Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Philosophy, religion, science and turnings - Page 20







Post#476 at 10-10-2011 05:05 AM by princeofcats67 [at joined Jan 2010 #posts 1,995]
---
10-10-2011, 05:05 AM #476
Join Date
Jan 2010
Posts
1,995

I suppose Omphaloskepsis is indeed an appropriate term. All I've ever observed is an apparent "eternal return" of what could best be described as "lint-like behavior"!

Prince

PS:
I Am A Child of God/Nature/The Universe
I Think Globally and Act Individually(and possibly, voluntarily join-together with Others)
I Pray for World Peace & I Choose Less-Just Say: "NO!, Thank You."







Post#477 at 10-10-2011 09:47 AM by The Grey Badger [at Albuquerque, NM joined Sep 2001 #posts 8,876]
---
10-10-2011, 09:47 AM #477
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Posts
8,876

Quote Originally Posted by princeofcats67 View Post
I suppose Omphaloskepsis is indeed an appropriate term. All I've ever observed is an apparent "eternal return" of what could best be described as "lint-like behavior"!

Prince

PS:
Welcome back, Prince! The metaphysics etc were getting fairly heavy in this thread for a while. I was starting to wonder if I could get credit for auditing a Philosophy 400-level course.
How to spot a shill, by John Michael Greer: "What you watch for is (a) a brand new commenter who (b) has nothing to say about the topic under discussion but (c) trots out a smoothly written opinion piece that (d) hits all the standard talking points currently being used by a specific political or corporate interest, while (e) avoiding any other points anyone else has made on that subject."

"If the shoe fits..." The Grey Badger.







Post#478 at 11-12-2011 12:42 AM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
11-12-2011, 12:42 AM #478
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

It's the birthday of my favorite Silent, Carl Sagan, on Saturday. Some choice Sagan quotes:


"Exploration is in our nature. We began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still. We have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready at last to set sail for the stars."

"A new consciousness is developing which sees the earth as a single organism and recognizes that an organism at war with itself is doomed. We are one planet. One of the great revelations of the age of space exploration is the image of the earth finite and lonely, somehow vulnerable, bearing the entire human species through the oceans of space and time."

"Some part of our being knows this is where we came from. We long to return. And we can. Because the cosmos is also within us. We're made of star-stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."

"I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudo-science and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive. Where have we heard it before? Whenever our ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us-then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls. The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir."

"History is full of people who out of fear or ignorance or the lust for power have destroyed treasures of immeasurable value which truly belong to all of us. We must not let it happen again."

"Consider again that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar", every "supreme leader", every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there - on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam."

"In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed"? Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way." "

"It is sometimes said that scientists are unromantic, that their passion to figure out robs the world of beauty and mystery. But is it not stirring to understand how the world actually works — that white light is made of colors, that color is the way we perceive the wavelengths of light, that transparent air reflects light, that in so doing it discriminates among the waves, and that the sky is blue for the same reason that the sunset is red? It does no harm to the romance of the sunset to know a little bit about it."

"A scientific colleague tells me about a recent trip to the New Guinea highlands where she visited a stone age culture hardly contacted by Western civilization. They were ignorant of wristwatches, soft drinks, and frozen food. But they knew about Apollo 11. They knew that humans had walked on the Moon. They knew the names of Armstrong and Aldrin and Collins. They wanted to know who was visiting the Moon these days."

"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

"We've arranged a global civilization in which the most crucial elements — transportation, communications, and all other industries; agriculture, medicine, education, entertainment, protecting the environment; and even the key democratic institution of voting — profoundly depend on science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces."

"Who is more humble? The scientist who looks at the universe with an open mind and accepts whatever it has to teach us, or somebody who says everything in this book must be considered the literal truth and never mind the fallibility of all the human beings involved?"

"The Platonists and their Christian successors held the peculiar notion that the Earth was tainted and somehow nasty, while the heavens were perfect and divine. The fundamental idea that the Earth is a planet, that we are citizens of the Universe, was rejected and forgotten."

"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent to the concerns of such puny creatures as we are."

"The neurochemistry of the brain is astonishingly busy, the circuitry of a machine more wonderful than any devised by humans. But there is no evidence that its functioning is due to anything more than the 1014 neural connections that build an elegant architecture of consciousness."

"Human history can be viewed as a slowly dawning awareness that we are members of a larger group. Initially our loyalties were to ourselves and our immediate family, next, to bands of wandering hunter-gatherers, then to tribes, small settlements, city-states, nations. We have broadened the circle of those we love. We have now organized what are modestly described as super-powers, which include groups of people from divergent ethnic and cultural backgrounds working in some sense together — surely a humanizing and character building experience. If we are to survive, our loyalties must be broadened further, to include the whole human community, the entire planet Earth. Many of those who run the nations will find this idea unpleasant. They will fear the loss of power. We will hear much about treason and disloyalty. Rich nation-states will have to share their wealth with poor ones. But the choice, as H. G. Wells once said in a different context, is clearly the universe or nothing."

"We wish to pursue the truth no matter where it leads. But to find the truth, we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact. The cosmos is full beyond measure of elegant truths; of exquisite interrelationships; of the awesome machinery of nature."

"What an astonishing thing a book is. It's a flat object made from a tree with flexible parts on which are imprinted lots of funny dark squiggles. But one glance at it and you're inside the mind of another person, maybe somebody dead for thousands of years. Across the millennia, an author is speaking clearly and silently inside your head, directly to you. Writing is perhaps the greatest of human inventions, binding together people who never knew each other, citizens of distant epochs. Books break the shackles of time. A book is proof that humans are capable of working magic."

"We've tended in our cosmologies to make things familiar. Despite all our best efforts, we've not been very inventive. In the West, Heaven is placid and fluffy, and Hell is like the inside of a volcano. In many stories, both realms are governed by dominance hierarchies headed by gods or devils. Monotheists talked about the king of kings. In every culture we imagined something like our own political system running the Universe. Few found the similarity suspicious. "
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#479 at 11-14-2011 01:12 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
11-14-2011, 01:12 AM #479
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

A different perspective

I watch how the scientists on TV, whether Sagan in earlier times, or those today, look further and further out into the cosmos, build more and more amazing telescopes, with ever more powerful computers, seeking the answers to the nature of the world and reality. I wonder at what point does it dawn on them, that if you really want the answers, you have to "turn your eyes around, look at yourself" as the song says. Turn the monitor around; never mind the feedback! Take your eye out of the eye piece, take a break from always looking outside yourself for the answers, and look within instead. That's where the real answers are.

But it never seems to occur to them. There is no place in their picture of the cosmos for the scientist him/herself, for the life (s)he experiences within their own mind and body. And yet some scientists admit, I have read, that they have pursued all this painstaking research over the centuries, and yet they have arrived back where theologians and gurus were standing all long, saying the same things. Now some of them are talking about string theory, as a way to understand how the forces of nature work together in an elegant universe. It may, they say, be the greatest breakthrough in human culture of our time; the beginning of a theory of everything. But some say, because you can't see these strings, or perhaps not even verify the theory in any empirical experiment, because it's all theory and math, that it is philosophy, not science. And perish that thought! We can't have that. Philosophy can't be valid, only science. This is our prejudice. But again, it seems like science in such things as string theory may be arriving back where it started, back when it was itself called "natural philosophy." I think that will be as it should be.

We need all the methods of knowing our world, whether they be empirical/rational science, mysticism, philosophy, or the arts. We don't need dogma or fanaticism. At some point it may, I hope, dawn on people that all these methods inquire about the same universe, the same reality. They need to work together; we can't remain separated into two, or four cultures. They have to take account of each other, borrow from each other, coordinate with each other, without each losing its special rigor or inspiration. Otherwise, all of our intellectual life will look ever more ridiculous, as each method pursues its separate path, each contemptuous of the others.

The rage now is for students to learn math, science and engineering, a 60 Minutes report said today. "That's where the jobs are." So we believe, because we are hooked on the materialist, technological view of the world. Who says that's where the jobs are, only? For example, if we created, for the first time in decades, a vibrant literature tradition, or even an art and architecture tradition, and revived what comparatively little tradition we already have here in these fields, how much that would expand book sales, art sales, city planning, tourism, cultural events, therapies, education, recreation, relationships and families, better insight in the ways we work with each other in business and politics, etc?

We always look to the material solution to our problems. Maybe there is also value in expanding our creative and inspirational abilities and self-knowledge. Just like the scientist who looks to the edge of the cosmos instead of himself to find the answers to the riddle of the universe, so we look too much to making more things, and not enough to expanding the quality of our lives, as our national ambition. Steve Jobs was great. But how many more I-phones do we really need? Do we really need faster computers? When do we start doing something with all our new media, instead of making the media instrument itself the artwork?

And when do people get what I'm saying, and not just react by defending what we have and who we are already?
Last edited by Eric the Green; 11-14-2011 at 01:15 AM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#480 at 11-17-2011 03:31 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
11-17-2011, 03:31 AM #480
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

I'm watching Brian Greene's programs on Nova. What strikes me, is seeing how modern physics breaks down the assumptions of materialist physics one by one, and the scientists call quantum mechanics "bizarre" and "unbelieveable" and call Einstein's relativity sensible and easy to understand. I am in the opposite point of view, although I am just an amateur philosopher with a Masters Degree. To me quantum theory is common sense, while Einstein's relativity seems bizarre to me.

I noticed that as soon as Brian confronts the idea that observation reduces many possible locations of a quantum particle down to one, he immediately assumes that therefore "there must be multiple realities; the particles must be in all these locations at once. So there might be parallel universes." Thereby he RUNS AWAY from confronting his assumed materialist paradigm, which says reality must be independent of the observer. The soul or consciousness must be forgotten once again, and we must fly back into the arms of materialism and realism. No, there are many possible locations for a quanta, because the observer creates the location by measuring the quanta. There is no need to look for any other explanation!

And he says quantum mechanics sees nothing wrong with "me being in two places at once," which Brian says "is absurd, a problem to be solved." But in spiritual or eastern philosophy, such an idea is not absurd at all. What is absurd, is the idea that "someone" must be located at all. We are not our bodies, although Greene assumes that we are. For one thing, I am not independent of my environment, so how can I be located? The world "outside" me is as much "me" as my body is. And if I am a soul, then I don't exist in space at all. Every spiritual philosopher could have told Brian this, but Brian didn't study philosophy, so he doesn't know. As the Spring Theory skeptics say, if it is "philosophy" and thus not subject to observation, then it is not science, and so is not worthwhile.

But in fact, science cannot be validly pursued without philosophy. And science will never find the "single theory of nature" unless and until the observer, the soul or spirit, is a part of the equation. Quantum theory already says that it is, and this has not been disproven at all; but the scientists ignore this.

And if string theory is correct, then strings are "massless." So why do the scientists still insist that strings "will explain mass?" There's nothing to explain. Philosophy has already proven there is no such thing. Science refused to believe it, because it upsets their assumed paradigm; their desire that the universe be physical, or entirely explanable as something beyond themselves.

Mark well my words. They will never understand the universe until they give up this project.

Brian Greene discussed the most "bizarre" aspect of quantum theory, which I am quite familiar with-- though not of course in all its details. That is the Bell Theorem, which proves by experiment Einstein wrong-- that particles affect each other at a "spooky" distance without any contact. He went on to show how this could one day make teleportation a reality. Did he ask whether this means that beings from other solar systems might already be advanced enough to do this, and thus be visiting our planet already? NO. Did he ask what the implications are for ESP? Or astrology? NO. But the implications are obvious. He just doesn't want to mention them. Too taboo for PBS. He did mention that teleportation implies that we are not our "physical" atoms and molecules, but the "information" they contain, and this can be teleported. This is progress. It is a good program.

Brian Greene is a physicist, for real; but he has a gift for video and story-telling. He is at ease and graceful. How does he do this, without any self-knowledge, is what I wonder. He is gifted, and doesn't need any therapy, or self-seeking. I admire him for that. If he were more troubled like me, perhaps he would have looked a bit deeper than he has for answers.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 11-17-2011 at 07:53 PM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#481 at 11-17-2011 01:15 PM by TnT [at joined Feb 2005 #posts 2,005]
---
11-17-2011, 01:15 PM #481
Join Date
Feb 2005
Posts
2,005

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
And if string theory is correct, then strings are "massless." So why do the scientists still insist that strings "will explain mass?" There's nothing to explain. Philosophy has already proven there is no such thing. Science refused to believe it, because it upsets their assumed paradigm; their desire that the universe be physical, or entirely explanable as something beyond themselves.
No such thing as "mass?" Eric, I worry about you sometimes. Your descriptions of stuff gets so far out there that virtually all of your arguments come down to impossibly difficult semantics.

In an every day world, of course there is mass. If I allow myself to come untethered enough to deny that classical physics has no meaning, even though I know perfectly well that it doesn't cover all cases, then I'm drifting off into meaningless mental gaming.

Still, I tend to agree with you, somewhat, that spiritual truths are of value and that they don't generally yield to "scientific" inquiry. For example, if I harbor and nuture a resentment, this harboring and nurturing does me more harm than it does my target. It's not always true 100% of the time, but it's true enough of the time to serve as a "spiritual truth" for me.
" ... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."







Post#482 at 11-17-2011 06:03 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
11-17-2011, 06:03 PM #482
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by TnT View Post
No such thing as "mass?" Eric, I worry about you sometimes. Your descriptions of stuff gets so far out there that virtually all of your arguments come down to impossibly difficult semantics.

In an every day world, of course there is mass. If I allow myself to come untethered enough to deny that classical physics has no meaning, even though I know perfectly well that it doesn't cover all cases, then I'm drifting off into meaningless mental gaming.

Still, I tend to agree with you, somewhat, that spiritual truths are of value and that they don't generally yield to "scientific" inquiry. For example, if I harbor and nuture a resentment, this harboring and nurturing does me more harm than it does my target. It's not always true 100% of the time, but it's true enough of the time to serve as a "spiritual truth" for me.
Hi TnT!

I didn't make up the idea that strings are massless. How can you make "mass" out of what is massless?

Philosophers have already proven over and over again that matter does not exist. Yet scientists go right on assuming this naive common-sense experience as if it were true. Such assumptions are carried right on into science, leading people in silly directions like "alternative universes" just because otherwise they have to admit that consciousness is part of reality.

And you don't need to carry around delusive notions in order to navigate the common sense world. That is a silly assumption too. Meanwhile I'll listen to your advice about that spiritual truth! Yours; and
Last edited by Eric the Green; 11-17-2011 at 07:44 PM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#483 at 11-17-2011 08:28 PM by TnT [at joined Feb 2005 #posts 2,005]
---
11-17-2011, 08:28 PM #483
Join Date
Feb 2005
Posts
2,005

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Philosophers have already proven over and over again that matter does not exist.
Ok. Please point me to at least two philosophers of note who make this claim. And without torturing the definition of the word "matter." And, for that matter, "proven?" Now you've prodded my epistimological skeptic with a sharp stick. Have philosophers ever "proven" anything?

As someone educated nearly to the PhD level in Organic Chemistry, I think I understand something about the fact that, sure, there is much seemingly unoccupied space between what we call electrons, and nuclei, etc. Still, "something" exists out there beyond our senses. It's there whether or not I can see, hear, or feel it.

If my jaw is infected, my toothache is no more, and no less, if some quirky definition of "mass" does or does not obtain.
" ... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."







Post#484 at 11-19-2011 01:37 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
11-19-2011, 01:37 AM #484
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by TnT View Post
Ok. Please point me to at least two philosophers of note who make this claim.
Plato, Bergson, Berkeley, Hume, Schopenhauer. I'm pretty sure Kant did not need the notion. For Whitehead, what exists are "actual occasions." For Pythagoras, what existed was number. Buddha and other Eastern philosophers, and Jesus, and many of their respective disciples, students and followers; the list is a long one. That doesn't include many modern ones I am less familiar with. I doubt there is a prominent existentialist philosopher who thinks matter exists. Show me "matter" in the philosophy of Heidegger or Sartre.
And without torturing the definition of the word "matter." And, for that matter, "proven?" Now you've prodded my epistimological skeptic with a sharp stick. Have philosophers ever "proven" anything?
It's the only method of proving anything. Science certainly doesn't. Empirical facts are not certainties, just the latest findings about the current situation. So-called physical laws are laws about how we can convert the world to technology and use it.
As someone educated nearly to the PhD level in Organic Chemistry, I think I understand something about the fact that, sure, there is much seemingly unoccupied space between what we call electrons, and nuclei, etc. Still, "something" exists out there beyond our senses. It's there whether or not I can see, hear, or feel it.

If my jaw is infected, my toothache is no more, and no less, if some quirky definition of "mass" does or does not obtain.
Indeed! I agree, so why graft some quirky idea onto it that your toothache consists of "matter"? Your toothache does not depend on that notion.

Electrons and nuclei are not solid particles. There is no such tiny thing that can't in turn be smashed and broken down into further particles. There is no such thing as an ultimate small thing. What seems to exist instead, are strands of energy-- massless ones at that. The universe is music, vibration; that's all there is. The idea that things exist in definite locations, outside of other things, has not only been disproved long ago by philosophers like Plato, it has been smashed by quantum theory.

What about mass = energy do you not understand? There is no matter that is not energy. Energy is what exists. And what is energy?

You don't know. It is not a material thing. It is not the "capacity to do work," which is just to redefine it again in terms of the "matter" it can move around. That mis-definition tells you nothing. So I ask you again, what is energy?

There is only one possible answer: spirit. There is no cause other than the first cause.

Miseducation is nearly unanimous when it comes to science. You have been programmed.

Of course, something "exists beyond our senses," just as I exist beyond your senses. But ultimately, you are one with all these others. There is no getting around that fact. Just try to exist for a few seconds without others. Try even to be aware of anything without anything there. Really, at rock bottom, there is nothing other than you; so in that sense, there is nothing there.

The senses are themselves physical objects. They are not consciousness. Nothing exists except in a mind. There is no way around that fact.

The senses are limited in what they can perceive. Matter is nothing but a sense experience of density or resistance, compared to your relatively soft skin. Without the senses, there is nothing there that you do not sense, that you can call matter. The only thing there is another spirit, perhaps on a lower level of consciousness than you.

Thanks for the response, Mr. TnT.

Does that mean you are explosive?
Last edited by Eric the Green; 11-19-2011 at 01:45 AM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#485 at 11-20-2011 04:59 PM by TnT [at joined Feb 2005 #posts 2,005]
---
11-20-2011, 04:59 PM #485
Join Date
Feb 2005
Posts
2,005

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Indeed! I agree, so why graft some quirky idea onto it that your toothache consists of "matter"? Your toothache does not depend on that notion.

Electrons and nuclei are not solid particles. There is no such tiny thing that can't in turn be smashed and broken down into further particles. There is no such thing as an ultimate small thing. What seems to exist instead, are strands of energy-- massless ones at that. The universe is music, vibration; that's all there is. The idea that things exist in definite locations, outside of other things, has not only been disproved long ago by philosophers like Plato, it has been smashed by quantum theory.

What about mass = energy do you not understand? There is no matter that is not energy. Energy is what exists. And what is energy?

You don't know. It is not a material thing. It is not the "capacity to do work," which is just to redefine it again in terms of the "matter" it can move around. That mis-definition tells you nothing. So I ask you again, what is energy?

There is only one possible answer: spirit. There is no cause other than the first cause.

Does that mean you are explosive?
Interestingly, you jump back and forth between "matter" and "mass". The two are quite different. Mass is a characteristic of matter, not the same thing as matter.

According to Einstein, matter and energy are inter-convertible. Sure, matter is energy, but the equation runs both ways.

The difficulty is that philosophy can deconstruct "reality" to the point where nothing at all is provable. "I think, therefore I am," is even not provable. How do I know that I exist, much less you or any others?

I had a Mormon calculus teacher in college. As young people entranced with advanced math, we would often try to pull him off into so-called "philosophical" discussions. He would dismiss us at last, calling it "bar-room philosophy." And justifiably so. One day he went further, demonstrating reductio ad absurdum for us. He kept asking more and more questions about the fundamentals underlying our work. At last, someone shouted out, "But ... we've got to start somewhere!" At which, he smiled and said, "Yes ... thank you. We have to start somewhere." The lesson I took from that, and continue to cling to, is that, sure, I and the world around me can be "deconstructed" into absurdity in 45 seconds of philosophical discussion, but what of it? Where does that get me?

And ... I fear that we've found the edge of possible discussion again ... without being able to adequately define mass, matter, spirit, energy, whatever, we at last end in a semantic fatal embrace.
" ... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."







Post#486 at 11-20-2011 05:52 PM by Copperfield [at joined Feb 2010 #posts 2,244]
---
11-20-2011, 05:52 PM #486
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
2,244

I'll post this here mostly because I can't wait to hear what I expect will be Eric's "interesting and unique" interpretation of this experiment.

The short and skinny of it is that scientists have managed to capture photons in a vacuum which as you may or may not know, is a very strange place for particles to be.







Post#487 at 11-20-2011 11:49 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
11-20-2011, 11:49 PM #487
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by TnT View Post
Interestingly, you jump back and forth between "matter" and "mass". The two are quite different. Mass is a characteristic of matter, not the same thing as matter.
Yes, I don't really see the difference there. Did you want to define this?
According to Einstein, matter and energy are inter-convertible. Sure, matter is energy, but the equation runs both ways.
So, what is it then?

Matter is just energy in a less-energetic condition. Energy is the prior and superior concept of the two. And there is no other possible source of energy except soul.
The difficulty is that philosophy can deconstruct "reality" to the point where nothing at all is provable. "I think, therefore I am," is even not provable. How do I know that I exist, much less you or any others?
Deconstructionists do that; other philosophers do not. "I can doubt, therefore I am" is accepted as proof by many philosophers. I don't see what's wrong with it. If you are conscious, you exist, and THAT is your existence. You are not your molecules, or how much you weigh, or anything like that. Those are only objects singled out by the consciousness that you are.
I had a Mormon calculus teacher in college. As young people entranced with advanced math, we would often try to pull him off into so-called "philosophical" discussions. He would dismiss us at last, calling it "bar-room philosophy." And justifiably so. One day he went further, demonstrating reductio ad absurdum for us. He kept asking more and more questions about the fundamentals underlying our work. At last, someone shouted out, "But ... we've got to start somewhere!" At which, he smiled and said, "Yes ... thank you. We have to start somewhere." The lesson I took from that, and continue to cling to, is that, sure, I and the world around me can be "deconstructed" into absurdity in 45 seconds of philosophical discussion, but what of it? Where does that get me?
It gets you nowhere if you don't do it right. A math teacher is not a philosopher, and could not teach you philosophy. And didn't.

The whole point that Descartes and other philosophers who said the same thing made, is that you start with the fact that you exist. You can't doubt, if you as the one doubting don't exist. It's as good a starting point as any.

Indeed, you can't just philosophize forever. At some point you decide your proof is good enough. Descartes and Plato had it good enough on that point. The problem is that physicalists want to believe something else that isn't true, just because they cannot see anything differently from their normal consensus reality. They are no better than the religious fanatics, who want to pin it all on a Father God who had a Son to save them figure.
And ... I fear that we've found the edge of possible discussion again ... without being able to adequately define mass, matter, spirit, energy, whatever, we at last end in a semantic fatal embrace.
No, the answer is to recognize that these concepts are empty. You can't define what doesn't exist to begin with. Again, if the "ultimate constituents" of matter are massless, why continue the charade? The emperor has no clothes. Give it up. Adhere to the truth instead. Truth is found in higher consciousness. If philosophy can lead you to the water, that's good; but you still need to drink it in order to get it.

Have you done the philosophy questionnaire I designed yet?
http://philosopherswheel.com/questionnaire.htm
Last edited by Eric the Green; 11-20-2011 at 11:57 PM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#488 at 11-20-2011 11:55 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
11-20-2011, 11:55 PM #488
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Copperfield View Post
I'll post this here mostly because I can't wait to hear what I expect will be Eric's "interesting and unique" interpretation of this experiment.

The short and skinny of it is that scientists have managed to capture photons in a vacuum which as you may or may not know, is a very strange place for particles to be.
Let there be light! I guess the scientists have become gods.

The article said photons are appearing and dissappearing, and that their "mirror" captures them as they appear. Massless "particles" indeed.

I thought it was a neat trick for them to get a mirror to vibrate almost at the speed of light. How did they manage that feat, I wonder?
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#489 at 11-21-2011 07:13 PM by TnT [at joined Feb 2005 #posts 2,005]
---
11-21-2011, 07:13 PM #489
Join Date
Feb 2005
Posts
2,005

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Yes, I don't really see the difference there. Did you want to define this?

So, what is it then?
Well, mass is a characteristic of matter. It can be demonstrated in any of a thousand different ways to behave in mathematically determined ways. Classically f=ma.

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Matter is just energy in a less-energetic condition. Energy is the prior and superior concept of the two. And there is no other possible source of energy except soul.
This is just a collection of words. Superior? Soul? How in the world can you put these three sentences into any kind of context without writing a thousand page explanation?

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
The problem is that physicalists want to believe something else that isn't true, just because they cannot see anything differently from their normal consensus reality. They are no better than the religious fanatics, who want to pin it all on a Father God who had a Son to save them figure.
Ok, I'll take your quiz. And I urge you to read On Being Certain - Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not, by Robert A. Burton, M.D.
" ... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."







Post#490 at 11-21-2011 07:22 PM by Hutch74 [at Wisconsin joined Mar 2010 #posts 1,008]
---
11-21-2011, 07:22 PM #490
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
Wisconsin
Posts
1,008

Moving my part over here too. I am confused about something..I always did well in math, even in calculus in hs. Never took higher math courses in college (never finished college actually), but went towards the business degree route..finished halfway.

Plainly I understand math and physics a bit better than spiritualism however..noting my 20R and 16S score..maybe either I need to retake the quiz, or just am open to both sides of the spiritual/material divide. Eric?

Added: One main reason why I suppose mathematics and physics have generally been more appealing to me (as opposed to spiritualism or participating more in these types of philisophical discussions), is the difficulty I have in expressing my thoughts in an organized , well thought out manner. It seems most of the time trying to come up with a good response ends up like a train wreck. So I take to simpler things that I can express myself..recently being my enjoyment with tax law.
Last edited by Hutch74; 11-21-2011 at 07:33 PM.







Post#491 at 11-21-2011 07:56 PM by TnT [at joined Feb 2005 #posts 2,005]
---
11-21-2011, 07:56 PM #491
Join Date
Feb 2005
Posts
2,005

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Have you done the philosophy questionnaire I designed yet?
http://philosopherswheel.com/questionnaire.htm
I'm a 18R/24M.

I guess that makes me a Voltaire/Einstein/G.E. Moore according to your scheme.

Incidentally, your questions are very much right out of your Forum writing style! I could just hear your voice in some of them! During my MBA studies, I did a fair amount of Marketing Research. There, they taught us a fair amount of how to frame a question to get the answer that you want, and how to frame questions so that the "desired" answer was hard to discerne for the test-taker.
" ... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."







Post#492 at 11-21-2011 08:43 PM by Copperfield [at joined Feb 2010 #posts 2,244]
---
11-21-2011, 08:43 PM #492
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
2,244

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Let there be light! I guess the scientists have become gods.
Not at all. They merely replicated something that happens in nature in the confines of a laboratory. They excited photons out of their "virtual" state into a "real" state (that is, tangible to us) inside of a vacuum.

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
The article said photons are appearing and dissappearing, and that their "mirror" captures them as they appear. Massless "particles" indeed.
I have noticed Eric, that you have latched onto the term massless as though it somehow proves your beliefs yet I suspect that you don't understand the term as it relates to physics (or in this case quantum physics). If you would please, describe your interpretation of the term "massless."

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
I thought it was a neat trick for them to get a mirror to vibrate almost at the speed of light. How did they manage that feat, I wonder?
Had you read the article a bit more in-depth you would have seen the following:

“Since it’s not possible to get a mirror to move fast enough, we’ve developed another method for achieving the same effect,” explains Per Delsing, Professor of Experimental Physics at Chalmers. “Instead of varying the physical distance to a mirror, we've varied the electrical distance to an electrical short circuit that acts as a mirror for microwaves.”

The “mirror” consists of a quantum electronic component referred to as a SQUID (Superconducting quantum interference device), which is extremely sensitive to magnetic fields. By changing the direction of the magnetic field several billions of times a second the scientists were able to make the “mirror” vibrate at a speed of up to 25 percent of the speed of light.

“The result was that photons appeared in pairs from the vacuum, which we were able to measure in the form of microwave radiation,” says Per Delsing. “We were also able to establish that the radiation had precisely the same properties that quantum theory says it should have when photons appear in pairs in this way.”







Post#493 at 11-21-2011 08:54 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
11-21-2011, 08:54 PM #493
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

"Matter" = Fermions (obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle)
"Energy" = Bosons (do not obey Pauli Exclusion Principle)
"Mass" = The result of particles interacting with the Higgs Boson.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#494 at 11-22-2011 12:21 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
11-22-2011, 12:21 AM #494
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by TnT View Post
Well, mass is a characteristic of matter. It can be demonstrated in any of a thousand different ways to behave in mathematically determined ways. Classically f=ma.
I remember that basic Newtonian formula from high school physics. There's no way to define what it is though, nor does that define the difference from "matter." I guess you are saying matter or mass "exists" because there is a formula that works in classical physics, and something corresponds to m in the formula. I say these "physical laws" are the way we formulate the world in order to adapt it for our technical uses. Americans are so hooked on tech that we think our tools are the way the world actually works. I disagree. I think we can take aspects of the world we perceive, which appear to be dead, and concoct "laws" that predict how this seemingly dead stuff will behave. And that kind of stuff we call "matter" and say it has "mass" -- which I think means how it relates to gravity, a "force" (and nobody knows what that is either, or why it exists).
This is just a collection of words. Superior? Soul? How in the world can you put these three sentences into any kind of context without writing a thousand page explanation?
It seemed like an accurate description to me. I have already defined soul for you well enough, unless you prefer to parse words. Higher and lower levels of energy seems self-explanatory too. But if you say that physical formulas are what define things, then no I guess my description doesn't make it. But I'll leave that to the quantum and string theorists. They know better. All I know is philosophy.

Ok, I'll take your quiz. And I urge you to read On Being Certain - Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not, by Robert A. Burton, M.D.
No, I think the Republicans ought to read it. And science-oriented materialists too. So, tit for tat.

Thanks for taking the quiz. I guess that puts you squarely in the rationalist camp. I thought you had described before a certain kind of experience you had that I thought might indicate a more spiritual viewpoint, though not as much as me. I'm always glad to have people's point of view.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 11-22-2011 at 12:23 AM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#495 at 11-22-2011 05:08 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
11-22-2011, 05:08 PM #495
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

I invite you to think of "material things" you see as energetic beings. They exist because they have the energy to exist; to block you path, or hold you up, or provide the basis for living things to grow. They serve us, or they get in our way. Material things are just slowed-down energy.

"Material things" exist only as experiences for our senses. We eat, sleep and drink ideas. We can't be certain of any other things existing.

But if we assume that the light is there when we shut the refrigerator door, let's look more closely at these "other things" that supposedly exist "out there."

One thing I notice is that we only see their surfaces. We never see inside a thing. Do we really know it then? It is like trying to find an onion.

We ourselves as human individuals are supposed to be a body located in space, and other things are "other bodies" located in space. But there's no way to say where I leave off and other "things" begin. The outside of myself doesn't exist without the inside, and vice versa. The world is like the picture of a vase that is also two faces.

One way to look at space and the objects in it, is that they create each other. There is no space without bodies in it, and there are no bodies without space around them. Space is only the boundary of bodies. But we can't experience inside another body with our senses. Inside the body, is only more space. Energy is there, and there is energy in space too. Dark energy perhaps.

Another way to look at "space," is that the only place is here. Wherever any body is, is here, and "out there" is only relative to what is designated as "here."

If I look inside my body for myself, I can't pin myself down anywhere. I am not located anywhere. My experience of "my body" is just my sense experience of one part of my body rubbing up against another part. And yet I experience myself as all one being.

I can't really pin down the location of a body "out there" either. Quantum theory says so, and quantum theory is the most well-proven theory that there is. You can measure its location sufficiently to make machines on a macro scale. That's what you mean by "for all practical purposes, classical physics is true." Fine, yes we can make machines and use them. But again, I think the classical physical view of dead objects is only a way of making the world useful to us, to convert it into a machine that we can use. But the world has inherent dignity and value; it is not a machine. True is not equal to what works.

These words point to experiences as best I can, with my limited ability. The experience is where the truth is, not the words. Pay attention and contemplate. You have to have some level of curiosity and wonder to get anywhere in philosophy. You can't just assume that what people tell you is true, or that what is convenient, comfortable or usual and routine is true.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#496 at 11-22-2011 05:13 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
11-22-2011, 05:13 PM #496
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Copperfield View Post
I have noticed Eric, that you have latched onto the term massless as though it somehow proves your beliefs yet I suspect that you don't understand the term as it relates to physics (or in this case quantum physics). If you would please, describe your interpretation of the term "massless."
If I remember correctly, mass is supposed to be something that occupies space and has weight. More colloquially, it is a designation of how much "stuff" there is in anything; a planet for example. Elements are distinguished by their "atomic weight" by how many protons and neutrons they have. Neither idea, though, really defines it. They just refer to gravity and to measurement. There is no stuff.

I may be that string theory is what has a chance of "unifying" gravity with the other 3 "forces," (Einstein's goal), because it does away with mass, which depends on gravity. Just my speculation; I am not a string theorist.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 11-22-2011 at 05:16 PM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#497 at 11-22-2011 05:56 PM by Copperfield [at joined Feb 2010 #posts 2,244]
---
11-22-2011, 05:56 PM #497
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
2,244

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
I remember that basic Newtonian formula from high school physics. There's no way to define what it is though, nor does that define the difference from "matter." I guess you are saying matter or mass "exists" because there is a formula that works in classical physics, and something corresponds to m in the formula.
Oh sure there is. The mathematical formulas merely describe observations of nature. Matter has mass (that is, it curves space-time) and takes up volume. What you are confused by Eric is that the term (matter or mass) is often used to convey meaning in different ways (for instance "matter" generally means something different to a quantum physicist than it does to a chemist). It's a problem with your vocabulary and knowledge rather than a mystery of definition as you like to see it.

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
I say these "physical laws" are the way we formulate the world in order to adapt it for our technical uses. Americans are so hooked on tech that we think our tools are the way the world actually works. I disagree. I think we can take aspects of the world we perceive, which appear to be dead, and concoct "laws" that predict how this seemingly dead stuff will behave.
Sure. Our brains evolved for tool use. It is really the only thing that differentiates us from most monkeys. Much of the behavior otherwise is identical. I might submit that the only reason you have the time to sit and ponder spiritual matters rather than being chased by a cheetah is due solely to our particular branch of the primate tree having an affinity for creating our own tools. I tend to consider that a pretty amazing natural gift (for lack of a better term - not a "gift" per se). Now if you want to argue that human beings have squandered that particular trait, then you and I would certainly be in some agreement there however the argument is separate and distinct.

That said, if you are suggesting that the computer you type on works on "spirit-power" instead of a proven model of physical study then I would suggest you are squandering yet another of nature's gifts.

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
And that kind of stuff we call "matter" and say it has "mass" -- which I think means how it relates to gravity, a "force" (and nobody knows what that is either, or why it exists).
Sort of. The really neat things about the four fundamental forces (at least in this universe) is that they actually convey information in a measurable way using those so-called massless (not really massless - currently un-measurable would be more accurate) particles otherwise known as a mediator (sometimes called a quantum or quanta). Each of the four fundamental forces (electromagnetic, gravitation and strong and weak nuclear forces) has its own version of a mediator that acts as a data packet, sending information between matter(The mediator/quanta of Electromagnetism is a photon for instance). Some mediators have not been discovered yet though mathematics suggests they are there all the same.

It is interesting you bring up gravity as it is by far the weakest of the four fundamental forces (significantly weaker than the other three). Of course there are theories on why gravitation is weak but they involve that whole multiple dimension/universe thing that you don't believe in so I will spare you of such nonsense.







Post#498 at 11-22-2011 06:23 PM by Copperfield [at joined Feb 2010 #posts 2,244]
---
11-22-2011, 06:23 PM #498
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
2,244

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
If I remember correctly, mass is supposed to be something that occupies space and has weight. More colloquially, it is a designation of how much "stuff" there is in anything; a planet for example. Elements are distinguished by their "atomic weight" by how many protons and neutrons they have. Neither idea, though, really defines it. They just refer to gravity and to measurement. There is no stuff.

I may be that string theory is what has a chance of "unifying" gravity with the other 3 "forces," (Einstein's goal), because it does away with mass, which depends on gravity. Just my speculation; I am not a string theorist.
Again, "sort of". A massless particle like a photon travels at the speed of light which it could not achieve if it had mass in the same sense that you or I do. As such the rest-mass (what you are referring to any time you wish to measure mass) of a photon cannot be measured because it would take infinite energy to slow the momentum of the photon to zero. Hence a photon's mass cannot be measured, hence the term massless. We do know however that a photon has both energy and spin so it has components of mass (inertial mass for instance). While a photon is not matter (it's a quantum and mediator, see above), if a photon suddenly became matter it would almost certainly have mass.







Post#499 at 11-22-2011 06:42 PM by Copperfield [at joined Feb 2010 #posts 2,244]
---
11-22-2011, 06:42 PM #499
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
2,244

I should have been more specific. Our drive for creating and shaping new tools is what differentiates us. Yes there is tool use in other animals but none have as close an evolutionary relationship to them as we do. Other animals generally do not show a particular trait of creating and inventing new tools rather they use things already found in nature as tools (a rock for digging, a leaf for a spoon, etc.) though as the article noted above, some chimps have a pretty sizeable collection of compound tools. While ravens have learned how to use a key in a door, a raven has not yet figured out how to make its own key.

Ravens and crows are actually fascinating creatures. Very bright and incredibly social.







Post#500 at 11-22-2011 08:26 PM by Copperfield [at joined Feb 2010 #posts 2,244]
---
11-22-2011, 08:26 PM #500
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
2,244

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
Ha, I stand corrected.

I recall watching a video a few years ago about ravens in particular. There was an anecdote about a group of ice fishermen fishing a particular frozen lake. The fishermen would set their traps and head off to do the usual drinking and carousing. When they returned they found several of the flags by the fishing holes tripped which signify a fish on the end of the line however when the lines were pulled up, no fish. This went on for some time until they discovered the culprit. A local raven had not only figured out that a flag near a hole meant a fish but also how to retrieve the fish out of the water. This is actually a complex task for a bird to perform but it knew that it could pull up several inches of line, and then stand on the line to hold it in place while pulling up a few more inches. In other words this bird displays a particular knowledge of leverage and mechanics.

Pretty interesting stuff.
Last edited by Copperfield; 11-22-2011 at 08:39 PM.
-----------------------------------------