Oh. The analogy you mean. Not the philosophy itself. Yes, it fit's the analogy pretty well. At least when the driver is in the car. But as I understand it, dualism is about tow difference facets of the same thing. So when the driver get's out of the car, it's not longer two facets of the same thing. It's two discinnected things. So in that sense it doesn't fit very well.

Not in any dictionary I can find.

That “loose connection” analogy is pretty good, although I think the car/driver analogy makes it a little clearer...

It would be like removing a couple spark plugs from the engine. The car no longer functions as well as it did before the sparkplugs were removed. But nothing has affected the driver. He still “sends signals” to the engine by pressing on the gas pedal. It’s just that the car now has some missing parts so it doesn’t work as well as it did before.

I'd like to return to this notion that Di put forth:The question of "containing mass" is highly questionable on the scientific front. Even as a scientists I'm not prepared to talk about anything ultimately "containing mass".

We have seen from Einstein's Relativity and the very famous equation E = mc² that mass and energy are one in the same thing. The idea that the universe is made up of tiny billiard-ball like particles is no longer a valid idea.

They still refer to "particle physics" and they still label the behavior of physical phenomenon in terms of 'particles'. But this is no longer that way scientists truly think of these things. This is just archaic language that stuck.

They now see these 'particles' as simply standing waves that can genuinely mutate into other standing waves. The so-called "particles" can be changed into one another and even coverted into pure energy and no longer even be a particle at all anymore.

So even from a very strict scientific view I reject the idea of the universe as being made up of tiny elements that 'contain mass'. That's not the current scientific picture, IMHO.

Both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics did away with that picture. It is true the String Theorists are attempting to bring that picture back in terms of vibrating strings. But thus far all they have is speculative mathematics, it may prove useful in terms of describing how energy becomes standing waves, but if they actually hope to find "physical strings" at the bottom tier of the latter I'm willing to bet that they will find that to be just as elusive as the billiard ball idea.

The idea that a 'hard-core' physical reality "exists" and everything can be ultimately be explained in terms of some preexisting billiard balls or strings just isn't going to happen IMHO.

Even Inflation Theory denies that one.

This universe is ultiamtely a manifestation of something non-physical that "creates" a sense of physicality through some marverlous trickery.

We already know that Di.

Just using Einstein's obervation that mass and energy are the transmutable we know that everything (all mass) can be reduced to energy. And energy by itself would not be 'physical'. If all that existed was energy and that energy never took the form of 'mass' (i.e. standing waves with precise properties), then there is nothing we could point at that could be classified as 'physical'.

Energy itself is not "physical". (i.e. it is not measurable or detectable outside of the existence of standing waves).

We live in an energy universe. Mass and physicality all arise from energy. Energy itself is non-physical, until it take the form of a standing wave. Then we call it 'physical'.

We are made of pure energy. We are beings of pure energy.

There is no such thing as 'mass'. Mass is just something that energy does when it becomes a standing wave.

And that is the view of the modern sciences of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

While it's true the string theorists are dreaming of ressurecting Newton's billiard balls as vibrating packets of strings, they are a very long way off from doing that. And there are many scientists who feel that it's a futile approach anyway. At least in terms of the particular end-result. It may pan out in terms of helping us to understand how energy forms standing waves, but that's a long way off from actually showing that there are 'physical strings' at the bottom rung of the ladder.

So if you're actually asking me whether I think this universe is physical, or whether I think it's a manifestation of pure energy, I'd have to chose the latter, even on pure scientific grounds.

Just wanted to note that Bohm's ideas about The Holographic Universe also points to a concept that what we consider "reality" (i.e. "physical") has an underlying "non-pysical" nature.

I'm wondering, Spider, if you think it's ok to accept things other than science, as long as those things don't conflict with science?

lol. assume as you wish. but it'll be scary if we ever agree on what accepted science is huh? curious though. don't recall discussing science topics with you. what science do you accept that i don't or visa versa?

Sky responded:

I have to laugh at the sheer irony of that.

You're no less hung up on labels than we are.

Frankly, comming from You, that's a surprise... After all, you've been doing fine all along! -- just speaking your mind out (educating the unenlightened)!

Don't let the momentary "down period" spoil your cheerful outlook!!!

(besides, you gotta take care of all of the unenlightened...)

Back to "Science vs. Philosophy" I have to admit that I have doubts if I even know what philosophy is.