Creative saidIt looks to me like you are still missing the point. The equivocation is not between two "different" things, it is between two unknown things. And if two things are unknown. there is no logical basis for differentiating them.

To put it another way...

"Quantum" and "spirit" are the labels. They are not the things. The "things" themselves are completely unknown. All that is known is that there are observed phenomena that are assumed to have a cause, but that cause is unknown.
So what is really being said is: (labelA} refers to so-and-so phenomena and (labelB) refers to such-and-such phenomena. And so-and-so and such-and-such phenomena have some common properties. Therefore it is plausible that the two phenomena could be related.

That's all.

Sky...



There are several reasoning fallacies in this presentation Sky.

One must first assume spirit's existence before it can be given credit for anything. Quantum field has been postulated as a result of known quantum observables which lead to it. The same cannot be said for spirit.

You would be correct in stating that quantum foam/field have not been observed. However, neither has gravity. Gravity definitely exists. Quantum postulates, like the quantum field do not have as much scientific grounding, but the observations in QM almost necessitate that quarks must go *somewhere* when they pop in and out of existence. That 'place' is the quantum field. The quantum foam postulate results from electrons not being in one place, but rather in all possible locations at once. That invokes the 'foam' concept, resulting from not being in a definite place at an exact time, and therefore having foamy type - assumed - visual impact within the boundaries of the atom itself.

So science has not simply assumed the existence, or defined something into existence. We are at a limit in measurement at this point in time which may be a permanent one. Be all that as it may, the problem is this...

There is no logical connection which can be reasonably made between quantum whatever and spirit. Perhaps between quantum whatever and thought, or the brain, even possibly creativity. All of those are already known and proven to exist, therefore if quantum foam and field are true, then they may apply *somehow* to the brain.

There is no logical connection to be made to spirit, and redefining spirit by giving it all of the things which have been given to quantum postulates dismisses the very evidence, fact, and reason that the postulate exists.

There is no more reason to believe that the spirit equates to the quantum field than there is to believe that a pink and black elephantic smooge does. The argument is exactly the same. Neither have been shown to exist, therefore if one can be reasonably equated then both can. For one to accept the plausibility of spirit using this kind of claim, then one must also accept the claim for Santa. The grounds are exactly the same.

See my previous post.

If the “quantum” modifier is removed from that statement, then yes it can be. OBE, RV, telepathy, past life memories, and a host of other things are observables which lead to a postulated “spirit”. Granted, those are not “quantum” phenomena, but they are nevertheless observables. (If I correctly understand what an “observable” is.)

Yes it most certainly does – as a phenomenon without a known cause.

I honestly do not know how you can say that when you put so much emphasis on “almost” in the previous paragraph.

There is and it has been shown.

Exactly.

Again… there is and it has been shown.

Hmmm… I wasn’t aware that spirit had been “redefined”. What was the original definition and what is the redefinition?

However, if you really meant “defined” instead of “redefined”, then I would say that the definition did no such thing. Nothing was “dismissed”. All of the data releant to the definition was included.

Well I don’t know what any of the properties of a pink and black elephantic smooge are, so I’ll have to defer to you on that acccount.

And again I’ll refer you to a previous post of mine. It is not “things” that are being equated, it “properties” of things. The things themselves are completely unknown, so while that makes it true that there is no basis for equating the “things”, that also makes it true that there is no basis for differentiating the “things” either.

Sky,

You are claiming that a logical connection between spirit and quantum phenomena has been shown. I have looked back through this thread, and it is not here. Please, show me that connection. Or, you could just explain to me what the difference is between this claim of spirit/quantum postulates and my claim of Santa/quantum postulates.

Abra has already done that in his post of Tue 10/13/09 11:16 AM in this thread.

I disagree, and I'll explain why after the following quote:



Because I am not giving any preconceived doctrine of precisely what spirit must be prior to making the correlation.

It's really quite simple, as you say, only for different reasons than you give.

There are many things in the "doctrine" or "folklore" of Santa Claus that must be satisfied, which are not satisfied by the quantum field. For example, flying reindeer for one thing.

The quantum field simply doesn't exhibit the properties that the folklore of Santa Claus requires. Also, the quantum field has not been observationally verified to provide a Santa Claus in the house of every person in the universe.

Compare this with the requirements of spirit. One property that I would expect spirit to have is some sort of interface with the psyche (or physical brain) of every human. Well, the quantum field provides just such an interface.

The quantum field has already been assigned the ability to create, at random, virtual physical particles within, and around, every single atom in the universe. Biological brains are made of atoms. It has also been observational verified that these virtual particles, can and do physically affect the behavior of atoms. Therefore, a connection between the quantum field and the human psyche has been recognized.

So where's the connection to Santa Claus?

Does the quantum field satisfy a potential requirement of spirit? YES.

Does the quantum field satisfy the folklore of Santa Claus? NO.

So where's your continued comparison with Santa Claus coming from?

The quantum field places an observed physical mechanism that can potentially interface with the human psyche in every single human brain in the universe

Does the quantum field place Santa Claus in every house in the universe? NO.



Sure it does.

The only reason that science considers the idea of a quantum field is to explain unexplained events (such as the constant flux of virtual particles known as quantum foam). Which, is only one attribute that we just happen to be focusing in on right now, by the way. There are other properties that also support my correlations.

I'm using a very similar reason that science uses. In fact, I could even claim that I'm using an identical reason!

For millennium philosophers have puzzled over the mystery of human creativity? Where could creativity come from? It can't come from memory, and it can't come from experience. It must necessarily come from some other source. In fact, this is quite often the very argument that many philosophers have given for the existence of spirit (which isn't all that differnet from what physicists have done with the quantum field).

Physicists see virtual particles popping into and out of existence from seemingly "nowhere" and so they postulate the existence of an undetectable (i.e. non-physical) quantum field. And that's considered to be a logically sound step to take since they can observe effects that are supposedly being caused by this quantum field. They even go to great lengths to mathematically describe in great detail what this field is capable of doing.

Well, we have observed creativity in humans, and we also need to postulate from whence creativity comes. Well, now that we know of this quantum field and its omniscient properties we now have a valid reason to consider it.

The great thing is that we don't even need to postulate it from scratch!

Science has already postulated the existence of the quantum field for us!

They have labeled it the "quantum field", all I'm doing is recognizing that it may very well be "spirit" that they have "discovered" and they have simply labeled it incorrectly.



You claim to understand, but you're still talking about Santa Claus which is a totally irrelevant concept that has no place whatsoever in this discussion. As long as you keep comparing this with Santa Claus then I have no choice but to suggest that you do not understand.



You haven't shown any such thing. And your constant mention of Santa Claus only shows that you do not yet understand at all because every time you mention Santa Claus it just demonstrates how totally off track you are.



No, that's totally wrong.

I didn't say "quantum so and so". I wasn't anywhere near that vague. I precisely described some very specific quantum properties of importance.

Also the rest of your statement there, again, contains a mention of Santa Claus and suggests that whatever happens to be in my imagination can be made to work.

That's not even close to being correct. So your first objection here is totally incorrect and off the mark. You're already showing that you don't understand.



Well, again, this is utter nonsense and does not even come close to what I had argued. So this just shows that you don't understand. There is nothing in my argument that could be used to support "Santa Claus".



No. This is your first misunderstanding

I've made very specific connections that cannot be denied. And neither can they be applied to "Santa Claus".



It doesn't assume spirit anymore than scientists assume a quantum field. Scientists observed phenomena, and needed to postulate the existence of something that could produce it. So they postulated the existence of a quantum field.

I take the observation of human creativity and do precisely the same thing that scientists did I postulate that there must be a "field" from whence it arises. I call that "field" the Spirit Field if it makes you feel better. Although, I don't even need to postulate an additional field because the quantum field appears to already have everything I require. Because I don't even need to define spirit in its totality. Scientists haven't even done that with the quantum field!

So I'm doing precisely what science is doing. Therefore my construct can't be any less logically valid than theirs. It's impossible.

My construct is every bit as logically sound as theirs.



I disagree. The quantum field appears to me to provide many of the things that satisfy my notion of what spirit should be. You mileage may vary, but that's a matter of opinion and would come down to personal definitions of what we are considering to be the essence of spirit.

That, my friend, would be far beyond anything that you could proclaim to be logically invalid. At best, all you could do is agree that we have differing opinions of what constitutes spirit and you'd just have to leave it at that as a mutual disagreement of opinions.

You keep bringing up Santa Claus. Please explain how the quantum field supports the concept of Santa Claus?

I don't see any connection there at all. Is "Santa Claus" your definition of spirit? If so then this approach isn't going to work for you.

Does the quantum field support the idea of flying reindeer? I don't believe that it does.

Does the quantum field place Santa Claus in every house in the universe? I don't believe that it does.

So why you keep bringing up Santa Claus is beyond me (unless that's your definition of spirit?). You clearly aren't taking any of this seriously. You've pre-decided that it's all utter nonsense and you aren't even paying attention to the details with any genuine sincerity.

The construct works just fine. It's doesn't prove the existence of spirit anymore than science proves the existence of a quantum field. It's just a theory. It's every bit as legitimate as quantum theory. Albeit, not yet as highly mathematically detailed.

The only point that I'm attempting to make is that it's every bit as logical and constructive as what scientists are doing. So to claim that it's an illogical approach is utter nonsense. And totally uncalled for.

Your continued comparisons with Santa Claus only verify that you haven't yet understood why this is indeed a valid construct. There's no way that this construct could be used to support Santa Claus anymore than it could be used to support Zeus or Yahweh. Those strict indoctrinated folklores are not supported by the quantum field. Sorry. It just doesn't work the way you're suggesting.

Perhaps the problem lies in our vast difference of what we consider spirit to be? I never think of Santa Claus when I think of spirit.

That must be the problem right there. You just have some totally different preconceived notion of what spirit must be. I'm not looking at it from that point of view. I allow spirit to be somewhat ill-defined, and I try to discover more about spirit using pure reason, logic, and observation.

I'm not starting with spirit and working backwards as you seem to be suggesting.

So that may very well be yet another misunderstanding on your part.

I'm exploring the possibilities. I'm not attempting to prove any preconceived notions or folklores.

I see several new issues now. You are trying hard Sky. I must give it to you, but your arguments are becoming more and more illogical.



Outside of Quantum scale, quantum events have no measureable effect upon the world as we know it. If you leave out the quantum 'modifier' what would possibly be left to compare? Leaving it out removes the framework which constitutes it's existence.

If a horse were a mule we would not call it a horse. A horse which is called a mule is not equal to a real mule.

Just to hear your argument out, I will concede to the idea that OBE, RV, telepathy, past life memories exist.

How does that logically lead to the existence of spirit?



Because the postulate(s) has/have a logical basis in scientific fact, but it is not sound enough, nor does the observable evidence necessitate the conclusion as being a fact, in and of itself.



Exactly what? It makes a plausible argument for the connection of quantum events existing within the brain. Where exactly is spirit in that?



You are missing the point. Equating an unproven thing such as spirit or Santa to a known scientific postulate does not equate the two. Doing that dismisses the scientific postulate - which is based in scientific fact - in lieu of individual opinion which is not. Calling and apple an orange does not make it an orange.



Whatever you attribute to spirit, because as I have already said:

The argument is exactly the same. Neither have been shown to exist, therefore if one can be reasonably equated then both can. For one to accept the plausibility of spirit using this kind of claim, then one must also accept the claim for Santa/smooge. The grounds are exactly the same.



This is nonsense.

The properties of a thing are what makes it what it is.

If the things were completely unknown, then we would not be discussing them. Spirit is known to exist because it is a term used as a means for describing particulars within a belief system, which is based on something other than fact.

Quantum postulates are known to exist beacuse they are terms that have necessarily resulted from our scientific knowledge which is based in observable fact.

They are completely unrelated concepts.



How does that make sense?

Having no basis to equate things requires some comparitive basis which shows why the two things do not equate. I have logically shown this several different times, in several different ways.

If two things are so unknown that they have no basis for evaluation, how can they possibly be held as equal?

I guess I see no logical substance, relevance, or importance in this statement. If it is held as true, then the validity of your claim which attempts to connect spirit to quantum postulates is non-existent.

James,

All you have done is define spirit as the quantum field. The same thing can be said for Santa. You define spirit differently than most. I define Santa exactly as you define spirit.

You have no logical grounds to dismiss my argument if you accept your own. They both presuppose the existence of an unproven thing and attribute what we think should be attributed to them.

Neither one has any basis in fact.

We could give the exact same argument for anything imaginable with the same amount of validity.





EDIT:

This is the only 'evidence' given to support a connection between the two. This is your only grounding.



"I think spirit needs 'so and so'" is not a logical connection. It is an expression of your idea. I can say the same thing about my idea of Santa, and have equal logical 'validity', therefore the claim is invalid.

That is the inherent illogical nature that comes along with presupposing the existence of an unproven thing. It applies to all unproven things, which includes anything in the imagination, without prejudice.

'Spirit exists' is on exactly equal logical grounds with 'Santa exists'.

Personally I disagree, because they both require different observations to be made, and different properties to be supported.

Moreover, if I were to accept what you say here then I would need to also accept that the scientific postulate of quantum mechanics that "A quantum field exists" is also precisely on these same grounds. (which is good enough for me)

So it's uttely irrelevent for my argument in any case.

Once again, all you've shown is a complete and totally lack of comprehension of what has actually been proposed.

You also say:



No, you could not define Santa exactly as I define spirit whilst simultaneously retaining what the term "Santa" originally means. If you want to go with that concept you'd need flying reindeer and various other traits which I do not require for my definition of spirit.

So you couldn't define Santa exactly as I define Spirit without loss of the very meaning of the term 'Santa'.

So your argument here is not only illogical, but it isn't even a meaningful comparison in any sense.

It's utter nonsense. My cat makes more sense by simply remaining silent.

Who are you to tell me how to define my idea of Santa? It is just as logically valid as your idea of spirit.

Geez!

That is the point!

Your concept of spirit does not follow the most well-adhered to one either. So, does that alone make your claim illogical as you say it does to mine?



They are both illogical!

Sky...



I have read through that and see no logical connection.Here it is in full with my comments on each section as it goes...




Ok here he claims that ;ogically sound arguments exist to 'suggest' that spirit is a necessary concept to consider, but shows none.



This is wrong. The scientific arguments - if they were no different - would suggest the same thing that his does. They don't!

Still no logical argument/connection given.



Three things here...

One... creativity suffers along with the brain, therefore it is based in it!

Two knowledge, memory, and inference capability do logically add up to creativity.

Three... the connection between quarks and creativity is an illogical quantum leap. There is no logical reason to believe that quarks carry information, and that is an absolutely necessary illogical assumption needed to complete the quantum leap in logic.

Still no logical connection.



This is just plain false! There are no properties assigned to quantum field. It is a yet to have been proven hypothetical 'place' and that is it!

Still no logical connection.



Why can creativity not come from our ability to infer? There is no need for this line of thought.

Still no logical connection.



Has nothing to do with creativity or information being carried, and everything to do with gravity, spacetime, energy conservation, and annihilation of these 'virtual particles'... they do not hang around!

Still no logical connection.




This is all bullsh*t! The problem is that we have no evidence that 1) gravity is a quantum field and 2) that space-time has this type of structure at these scales.

Still no logical connection.



That is the illogical leap of faith right there. First he changes from speaking about the Wheeler concept of quantum foam, to talking about the quantum field. Keep in mind that both are metaphysics and NOT science. He insists upon calling these things science.

And now we have the 'insert spirit here' claim, which amounts to "I think spirit is this, therefore it is plausible."



Randomness explains creativity? That means that spirit is somehow connected to all of this? Grounded in science or metaphysics?



I think spirit is...

No logical connection.



The only grounding is his idea of what spirit is. Ideas are not grounding. Equating your ideas to science and metaphysics do not make them valid. I could do the same with Santa and would have an equally invalid argument.



Presupposing that spirit exists.



So here he defined spirit in such a way that equated it to what he thinks the quantum field represents in an effort to make a plausible argument for the existence of spirit.

I could do the exact same thing by presupposing any other unproven thing and have the same invalid argument with the same illogical grounds.



The quantum field is not a given.



So ultimately what we have here is this...

The presupposition of an unproven idea(spirit) being illogically equating to an unproven, although well founded, postulate(the quantum field) in an effort to claim a plausible argument for the unproven idea.

If I did the same thing with an unproven idea of mine(Santa) by equating it to space-time, would that alone make my idea of Santa as equally valid as Einstein's space-time?

Of course not!

Nope! Whatever you claim of spirit, I can claim with equal logical grounding of Santa, because my idea of Santa is whatever yours is of spirit.

You cannot prove otherwise because there are no facts to support your claims!

Well, of course that's true if you're using the term 'Santa' to mean anything you want.

That's utterly silly and meaningless. And you know it!

You're totally misunderstanding the entire argument from the word go.

First, off, it's not about proving anything!

You seem to be totally obscessed about proving something.

Nothing in my argument was about proving the existence of anything.

In quantum physics is it not necessary to prove that the quantum field exists before it can be discussed in a logical way. It is quite sufficient to merely assume that it exists.

That's the whole point right there!

It's also not necessary to have a full and complete definition of the quantum field. That can unfold as you investigate it and always remain open-ended as new information is discovered.

So you claim that science is being 'illogical' for working that way would be rejected. Clearly they can make significant progress working from these assumptions.

So I argue that spiritualists can also work in this very same way with the concept of spirit and obtain meaningful and logical results in a very similar way.

There can be no argument against this without also arguing that science is "illogical".

So you're dead in the water against my argument. You either must concede that my method of investigating spirit is logical, or you are left with no choice but to denounce the science of quantum mechanics as being 'illogical'.

That's the bottom line.

I really don't care what you do with the term "Santa Claus", that was an utterly meaningless distraction that has nothing to do with anything.

I'm using the very same methods as science. So I'm either just as logical as science, or science is just as illogical as me.

What you do with Santa Claus is totally between you and him.

I couldn't care less about that.

No kidding!

And I never claimed to have proved anything. That a total misunderstanding and misrepresentation of my argument.

My argument was quite simple:

There are logical ways to consider and discuss the concept of spirit without any need to prove that spirit exists!

That's was the WHOLE POINT!

You were claiming that to discuss the concept of spirit is illogical because it can't even be shown to exist.

My WHOLE ARGUMENT is that your claim here is hogwash because it's not necessary to prove the existence of something in order to have a meaningful and productive formal approach to it.

We can indeed assume the existence of spirit in precisely the same way that science assumes the existenc of the quantum field, and that is a valid logical way to approach the topic.

So it's a LOGICAL APPROACH!

Your constant demands that it's illogical, are groundless.

And the fact that the science of quantum mechanics is considered highly respectable and without the realm of logical science proves my point.

You have no case for any arguments against this without also arguing that science is illogical.

You just don't have a choice, because I've adopted the precise same method of inquiry. It's the same method! Whatever is true for one must be true for the other in terms of judging them to be either logical or illogical pursuits.

So denounce them both, or accept them both. But you can't very well denounce one and not the other. It's the same approach in both cases.

That must have been fun.

No, I really mean it! I know that if I had deconstructed an argument that well and presented what I considered to be such highly logical replies, I would be very pleased and happy about it. Very well done.

Now since I am not up for a counter-deconstruction, I will only reply on a subjective level with a personal opinion.

While your argument was extremely “logical”, his argument is more convincing to me. And I think the the main reason for that is that he went to the effort of actually creating something new that I had never though of before. Whereas to me, you argument was solely aimed at negating what he created.

But that’s just my opinion.

"Spirit" either exists or it does not.

Many people have reason to believe it does, hence they base their logic on that premise. It DOES NOT MATTER how or why they chose that premise to begin with. There could be many different reasons.

Creative, you are trying to tread beyond their premise and tell them that they were being illogical to even have gotten to that premise. The truth is, how they arrived at that premise is none of your business and it is NOT part of the process of logic that proceeds from that premise.

If you "don't believe spirit exists" FOR WHATEVER REASON, you will base your argument on that premise.

This is where the argument begins... at the premise. And this is where the argument falls apart... when there are different premises.

Having different premises in an argument is the Humpty Dumpty effect. It falls apart into little pieces and it cannot be put together again, so stop trying to prove yourself "logical" and call everyone else "illogical" because they have a different premise at the base of their argument.

Precisely.

All it does is show an utter ignorance of logic and a total disrespect for the premises that other people choose to consider.

It's just empty 'premise heckling' that has absolutely no basis in any serious logical discussion whatsoever.

JB and Abra...

Have fun on your illogical merry-go-round pointing at everyone else on the playground while justifying your beliefs through thoughts which have been based upon your presumptive thought patterns. Do yourself a favor sometime, and look in the mirror. Those things which you are so quick to accuse another of are exactly who you two are.

Sky,

I appreciate your seemingly intellectually honest answer. Abra's point of view is more convincing to you. No problem with that from this side. I expected it given the amount of your belief structure which rests it's grounding upon the idea of spirit. As I have said several times in the past, there is nothing wrong with having a belief in spirit, or supernatural, or whatever you want to call it.

I find no reason to believe that a belief in spirit can be held as logical. There is no logical argument which I have ever read which establishes proven grounds independant of 'spirit' and logically leads to the existence of 'spirit'. All belief in spirit assumes the conclusion in the premise. It is circular in nature. That is a logical fact. Belief in spirit is - by it's very nature and at it's very foundational premise - illogical.

A belief in something other than what can be shown or proven to exist - such as spirit - is had through faith and faith alone. That is, belief in things unproven... illogical things. As I have said before, there is nothing wrong with holding an illogical belief, and I have a few myself. There are many such beliefs which make people feel good, although I attempt to keep my own such beliefs held outside of a warm and fuzzy existence. There is nothing wrong with that, assuming that the belief does not somehow cause harm to others in order to satisfy the believer's sense of 'feeling good'.

I want to add a little here which is extremely out of the ordinary for myself, because of it's very personal nature, and my being a very private person. I feel it is best that I offer a little of my own personal opinion on the matter. I will not attempt to claim that those beliefs which I hold, and I hold dear, follow logic, or make logical sense.

That would remove their beauty.

Here is a little lesson in Logic 101 for those graduating from the magician's school of thought.



A false premise cannot logically lead to a true conclusion, no matter how logical the argument seems to be afterwards.