Dear Funches,

Where have I ever suggested that the laws of physics are a mere illusion?

I'm a scientist. I LOVE SCIENCE!

I whole-heartedly believe in the laws of physics. I'm not out to denounce science.

What I'm saying is that science is INCOMPLETE.

I've been studying science my entire life and to the best of my knowledge, not only will all scientists confess that science is incomplete, but the vast majority of them will openly confess that there is far more that we don't know, then there is that we do know!

This was a shock to the scientific community. When Albert Einstein began to study physics his professor told him that physics was a 'dead field' because at that time it was believe that Newtonian mechanics had nail it.

There were only a few areas that needed resolved, and Einstein's professor believed that they would be resolved very soon.

One of those areas was a problem associated with blackbody radiation and thermodynamics.

Well, as we all know that seemingly tiny problem blew up onto what we now call Quantum Mechanics. And instead of it being resolved it has continued to open up more an more questions.

It was like a tiny hole in a dike that broke and now the whole dike has been washed away.

Science is right back to square one. Maybe even further back than that!

Newtonian physics was great for describing the macro nature of the universe, but at an atomic level it TOTALLY BREAKS DOWN and because USELESS.

The quantum world does not behave like the world we live it, yet it is the very substrate of this world!

Newtonian physics is completely UESLESS in the quantum world. Sub-atomic particles DO NOT obey the laws of Newtonian or "Classical" physics.

They 'jump' around randomly.

They walk through walls.

They exist in two places at the same time.

They cease to exist altogher and then reappear somewhere else without having traversed the space between those points.

So yes, on the quantum level I do believe that the laws of physics are a mere illusion. They don't exist on the quantum level. They only exist on the macro level and that is due to the of large numbers of quantum events that give rise to a persistence of conditions.

In any case, I'm not denouncing science at all.

I'm simply saying that there is MORE TO IT THAN THAT.

There is more to science.

It's not finished yet.

There is still room for 'spiritual' worlds.

In fact, if we found a 'parallel universe' (which scientists often speak about hypothetically) then couldn't that 'parallel universe' qualify as the 'spiritual' world that so many mystics have claimed to have communicated with?

There is nothing in science that denies psychic abilities. The mechanisms just haven't yet been discovered.

So I'm not rejecting science. I'm just saying that there is far more going on than science has yet uncovered. And I think any sincere scientist would own up to that one.

Billy,

The 'plain truth' would never hurt my feelings. I just disagree with your idea of the truth.

Computers are not 'alive' and I don't think we will see that happen in our life times. Perhaps some far distant time that science fiction idea of sentient computers will happen in a galaxy far far away, but I don't think we are even close to that.




I am not tweeked at all about the fantasys you believe in Billy.

I know I am not a computer. (I have access to a very good one though.) That would be my brain. My brain is my computer. But it is NOT me.

The imagination is directly related to the WILL. The will is what thinks and makes decisions. It is something a computer does not have. A will of its own. (And be thankful for that.)

I am familiar with computer programs that are programed to "learn." But they have to be programed how to do that. They still do not really "think" and never will --until such time that they are considered to be "alive and sentient.

I don't think that will happen, and why should it? We already have the best biological computer ... that is our bodies and our brains. Why mess with junk when we can mess with DNA?

So before computers become equal to humans in thinking and feeling, humans will probably be evolved to a point where they don't care about computers anymore, or they will combine the biological computers of our brains with their own microchip technology. Then the android will be born, and yes, it will be considered to be alive and sentient.

reality is what you believe...to me at least

Yes, I brought it up. So? Like I said, take that up with Billy. He is the one who insists there is such a scientific thing as quantum entanglement.

(I don't call it that. I assert that we are all connected. I am just using his language.)

I think there are different kinds of atheism. I find that some atheist simply lack imagination and are a lot more closed minded than most.

Being skeptical is one thing, but taking a stance against things unknown or not proven one way or another is closed mindedness.

For imaginative people, there is always a solution somewhere, even if they don't know it. For unimaginative people, they just wait, clinging to what they have proof for, believing only in what they can see and verify and explaining things as simply as they can without further investigation, like thinking that two guys with ropes and sticks are going around the world making elaborate designs in fields just for the fun of it, and not even looking for the truth via evidence and investigation. They have an answer that lets them rest at night.

"Abracadbra"..the question was "What is Reality", once you start quoting "Quantum Theory" it's an attempt to place everything into the realm of illusion ..."Quantum Theory" is just that ...theory

"JennieBean" ...so you had to quote billy and couldn't explain it yourself? ...see I told you that you couldn't form your own original thoughts

isn't "Quantum Theory" that which you base you religious beliefs on ...oops ...er.. I meant your spiritual beliefs ...

No. I don't base my beliefs on any single theory or body of information.

"JennieBean" is that a yes that "Quantum Theory" does play a major role into your beliefs

Nope only one kind of atheism. Again atheism is not an ideology. There can not be different kinds of atheism.

People love to confuse things. The whole concept of strong or weak atheism is flawed. You either accept god is real, or do not.

That is all that atheism says, it says I do not accept god is real. Why is not even important, skepticism is not even relevant.

There are many kinds of people, who believe many different things. Atheism may or may not be one of the things people accept as a label.

You are trying to hard to box me into a neat definition so that you can shrug off anything I say, becuase it does not fit into your world view, JB do what I do with most of your posts . . . just ignore me.

After all its not like you are actually going to go out and fact find if what I am telling you is correct. You have already made up your mind. Its not like anything anyone says or discovers is going to change your mind.

Hmm, let me see if I understand this. You have made up your mind that the brain cannot be the source of imagination, and consciousness, yet I am the one that is closed minded. lol.

I would have to say no.

I don't really know a lot about quantum physics. I know about some of the experiments and theories, but classical quantum physics is flawed, in my opinion, so I don't base my beliefs on it.

Quantum Mechanics is what it is. If you believe that Quantum Theory places everything into the realm of illusion then I'm won't disagree with that.

However, like I already pointed out, to say that "Quantum Theory" is just a theory is like saying that the Theory of Relativity is "just a theory".

Well, perhaps Relativity is just a theory. But E=mc^2 came out of that theory and it's been experimentally verified to correctly reflect the behavior of the world. Time dilation has also been experimentally observed to be true.

Same thing with Quantum Mechanics. You can say it's "Just a theory" until you are blue in the face, it doesn't change the fact that many predictions that it makes have been experimentally verified to correctly reflect the behavior of the universe.

Religious people do the same thing with evolution, they try to claim that it's "Just a Theory", but there is much physical evidence that supports it.

In fact, there is clear physical evidence life slowly became increasingly complex over millions of years on this planet. There is clear evidence that things died long before mankind came on the scent to 'corrupt the world'. There is clear evidence that that species were generated from other species. Yet religious fantatics continue to call this, "just a theory".

I'm truly surprised hearing that tactic coming from you for Quantum Mechanics. The evidence for the predictions of quantum mechanics have been veried in billions of experiments in particle accelerator laboratories all around the world.

In fact, televisions, cell phones, and the very computer that you are using woudln't work if Quantum Theory was wrong. So the proof is quite literally at your fingertips.

Or is it "just a theory" that you are reading this post on your computer screen?

There is no classical QM. Just QM. QM is so accurate in its calculations that if we where to take the accuracy of a QM measurement and make an analogy; the accuracy of a QM calculation would be like the accuracy of measuring the width of North America to within the width of a single human hair.

Can you describe to me the flaws?

'Abracadbra" and Christians would say all those things work because of God ...they can no more prove that it's God that made it work then you can by saiding it's due to quantum theory... you may as well be quoting biblical scripture

If Quantum mechanics is just a theory (as spoken in the non-scientific world), then brace yourselves 'cause this other theory is about to throw us all into hyperspace.

You know, this 'glued' to the ground theory?!?!?

Anyhow, the joke going around, is that the fundamentalists pushing I.D. against 'evolution' as 'just' a theory, are claiming there are flaws with the theory of gravity, and insist on replacing it by the 'THEORY OF INTELLIGENT FALLING' !!!

The non belief in a deity (God) is one kind of atheism. The belief that what you see is all there is... there ain't nothing else out there... no spirit or other dimensions or ways to exist as a conscious individual, and when you die thats the end of you.. is another kind of atheist.

Yes, there is several different mind sets inside of the term atheism. You just are not aware of them. I've met several different kinds of atheists.



If you are at all philosophical you question reality itself. So to either accept God as real or not, means that an atheist has a certain definition of what he thinks (or believes) is or is not reality.




Not true. If what you say does not fit into my world view it is because it seems to be shackled by so-called material "facts" which create walls, and "burdened with unproven theories" (some of which are flawed) that close doors to other ways of looking at things. Its just not flexible enough to fit.

It seems you ignore me on the points that you basically have no answers for.



You have never actually told me anything that I have not heard before that required any fact finding.



Don't get me wrong, I have considered that option and then rejected it. The brain is a biological computer through which thought is organized and processed and imagination and consciousness is manifested or channeled, but the source of it?

I doubt that very much.

It's not that I want to believe otherwise, I just feel that is not the case. I have a deeper sense of what I am and I am quite certain I am more than a brain. Really. Its hard to explain that, but I have had experiences that lead me to believe these things. Experience is my best authority.

Well, I'm not out to prove anything. Nor do I claim to have proof of anything.

It's well accepted in the scientific community that science doesn't have all the answers.

And that's really all I'm saying.

*Some atheists* seem to try to claim that we don't need to appeal to a "spiritual" reality to explain anything.

All I'm saying is that this is absurd because up to this point we haven't genuinely explain anything of significance.

Sure, we've discovered things like the universe most likely started about 14 or 15 billion years ago, and all of the observational evidence certainly backs up that claim. In fact that claim actually CAME from the observational evidence.


We've also discovered through observation and the scientific method of inquiry that we most likely evolved from a lesser species, and there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate any other hypothesis.

We've also discovered a myriad of quantitative relationships that help use build airplanes and bridges. We can do that will just Newtonian phsyics.

We've also discovered how to generate power from atoms using Quantum Mechanics and Relativity.

I don't deny any of that.

But none of that information denies the potential existence of fields of energy that we may not have yet detected.

In fact, modern science has already hypothesized additional energy fields, such as the Higgs field.

They haven't found it yet and maybe there isn't one, but it clearly shows that even they are seaching for MORE STUFF to explain the world. They don't have the complete answer.

Also, if they actually find the Higgs field that will be PROOF POSITIVE that there are fields out there that we haven't yet discovered.

Dark energy and Dark matter are also two things that appear to be required to make our current picture of phsyics work. Two more things that haven't yet been detected.

Well where is all this going to stop?

All I'm saying is that science hasn't even come close to ruling out adjacent worlds, fields, or mediums for potential psychic communication, and even potential parallel universes.

Science cannot be used to deny these things when modern scientists are actually PROPOSING them in their theories!

In short, science does not rule out a potential "spirit world"

I'm not trying to claim that this means that such a world exists.

All I'm saying is that science hasn't ruled it out! And often even proposes these things as explanations.

So I just don't understand where many atheists say, "Science doesn't support a spiritual essence to our being".

I mean wtf?

Science truly doesn't support ANYTHING. It is so totally incomplete that it almost has nothing at all to say about the 'actuality' of reality as Micheal puts it.

About all science can tell us is basically how billard balls move. After that, it's like DUH?

I mean seriously. Science hasn't even begun to scratch the surface of the true nature of the universe.

So what sense does it make to appeal to science to make the claim that
"science doesn't support a spiritual essence to the universe".

So what? It doesn't support a billard ball essence either.

In short, science doesn't know what the hell is going on!

That's the bottom line.

that glued to the ground theory ,is a phenonmeon which under certain conditions can be created by the laws of physics and the effects can even be recreated by applying the laws of physics

Wrong again. That is called materialism, which is a philosophy. Materialist are atheist, atheist do not have to be materialist.


_____________________

Abra if your entire argument is based on the idea that we shouldnt dis count what we have not ruled out . . . well then we are in agreement.

I just see no reason to assign a belief to something that is unknown, or has yet to be ruled in. I think its just as valid to say two things that have 0 information in favor and 0 information against are equally likely to exist.

There for its just as likely that we all die and go to heaven (or whatever woo woo idea we have no ruled out lol) as it is likely that invisible flying spaghetti monsters vibrate at ultra fast frequencies and create the fundamental particles of nature.