I don't know who it was addressed to. But it truly doesn't matter anyway. No reseach is even required for the comparison that has been made. The quantum field cannot be proven to exist in a physical sense, because it's not even physical. It must be postulated to exist and have the properties that have been assigned to it.

That's the only point.

For a spiritualist to do the very same thing with the concept of spirit is necessarily the same approach.

A spiritualist isn't claiming to have proven that spirit exists. All they are doing is attributing properties to it that it must have if it were to exist. If spirit doesn't exist then those properties must exist anyway. (the same thing goes for the quantum field)

On the point of researching the quantum field, I've been doing that my entire life.

I already know the following properties that the quantum field must possess.

1. Omniscience

The quantum field is everywhere and is indeed the very basis of all physical existence.

This just coincidentally happens to be a property that is useful for explaining many of the properties that spirit must have. (i.e. spirit must be omniscient)

2. The quantum field is in a constant state of flux.

The quantum field is constantly churning with what is called "quantum foam" which is also omnipresent in the unvierse including all of the space between atoms and even within the "boundaries" of their electron "orbital" (although those "boundries" themselves mathematically reach to infinity in most cases)

This just coincidentally happens to be a property that is useful for explaining many of the properties that spirit must have.

3. The virtual particles that arise from the quantum foam are totally random (mathematically speaking). At least in terms of when and where they will pop into existence.

So the quantum field has already been mathematically assigned the ability to produce random effects.

This just coincidentally happens to be a property that is useful for explaining many of the properties that spirit must have.

4. The quantum field has been assigned the property of "entanglment", an observed behavior of this universe.

This just coincidentally happens to be a property that is useful for explaining many of the properties that spirit must have.

5. The quantum field has been assigned the property of non-locality (the ability to allow things to occur that violate the restrictions of time and space normally associated wity the laws of classical physics).

This just coincidentally happens to be a property that is useful for explaining many of the properties that spirit must have.

So, for me personally, not only does it seem wise to use the same approach as science, but their mathematical description of their quantum field has already been assigned many of the properties that I require for the concept of spirit as I am considering it.

So, for me personally, I can not only adopt the scientific method, but I can even adopt the quantum field itself along with the mathematical description of Quantum Mechanics that goes along with it.

It's a perfectly valid thing to do.

Why re-invent the wheel when we have the shoulders of giants to stand upon?

For someone to call this approach 'illogical' is utterly absurd especailly when it is stated as nothing more than their own personal opinion without one iota of actual backing for why it should be an illogical approach for the study of spiritual phenomena.

It's the perfect approach as far as I can see.

There is nothing wrong with it logically whatsoever.

It's not claiming to prove the existence of spirit. All it's doing it considering HOW spirit can produce the results we see, IF spirit actually existed in this form.

So it's actually a logical construct that begins with the premise IF spirit exists and has the properties associated with the quantum field, then,.... blah, blah, blah.

So Micheal is taking conniptions and accusing me of being 'illogical' for staring out with a premise that merely considers a concept that he's highly allergic to on a personal basis.

But there is nothing in the system under consideration that is illogical.

In fact, this doesn't need to be made "personal" it doesn't matter who says that it's 'illogical'. That's an inappropreate accusation to make no matter who makes it. The only reason it appears to be 'personal' in this case is because a specific person is making this absurd accusation and refuses to quit. Even after it has been shown that his accusation is totally ungrounded in any logic and totally uncalled for.

I have serious problems with the implications of this post in particular?

Creative says, "thank you for not openly making personally insulting remarks about me"

That implies that other people are making personal insults. How so?

Creative accuses other people of being 'illogical' and claims that they should not be personally insulted by this.

Then when they argue that he has no grounds for this accusation and that he's the one who is being 'illogical' he take personal insult from that?

No one accused you of being illogical Michael. You're the one who made that charge.

All we're doing is defending against your accusations!

And then YOU claim personal foul?

Just how is that supposed to work?

Why would he thank anyone for "sticking to the topic" when NOBODY, including him, STUCK TO THE TOPIC?

The topic has changed from: "Is it safe to conclude that how one writes is a reflection of how one thinks? "

TO:

"Is it illogical to assume that spirit exists?"

or "Does spirit exist?"


This topic is not about and never has been about the existence of "spirit" until, on page 8, I used the word "spiritual."

(EXCUUUSE ME!)

And that is when Creative started his crusade about "Spirit," which clearly REFLECTS how he thinks and what he believes.

So again I will say that YES, it is safe to conclude that how one writes is a reflection of how one thinks.

Using Creative as an example:(I am using him as an example only)

WE NOW KNOW a bit about how Creative thinks. He does not believe in the existence of "spirit" and he "thinks" that anyone who does is being "illogical." He also thinks that any conclusion that arises from the premise "that spirit may exist or does exist," must be a false conclusion...simply because he has decided that "spirit" does not exist and his opinion is that this assumption is a false premise arrived at illogically. --THAT IS HIS OPINION.

He also thinks that for a premise to be 'worthy' or 'valid' it must be proven logically and according to his way of thinking and believing.

He has also not stuck to the topic as he has changed his question into an argument about the existence of "spirit."

All of his arguments seem to be only about how he is right (and logical) and everyone else is wrong (and illogical.) It is never about trying to understand what anyone else is trying to tell him.

I rest my case.

I rest all my cases.

And rightfully so. You've made your point quite vividly throughout this thread and it's right on.

Besides, it's not like we haven't considered other potential ideas.

I've consisted the possibility of a non-spiritual purely materialistic view of life. I've come to the following two conclusion:

1. If life is entirely materialistic then we are nothing more than transient objects who have no essence beyond that. In fact, that's the whole premises that begins that line of reasoning.

2. If materialism is true, and the entire universe was just a meaningless random accident. Then we are also just meaningless random accidents and when our bodies die that will be the end of a meaningless random accident.

Is that theory true?

It could be!

It can't be proven anymore than a spiritual theory can be proven. It holds no greater position in pure 'logic' for that very reason.

The bottom line for me is that even if that theory is true there's nothing to be gained from it. It has nothing to offer other than the fact that life is a meaningless accident that will soon be over.

It's a very short philosophy that comes to a quick and disparaging conclusion. Grab all the gusto you can because it will soon be over and you won't even remember having grabbed the gusto!

It will all have been for naught in the end.

Philosophy finished.

That's where it leads. It's a dead-end philosophy that's going nowhere. The conclusion is mortality and so the philosophy itself is an uninteresting deadbeat.

There's no point in rehashing it because it's a dead-end philosophy quite literally.

The only open question within that philosophy is to prove it's very premise. Which can't be done!

It's on prefectly equal footing with a spiritual philosophy just as you (Jeanniebean) had pointed out.

Neither spirit, nor the absence of spirit, can be proven.

Therefore BOTH of these philosophies are necessarily on precisely the same logical footing.

Creative's claim that one is more logical than the other is simply a false claim that has no basis in fact. The only way he could back up such a claim is to actually prove that one premise is more true than the other. Clearly he can't do that, so all he's spewing is empty opinionated hot air.

I feel justified in labeling it as such when he goes around asserting that other people are being 'illogical' when in fact that's nothing more than his own personal empty opinion.

It's just an opinion that has no logic behind it at all.

He truly needs to quite accusing people of being illogical simply because they are considering that spirit might play a role in the essence of human existence. He can't prove otherwise! And therefore he's totally out of line accusing other people of being illogical.

If we are just an accident.. and our existence is finite, then in the face of infinity, we don't really exist.. except for a minuscule infinitely small increment of 'time.' (And "time" does not even exist.)

So if this were really true, it is logical to assume that we would simply not exist at all.

But we do exist, therefore it is not true that we are a finite accident.

So what are we then?

We are infinite because we MUST BE either finite or infinite.

If we are finite, we are as good as dead and non-existent in the face of infinity.

What thing is infinite? That "thing" could be called Spirit.

(There is my logical argument for spirit. )

By golly Jeannie you are indeed an exceptionally brilliant person.

What you've actually done here is prove that 'spirit' must exist even when based on the premises of materialism!

Materialism holds that we are nothing more than the result of physical existence. Therefore materialism demands at least two aprior premises.

1. Material exists.
2. We are it.

You simply take this a step further and state that whatever that 'material thing' is that constitutes our essence must obviously be the essense of what we are.

That's basically a tautology that cannot be denied.

So in a very real sense you have indeed proven that spirit must exist no matter what philosophy is used.

In other words, you've just demonstrated that even a materialistic philosophy must necessarily reduce to a spiritual philosophy in the end because it ultimately relies upon equating our true essense to belonging to the material thing. So materialism holds the premise that the material world exists, and we are it!

Excellent work Jeannie!

You've basically shown, via a tautology, that any materialistic philosophy must necessarily reduce to pantheism.

Well I have never heard of tautology, but I think I do have a logical argument, (if not proof) that we are essentially..an infinite spirit.

Aside from the “logical proofs” put forth here, there is a bit of a problem with trying to apply strict logic to the concept of spirit in the first place.

Considering the volume of empirical evident indicating that there actually are phenomena that are intrinsically “illogical”, (e.g. RV, telepathy, OBE, past life memories, etc., etc.), to doesn’t make sense to me to insist that logic be the only tool allowed when evaluating them for the purposes of understanding.

This website http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/Change_The_Rules.pdf is an excellent exposition on that issue. It is quite “scholarly” in tone and can take while to get through. But it very clearly indicates why strict adherence to the rules of logic doesn’t always work.

It is a 24 page article and deserves thorough consideration. But there are a couple short quotes that I think summarize, as well as any short quote can, the general viewpoint.

The first is from a Wagnerian opera:
“Would you measure by your rules something that is not governed by them? Forget your own guidelines; seek first the appropriate rules.”

The second is from the Bible:
“And no man putteth new wine into old wineskins; else the new wine will burst the wineskins, and be spilled, and the wineskins shall perish. But new wine must be put into new wineskins; and both are preserved.”

There is no doubt that strict logic has it’s practical uses. The whole body of "scientific advancement" is testimony to the. But insisting that logic be the only tool used to gain understanding, inherently limits the scope of understanding itself.

Well, I'm not necessarily in agreement with this.

I think this all depends on how a person views 'logic'.

For example, Creative seems to be taking the stance that, if he personally deems a particular premise to be undesirable, then he has the right to pronounce it as being 'illogical'.

That's not truly logic at all. All that amounts too is a personal predjudice based on what some individual consideres to be 'reasonable' or 'common sense' from a personal perspective.

Logic truly has nothing to do with personal subjective perspectives.

For example, in the mathematics of geometry we can imagine several different premises for the behavior of space (or for "spacetime" if we are considering a dynamic Relativistic system).

But just for our example we can imagine a hypothetical 'static' geometry and forget about time.

There are three possible premises:

1. Parallel lines never meet, and always retain a constant distance between each other. This produces Euclidean geometry. This is the geometry that we are all familiar with from highschool.

To talk about parallel lines meeting in this formal model is absurd (i.e. illogical), by the definitions given within the formal system.

Note also: Within Euclidean Geometry the value of Pi (the ratio of the diameter and circumference of a circle is a constant equal to approximately 22/7 or about 3.14...) Further more, the Pythagorean relationship of the lengths of the sides of a right triangle always holds to be x² + y² = z². It also follows from this same insight that the sum of the angles of a triangle must be 180 degrees.

Therefore it would be illogical to speak of places where Pi, or the Pythagorean Theorem don't hold. They are "theorems" in Euclidean Geometry (meaning that they always hold true in this system).


2. We can begin with the premise that parallel lines always meet eventually. This premise leads to what is known as 'Spherical Geometry'.

In Spherical Geometry Pi, and the Pythagorean theorem no longer hold true. So the whole thing is quite different.

3. We can also begin with the premise that parallel lines always diverge away from each other. This is called "Hyperbolic Geometry".

Again in Hyperbolic Geometry the value of Pi, and the Pythagorean theorem no longer hold true. So the 'logical conclusions' within this geometry is once again quite different from the logical conclusions within Euclidean Geometry.

So which one of these three is 'True' in our universe?

Well, as it turns out they are all true. It all depends on where you're at within the universe. The geometry of the universe changes depending on the curvature of the fabric of spacetime at a particular location.

So what is 'logical' at one point of the universe, is 'not logical' at another point in the same universe.

Thus showing that there can be no such thing as an 'absolute' logical truth. Logic itself is relative to the situation at hand.

~~~

So now when you say that some of these things (e.g. RV, telepathy, OBE, past life memories, etc., etc.), appear to be 'illogical' you need to state with respect to what?

Illogical with respect to what?

To respect to common sense? Everyone has a different subjective view about what 'common sense' even means.

Illogical with respect to the laws of Classical Macro physics? Maybe so? But are these things (e.g. RV, telepathy, OBE, past life memories, etc., etc.), dependent on the MACRO laws of physics?

Are they truly illogical with respect to the Laws of Quantum Physics?

I'm not personally convinced that they are in conflict with those laws, and therefore they may not be "illogical" with respect to that formalism.

So is it 'logic' itself that is the problem here?

Or is it simply a demand that we must stick to certain premises and logical formal systems that a problem?

I personally feel that the apparent problems stem from people who are attempting to demand that only certain established logical systems must be adhered to (like the classical laws of macro physics for example).

I don't necessarily see a conflict between, (RV, telepathy, OBE, past life memories, etc., etc.), when viewed through the lens of the laws of quantum phsyics.

I'm not saying that these laws necessarily explain these phenomena. I'm just saying that I don't see where they necessarily conflict with them. And if they don't conflict with them, then there's no 'logical' problem. (i.e. there are no direct logical contradictions)

So I would hestitate to blame it on 'logic' in general.

But I would say that people who demand that only specific premises and logical systems be used are making unrealistic demands. Especially in a time when we've see so many alternative logical systems produce fruitful results.

So I'm not in agreement that these things that you've mentioned are intrinsically illogical. That would all depend on what particular system of logical premises you're referring to wouldn't it?

Well at least I can console myself with the realization that my sloppiness set you up for that beautiful post.

Although it may not look like it because of my sloppiness, you succeded in saying exactly what I tried and failed to say.

Well done!

You can lead a horse to water...

...but you can't make it drink water that's not there.


Are you still going to present that reply that you said you were going to a couple pages back?

This thread has lost all form of mental and/or logical coherency. This has to be the biggest f*cking self-delusion I have ever witnessed.

This is mentally disturbing **** right here. It is one thing for a Christian to deny the validity of science based upon conflict with faith, but it is quite another for one to speak of science as if it supports a belief in spirit while falsely claiming equal grounding to some delusion-based interpretation.

Equal grounding to a gross misunderstanding of science is not equal grounding to science.

You guys win.

Congratulations!!!

Since all of the personal conclusions about me are contingent upon the idea that my premise is supposedly 'spirit does not exist.' Could any of you who so adamantly talk about me - as if you know what your talking about - do one thing?

Step outside of your perceptual delusion for just a minute, and quote where I have said that.

I disagree with your assessment. I think this has been a wonderful thread. You apparently wanted it to continue because you shamelessly bumped it when you were not getting any responses.

So maybe you should be careful what you ask for.

I think most of us know what we are talking about in this thread in regard to spirit, logic, etc. and I'm truly sorry you don't.

You seem angry with your profanity and incoherent description of this entire thread. Yes we do win, seriously. The shame of it is that you have learned NOTHING, and you can't even see that. The self-delusion is yours.

You don't have to say it. You never did state it outright. You simply said it was a 'false premise" and illogical.

That is enough to convince me that it is not your premise.

Why would you logically base an argument on a what you consider to be a 'false premise?'

Why would you launch a crusade against a causal mention of "spirituality?"

And last but not least, why would you get angry at losing this debate?

You are not that good of a pretender.

Christians 'win' all of their debates too.



Of course, there is no need to support your personal claims with fact when you have your opinion.

In textbook fashion, I logically refuted the claim which attempted a connection of spirit to quantum field. I cannot help the fact that it was not recognized for what it was, even though I later gave links to go along with it which clearly described what had been done. That does not surprise me considering the amount of things that have been confused or mentally substituted for other things in this thread.

I do not know what personal claims you are talking about. All of what I have said is, and always has been, my opinion. That is my only claim.

Apparently it is my opinion you object to.

I'm not sure who views you are referring to here, but just for the sake of other people who might be reading this thread, I would like to make a clarification on this comment as it has to do with my own personal views.

To begin with, I have never personally claimed that science supports a belief in spirit.

The only thing that I have suggested is that science does not currently deny the possiblity of spirit.

These are two entirely different things.

I'm not sure if I had mentioned this before, but I work along similar lines to what the ficticious character of Sherlock Holmes supposedly uses. A process of elimination. Everything remains suspect until it can be ruled out with certainty.

Science does not rule out spirit.

Moreover, science offers through quantum mechanics many well-established properties that do indeed coincide with properties that I would expect spirit to possess.

Does this mean that science supports a "belief" in spirit?

I would say not. It doesn't necessarily support that particular beleif. It's simply allows for that possiblity.

I personally don't see how 'allowing' for something to exist is the same as 'supporting' its existence.

The only thing that I was arguing against was the charge that it is illogical to consider spirit in light of these scientific coincidental properties between the quantum field and spirit.

That was my only point all along.

Nowhere did I ever claim that science necessarily supports the existence of spirit. It simply allows for it at this point in time. In other words, it hasn't ruled it out, and it has even allows for most of the properties that I would expect spirit to possess to potentially be carried out by the 'quantum field'.

I've argued all along that I'm only interested in plausiblity arguments. I'm not even out to prove the existence of anything.

Does science allow that spirit is plausible?

Yes, I believe that it does.

In fact, if science was actually armed with concrete evidence to firmly deny that any such thing as spirit could exist I imagine they most likely would have made such a finding public.

I know of no such claim made by mainstream science. Moreover, until they can actually prove the existence of the quantum field I think they'd look pretty silly trying to claim that spirit can't exist, but their quantum field can.

Finally, and I feel that this is of utmost imporance!

I AM a scientist! I hold science in the highest regard.

Zeno of Elea, Leucippus of Miletus, and of course the great Isaac Newton were all my childhood heroes (and still are my heroes to this very day). I also admire many other scientists and mathematicians in many fields, not the least of which are Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrodinger, James Clerk Maxwell, and the list just goes on and on.

First off, scientists aren't automatically atheists or materialists! Many scientists are quite spiritual. Some even still believe in very personified Gods like Yawweh.

I don't qo quite that far myself anymore (although in truth, science can't even rule those out!) I personally rule those out based on their very own doctrines and mythologies which I personally find absurd and self-conflicting. I can't rule them out necessarily by science. Other than possibly ruling out the biblical picture based on the idea that the bible demands that mankind brought imperfection and death into the world and this conflicts with the evidence that science has uncovered that show compellingly that imperfection, disease, and death has always occurred long before mankind came on the scene.

In any case, the point is that all scientists are not atheists (or non-spiritualits).

To even suggest that science supports atheism or non-spirituality is a false claim!

I have been a scientist all my life (or a student, or a teacher of science). Nowhere along my entire life's jouney was I ever taught that science supports atheism or non-spirituality. I have no idea where that mentality comes from, but I do know that it does not come from science!

These people who try to hold science out as somehow supporting athesim and/or non-spirituality are simply misrepresenting science. Science does not formally support either of those views!

On the contrary, with the advent of Quantum Phsyics, science has no choice but to allow for spirituality in the sense of Eastern Mysicism and the pantheistic view.

In fact, when Quantum Physics was first discovered and the properties of the quantum field were becoming known, the Eastern Mystics just smiled and said, "We told you so".

So this idea that science either denies spirit, or that it supports atheism, or non-spirituality, is simply false.

That's just not true.

Science does not deny spirit. In fact, quantum physics not only allows for it, but it even offers from a scientific perspective many of the properties that spirit must possess.

1. Omniscience (it's everywhere)
2. Randomness (freedom from and tracable cause and affect)
3. Non-locality (the ability to defy time and space as we know it)
4. Entanglement (the ability to act as a unified whole across large distances)
5. Quantum Foam - The ability for a non-physical medium (the quantum field itself) to directly have a causal affect on a physical medium (atoms).

These are all properties that spirit would need to possess.

Well, the quantum field already is said to possess these properties.

And, as I've pointed out in a previouse post miles back, this is not just theory these properties are actually being used in technology. Quantum Computer Scientists are actually working with e-bits, for example, which make use of quantum entanglement.

So these properties are very real and well-established.

Do they support that spirit exists?

Well that's a personal view some may take I suppose.

I personally don't go quite that far.

I simply recognize that they don't deny spirit and at this point in time, they even offer many properties that I feel spirit would require. So I simply say that science allows for spirit at this point. That's not necessarily the same as arguing that it 'supports' the concept.

But it would be totally inappropreate to suggest that my approach is 'illogical'. It's perfectly logical. There's nothing whatsoever that is illogical about it.

And that was the only charge that I was arguing against.

As Jeannie said, it can't be quoted because you never stated it. So obviously, basing any conclusions (on either side) on that premise would be "illogical".

Now what I find disturning is the generalization. To take a whole post of a thousand words or so, and apply a single label to all of it, is not anywhere near being “logical” in my book.

If there is a specific point that you feel is illogical, then indicate that specific point and why you think it’s illogical.

And even if every single sentence appears to you to be contradictory to every other single sentence, there is still nothing to be gained by generalzation. It is still possible to start with one apparent contradiction and point out what you believe to be illogical in that one sentence. That is what I and others often do.

Throwing up your hands and declaring “this thread has lost all form of mental and/or logical coherency” cannot be in any way interpreted as an sort of “logical argument”. But it can very easily be interpreted as simply “sour grapes”.

Now I don’t think I can be accused of stating any “personal conclusions” about you - at least in the context of this conversation. And I gather from one of your posts that you agree.

So personally, I am still interested in your response to my post about the anomalous phenomena. Specifically, what, if anything, you think may be illogical about it.