What Are Others' Perspectives on Reality and Energy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wolf
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Reality
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the nature of reality, energy, and the concept of "chi." Participants explore the idea that reality is a physical manifestation of energy, suggesting that extraordinary physical feats, often attributed to chi, do not break the laws of physics but rather exploit them. Some argue that while chi may not be scientifically recognized, it exists within the bounds of physical laws, and extraordinary abilities can be achieved through focused training and willpower. Skeptics challenge claims of superhuman abilities, emphasizing that many feats attributed to chi can be explained through technique, leverage, and training, rather than any mystical force. They argue that there is no empirical evidence supporting the idea that chi can defy physical laws. The conversation touches on the philosophical aspects of reality, questioning whether it exists in layers and how the mind and spirit interact with the physical world. Ultimately, the discussion highlights the tension between traditional beliefs in chi and modern scientific understanding, with participants sharing personal experiences and anecdotes to support their views.
  • #61
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
the begining

In the beginning i wanted to know others beleives on what they think reality is
 
  • #63
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
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
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
Originally posted by Mentat
(SNIP)[/color] My what? Your EGO (an Acronym{?} Everyones Got One!)[/color]

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...[/color]

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)[/color]
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
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
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
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
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:
  • #71
Originally posted by Mumeishi
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.

Another way in which the reality of causes could perhaps be denied is to say that physics is only the discovery of laws that relate events, not the explanation of the properties of things that lead to these events: that is, that physics is (or should be) only concerned with effects, not with causes. It is agreed that all observations are effects of interactions, but it does seem an unnecessarily severe restriction not to permit physicists to speculate on the causal properties of what they are examining, nor to permit them to postulate, for example, potential energy apart from kinetic energy.

While I find Mumeishi's speech very on point and correct, I find this also a bit dispostional. Meaning that with new advances in technology some of the things that are fantasy could be done with physical properties from ourselves. Like we could unlock a whole other reality unknown to the matter of the mind. Instead of mind over matter; matter over mind, possibly.
 
  • #72
Originally posted by Mentat
But what is it? To use your responce, already been posted...(by myself)[/color]

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.
Yes, your right, just a thought![/color]

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).
Didn't dispute that, but all you end up discussing is/are "belief systems", nothing more, nothing less...no proof otherwise![/color]



What does this got to do with the price of eggs? What an astounding evasion, aren't you just the smart little fellow...(That is sarcasm!)[/color]

btw, with all due respect, Really ? where?[/color] 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, If you find that from me (in my postings...Nah! rare enough) then you are placing something in there that simply isn't there, it is from you then...NOT me[/color] they give the message that they don't care about what they are saying but are posting just to be pain in the neck. Quote: "With all due respect..."...see above[/color] I don't think that this is the case with you, but that's the vibe your giving off.

I still don't get this whole "water out of the living thing" problem...he never said anything about taking water out of anything. Clearly...[/color]
Perhaps when you figure out the water out of the living thing thing then perhaps we can continue, till then, as your judgment of me is waaaay more a reflection of you, then me, you have some things to do?
 
  • #73
Originally posted by Mumeishi
(SNIP)[/color] 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. (SNoP)[/color]
And yet you seem to have wanted insights into metaphysical realms/understandings/ideas but all that anyone could offer would be subjective testimony, after all that is the nature of the word metaphysical, you ask for something that, once given to yuo, you would wish to "de-bunk"...if you really want for metaphysical understandings, read the Bible New testament, the Dharma Pada(sp?), The Bagavaghita (sp?) as they (and all of the rest of them, the scriptual/holy/spiritual Books) have all of the 'belief system knowledge' that you (might) need.

If you would wish to know insight into 'illusory'...current HS physics sorta, as "Three state of Matter", well matter is solid, that is its definition, and all of the atoms, whatever state they occupy (by comprising it) are 'solids', so the actual states of matter are really matter relationships, "Occluded amorphic" is 'gaseous', "Coherant amorphic" is 'viscuous/liquid', and "Coherant Morph" as 'solidified'...why?

Well I had put it in another thread a while back, the Gravitational boundary acts atomically outside the shell in gases, at the shells surface in liquids, and within the shells structure for solids, as per the Math abbreviations 1/r2, 1/r, 1/{\sqrt{r}} , respectively.

Does that help?
 
  • #74
Originally posted by Jeebus
Another way in which the reality of causes could perhaps be denied is to say that physics is only the discovery of laws that relate events, not the explanation of the properties of things that lead to these events: that is, that physics is (or should be) only concerned with effects, not with causes. It is agreed that all observations are effects of interactions, but it does seem an unnecessarily severe restriction not to permit physicists to speculate on the causal properties of what they are examining, nor to permit them to postulate, for example, potential energy apart from kinetic energy.

Perhaps, until we have (if ever) a TOE all out theories can do is recognise patterns and make descriptions in terms of incompletely described entities. Not sure what you mean. They do postulate potential energy - potential energy is the other main form of energy apart from the various forms of kinetic energy. Or was this just a misleading choice of phrase? If so, I'd suggest there could conceivbly be other sorts of energy, but that neither myself nor the scientific community is excluding such possibilities. Its just that there is no need with current evidence and theories to postulate such energies. The relatively recent postulation of 'dark energy' to account for a discrepancy between existing theory and available evidence shows the willingness of the scientific community to do this. However, wild speculation unsupported by evidence is generally regarded as a waste of time.

Originally posted by Jeebus
While I find Mumeishi's speech very on point and correct, I find this also a bit dispostional. Meaning that with new advances in technology some of the things that are fantasy could be done with physical properties from ourselves. Like we could unlock a whole other reality unknown to the matter of the mind. Instead of mind over matter; matter over mind, possibly.

Yes, one day we could indeed be able to fly using 'chi energy'. But since there is no evidence, the possibility is rather remote and speculation about it rather pointless.
 
  • #75
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
And yet you seem to have wanted insights into metaphysical realms/understandings/ideas but all that anyone could offer would be subjective testimony, after all that is the nature of the word metaphysical, you ask for something that, once given to yuo, you would wish to "de-bunk"...if you really want for metaphysical understandings, read the Bible New testament, the Dharma Pada(sp?), The Bagavaghita (sp?) as they (and all of the rest of them, the scriptual/holy/spiritual Books) have all of the 'belief system knowledge' that you (might) need.

Which one should I pick, given that they contradict one another? And what gives you the justification to exclude the Old Testament? Because its inconsistent with your own belief system?

Some of these texts might contain some wisdom and some truth, but inclusion in an old book and part of a cultural phenomenon characterised by mass-conformity and obendience, is far from a guarantee of truth.

I don't think there is anything inherently untestable about something that is metaphysical. If something affects our reality its effects can be measured.

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
If you would wish to know insight into 'illusory'...current HS physics sorta, as "Three state of Matter", well matter is solid, that is its definition, and all of the atoms, whatever state they occupy (by comprising it) are 'solids', so the actual states of matter are really matter relationships, "Occluded amorphic" is 'gaseous', "Coherant amorphic" is 'viscuous/liquid', and "Coherant Morph" as 'solidified'...why?

Atoms are not 'solids', this has been explained to you twice now.

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Well I had put it in another thread a while back, the Gravitational boundary acts atomically outside the shell in gases, at the shells surface in liquids, and within the shells structure for solids, as per the Math abbreviations 1/r2, 1/r, 1/{\sqrt{r}} , respectively.

Does that help?

Gravitational shell boundaries, if there is such a thing, is not something I know about. But I fail to see how this shows , in spite of overwhelming scientific opinion to the contrary, that atoms are 'solids'.
 
  • #76
Originally posted by Mumeishi
Which one should I pick, given that they contradict one another? And what gives you the justification to exclude the Old Testament? It was ONLY a recomendation, NOT an order, you know "a suggestion", not an "instruction"[/color] Because its inconsistent with your own belief system?

Some of these texts might contain some wisdom and some truth, but inclusion in an old book and part of a cultural phenomenon characterised by mass-conformity and obendience, is far from a guarantee of truth. No guarantee of any provability of truth in metaphysics, hence "belief systems" [/color]

I don't think there is anything inherently untestable about something that is metaphysical. If something affects our reality its effects can be measured. humm apparently(?) you seem to miss what 'metaphysical' means, "Beyond Physics" approximates it well enough, so it is beyond (present abilities) "testablity" as for affecting reality, ideas do that, with no physical/testable aspect to them...illusory and metaphysical...[/color]

Atoms are not 'solids', this has been explained to you twice now. Hummm...well all matter is comprised of atoms, they are, for all practical intents and purposes, quite solid, but it is a perception of scale, (no question of that) and at the scale we live at, we can easily conclude that they are amazingly solid[/color]

Gravitational shell boundaries, if there is such a thing, is not something I know about. But I fail to see how this shows , in spite of overwhelming scientific opinion to the contrary, that atoms are ("appear as"...as I said above 'scale')[/color] 'solids'.
Atoms behave as a solid no matter what state of matter they are in, that is the definition of 'matter' itself, solidity (AKA "boundary definition"...not to be confused with a "gravitational boundary") of a measurable mass...
 
  • #77
Originaly posted by Mumeishe
(SNIP)[/color] Atoms are not 'solids', this has been explained to you twice now. (SNoP)[/color]
Humm, atoms are comprised of Protons, and the Protons "Expectancy of duration of Solidity" is roughed out at 10somewhere's in the fourties...(like me, he hee) Years! like about three times the current age of the Universe, roughly! and wasn't it your definition of "solid" that stated it "held it's shape"(?) is this Solid enough for you to accept the Idea of Solidity?
 
  • #78
You're a stubborn old fool aren't you? I'm not going to waste any more time discussing this. Anyone reading these threads can make up their own minds.
 
  • #79
Originally posted by Mumeishi
You're a stubborn old fool aren't you? I'm not going to waste any more time discussing this. Anyone reading these threads can make up their own minds.
Clearly you invalidate your own opinion, and I can rest well knowing that you will no longer be "wasting your time" (precious that that is) nor attempting to influence anyone 'unduly' to your "point of view" that seems to think that there is nothing solid in the universe, contrary to the evidence...I'd probably rather be a 'stubborn old fool' who is actually right, then someone so "Arrogantly impudent" who is going to continue in their own "self delusional path of self decreed self righteousness" when the evidence (Nature, AKA physical reality, 'The Truth' as objective {et Al}) clearly tells them that they are wrong!
 
Last edited:
  • #80
I think Mumeishi merely expressed the futility in bashing his head against a wall. Considering I've never seen you give one inch, on any subject, I consider that decision wise.
 
  • #81
Originally posted by radagast
I think Mumeishi merely expressed the futility in bashing his head against a wall. Considering I've never seen you give one inch, on any subject, I consider that decision wise.
Firstly, Thank you for the Honesty, it is appreciated, but post-premised with the notation that the emboldened statement is simply evidence that you haven't read everything I have written, that's for sure...
 
  • #82
Well then...


I AM COMPLETELY HUMILIATED BY ALL OF YOU!


Much Love and Appreciation,

Hegira
 
  • #83
Just a thought radagast, what exactly is it that you would wish me to "Give an inch" upon? the idea (or reality) of a proton's "time of existence"? or its solidity in that time??, is that what (you think) I need to give an inch upon??
 
  • #84
Mr. Parsons,
There are many topics discussed on these forums. Others have altered my views on certain topics. I've seen many who acknowledged points made by others. I have lost and acknowledged defeat in certain discussions, and seen this with others. I've never seen this of you. When a person is intransigent, on all points, debate is futile. While no insult intended by this, it is why I try to avoid debate with you.

You are correct that I've not seen everything you've written, so my views could be quite skewed.

I wouldn't have brought it up, but you did ask.
 
  • #85
Originally posted by Hegira
Well then...

I AM COMPLETELY HUMILIATED BY ALL OF YOU!

Well, If I've been instrumental in this, I apologise. Usually I am only skilled in humiliating myself.
 
  • #86
Originally posted by radagast
(SNIP)[/color] I wouldn't have brought it up, but you did ask. (SNoP)[/color]
Yes, I did, and thanks for the honest responce, but it askes a question within me as to just what is the piont you are trying to make concerning debating, as in the manner in which I proceed in scientific matters is respective of the "Currently Known", or "Currently Available Knowledge" which is why the Philosophers of old would have debated 'Solidity' to death, None of them had any proof to the 'pro', or the 'contrary', (No particle accelerators back then, so they simply "didn't know", clearly did "Wonder", produced all of those works doing just that) hence it was a wonderful time to engage in "Thought gaming" in debate...but today is different, we have particle accelerators, we know that protons last a LOOOOOooooooooooooooooong time, we see clearly that the universe in it's poresentation to us from whatever source is presenting us with the idea of "Solidity" (Ergo the reason why you can! bang your head on a brick/concrete wall) in correlation to the statement of Einstien; "...It is just a very persistant illusion" so we can reconcile the ideas of quarks being 'mushy', (and dissapearing really fast) with the idea of a Proton being 'solid', in recognizing that in assemblage they are in a very solid and long lasting "relationship" (if you wish) built exclusively to present "us" (humanity and any other self aware lifeforms in the Universe) with the "Idea of Solidity".

That said, this is not a discovery of mine, (the protons 'time' of longevity) lots of very intelligent people, long before me, (and well during my existence) have toiled, and worked, to produce these kinds of "knowledge proofs" that are recognized as 'Valid proof(s)' inasmuch as they follow the rigors of Scientific study...simple put, HEY! they taught me the "right" (as opposed to "wrong"/"erroneous" {I suppose}) Answer! (it is those people who contsruct "The Giant" upon whose shoulders the vantage of perspective enables 'some' (few, till it's told) to see the rest of the way.
 
  • #87
Originally posted by radagast
(SNIP)[/color] I have lost and acknowledged defeat in certain discussions, and seen this with others. I've never seen this of you. When a person is intransigent, on all points, debate is futile. While no insult intended by this, it is why I try to avoid debate with you. (SNIP)[/color]
Try looking here; https://www.physicsforums.com/showt...e=12&highlight=glass and liquid&pagenumber=2"...at least one of them there are 'others'....but it isn't something to brag about(?), most people don't...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #88
Stuborn

I tend to agree with mr.parsons on the fact of being stuborn he has his own way of thinking and tends to not let others afect his opinion when expresing i do the same but that does not mean that no one can discuss their views without being insulted or insulting i have a very diferent way of thinking and i know what it is like for EVERYONE to argue your thoughts because they are diferent trust me i have a very metaphysical and phylosophical thoughts and EVERYONE argues my thoughts because they are not commom with others.


All I am asking is could you people just "talk" about your views without fighting just talk i am quite interested in reading thease post and replying to do them and discussing just not fighting i have teachers and other nieve fools for that
 
  • #89
People,
This thread has been side-tracked. Can we get back to a discussion of the nature of "reality", please (while agreeing to be rational, and to take each new post as possibly correct before looking for what's wrong with it or how we can "block" it)?
 
  • #90
i Like that tought

As just stated that would be nice thenstead of argueing





anyway...what do you believe the true nature of reality is mr.parsons?
 

Similar threads

What is the reality of being a physicist?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
What is the true meaning of life?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Math and Reality. What is the deep connection?
  • · Replies 85 ·
3
Replies
85
Views
16K
Time, Ontology & Platonic Reality vs Material Reality
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
Did Albert Einstein Say "Everything is Energy"?
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
115K
I Physical reality of nontrivial loops in SO(3)
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
What Is Reality Not? - Philosophers' Perspectives
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
6K
What is Reality? Philosophers' Views
  • · Replies 74 ·
3
Replies
74
Views
14K
I Questions about QFT and the reality of subatomic particles
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
B The work done by two objects on each other
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
3K