Okay - so I'm not the worlds best typer. Or is it typist. Whatever it is that man has tried to turn into gold - hasn't happened yet, and it's a pretty good bet it never will.

If it was truth you couldn't claim faith? That's totally weird take on it. I always figured that people claimed it was faith simply because they couldn't prove it as fact.

Thought is energy. Some of the most exhausting work done is thinking. That's why jobs that require you to think pay the big bucks and factory jobs pay minimum wages.

Think about that if you have the energy.

JB

4 points I would like to make.
1) Man hasn't turned lead into gold, but a nuclear reactor does change the atomic structure of uranium which is creating one element from another.
2) If you don't think matter can be changed into energy ask a survivor of Hiroshima what they think.
3) All animals create life. It's called reproduction.
4) Man has created life without reproduction by cloning.

spreid

Apparently you don't understand the physics so I will quit trying to explain it to you.

What we mean by creation is something from nothing. If matter and energy can not be created or destroyed then where did the original matter and energy come from? Thats the kind of creation I am talking about at least.

Then you don't understand anything about what creation is.

You cannot create something from nothing because nothing does not exist.

It is impossible for nothing to exist. It is an oxymoron.

JB

Then I take it that you believe that matter and energy have always existed? To believe that something was never there is just as crazy as thinking it was always there.

Existence requires "something" that can be defined as existing. I don't know what it was. I don't know if you can call it energy or matter. It may have been a single wave, like a thought.

But nothing cannot exist. Only something can have existence. Nothing cannot have existence. Why?

Because in order to exist, it must be something.

JB

Just a question before I head off to bed. What is your reasoning to a thought being a wave? I can not even find where you are coming up with this. I mean if you get right down to it, a thought is an electrical impulse in the brain.

Erwin Schrodinger made a profound discovery in 1927 by showing that the discrete energy states of Matter could be determined by Wave Equations.

Unfortunately, the following year Max Born stumbled upon the mathematical relationship that the square of these equations described a probability function for where the 'particle' could be found. Thus rather than realising that matter was made of waves (the obvious conclusion), for the next seventy years humanity went down the path of assuming the particles were real, and the waves were merely probability functions (or perhaps more correctly, that neither 'particles or waves' are real, both are merely human constructions, logical tools of thinking that approximate reality). Nonetheless, we were left with the conceptual paradox of the particle-wave duality of matter and light, and the absurdities that must inevitably follow from such contradictions.

These problems have caused great confusion within modern physics, as both Heisenberg and Davies explain;

(Werner Heisenberg, 1930) 'Both matter and radiation possess a remarkable duality of character, as they sometimes exhibit the properties of waves, at other times those of particles. Now it is obvious that a thing cannot be a form of wave motion and composed of particles at the same time - the two concepts are too different.'Both matter and radiation possess a remarkable duality of character, as they sometimes exhibit the properties of waves, at other times those of particles. Now it is obvious that a thing cannot be a form of wave motion and composed of particles at the same time - the two concepts are too different. (Heisenberg, 1930)

The idea that something can be both a wave and a particle defies imagination, but the existence of this wave-particle 'duality' is not in doubt. .. It is impossible to visualize a wave-particle, so don't try. ... The notion of a particle being 'everywhere at once' is impossible to imagine. (Davies, 1985)

Only recently, with the Metaphysics of Space and Motion and the Spherical Wave Structure of Matter can we now finally solve these problems and provide the 'clear metaphysical model' that Capra sought. The solution to this apparent paradox is simple, and is found by realising that the discrete 'particle' properties of matter and light (quanta) are in fact caused by the Spherical Standing Wave Structure of Matter (i.e. Standing Waves only exist at discrete frequencies which cause the discrete energy states of light and matter).
I hope you enjoy this slightly different view of the world, that it brings some clarity to previous confusions, and stimulates your mind to further thoughts.

And to Christians that something was God.

An idea is a thing, a concept is a thing, a word is a thing, yet none of these or matter or waves. It is just a representation for something we do.

Metaphysics is also a philosophy and not science per say. I am still not even finding anything on metaphysics claiming thought is matter or a thing or a way. Please site your sources.

Science Foundations

It is common knowledge that the sciences (including physics) are founded on two sources of truth;

i) Logic from principles. i.e. Theories. (a priori knowledge)

ii) Empirical knowledge from our senses. i.e. observation and experiment. (a posteriori knowledge)

Below is taken from one of my sources. If you want to read the rest of it the address is:

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Metaphysics-Principles-Reality.htm


The aim is to unite these two sources of truth with the most simple principles.

However, there are four central problems that we must first understand if we are to correctly understand metaphysics and its relation to science. This is important as it does lead to a simple solution for describing physical reality.

1. Logical Truths Vs Truths of Physical Reality

Although logic from principles is necessary and certain, it does not mean that the things we assume to exist (as stated by our principles) actually exist in reality. An example of this is the assumption that light is a 'particle' (photon). While it is true that light energy is emitted and absorbed in discrete amounts, it is a further theoretical assumption that light is a 'particle'. (As the Wave Structure of Matter explains, light is actually caused by standing wave interactions, which cause the discrete standing wave states and thus discrete energy states of matter found in quantum theory.)

As Einstein writes;

The skeptic will say: "It may well be true that this system of equations is reasonable from a logical standpoint. But this does not prove that it corresponds to nature." You are right, dear skeptic. Experience alone can decide on truth. ... Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world: all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

2. Our Senses are Incomplete and Deceptive Representations of the Mind

Further difficulties arise because our senses also deceive us. Philosophers have known for thousands of years that our mind represents our senses, thus the world we see and taste and touch is different (naive real) to the real world which causes our senses.
Basically, we never see the hidden connection between things, only the effects of that connection. e.g. When we drop a rock, we see it fall to the earth, but we do not see the connection between the rock and the earth (we give it a name, gravity, but this does not explain the causal connection).
Likewise, our sense of color is an obvious example of how our mind represents a certain frequency of light.
If we are to describe Reality then it must be founded on real things which exist and cause our senses, not on the naive real representation of our senses. Thus Science, by being empirically founded, is not well suited to describing Reality itself. As Aristotle and Hume wrote;

Rather, they start this, displaying it to the senses, .... and go on to offer more or less rigorous demonstrations of the per se attributes of their proprietary genera. This sort of procedure is inductive (empirical) and it is as plain as a pikestaff that it does not amount to a demonstration of essence or of what it is to be a thing. ... But also philosophy is not about perceptible substances (they, you see, are prone to destruction) (Aristotle, Metaphysics)

When we look about us towards external objects, and consider the operation of causes, we are never able, in a single instance, to discover any power or necessary connexion; any quality, which binds the effect to the cause, and renders the one an infallible consequence of the other. ... experience only teaches us, how one event constantly follows another; without instructing us in the secret connexion, which binds them together, and renders them inseparable. (David Hume, 1737)

3. We Only See the Discrete and Separate Aspect of Reality

When we see things, we are actually seeing a discrete energy exchange (light quanta) so we do not directly observe what matter is, we only see it when it changes its energy state (wave function). See Quantum Physics

4. Science is Empirically Founded on our Sense of Many Things (Matter)

Finally, science is founded on the observation of matter and its interconnected motions (many things). Since the time of Newton's Mechanics, Space and Time have been a 'background stage' in which matter 'particles' move about. So science is founded on observations of many material things we experience, and space has been largely ignored. However, as explained below, this then means that we must add 'forces / fields' to connect the matter 'particles' in space and time. The problem is that by working from the many things we experience, we have ignored the one thing (space) that these many things (matter) exist in.

Thus Science / Physics is inclined to be misled because both of its truths (logic & senses) are deceptive. Metaphysics aims to overcome this problem by using reason to try and understand what the real world is, which causes both our logic and our senses (and ourselves!).

The Solution to the Problems of Science

Given the above, we can now show in a very simple way how to resolve these problems. The solution is to realise the error of founding science on the many observable things (matter) rather than the one thing that they all exist in (Space) which causes and connects matter. i.e. For many thousands of years the great philosophers / metaphysicists have known that for matter to be interconnected throughout the universe, then there must be one thing that connects the many things (matter) together. That a complete description of reality must be founded on one thing / substance. As Gottfried Leibniz and Friedrich Nietzsche write;


Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another. (Leibniz, 1670)

This essay is continued at this address:

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Metaphysics-Principles-Reality.htm

There is more truth in metaphysics than will ever exist in science

source - ME!!

And you must be the guru's guru.

I agree that we do judge ourselves. Who but ourself can know all that we have done that we are not so proud of doing?

I don't agree that there is a god outside of myself that knows all of my thoughts. But I know all of my thoughts and all of my deeds. I will, in the light of truth and realization, judge myself after death and look back on my life and see where I mucked it up and where I might have done something different.

Then I will decide, along with my other closely connected selves, what the next course of action will be. I may decide to incarnate yet again and see if I can retain what I have learned from my past experiences.

JB