Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Will scientists ever find the connection between the physical and metaphysical?
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 15 of 40 (330094)
07-09-2006 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by GDR
07-08-2006 6:56 PM


yes
You know my opinion. We have already crossed over into what was formerly known as "spiritual" or metaphysical in the realm of quantum physics, and perhaps other areas.

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 4899 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

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 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 4899 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 4899 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

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 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

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 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 4899 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

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 33 of 40 (330207)
07-10-2006 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by crashfrog
07-10-2006 12:20 AM


why dodge the issue
why are you dodging my questions? Here is the majority of my post again. I'd appreciate a straightforward response.
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?
You are demanding definitions of how metaphysical is defined relative to physical, but are ignoring my questions on what you consider to be physical. How can anyone answer you if you don't first answer the questions above?
We cannot compare the metaphysical to the physical if you won't define what you mean by physical.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 07-10-2006 12:20 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 07-10-2006 12:32 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 35 of 40 (330214)
07-10-2006 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by crashfrog
07-10-2006 12:32 AM


No, you are dodging.
You offered your own definition of "physical" and so I asked these questions to clarify what you mean by physical. What do you mean? You stated:
Whatever anything physical is connected to is physical, by definition.
Are mental conditions physical?
How about the human will?
How about consciousness?
How about love?
If mental things are connected to the physical, by your definition they are physical, right, and yet we have 2 different words. Can you not see the reason why?
The simple fact is science studies these things, right? The field of psychology and psychiatry is a field of scientific study, right?
Well, clearly mental things can be connected to the physical, and so are physical by your definition DESPITE BEING 2 WORDS (Duh!!). So by your inclusive definitions, metaphysical and spiritual things are physical too, just as long as any connectivity to the physical world exists.
So why not answer the questions so we can see what exactly you mean by physical?
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 07-10-2006 12:32 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by crashfrog, posted 07-10-2006 12:47 AM randman has replied
 Message 38 by ramoss, posted 07-10-2006 8:00 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 37 of 40 (330217)
07-10-2006 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by crashfrog
07-10-2006 12:47 AM


Re: No, you are dodging.
2 different words, but not two antonyms. "Mental" is not the opposite of "physical."
What the heck are you talking about? Physical and mental are different spheres just as physical and metaphysical are. It's fairly analogous. One definition of metaphysical is without form or substance, and that's a pretty good description as well of mental things.
You cannot see the human will. You see it's effects, but it is immaterial by definition.
Same with mental states. There may be a physical component in how a particular mental state works, but the thing itself is not really physical. It is mental, without physical form.
Same with love and consciousness. Consciousness may or may not need a physical body, but it is mental.
Same with personality.
In fact, our whole existence teaches us that non-material and non-physical things interact with and are intertwined with the physical world.
So there is no reason at all to think metaphysical and spiritual things are not intertwined with the physical world, and moreover, the metaphysical is nearly by definition connected to the physical world. If there is no connectivity to people or reality at all, then it isn't real, and metaphysical is a concept that reality includes and is connected to the metaphysical. By definition, if real, the metaphysical is connected to the physical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by crashfrog, posted 07-10-2006 12:47 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 07-10-2006 8:01 AM randman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024