Your body is part of you. It is a manifestation of you. You learn to behave morally when you learn about the law of Karma and the Law of attraction. You reap what you sow. In this world there are laws of Karma and spiritual laws.

You are free to experience good and evil as you choose. As you learn compassion and regard for others, you will ascend to higher worlds. You will eventually learn and evolve.

Again, the car/driver analogy works fairly well here.

What reason is there for abiding by the “rules of the road”, if our cars are not a part of us but something we’re using?

Because there are other drivers using cars and we’re all using the same roads, so we have (i.e. make up) rules that allow everyone the opportunity to use their cars to get where they want to go with minimal conflict.

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.

The Matrix?? LOL

That's not a bad analogy.

Well, the two main pillars of modern science; Relativity and Quantumm Mechanics, both suggest that the universe has no balls.

So that means a virus IS alive?
Does the virus not fall apart until it's stream has been disrupted?

What a load of semantic crap.

Energy not physical, that was all I needed to read to know you are clueless.

So lets do the good ole transformation from matter to energy . . . . say lets take 5KG of weapons grade plutonium and make a nuke, lets even pretend that we can make perfect nukes that take and convert 100% of that mass into energy.

Define physical, and tell me how the interactions of that energy on anything are not physical in nature.

Define non-physical in a positive manner that is not a negative circular definition involving physical.

Guess what . . . you cant. No such thing as non-physical in physics bud, that's the point, so it makes you look kind of stupid claiming that a branch of physics can support the claim that reality is not physical.

Its true that reality is vastly counter intuitive, and that our normal macro world is vastly different from the micro and nano worlds, but trying to pretend that this some how supports your concepts of spirituality is misleading and to be honest . . . silly, from a professional stand point its sloppy, but we all know your not a professional.

If you want to try to squeeze all the phenomena that do not make sense in the macro world into a word, and make that word non physical go for it, but when you look at the word physical, and how its used in physics . . . well then the opposite of physical being non physical would not work for the way you are using it.

Nonsense at best, not even wrong.

The definition of dualism.

Now now Bushi - watch your blood pressure.

Oh I get calmer when reading complete tripe, its the well put together blather that gets me going.

I also get just a little less reserved as well . . . after all why waste time on manners when dealing with tripe.

In fact I am going to create a challenge post for everyone here to test there mental skills on.

Its the define non-physical thread. Ill even avoid placing any of those pesky requirements necessary to have a proper scientific definition and see what we get.

Not in any dictionary I can find. (But I now where you're going and there's no point.)

Your Car and Driver analogy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism

Fits perfect.

Not really. As I understand it, dualism is about two 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 disconnected things. So really, the car+driver analogy is not a very good example of dualism.

Dualism has traveled paths far and wide sir. I think you would find it quite interesting what has been thought of in relation to this idea. Its modern usage is a bit derogatory I agree, but that is because it has been found lacking.

I would agree. I personally find it a bit lacking too - at least as I understand it.

Energy is not physical? Is "matter" physical? If so, then what is E=mc2 all about?

Matter IS energy... stored.

You will have to ask abra, he seems to think energy is not physical, you got me, I have no clue how he makes sense of that . . .

In fact the entire idea of physicality in reference to solidity, or especially what we can know about it . . to me seems lacking value.

Interaction is all that matters and we know well that interactions can change based on some very interesting properties of matter and energy.

Also this confusion of matter and energy. I can take one kind of matter and make another, and so on and on and on, but we never say that carbon is the same as oxygen do we? They are different becuase they act different.

No, and matter is not energy even through we can take one and make another.

The interaction of things that is what is important.

Even the concept of standing waves, they have form, and they interact, thus they are material and have an interaction with other things that share these properties of form and interaction and are also material.

What does it mean for something non-physical to interact with something physical?

How is the distinction between physical and non physical meaningful?? The only reason to make such a distinction is if we can gain a better understanding of the concept, however is it really handled better by including something called non-physical with only negative definitions for it?

From what I have been reading the best we can do is say it has no:

Matter
Mass
Energy
Location in time space
Or its behind the curtain of observables as abra put it, essentially its epistemically[SP] off limits.

All negatives, not a single positive characteristic, so we are VERY good at saying what its NOT. So far no one knows what it IS.

So non-physical is all things not physical yet can interact as if its physical in just unknown, or unknowable ways . . . is that really the best definition??


Because in my understanding if something has no:

Matter
Mass
Energy
Location in time spce
Is off limits to knowledge
AND does not interact with any physical things.

Its actually non existent, who cares about physical.

So if we crash a body we have to hope an astral ambulance gets to us quickly and pay big astral bucks for the whole ordeal?

What do those things have to do with ascent?