Christopher Hitchens, David Wolpe, Sam Harris, and Bradley Artson debate "Is there an Afterlife?"



I miss Christopher; he is always funny and challenging, if unreasonable.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Great words from Rupert Sheldrake to take note of.


Well, in an evolutionary universe, why shouldn't the laws themselves evolve? After all, human laws do, and the idea of laws of nature is based on a metaphor with human laws. It's a very anthropocentric metaphor. Only humans have laws; in fact only civilized societies have laws. As C.S. Lewis once said, "to say that a stone falls to earth because it's obeying a law, makes it a man, and even a citizen." It's a metaphor that we've got so used to, we forget it's a metaphor. In an evolving universe, I think a much better idea is the idea of habits. I think the habits of nature evolve; the regularities of nature are essentially habitual."

Random word salad. Now that it's challenged, watch while the ordinary meanings of ordinary words shift around and mean something entirely different.

i.e. - if one has some knowledge of science, how can one say that a scientific law or constant evolves?

Originally Posted by TnT

Random word salad. Now that it's challenged, watch while the ordinary meanings of ordinary words shift around and mean something entirely different.

i.e. - if one has some knowledge of science, how can one say that a scientific law or constant evolves?

The "challenge" has been given. Sheldrake has given an important correction to scientific dogma, don't you think? Why should we not question the idea of scientific "law," which is only a metaphor?

If you really think things observe unbreakable and absolute laws all the time, what's with relativity, quantum theory, uncertainty, probability? Why don't constants really exist, after all? Habits seems to me a much better idea. It keeps the notion of regularity, while not destroying the life of the world we live in, in our conception and approach to this world. It is vitally necessary to junk science dogma, both for the good of science itself, and for the good of life that it often encroaches on and denies.

When science dogma is put aside, science will be regenerated, as Sheldrake says. Isn't that worthwhile? Don't we want science to give us more of the answers about life that we really want to know, not just how to make better machines?

Even Newton used the word "tends" to describe his "laws." That's pretty telling. That's a habit. And, observe life. Does a living thing tend to stay at rest, unless it's moved by something else? No, it up and moves for no apparent reason. Science can try to explain the reasons a bird flies away: instinct, mitochondria, nerve impulses, or whatever. The fact remains these are partial, attempted explanations, and science can't say. The simple explanation is correct. Life does not obey Newton's law. It does what it wants to do.

Socrates gave the lie to this materialist explanation of life long ago in the Phaedo. Did he willingly get up and walk into prison to fulfill his sentence because his bones and muscles moved him there? No, it was his choice that moved him there.

"There is surely a strange confusion of causes and conditions in all this. It may be said, indeed, that without bones and muscles and the other parts of the body I cannot execute my purposes. But to say that I do as I do because of them, and that this is the way in which mind acts, and not from the choice of the best, is a very careless and idle mode of speaking. I wonder that they cannot distinguish the cause from the condition, which the many, feeling about in the dark, are always mistaking and misnaming. "
http://www.classicreader.com/book/1789/4/

You can arrive at "laws" and from them make machines. Then we turn around and say that Nature is a machine, because we can make machines out of that portion of it that is the most dead, the most-controllable by us. That is idolatry, as Erich Fromm said. Nature is not a machine, it is alive. It does not function at the beck and call of an operator. It IS the operator. It is not moved around by other forces; it IS the force.

The Vandals don't just want to steal YOUR soul, they want to steal the souls from all the animals and plants too. It is criminal indeed. Should we arrest these vandals and put them in jail for this crime? No, but we should put their dogmatic ideas into a bag and put the bag into a garbage can. Scientific reductive materialism has long passed its sell-by date, as Sheldrake says. It is time to throw it away now. And looking at our living world as raw materials for our machines has something to do with the way we have treated it. Restore our appreciation of life by recognizing it instead of denying it.

Using the word "habit" in reference to physical constants is absurd.

Last time we did this, I made a joke about pi. You dismissed it as a "mathematical" phenomenon.

Let's go back to pi. Let's discuss it. It's about as constant a universal constant as constants get. And it's an interesting one. Let's stick to it. You know - 3.1415926...

Pi is a universal constant that has HUGE significance in the physical world. Are you saying that pi "evolved?" Are you saying that it changes over time? Are you saying that it has some kind of anthropomorphic consciousness that allows to be "habitually" some quantity? Or that it drifts around in its magnitude?

Absurd.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The "challenge" has been given. Sheldrake has given an important correction to scientific dogma, don't you think?

No.

Why should we not question the idea of scientific "law," which is only a metaphor?

Scientific laws are not metaphors. Laws are mathematical descriptions of relationships of various quantities in nature.

If you really think things observe unbreakable and absolute laws all the time, what's with relativity,

General relativity helps explain Hubble's Law.

quantum theory, uncertainty, probability?

Quantum mechanics helps explain Periodic Law.

Why don't constants really exist, after all?

They do.

Habits seems to me a much better idea. It keeps the notion of regularity, while not destroying the life of the world we live in, in our conception and approach to this world.

No thanks. Scientists are perfectly fine with the vocabulary they already have. Vague, wish-expression terminology will only make communication more difficult.

It is vitally necessary to junk science dogma, both for the good of science itself, and for the good of life that it often encroaches on and denies.

When science dogma is put aside, science will be regenerated, as Sheldrake says. Isn't that worthwhile? Don't we want science to give us more of the answers about life that we really want to know, not just how to make better machines?

Pure gobbledygook.

Even Newton used the word "tends" to describe his "laws." That's pretty telling.

He did no such thing. His laws were written as mathematical equations. The word "tends" only appears when people try to describe the first law in words instead of as an equation. It is completely possible to describe the first law without using the word. And, the word does not appear at all in typical descriptions of either the second or third law.

That's a habit. And, observe life. Does a living thing tend to stay at rest, unless it's moved by something else? No, it up and moves for no apparent reason.

Holy crap. You clearly don't understand what Newton's laws of motion actually are. Living things absolutely obey the laws when they "up and move"! For animals, if no force is applied to their bodies, then they will remain in the same inertial reference frame over time according to the first law. Subsequent contraction of muscles causes a force to be applied to something outside their body (air, water, or ground). The outside medium then applies an equal force to the animal according to the third law. The body of the animal will then accelerate at a rate equal to the force divided by its mass according to the second law. The animal will then continue in its new direction until it is slowed and stopped due to frictional forces from the medium according to all three laws.

Science can try to explain the reasons a bird flies away: instinct, mitochondria, nerve impulses, or whatever.

Your use of the term "whatever" is a dead giveaway that you don't understand the first thing about biology.

The fact remains these are partial, attempted explanations, and science can't say. The simple explanation is correct. Life does not obey Newton's law. It does what it wants to do.

Pure bullshit.

Socrates gave the lie to this materialist explanation of life long ago in the Phaedo. Did he willingly get up and walk into prison to fulfill his sentence because his bones and muscles moved him there? No, it was his choice that moved him there.

Remove his bones and muscles and explain to me how his "choice" alone will result in his movement anywhere. Newton's Laws of motion are just that, laws of motion. No one anywhere is claiming that they describe everything about the universe like decision making in organisms.

"There is surely a strange confusion of causes and conditions in all this. It may be said, indeed, that without bones and muscles and the other parts of the body I cannot execute my purposes. But to say that I do as I do because of them, and that this is the way in which mind acts, and not from the choice of the best, is a very careless and idle mode of speaking. I wonder that they cannot distinguish the cause from the condition, which the many, feeling about in the dark, are always mistaking and misnaming. "
http://www.classicreader.com/book/1789/4/

Socrates is destroying your simplistic straw man view of science not real physics.

You can arrive at "laws" and from them make machines. Then we turn around and say that Nature is a machine, because we can make machines out of that portion of it that is the most dead, the most-controllable by us.

No scientists claim that nature is a machine. That occurs only in your made up view of science.

That is idolatry, as Erich Fromm said. Nature is not a machine, it is alive.

So. You object to an analogy that scientists don't use by substituting a different analogy that they also don't use. Your lack of knowledge combined with arrogance is astounding.

It does not function at the beck and call of an operator. It IS the operator. It is not moved around by other forces; it IS the force.

Pure gobbledygook.

The Vandals don't just want to steal YOUR soul, they want to steal the souls from all the animals and plants too.

The only thing I want is for others to truly understand how science works and to appreciate the basics of how our universe actually works. You view this as a threat because the scientific method has demonstrated that your personal wishes are incongruent with how nature works.

It is criminal indeed. Should we arrest these vandals and put them in jail for this crime?

Spoken like a true ideologue.

No, but we should put their dogmatic ideas into a bag and put the bag into a garbage can. Scientific reductive materialism has long passed its sell-by date, as Sheldrake says.

Quoting someone else who also shares your refuted wishes is not evidence of anything other than the fact that you only seek out opinions of others who agree with you regardless of their validity.

It is time to throw it away now. And looking at our living world as raw materials for our machines has something to do with the way we have treated it. Restore our appreciation of life by recognizing it instead of denying it.

Pure gobbledygook.

Originally Posted by TnT

Using the word "habit" in reference to physical constants is absurd.

Last time we did this, I made a joke about pi. You dismissed it as a "mathematical" phenomenon.

Let's go back to pi. Let's discuss it. It's about as constant a universal constant as constants get. And it's an interesting one. Let's stick to it. You know - 3.1415926...

Pi is a universal constant that has HUGE significance in the physical world. Are you saying that pi "evolved?" Are you saying that it changes over time? Are you saying that it has some kind of anthropomorphic consciousness that allows to be "habitually" some quantity? Or that it drifts around in its magnitude?

Absurd.

PI is mathematics. It's not a physical constant. Mathematics is archetypal and formal. It is eternal. Math is not physical; it is the formal cause. Light, gravity, magnetic charges, these are not archetypal forms. The world does not conform with certainty to mathematics; math is measurement, according to our ideas. Study a little Plato or Kant or even Aristotle to clarify.

The dogmatic scientists are now saying that pi came into existence along with the universe miraculously from nothing in a single instant. Don't you think that's a bit absurd?

No, let's move toward a worldview that accepts and understands that every day, every minute is a miracle.

Don't let the Vandals steal your soul. His arguments are nothing but gobbledygook. That's all he can ever say to mine.

PI is just a way to describe a perfect circle. There are no perfect circles in Nature; you can't even write the number. But Nature shows lots of circles, and cycles. I discussed this in my philosophy paper extensively.

http://philosopherswheel.com/rrr.html

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

PI is mathematics. It's not a physical constant. Mathematics is archetypal and formal. It is eternal. Math is not physical; it is the formal cause. Light, gravity, magnetic charges, these are not archetypal forms. The world does not conform with certainty to mathematics; math is measurement, according to our ideas. Study a little Plato or Kant or even Aristotle to clarify.

The dogmatic scientists are now saying that pi came into existence along with the universe miraculously from nothing in a single instant. Don't you think that's a bit absurd?

Please provide a link to a single scientific source claiming such a thing.

No, let's move toward a worldview that accepts and understands that every day, every minute is a miracle.

Don't let the Vandals steal your soul. His arguments are nothing but gobbledygook. That's all he can ever say to mine.

Pathetic. You don't make arguments. You just state claims (wishes) as if they are self evident.

PI is just a way to describe a perfect circle. There are no perfect circles in Nature; you can't even write the number. But Nature shows lots of circles, and cycles. I discussed this in my philosophy paper extensively.

http://philosopherswheel.com/rrr.html

Of course you can write the number. You just can't express it in decimal form or as a common fraction. No surprise that we can add mathematics to the long list of subjects that you pretend to understand.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

PI is mathematics. It's not a physical constant. Mathematics is archetypal and formal. It is eternal. Math is not physical; it is the formal cause. Light, gravity, magnetic charges, these are not archetypal forms. The world does not conform with certainty to mathematics; math is measurement, according to our ideas. Study a little Plato or Kant or even Aristotle to clarify.

Mathematics can be thought of as a tool of science, Eric. Remember that Central Valley "upsie/downsie" anthropogenic plate tectonics y'all are doing? Uh, hmm..... Math is used to measure how far up or down y'alls mountains are moving.

The dogmatic scientists are now saying that pi came into existence along with the universe miraculously from nothing in a single instant. Don't you think that's a bit absurd?

http://www.realmagick.com/pi-the-nature-of-/

The above has something a bit absurd:

"
The Nature of Pi The Nature of Pi: objects have shape and size. Objects of the same shape are similar. Existence of Pi follows from the fact that all circles have the same shape."

Eric, you have to admit that "all circles have the same shape" sounds pretty stupid. Really? All circles have the same shape. Duh.

No, let's move toward a worldview that accepts and understands that every day, every minute is a miracle.

No. The one particular minute I backed into my neighbor's car this morning was not a miracle. That was a fuck up.

Don't let the Vandals steal your soul. His arguments are nothing but gobbledygook. That's all he can ever say to mine.

Do you also think that "all circles have the same shape" is a dumb statement?

PI is just a way to describe a perfect circle. There are no perfect circles in Nature; you can't even write the number. But Nature shows lots of circles, and cycles. I discussed this in my philosophy paper extensively.

There are lot's a ways to write pi by way of infinite series [from teh Wiki]

http://philosopherswheel.com/rrr.html

Here's another constant for you.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(mathematical_constant

Finally, Eric, before Vandal gets you to write some stuff worthy of some of my bird awards, please consult this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine...hematics:cool:

Now, of course if you want to share how well I did in pegging Hillary, feel free. Now that's some strange woo-woo, right?

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Mathematics can be thought of as a tool of science, Eric. Remember that Central Valley "upsie/downsie" anthropogenic plate tectonics y'all are doing? Uh, hmm..... Math is used to measure how far up or down y'alls mountains are moving.

Of course you can use math; that does not mean that mathematics is physical "laws" of Nature, or that those "laws" cannot really be habits instead, as Sheldrake contends.

In any case, math is approximate as a measuring tool. You can't really measure something that's moving; even mountains, except approximately. As soon as you have measured it, it has changed. This has been known since ancient philosophers were around, but quantum theory has demonstrated it again for us.

Eric, you have to admit that "all circles have the same shape" sounds pretty stupid. Really? All circles have the same shape. Duh.

Fine, but it has nothing to do with what any of us are saying. Irrelevance award?

Actually, a circle is a form known by the mind. No circle has the same shape as any other, except in our minds. So yes, to say they do is stupid.

No. The one particular minute I backed into my neighbor's car this morning was not a miracle. That was a fuck up.

Your very existence, and that of your neighbor, continued to be a miracle throughout your experience.

There are lot's a ways to write pi by way of infinite series [from teh Wiki]

You can't write it; it goes on forever. Irrational numbers cannot be written. But you can just do something like write "pi" or some symbol for infinity; but that doesn't mean you have actually written it out. I don't see how any calculation using pi can be anything but approximate. There are no perfect circles in Nature, but Nature does observe the form. That is a mind-blowing thing to consider. What are these forms?

Here's another constant for you.

Godel proved that math is a system that depends on its own assumed rules.

Finally, Eric, before Vandal gets you to write some stuff worthy of some of my bird awards, please consult this:

Vandal won't get me to write anything (except some hyperbole). If you don't give vandal dodo awards for every fucking thing he writes, your dodos mean nothing at all.

Now, of course if you want to share how well I did in pegging Hillary, feel free. Now that's some strange woo-woo, right?

I already did.

It's like being trapped in a tile bathroom where someone has driven a golf ball.

It is, and will be, a rare spirituality that the ego doesn't use for it's selfish purpose. For those of us who believe in a God, it is rare that we stop seeing him as the great request grantor instead of a spirit inside of us that guides us to seeing all of life as connected. A religion/spirituality that makes us believe that God is the great puppeteer in the sky, also renders us vulnerable to thinking that right behavior will somehow grant us acceptance from a judging god.

We will understand compassion when we realize that we all make mistakes and are products of our environments. (Even Republicans ) That's right, all of us. If spirituality doesn't lead to compassion for self and others, it's a creation of the ego. The ego loves to separate us into the good people (chosen ones) and the bad people. That way the ego gets to feel so self righteous. We are all made up of good and not so good. That's right: all of us. When we understand that, there will be less violence in the world. Until then, for the most part, we love religions that make us feel like we are different than "those" -------- (fill in the blank) people.

Originally Posted by Deb C

It is, and will be, a rare spirituality that the ego doesn't use for it's selfish purpose. For those of us who believe in a God, it is rare that we stop seeing him as the great request grantor instead of a spirit inside of us that guides us to seeing all of life as connected. A religion/spirituality that makes us believe that God is the great puppeteer in the sky, also renders us vulnerable to thinking that right behavior will somehow grant us acceptance from a judging god.

We will understand compassion when we realize that we all make mistakes and are products of our environments. (Even Republicans ) That's right, all of us. If spirituality doesn't lead to compassion for self and others, it's a creation of the ego. The ego loves to separate us into the good people (chosen ones) and the bad people. That way the ego gets to feel so self righteous. We are all made up of good and not so good. That's right: all of us. When we understand that, there will be less violence in the world. Until then, for the most part, we love religions that make us feel like we are different than "those" -------- (fill in the blank) people.

Well said.

I agree Deb.

There's an interesting philosophy program on PBS called "Closer to Truth." I saw an episode today. I can't find this episode on you tube, but here's a similar one:



and there are others listed on the side as usual, at the you tube site;

and here are interviews, including from the program I watched:

http://www.closertotruth.com/series/...ing-all-part-1

So why is there anything at all?

Anyone interested in this question?

Some things can be cleared away which help bring you "closer to truth" on this.

First of all, recognize from the outset that it may not be able to state the answer in words. Words are symbols for generalized abstract concepts; they are not the things themselves. So if there is an answer, it will be found in experience, and words can only point to it.

Second point: it is going to be necessary to look within, to yourself, for the answer, and not to objects out there. Cosmologists usually try to leave out consciousness, or their own being. Clear away the crap that says that what you are is explained by the food you eat, or your genetic inheritance, etc.. Whatever the original point of reality is, is going to come from within; your being, right now and right here. Not from something beyond you, that caused you to be. YOU are the original cause. At least we can know that eternity is now, so we don't have to go back into the past to find the answer.

Third point: you can look at "something" and "nothing" as interdependent ideas. Cosmologists and theologians alike tend to think something must have come from nothing. But maybe each implies the other.

Fourth point: asking why there is something, is not necessarily asking how there is something. So why? Because it's good. Because it's fun. On that level, those are perfectly good reasons why there is something. In the program, this is called the value reason.

Fifth point: If you attribute reality to God, it helps if you don't conceive of God as a being out there, apart from you. You are God. The higher Self to which you are connected; your larger identity.

Sixth point: When it comes to something, I like to play with the idea that the total amount of matter in the universe is zero. So it could not have come out of nothing, because it IS nothing. Anti-matter is one way to look at it. The universe is not made of matter to begin with. One answer given by philosophers like Alan Watts, is that the universe is pattern, or music. String Theory confirms this.

Seventh point: So the real question is where does Spirit come from, if it comes from anywhere? Obviously, it is self-subsisting, the unmoved mover, and what we call things are condensations from this original energy. So the answer needs to account for energy and force, not just abstract ideas or mathematics. A circle does not intend anything. The only answer I have now is that it is attracted to create itself, so it springs forth. This attractor goes back to value; the eternal Platonic Form of The Good. The springing forth though, is "the universe" and "the soul."

Eighth point: lots of philosophers are overly-impressed with numbers. But numbers are just means of keeping track of concrete things, or rhythms. So they are not so self-subsisting as Western thinkers assume.

Ninth point: Can you say, that because something exists; I am here, things are here, then something necessarily exists?


That's enough for now; where do we go from there? Do the interviews at the web site linked above lead to other questions and answers for you?

Wow, lots to watch here:
http://www.closertotruth.com/about/content-guide

Dean Radin presents some evidence for psychic ability.

Technically a flame is an example of the most common state of matter in the solar system -- a plasma, or ionized atoms. True gases are un-ionized material that can neither hold a shape (solid) nor fill to a level in a container and pour (a liquid). The sun, which consists almost entirely of ionized matter (atoms and loose electrons) is mostly a plasma.

Other plasma includes sparks, including Jacob's Ladder. Lightning is plasma.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNbvg9jfDr8

Never touch a plasma, and protect your eyes when observing a hot one. You already know to not look directly at the sun, which is plasma. Plasma TV displays are innocuous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Vd7FV_UKCU

I hadn't heard of this meaning of Jacob's Ladder before. Happy Halloween!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AsaGgb5ixo

Good bewitched music with it too.

From my meta viewpoint, Jacob's Ladder is also a symbol of the chakras, the energy system within your body. Made into a double helix, it becomes much more like a symbol of the chakras. In this system, and in the Bible image, energy flows both ways at once. In this case, you could say when the cycle returns, the flow downward is almost instantaneous, although there's no flame that goes down.

I guess you can say all flame is plasma, or ionized atoms. I hadn't heard that idea before either. When Oxygen or another active non-metal in the upper right of the periodic table contacts something and takes its electrons, the "victim" of oxidation has lost some electrons = ionized. In the Sun, most atoms are ionized; not because of oxygen, sulphur or flourine, but because of the high gravity and energy flow.

Correct me if I wrong, though, but I think there can be ionized atoms and no flame. The flame or fire refers to the process of rapid shift of electrons, often transforming the atoms into other types of atoms. IOW as a process, or energy. My original question was why did modern chemists drop fire as one of the four elements, when they changed their name to "states of matter?" Why not just add "energy" as the fourth state? It can be called plasma, but that may be just the condition under which fire often erupts.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Technically a flame is an example of the most common state of matter in the solar system -- a plasma, or ionized atoms.

Are you sure about that? There is an awful lot of gas distributed throughout galaxies. Not to mention all of the brown dwarfs, planets, and planetesimals. I'm not saying you are wrong, only that I have some doubt.

True gases are un-ionized material that can neither hold a shape (solid) nor fill to a level in a container and pour (a liquid). The sun, which consists almost entirely of ionized matter (atoms and loose electrons) is mostly a plasma.

Other plasma includes sparks, including Jacob's Ladder. Lightning is plasma.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNbvg9jfDr8

Never touch a plasma, and protect your eyes when observing it. You already know to not look directly at the sun, which is plasma.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Vd7FV_UKCU

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I hadn't heard of this meaning of Jacob's Ladder before. Happy Halloween!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AsaGgb5ixo

Good bewitched music with it too.

From my meta viewpoint, Jacob's Ladder is also a symbol of the chakras, the energy system within your body. Made into a double helix, it becomes much more like a symbol of the chakras. In this system, and in the Bible image, energy flows both ways at once. In this case, you could say when the cycle returns, the flow downward is almost instantaneous, although there's no flame that goes down.

I guess you can say all flame is plasma, or ionized atoms. I hadn't heard that idea before either. When Oxygen or another active non-metal in the upper right of the periodic table contacts something and takes its electrons, the "victim" of oxidation has lost some electrons = ionized. In the Sun, most atoms are ionized; not because of oxygen, sulphur or flourine, but because of the high gravity and energy flow.

Correct me if I wrong, though, but I think there can be ionized atoms and no flame.

There can.

The flame or fire refers to the process of rapid shift of electrons, often transforming the atoms into other types of atoms.

No. Atoms of one element are not transformed into another element in a flame.

IOW as a process, or energy.

Energy is not a process. It is a property.

My original question was why did modern chemists drop fire as one of the four elements, when they changed their name to "states of matter?"

Because scientists did not actually do what you claim they did. Robert Boyle's idea of the atom and elements was a complete rejection of the Aristotelian view, not a modification of it. Some post-Boyle researchers did add to their list of elements, what we know today as a form of energy, like frigerific and caloric. But later research showed that no such particles existed.

Why not just add "energy" as the fourth state?

Because that would be idiotic and inaccurate.

It can be called plasma, but that may be just the condition under which fire often erupts.

All of that reading and you still don't understand what a flame is. Plasma isn't a condition. It's a state of matter. During the phase shift from gas to plasma, large quantities of chemical potential energy is transformed into heat and light, a flame. The phase shift did not cause the heat and light. The phase shift was caused by the same thing as the heat and light. A chemical reaction is occurring between typically some organic compound and oxygen from the air.

As numerous chemical bonds are broken and as new bonds form, the total energy in all the bonds is less than before the reaction occurred. That excess energy can not be lost (1st Law of Thermodynamics), so it is released as light (visible and infrared), transformed into kinetic motion of nearby particles (molecules and ions) and some of the energy goes into ionizing some molecules and atoms (forming plasma). The plasma exists only briefly however. As it drifts away from the source of energy, the reaction site, it will "cool" and shift phase back to a gas by emitting the absorbed energy as light. You see that emitted light as a flame.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

There can.

Good, I got something right

No. Atoms of one element are not transformed into another element in a flame.

But wood is transformed into ashes and heat; gasoline is transformed into heat and carbon monoxide, etc, and in fusion, elements are transformed into other elements.

Energy is not a process. It is a property.

But it seems to me that it always transforms and releases heat and light. Energy is in change and movement, and it moves things.

Because scientists did not actually do what you claim they did. Robert Boyle's idea of the atom and elements was a complete rejection of the Aristotelian view, not a modification of it. Some post-Boyle researchers did add to their list of elements, what we know today as a form of energy, like frigerific and caloric. But later research showed that no such particles existed.

Somehow the four elements (not counting the fifth, which they dropped completely) became the three states of matter, plus energy or plasma. I don't know if any physicist knew they were doing that. But there they are; they are the same "elements" as they always were; just called states now instead of elements. The metals that were known in ancient times were not called elements in ancient times, but they became the first known "elements." I thought it was Dalton who invented the first modern atomic theory.

All of that reading and you still don't understand what a flame is. Plasma isn't a condition. It's a state of matter.

"condition" and "state" are synonyms.

During the phase shift from gas to plasma, large quantities of chemical potential energy is transformed into heat and light, a flame. The phase shift did not cause the heat and light. The phase shift was caused by the same thing as the heat and light. A chemical reaction is occurring between typically some organic compound and oxygen from the air.

Yes, but as Rags pointed out, it does not have to be oxygen.

As numerous chemical bonds are broken and as new bonds form, the total energy in all the bonds is less than before the reaction occurred. That excess energy can not be lost (1st Law of Thermodynamics), so it is released as light (visible and infrared), transformed into kinetic motion of nearby particles (molecules and ions) and some of the energy goes into ionizing some molecules and atoms (forming plasma). The plasma exists only briefly however. As it drifts away from the source of energy, the reaction site, it will "cool" and shift phase back to a gas by emitting the absorbed energy as light. You see that emitted light as a flame.

OK, thanks.

But wood is transformed into ashes and heat; gasoline is transformed into heat and carbon monoxide, etc, and in fusion, elements are transformed into other elements.

Wood is not an element, heat is not an element, ashes are not an element, carbon monoxide is not an element, fusion is not a flame.

Energy and plasma are not synonyms.

From a spiritualist point of view, what is going on is consciousness. Consciousness is the same as being. You can analyze this being physically, but what is really going on is spiritual; but the spiritual is not separate from the being or physical; that's just a way of talking to distinguish different ways of discussing what's going on.

The double slit experiment helps to demonstrate that the observer is part of what's going on, collapsing wave functions into apparent particles, or possibility/potential into actual. As Heisenberg put it, Aristotle's potential and actual energy re-entered physics.

And I don't see the materialist interpretation that the measuring device is emitting photons which alter the paths of the elections. That is like the photo-electric effect; but that does not create wave interference patterns. And measuring devices don't emit light, they receive light, enabling them to detect other things going on (electrons). So I don't see their point.

The New Agers and New Thought people may exaggerate this observer effect to make their point that "your thoughts create your reality." Therefore you can envision a Cadillac and one will later appear (e.g. "The Secret" movie), and this idea is supported by quantum experiments, they claim. Woo. Materialists may say this is confusing the micro with the macro world. I think we have a lot to learn about what's going on, and to clarify about this.

There can't be just one person's mind creating all of his/her reality. Every being is a "mind," conscious or subconscious. There is no solipsism. If no-one hears a tree fall in the forest, it does not make a sound. A "sound" is evoked in someone's mind, or at least (acc. to materialists) in an ear and a brain. But the tree itself is conscious too; that is its being, and it hears its own sound on a subconscious level. And if someone besides me hears the sound, then the tree makes a sound too; not in my mind, but in another mind.

I feel more connected consciously to others, if I let them be, and not think I am creating them personally; not creating my whole reality. Others are too, just by being. I don't control them. Then I feel more connected. On this level, then, my mind becomes connected to other minds, and I actually DO create all of reality. But not I as an individual, but I as the "cosmic mind" which is my higher identity.

And that cosmic mind is creative, and humans have creative imagination that can become manifested, because that's how creation begins in our lives. And to some extent, like attracts like, because all is connected. Quantum entanglement proves it. Thus, new age woo. At least, well maybe!

Some physicists and other scientists are beginning to incorporate this kind of thinking, as we saw on the "quantum theory debunks materialism" or "the end of materialism" video. Others do not. But my opinion is that this will happen more and more often.

And your basis for these assertions is...?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Good, I got something right

But wood is transformed into ashes and heat; gasoline is transformed into heat and carbon monoxide, etc, and in fusion, elements are transformed into other elements.

As Jordan pointed out, wood is not an element. It is primarily a carbohydrate (cellulose). It is made up of molecules made out of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

During combustion the bonds holding the cellulose molecules together are broken and new bonds are formed. The carbon atoms bond with the oxygen atoms from the cellulose and from the air (breaking oxygen molecule bonds) to form mostly carbon dioxide. The hydrogen atoms also bond with oxygen atoms from either the cellulose or from the air to form water molecules. The new molecules that form are a lower energy state than the original cellulose and oxygen molecules (heat of reaction / enthalpy). That excess energy has been transformed from potential chemical in the original bonds into kinetic heat and electromagnetic light energy. Energy gets transformed. The original atoms are still there and they are still carbons, hydrogens and oxygens.

The ash is primarily made out of pure soot, carbon atoms that didn't have access to an oxygen and ended up bonding to other carbons. It is also made up of various salts formed from sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium and other atoms that made up a minority of the original wood's mass. (Side note, this is where potassium got its name, a derivation of potash.)

Gasoline is primarily made up of various hydrocarbons which are molecules made out of only carbon and hydrogen. Combustion of gasoline follows a similar path to wood in that it forms primarily carbon dioxide and water. If there isn't enough oxygen to support complete combustion then you will get some carbon monoxide but it is just a minor constituent of the products.

Fusion does transform atoms of one element into another. But fusion only occurs in situations of very, very intense conditions (incredibly high temperatures and pressures). It definitely doesn't happen when wood or gasoline burns. Saying that our sun is "burning" is a very big misnomer.

But it seems to me that it always transforms and releases heat and light.

Energy can't "release" heat and light because heat and light are energy!

A chemical reaction is a process that involves either the absorption or release of energy. Energy is not a process in and of itself.

Energy is in change and movement, and it moves things.

No it doesn't. An object that is moving has energy but the energy doesn't make it move. Some event can transfer energy from somewhere else into an object and the transfer is what "causes" the motion. The transfer is not the energy itself.

Somehow the four elements (not counting the fifth, which they dropped completely) became the three states of matter, plus energy or plasma.

No. The atomic idea was a complete rejection of the Aristotelean idea. States of matter and elements were now understood to be completely different concepts. One did not become the other.

BTW: Plasma was only recognized as another state of matter a few centuries later.

I don't know if any physicist knew they were doing that. But there they are; they are the same "elements" as they always were; just called states now instead of elements.

The natural philosophers who conceived of elements and states as distinct were intimately familiar with Aristotle's view. They were all "classically" educated. One of the major points of the Enlightenment is that they now realized that Aristotle's view was wrong.

The metals that were known in ancient times were not called elements in ancient times, but they became the first known "elements." I thought it was Dalton who invented the first modern atomic theory.

1- Dalton's theory was built upon ideas that came before him. Scientific theories are not invented out of thin air.

2- Dalton receives major credit because his theory was the first fully formed enough that it could explain known quantitative laws (conservation of mass, definite proportions, and multiple proportions).

"condition" and "state" are synonyms.

Not in chemistry, they aren't. Condition refers to things like temperature, pressure or, the presence of catalysts. State refers to the phase of the matter under particular conditions. For example, under high enough pressure and low temperature conditions, carbon dioxide will be in a solid state.

Yes, but as Rags pointed out, it does not have to be oxygen.

Combustion is a common example of an oxidation reaction. Flames typically involve oxygen as the oxidizer as I originally stated in my example!

OK, thanks.

I notice you thanked me by continuing to make ridiculous claims and try to teach me about chemistry.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

From a spiritualist point of view, what is going on is consciousness. Consciousness is the same as being. You can analyze this being physically, but what is really going on is spiritual; but the spiritual is not separate from the being or physical; that's just a way of talking to distinguish different ways of discussing what's going on.

New Age gobbledygook that doesn't explain anything. It is just made up wish expression.

The double slit experiment helps to demonstrate that the observer is part of what's going on, collapsing wave functions into apparent particles, or possibility/potential into actual.

As I already pointed out, according to the Copenhagen Interpretation (the one you favor), wave functions are theoretical tools only. An electron as a particle is no more "actual" than an electron as a wave. Particle-wave duality. Duality. Duality. Electrons are "actually" both.

As Heisenberg put it, Aristotle's potential and actual energy re-entered physics.

Not what he said at all: All the elementary particles can, at sufficiently high energies, be transmuted into other particles, or they can simply be created from kinetic energy and can be annihilated into energy, for instance into radiation. Therefore we have here actually the final proof for the unity of matter. All the elementary particles are made of the same substance, which we may call energy or universal matter; they are just different forms in which matter can appear.
If we compare this situation with the Aristotelian concepts of matter and form, we can say that the matter of Aristotle, which is mere "potentia", should be compared to our concept of energy, which gets into "actuality" by means of the form, when the elementary particle is created.

He is speaking analogies not realities. He is trying to use something you may be familiar with (Aristotle) to get you to understand something you are not familiar with (general relativity and quantum mechanics).

Source: Physics and Philosophy by Werner Heisenburg

Have you actually read Heisenberg's work or are you just pretending again?

And I don't see the materialist interpretation that the measuring device is emitting photons which alter the paths of the elections.

That's because you don't understand how any of this actually works. I already quoted physicists version of the observer effect on electrons. You just don't like it because it destroyed your claim.

That is like the photo-electric effect;

Dear Odin! No it isn't. Stop pretending to understand this! The measuring of an electron's position requires an interaction with a photon. The photo-electric effect is something else entire. Photo-electric effect is the fact that it takes light of particular frequencies to dislodge electrons and thus complete an electric circuit.

but that does not create wave interference patterns. And measuring devices don't emit light, they receive light, enabling them to detect other things going on (electrons). So I don't see their point.

Moron. Actual two-slit electron experiments.

Note: Blocking off one of the slits forces the electron to interact with the block. The forces of interaction involving electrons are carried by photons!

The New Agers and New Thought people may exaggerate this observer effect to make their point that "your thoughts create your reality."

Exaggerate = lie.

Therefore you can envision a Cadillac and one will later appear (e.g. "The Secret" movie), and this idea is supported by quantum experiments, they claim. Woo. Materialists may say this is confusing the micro with the macro world. I think we have a lot to learn about what's going on, and to clarify about this.

And none of that learning will be done by New Age booksellers. It will all be done by scientists.

There can't be just one person's mind creating all of his/her reality. Every being is a "mind," conscious or subconscious. There is no solipsism.

But the video you chose to share in support of your position quoted Wigner. And the real Wigner quote turns out to say that solipsism is congruent with quantum mechanics!

If no-one hears a tree fall in the forest, it does not make a sound. A "sound" is evoked in someone's mind, or at least (acc. to materialists) in an ear and a brain.

Pressure waves are detected by the inner ear and signals are sent to the brain which is interpreted as "sound". But the pressure waves exist whether or not someone "hears" them.

But the tree itself is conscious too; that is its being, and it hears its own sound on a subconscious level.

Based upon your non-existent definition of conscious? You seem to have skipped a major step. Define "conscious" and show us how we measure the consciousness of a tree.

I can show you how to measure inner ears and brains. I can show you how to measure the pressure waves in the air. I can show you how to measure the neural signals sent from the inner ear to the brain. We are even getting to the point where we can measure the passage of signaling throughout a brain in real time.

New age booksellers can't do a damn thing except spew more pablum and put a price sticker on it.

And if someone besides me hears the sound, then the tree makes a sound too; not in my mind, but in another mind.

Only if you arbitrarily reject solipsism.

I feel more connected consciously to others, if I let them be, and not think I am creating them personally; not creating my whole reality. Others are too, just by being. I don't control them. Then I feel more connected. On this level, then, my mind becomes connected to other minds, and I actually DO create all of reality. But not I as an individual, but I as the "cosmic mind" which is my higher identity.

Gobbledygook.

And that cosmic mind is creative, and humans have creative imagination that can become manifested, because that's how creation begins in our lives. And to some extent, like attracts like, because all is connected. Quantum entanglement proves it. Thus, new age woo. At least, well maybe!

Since we have repeatedly shown that you don't know the first thing about quantum mechanics, why should anyone take your say so about this?

Some physicists and other scientists are beginning to incorporate this kind of thinking, as we saw on the "quantum theory debunks materialism" or "the end of materialism" video.

As I showed you, those were quote mines. The physicists were not incorporating New Age garbage in their science. Your videos cut small pieces out of videos and completely scrubbed the segments of their original context in order to make it appear that the physicists agree with New Agers. Quote mining at its finest.

I showed you an actual video created by the physicist in order to directly address New Age woo. Notice how he said it was complete nonsense.

Others do not. But my opinion is that this will happen more and more often.

Your uninformed opinion is completely worthless.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

As Jordan pointed out, wood is not an element. It is primarily a carbohydrate (cellulose). It is made up of molecules made out of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

I never said wood is an element. What a foolish thing to say. Of course, according to the Chinese, wood IS an element.

During combustion the bonds holding the cellulose molecules together are broken and new bonds are formed. The carbon atoms bond with the oxygen atoms from the cellulose and from the air (breaking oxygen molecule bonds) to form mostly carbon dioxide. The hydrogen atoms also bond with oxygen atoms from either the cellulose or from the air to form water molecules. The new molecules that form are a lower energy state than the original cellulose and oxygen molecules (heat of reaction / enthalpy). That excess energy has been transformed from potential chemical in the original bonds into kinetic heat and electromagnetic light energy. Energy gets transformed. The original atoms are still there and they are still carbons, hydrogens and oxygens.

The ash is primarily made out of pure soot, carbon atoms that didn't have access to an oxygen and ended up bonding to other carbons. It is also made up of various salts formed from sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium and other atoms that made up a minority of the original wood's mass. (Side note, this is where potassium got its name, a derivation of potash.)

Gasoline is primarily made up of various hydrocarbons which are molecules made out of only carbon and hydrogen. Combustion of gasoline follows a similar path to wood in that it forms primarily carbon dioxide and water. If there isn't enough oxygen to support complete combustion then you will get some carbon monoxide but it is just a minor constituent of the products.

Fusion does transform atoms of one element into another. But fusion only occurs in situations of very, very intense conditions (incredibly high temperatures and pressures). It definitely doesn't happen when wood or gasoline burns. Saying that our sun is "burning" is a very big misnomer.

My discussion is about the five ancient elements, which you are not interested in. But this doctrine plays an important role in typologies like generations theory, as well as esoteric psychology such as astrology. It remains in science under the title "states of matter," but fire and spirit are omitted.

When I say fire transforms, I just mean that original materials become heat and ashes. I know what an element is in chemistry. But the fire we see on earth, and the fire in the sun are analogous. They are hot, they give off heat and light, and they transform things.

A chemical reaction is a process that involves either the absorption or release of energy. Energy is not a process in and of itself.

But it moves things. And it can't be conceived as a fixed object. It is force.

No. The atomic idea was a complete rejection of the Aristotelean idea. States of matter and elements were now understood to be completely different concepts. One did not become the other.

BTW: Plasma was only recognized as another state of matter a few centuries later.

We speak different languages. I understand chemistry, though not to the detail and in the conventional language that you do, but I also understand Aristotle and esoterics. It is quite obvious that the modern states of matter are the old elements. Of course elements did not literally become states of matter; the term state of matter was applied to what had been called element earlier. I know this is what happened. Solid, liquid and gas are the same 3 states which were called the 3 elements earth, water and air respectively. "Water," for example, in the old Greek system did not refer to H20, but to the state of being liquid.

The natural philosophers who conceived of elements and states as distinct were intimately familiar with Aristotle's view. They were all "classically" educated. One of the major points of the Enlightenment is that they now realized that Aristotle's view was wrong.

What were simply called metals before (not "elements distinct from states"), came to be called elements in the Enlightenment Era by chemists; and more of them were being discovered (including non-metals), and more still were discovered later. Originally, and for centuries, there were only about 9 known metals. Now there are 118 elements. Same things. The old 9 metals are now elements on the periodic table. The old elements are now the states of matter.

Materialists claim "plasma" is a state of matter. I disagree. Plasma is just ionized atoms. Energy is a state of matter. Einstein said so. Ordinary fire releases energy, as you say. Nuclear fire transforms elements. But in both cases the forces in atoms are being released, and things change as a result of the fire happening.

I notice you thanked me by continuing to make ridiculous claims and try to teach me about chemistry.

There is indeed a whole lot you need to learn. Your mind is among the most extremely narrow I have ever encountered. And I have known a lot more people, in my longer life than yours. And I also post on Theology Online. Now, there are some narrow-minded people there! Christian literalists and creationists. You are even more narrow-minded than they are!