Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Will scientists ever find the connection between the physical and metaphysical?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 16 of 40 (330109)
07-09-2006 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by GDR
07-08-2006 6:56 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by GDR, posted 07-08-2006 6:56 PM GDR has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 17 of 40 (330125)
07-09-2006 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Percy
07-09-2006 11:09 AM


God as a material being.
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 07-09-2006 11:09 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by anglagard, posted 07-09-2006 6:18 PM randman has replied
 Message 20 by Percy, posted 07-09-2006 6:45 PM randman has replied
 Message 28 by ramoss, posted 07-09-2006 10:52 PM randman has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 18 of 40 (330139)
07-09-2006 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by GDR
07-08-2006 6:56 PM


Monads?
quote:
Gerald Shroeder in his book "The Hidden Face of God" connects science with the metaphysical by claiming amongst other things, as I understand him, that what is actually basic to the universe is particles of information. His thinking is obviously esoteric, but will it ever go beyond that?
From this description, I would sue for plagiarism if I was this guy:
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by GDR, posted 07-08-2006 6:56 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by randman, posted 07-09-2006 6:59 PM anglagard has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 19 of 40 (330140)
07-09-2006 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by randman
07-09-2006 4:21 PM


Re: God as a material being.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by randman, posted 07-09-2006 4:21 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by randman, posted 07-09-2006 6:57 PM anglagard has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 20 of 40 (330143)
07-09-2006 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by randman
07-09-2006 4:21 PM


Re: God as a material being.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by randman, posted 07-09-2006 4:21 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by randman, posted 07-09-2006 6:54 PM Percy has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 21 of 40 (330144)
07-09-2006 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Percy
07-09-2006 6:45 PM


Re: God as a material being.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Percy, posted 07-09-2006 6:45 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Admin, posted 07-09-2006 8:30 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 22 of 40 (330145)
07-09-2006 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by anglagard
07-09-2006 6:18 PM


Re: God as a material being.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by anglagard, posted 07-09-2006 6:18 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by anglagard, posted 07-09-2006 7:50 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 23 of 40 (330146)
07-09-2006 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by anglagard
07-09-2006 6:08 PM


Re: Monads?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by anglagard, posted 07-09-2006 6:08 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by anglagard, posted 07-09-2006 7:54 PM randman has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 24 of 40 (330147)
07-09-2006 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by randman
07-09-2006 6:57 PM


Re: God as a material being.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by randman, posted 07-09-2006 6:57 PM randman has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 25 of 40 (330148)
07-09-2006 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by randman
07-09-2006 6:59 PM


Re: Monads?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by randman, posted 07-09-2006 6:59 PM randman has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 26 of 40 (330150)
07-09-2006 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by randman
07-09-2006 6:54 PM


Re: God as a material being.
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.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by randman, posted 07-09-2006 6:54 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by randman, posted 07-09-2006 10:00 PM Admin has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 27 of 40 (330165)
07-09-2006 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Admin
07-09-2006 8:30 PM


what the heck?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Admin, posted 07-09-2006 8:30 PM Admin has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 28 of 40 (330175)
07-09-2006 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by randman
07-09-2006 4:21 PM


Re: God as a material being.
Deleting since it was being sidetracked..
Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by randman, posted 07-09-2006 4:21 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 29 of 40 (330185)
07-09-2006 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by GDR
07-09-2006 2:18 AM


the quantum nature Schroeder alludes to
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by GDR, posted 07-09-2006 2:18 AM GDR has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 30 of 40 (330186)
07-09-2006 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by crashfrog
07-09-2006 9:02 AM


Is the human will physical?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 07-09-2006 9:02 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 07-10-2006 12:20 AM randman has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024