|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Will scientists ever find the connection between the physical and metaphysical? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Schroeder's science has come in for heavy criticism. I would suggest checking at least his major claims rather than relying on Schroeder's say-so.C
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Anything that is part of the sensory universe is amenable to study by science. By that definition, God, angels, demons, spirits, ESP and a whole range of things are definitely within the range of science, and in fact, anything experienced by someone is potentially a topic of scientific study. On the other hand, there may be certain scientific concepts that are not so scientific under that definition since they have not been so easily measured (such as the extra dimensions in string theory).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 836 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
quote: From this description, I would sue for plagiarism if I was this guy: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz - Wikipedia
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 836 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Anything that is part of the sensory universe is amenable to study by science. By that definition, God, angels, demons, spirits, ESP and a whole range of things are definitely within the range of science, and in fact, anything experienced by someone is potentially a topic of scientific study. Show us any of that is in the range of the sensory universe and you will get $1,000,000 from the Amazing Randi and a guaranteed appearance on Penn & Teller Bullshit!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Hi Randman,
As I said in the portion of my message that you didn't address, one can only have a discussion concerning the question of whether science might discover a connection between physics and metaphysics if the definitions of metaphysics and the supernatural remain vague and ill-defined. When someone posts clear definitions this will become readily apparent.
On the other hand, there may be certain scientific concepts that are not so scientific under that definition since they have not been so easily measured (such as the extra dimensions in string theory). If you'd like to discuss not-so-scientific scientific topics then please propose a new thread and I'll approve it as soon as is practical. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Off-topic, please do not respond. --Admin
The terms "spiritual" and "metaphysical" are terms with specific meanings in the real world, but are not scientific terms. However, since the whole OP deals with the issue of "whether scientists ever find the connection between the physical and metaphysical", I assume that's an acceptable topic for this thread. Furthermore, it's not as if the theory of evolution deals with precise terms. It does not. Take the term "random." Ask an evo what is the precise definition of random, and you are likely to get a range of somewhat vague (and impossible to verify) definitions. So whereas the claim that science deals with precise definitions may be true, it is certainly not true that evolutionary science deals with precise definitions, and so it is somewhat strange to hear evo proponents demand specific and precise definitions of metaphysical and spiritual. Nevertheless, I would define "spiritual" as relating to the spiritual realm, a real dimension of human experience and other entities such as God, interconnected with the 3-Dimensions we associate with physicality and interconnected with time as well. Edited by Admin, : Add off-topic warning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Off-topic, please do not respond. --Admin
Is gravity within the range of the sensory universe? In the same way, we can see the effects and people have experienced the reality and interaction with spiritual beings. That's evidence. You don't like it because it is subjective, but all evidence begins as subjective until someone figures out a way to test for it, quantify it, etc...and make it objective. Just because we haven't figured out how to do that yet doesn't make spiritual things any less real. They are within the realm of human experience and so be definition sensory. Edited by Admin, : Add off-topic warning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Off-topic, please do not respond. --Admin
The idea the universe consists of particles of information and that this information exists even when the physical form of the particle observes not to exist is a concept well established by hard experiments in quantum physics. It's not wild speculation, but based on hard science, and quite likely is correct. Edited by Admin, : Add off-topic warning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 836 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Off-topic, please do not respond. --Admin
Is gravity within the range of the sensory universe? The observed effects of gravity are within the range of the sensory universe. Didn't this semantic argument take up the better part of a thread a few months back?
In the same way, we can see the effects and people have experienced the reality and interaction with spiritual beings. That's evidence. That's anecdotal evidence, not experential evidence. The reason anecdotal evidence is not used in science is because "its just taking someone's word for it." Using anecdotal evidence essentially means what anyone says is true. What if they contradict each other? what if they are in a mental institution? or a rest home? Most children are taught not to believe everything anyone tells them.
You don't like it because it is subjective, but all evidence begins as subjective until someone figures out a way to test for it, quantify it, etc...and make it objective. Provide your repeatable evidence under controlled conditions and you get $1,000,000.
Just because we haven't figured out how to do that yet doesn't make spiritual things any less real. They are within the realm of human experience and so be definition sensory. That statement is an opinion and without experential evidence to support it means it is not a part of science. Edited by Admin, : Add off-topic warning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 836 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Off-topic, please do not respond. --Admin
The idea the universe consists of particles of information and that this information exists even when the physical form of the particle observes not to exist is a concept well established by hard experiments in quantum physics. It's not wild speculation, but based on hard science, and quite likely is correct. Probably should have used a smiley when posting as it was a bit tounge-in-cheek. However, the assertion, independent of the results of quantum physics experiments, does share similarities with Monadism. Edited by Admin, : Add off-topic warning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Hi Randman,
I'm responding as Admin because I'm not sure where the confusion is coming in. You started going off-topic onto one of your favorite side-issues, that some so-called scientific concepts are not really scientific. I said that if you'd like to discuss this topic that you should propose a new thread and that I would promote it as soon as I could. Your response indicates you didn't understand me:
Randman writes: The terms "spiritual" and "metaphysical" are terms with specific meanings in the real world, but are not scientific terms. However, since the whole OP deals with the issue of "whether scientists ever find the connection between the physical and metaphysical", I assume that's an acceptable topic for this thread. I did not say anything about discussion of the spiritual and metaphysical being off-topic. If what you meant to say is that you think there are tie-ins between scientific concepts that aren't really scientific and this thread, then you have to make the connection clear, because otherwise I'm going to rule it off-topic.
Furthermore, it's not as if the theory of evolution deals with precise terms. It does not. Take the term "random." Ask an evo what is the precise definition of random, and you are likely to get a range of somewhat vague (and impossible to verify) definitions. This thread is not about science not having precise terms.
So whereas the claim that science deals with precise definitions may be true, it is certainly not true that evolutionary science deals with precise definitions, and so it is somewhat strange to hear evo proponents demand specific and precise definitions of metaphysical and spiritual. Once again, this thread is not about science not having precise definitions. If you'd like to debate the preciseness of any definitions that are offered in this thread, that's fine. But that science in general is insufficiently precise is another topic.
Nevertheless, I would define "spiritual" as relating to the spiritual realm, a real dimension of human experience and other entities such as God, interconnected with the 3-Dimensions we associate with physicality and interconnected with time as well. You're still off-topic. This is your argument that we're all already familiar with, that the spiritual is part of the sensory universe. If you'd like to argue this point, please propose a thread and I will promote it as soon as I can. The assumption of the OP is that the metaphysical and physical are separate, and it argues that we might one day find connections between science and metaphysics. Please address yourself to the topic. If you disagree with my position on this, please bring it up in the appropriate thread and not here. Edited by Admin, : Fix grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The assumption of the OP is that the metaphysical and physical are separate, and it argues that we might one day find connections between science and metaphysics. Um, let's back up here a bit. The OP is about whether science can deal with the metaphysical; that we might find connections one day, right? I post I think we already have. How is that off-topic? What you seem to be saying is that, by definition, we cannot find connections, period, and so that makes the topic off-topic within itself, correct? Also, the notion of separate is questionable. The mind is separate from the body in some sense, but they still exist together in the same person. Oxygen is separate from hydrogen, but they still can exist together as water. I don't think you'll find too many people that believe the metaphysical or spiritual exists that would argue they are so separate from the observed world that no connections whatsoever exist, ever. In fact, a great many people, and almost all historical religious belief systems, argue the spiritual is fundamental for the physical to exist at all. It is more a recent phenomenon based on classical paradigms where you see people stating they believe the spiritual world or metaphysical world exist, but are "separate" from the physical world. Certainly, that's not a biblical concept. The biblical metaphysical view is that the physical world obeys and is governed by the spiritual world and spiritual principles such as "whatsoever a man sows shall he also reap." In other words, there is absolutely no reason to think within the OP or anywhere else, that the distinction of metaphysical and physical equates a total separation, as if the 2 don't work together. Isn't discussing whether science can or has crossed over into what people considered metaphysics what the thread is all about? Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Deleting since it was being sidetracked..
Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Shroeder goes one step further and suggests that the basis of that energy is information.
I think this is a very important point, and one that many great scientists have alluded to, but for some reason is scoffed at here at the EvC as if only an ignoramus could see the science of what Shroader calls "the quantum nature" as indicating information is fundamental or what gives rise to energy and thus matter. In making those connections, somewhat obvious to anyone imo that considers the results of quantum mechanics with an open mind, he is saying an intelligence (he calls it a wisdom) is apparently shown to be behind everything by modern science in the arena of quantum mechanics. As you know, I agree with Schroeder as have many others, including Max Planck. Thanks for starting a thread dealing with this topic. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I am not so sure of what science considers physical or not physical.
Are mental things "physical" for example? Is the human will physical? How about things like paranoia or psychological conditions? Are they physical? How about love? Is love predominantly a physical thing? If such mental things are considered physical for this discussion, then why not metaphysical or spiritual things? Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024