.

Well that makes sense in that you can't have one experience, without the possibility of a whole myriad of experiences occurring at the same time, for nothing could be considered "unique" without the backdrop of diversity (of possibilities). In other words life itself couldn't exist without diversity. While perhaps it's this "very uniqueness" that makes everything real?

We can't have our "highs" without our "lows" ... And yet we all have what's called our "ruling love," and it's this "Ecstasy" that we seek (or long for) in everything we do.

Yes, all of these might be considered examples of Ecstasy. And yet in order to allow for its "higher proclivity," we must also allow for its "lower proclivity," to set it in contrast. Perhaps we could classify Ecstasy as the "intensity" derived from one's "ruling love?"


By all means, I think it would make a good thread. Of course I'm not sure whether I would participate or not? ... Will just have to wait and see.
If one believes that there's a process of "spiritual evolution" going on, then having "higher" and "lower" CHOICES makes sense. The "struggle" -- the Jihad -- as I have said, is "within OURSELVES". The potential for good and evil exists in each of us...and IF evolution is part of the package, then we evolve "into" compassionate beings who CHOOSE good acts over evil ones for that reason. However, if the Universe is simply out to have an Experience of any calibre and content, then it's a "free for all" that's "goin' nowhere"!

By the way, did you know that Dionysus was the god of Wine and, Ecstasy? And that he was also called the Divine Androgeny, meaning the perfect assimilation of the masculine with the feminine (traits)? I just thought you might want to know this, as this is why I brought up the notion of Ecstasy. I also thought it might be a possible "god-connection," if in fact you were looking one? ... Indeed, there seems to be a strong correlation to what you're trying to relate.
I'll have to think about how androgeny would have anything to do with my current ruminations. If I'm "looking for God" it's in "all the wrong places" (just a joke). However, it's a GREAT QUESTION: What am I looking for?...and, incidentally, would make a good thread.
 
  • #104
2,225
0
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Honestly (here we go again), I don't know about "overriding" and "always in existence" TRUTH(S). I'm still dealing with POSSIBILITIES!!! Someday you might want to start a thread: Eternal Truths: Fact or Fiction.
Well, I wasn't so sure of my phrasing of it, but that's kind of the "big question" isn't it? I mean there's lots of truths about our temporary existence, but that doesn't belie the ultimate truth, right? ... Like why are we here?


If one believes that there's a process of "spiritual evolution" going on, then having "higher" and "lower" CHOICES makes sense. The "struggle" -- the Jihad -- as I have said, is "within OURSELVES". The potential for good and evil exists in each of us...and IF evolution is part of the package, then we evolve "into" compassionate beings who CHOOSE good acts over evil ones for that reason. However, if the Universe is simply out to have an Experience of any calibre and content, then it's a "free for all" that's "goin' nowhere"!
The world is just a stage, by which we discover the roles which suit us best, and carry these on to the "next plane."


I'll have to think about how androgeny would have anything to do with my current ruminations. If I'm "looking for God" it's in "all the wrong places" (just a joke). However, it's a GREAT QUESTION: What am I looking for?...and, incidentally, would make a good thread.
Androgeny is also none other than the "synergy" that exists between the yin and yang: where the yin is considered feminine in nature and the yang is considered masculine. Does that help?
 
  • #105
3,762
2
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
The oscillation associated with a photon slows/lengthens the lower its energy. If you look at Planck's law, it states the energy of EM is confined to quanta (photons) and its magnitude is proportional to its frequency.
Yes, the energy of EM waves is confined to quanta (photons), that's my point. The energy of an EM wave can decrease or increase, depending on it's frequency, but photons are the energy (I think).

BTW, I was gone for 5 days, so I'm trying to catch up with this thread. Please forgive me, if I repeat something that has already been said.
 
  • #106
3,762
2
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I think we could develop a description of the "meta" part of metaphysical which most anyone might agree. I doubt few would disagree that mind wills the body. If we look at the behavior of matter not under the control of consciousness, it just sits there for the most part, or if inanimate matter does have dynamics, they are quite predictable.

In the interests of finding a common ground, and since this is a science site, I try not to stray too far from what facts support, even if I might suspect a lot more is going on than the facts. The best sorts of facts are those everyone can easily see. For instance, even if we are a product solely of matter as materialists claim, then some part of this "living matter" has certainly transcended itself in order to manifest in the areas of will, creativity, love . . . no unconscious matter can do any such thing.

Though hoping to find common ground, I am starting to suspect that those of us who appreciate the meta of physics are wasting our time talking to radical mechanists. They look at reality the way someone might examine music only by studying the notes, never sitting down and listening deeply and with all one's being. The "feel" of existence seems irrelevant to them, whereas to me at least, it is more relevant (to my existence) than the facts because if I couldn't feel, I wouldn't care if I existed at all.
But I am not a radical mechanist. I don't mind the idea of their being a metaphysical realm - in fact, this thread would make no sense, if one didn't assume (at least for the duration of their participation on this thread) that there was such a thing. However, what I don't know, is whether the meta-physical (that which is not physical) can interact with the physical. As I pointed out in my first post, something that interact with the physical world interacts physically (right?), and anything that interacts physically must do so in the physical realm (right?). From this reasoning alone, it doesn't seem that the metaphysical could interact with the physical, but I'm still uncertain and welcome any insights.
 
  • #107
3,762
2
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Ahh, "wisdom" is the interior of what knowledge is the exterior. Knowledge is the physical, of which wisdom is the metaphysical. This is why science doesn't get it.

Science "follows" the path of knowledge, while the mystic "searches" the path of wisdom.
Would you care to substantiate this in some way? Is not wisdom the application and use of aquired knowledge and understanding?
 
  • #108
3,762
2
Originally posted by Tom
Boy, are you guys confused.

Rather than address all the posts in this thread, I am going to speak in some generalities and then comment on the one post that lies at the root of the conceptual problem.

Energy is a defined mathematical quantity. It has no physical reality apart from its functional dependence on state variables that do have reality. Physicists make use of the concept because the dynamical behavior of physical systems is such that this mathematical function is conserved.

Some examples of energy forms and the state variables that determine them:

KE of a particle: K=(1/2)mv2 State variable: v
PE of a particle in a gravitational field: V=-GMm/r State variable: r
Energy of a photon: Eγ=hf State variable: f

et cetera...

In a dynamical physical system, the state of the system at a given instant is a sort of snapshot of the system, determined by the complete set of state variables. The energy of the state is nothing more than a number associated with the state, calculated by means of rules that associate state variables with forms of energy.



Because that is how energy is defined.



Actually, we should not "see" energy at all. We do not measure energy, we measure the values of state variables. What we "see" is light with a lower frequency, and from that information we calculate its energy to be lower.



Heat is not quantized, but a macroscopic phenomenon. The state variable in this case is the temperature, and that is what is measured.



It agree that the statement "light is energy" is false. Rather, light has an energy that can be calculated.



Actually, since energy is a simple matter of mathematical definition, we do know exactly what it is.
*Applause*

Very eloquently put, Tom (as usual). Kudos.
 
  • #109
3,762
2
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Actually, "metaphysics" -- according to Webster -- is quite respectable...NOT the "woo-woo" thinking we have come to associate with the word.

METAPHYSICS: The branch of philosophy that systematically investigates the nature of first principles and problems of ultimate reality, including the study of being (ontology) ad, often, the study of the structure of the Universe (cosmology).

METAPHYSICAL: Based on speculative or abstract reasoning; too abstract; excessively subtle; SUPERNATURAL...and here's where the problems begin!

Actually, anything that "happens" in the Universe should be thought of, by definition, as NATURAL. Yet even "consciousness" is not worthy of discussion -- let alone INCLUSION -- within cosmological theory ...as if consciousness is not a PART of the Universe at all.

I purposely didn't include one word that Webster did (actually, I'm using 'The American Heritage Dictionary"); the word is "immaterial". I would assume they mean "without substance" and not "without function".

Thus, it would seem, that when a materialists cannot detect, measure or test a "substance" then...it (whatever the "it" may be ) doesn't exist.

Some things can only be "measured" by their EFFECTS...yet, again, consciousness is left out in the cold because its effects can't be definitively demonstrated or predicted.

Of course you know there have been experiments on "intention's" effect on "random events"...but even these are inconclusive.

I, too, would like to "unite" -- via persuasive logic, if nothing else -- that which is UNITED ALREADY: the natural forces/processes/ingredients of the physical and non-physical Universe.

Good luck with that.
Thanks for the definitions, M. Gaspar, they've given me some more questions to ask after seeing if one can unite the "metaphysical" and the "physical" as defined in the first post.
 
  • #110
3,762
2
Originally posted by Eh
Jesus Drag, you've just opened a whole new can of worms.
He follows closely in the path of the great Wu Li - opening up a can of worms wherever he goes.

I've got some serious conspiracy theories about those two...:wink:.
 
  • #111
3,762
2


Originally posted by drag
Let's assume there are FPEs (Flying Pink Ellephants)
and BSEs (Bull Sized Ellephants). Can they interact ?

Hint No. 1 : Without a full and clear definition we have
no way to know.
Hint No. 2 : We were just assuming this so we do not have
such definitions.
Hint No. 3 : This ain't working out... :wink:

Doubt or shout !

Peace and long life.
Alrighty then. I think I gave a pretty clear definition, but if there's something you don't understand, or wish to be expounded on, please tell me.
 
  • #112
3,762
2
Originally posted by drag
I'm not following you.

I can also concieve of pink flying ellephants, so ?
And this is where your record starts to break (in so many threads). Let me try to explain: If I ask one to define what a pink elephant wing is, they can tell me "that which a pink flying elephant flies with", and that is perfectly acceptable because of the nature of my question. It's called a heterophenomenological approach, and is perfectly acceptable, even in scientific studies (such as anthropologists studying the religions of ancient tribes).

What about the existence of space-time itself ?
What about it?

Real Chicago ? Is there anything provable beyond observation ?
Where and how do you set the limmits ?
The limit of Science resides in the limit of observation.


[edit]: Pink writing was too hard for me to read.
 
  • #113
2,225
0
Originally posted by Mentat
Would you care to substantiate this in some way? Is not wisdom the application and use of aquired knowledge and understanding?
It isn't altogether different from what you're saying, except that it involves an "interior perception" of things (developed from experience).
 
  • #114
597
0
Originally posted by Mentat
The limit of Science resides in the limit of observation.
Please don't say you mean this?
 
  • #115
477
4
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Please don't say you mean this?
i think he does. and i would agree.



Originally posted by Mentat
The limit of Science resides in the limit of observation.
the only thing i'd add is that human ignorance and willingness to accept truth is another limit.
 
  • #116
597
0
Originally posted by maximus
i think he does. and i would agree.
Yet where would science be if all thinkers confined themselves only to what could be observed?

Tsk, tsk (one for EACH of you!).
 
  • #117
477
4
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Yet where would science be if all thinkers confined themselves only to what could be observed?
you can think all you want (as einstein did in his thought experiments), but no theory will ever be accepted without having some observational evidence, or without making sound predictions about future experience. affects from einstiens thought experiments have been observed countless times.
 
  • #118
597
0
Originally posted by maximus
you can think all you want (as einstein did in his thought experiments), but no theory will ever be accepted without having some observational evidence, or without making sound predictions about future experience. affects from einstiens thought experiments have been observed countless times.
My point is that we would not have gotten to the experiment if Einstein had confined himself to thinking about only what could be OBSERVED.

Thus, "the limit of Science resides in the limit of observation" would, indeed, be a LIMITING VIEW for Science ...if it were true.

But, surely, we can masticate on bigger cuds than this?
 
  • #119
477
4
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
My point is that we would not have gotten to the experiment if Einstein had confined himself to thinking about only what could be OBSERVED.

Thus, "the limit of Science resides in the limit of observation" would, indeed, be a LIMITING VIEW for Science ...if it were true.
as i said, you may think away. but do not count on any future observation to confirm your hypothesis.
 
  • #120
597
0
Originally posted by maximus
as i said, you may think away. but do not count on any future observation to confirm your hypothesis.
And would you have said this to Einstein, too?

Come on, Maximus, say "uncle".

Never mind. I'll concede: only that which can be OBSERVED is relevant to Science...and nothing else is worth thinking about.

Sorry it took me so long. :wink:
 
  • #121
2,225
0
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
And would you have said this to Einstein, too?

Come on, Maximus, say "uncle".

Never mind. I'll concede: only that which can be OBSERVED is relevant to Science...and nothing else is worth thinking about.

Sorry it took me so long. :wink:
So, have you checked out my new thread? Am surprised you haven't bothered to make a post?
 
  • #122
597
0
Originally posted by Iacchus32
So, have you checked out my new thread? Am surprised you haven't bothered to make a post?
Sorry, Iacchus: I don't go shopping -- as I should -- from the "Main Menu". I feel I'm peddling as hard as I can to keep up with the threads I'm already on.

I'm almost AFRAID to look and see what's available...but I will.

See you there.
 
  • #123
3,762
2
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Please don't say you mean this?
Yes, I mean it. However, I don't mean that Science is limited to what we can observe, I mean that there is a limit imposed on all Scientific progress, and that is that the Scientific Method requires one to first make an observation.
 
  • #124
3,762
2
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
And would you have said this to Einstein, too?

Come on, Maximus, say "uncle".

Never mind. I'll concede: only that which can be OBSERVED is relevant to Science...and nothing else is worth thinking about.

Sorry it took me so long. :wink:
You're missing the point, but it is probably due to my trying to shorten long lines of posting (against "drag" no less) into one statement.

Science is based on the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method is as follows (though I'm confident you already know this):

Step 1. Make an observation.
Step 2. Form an hypothesis as to how this observation works.
Step 3. Collect data relating to the observation.
Step 4. Rigorously test your hypothesis, to see if it holds true in all experiments, and modify it as necessary.
Step 5. If your hypothesis has survived, declare it a "theory" and live happily ever after :smile:.

Remember, Science is not the only way to learn about your environment. It is one (and only one) branch of Philosophy, and limited, just as any other branch of Philosophy.
 
  • #125
Tiberius
Originally posted by Mentat
Step 1. Make an observation.
Step 2. Form an hypothesis as to how this observation works.
Step 3. Collect data relating to the observation.
Step 4. Rigorously test your hypothesis, to see if it holds true in all experiments, and modify it as necessary.
Step 5. If your hypothesis has survived, declare it a "theory" and live happily ever after :smile:.
Well, after step 5 you don't stop. You keep testing and retesting. Over time some theories become stronger and stronger, others weaker, and others are superceded by stronger theories. So, you never really "live happily ever after" per se.

Remember, Science is not the only way to learn about your environment. It is one (and only one) branch of Philosophy, and limited, just as any other branch of Philosophy.
Many other branches of philosophy do not deal with learning about your environment or epistemology. Other philosophies that DO deal with this in another way than the scientific method have never been verified as begin a legitimate source of knowledge. So, not all philosophies are equal. The scientific method is the ONLY method for obtaining knwledge which can show accuracy to a degree far greater than random chance. Other methods remain simply folklore wrapped in philosophic lingo. That's why we don't have "mystic centers" all over the country, funded by billions of tax dollars, and making discoveries for the advancement of human beings. The mystics remain pretty much on their own and have been saying the same things for thousands of years - none of which have affected humanity's ability to control it's environment (for better or worse) anywhere near as reliably as science. This efficacy is proof that science is a good method for obtaining knowledge. If any other methods worked as well then they might have an argument to make. So far, ALL other methods fail miserably at obtaining facts.

Other branches of philosophy may be great at giving us insights into living a good life, ethics, and self improvement, but as far as gathering new information about our environment - they must all fall into, within, and in-line with scientific consensus on these matters or else they are utterly useless (not to mention "looney").
 

Related Threads on The Metaphysical and the Physical

  • Last Post
Replies
21
Views
7K
Replies
49
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
65
Views
9K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
Top