This thread is pretty straight forward, we are going to define Non-physical. No restrictions, no requirements, no logic needed, I am not even going to respond to a persons post directly unless you ask me.

Try to be clear, concise, (as in dont post your book on this) and straight forward in your definition.

I am not going to sit here and blast anyone so don't worry, this inst a catch people in the act of not so clear thinking thread, I am just honestly curious what people think this word means.

Having no mass/energy and no location in spacetime.

Cannot be sensed with any of the five senses.

I'm more than willing to go along with the established scientific definitions of "observables", as given by the mathematical formalism of Quantum Mechanics, as a definition of "physical".

By this definition then, any "transformations" that occur behind the "quantum veil" of the "observables" are necessarily "non-physical tranformations", by definition.

Since QM not only allows for these kinds of transformations, but actually demands that they must occur, then I'm satisfied that, via this very scientific definition, the "non-physical" must be granted existence (at least in terms of affecting the manifestation of the physical).

So, for me, this idea is already a very well-grounded scientific idea that is well-established in a very rigid mathematical way.

Perhaps you could define it then?

sorry, no help from me. no such word in my vocabulary.

That which has no physical existence.

Hmmm? That would be like asking me to define the Tao.

Because of the Taoism thread that Creative just started I decided to reread the Tao Te Ching tonight. In it, there is a passage that goes as follows:


"Even the sage cannot describe it

The Tao of heaven does not strive, yet it overcomes,
It does not speak, yet it is answered,
It does not ask, yet it is supplied with all it needs,
It seems to have no aim, yet its purpose is fulfilled,
It is the mother of the ten thousand things, (all things)
It gives birth from nothingness,
It is eternally undefined."

I think the last line says it all. And in a sense, this last line is equivilent to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, IMHO.

From the point of view of pure mathematics, it is the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle that demands that this non-physical underlying substrate of reality will indeed remain eternally undefined. It is beyond our ability to ever know it, or describe it in precise mathematical terms.

This I believe.

This is the current mathematical status of QM. This is where science currently stands on the issue (even though they may be hopeful for more), this is the current state of affairs.

And yet you are asking me to define it?

If I could do that I'd be rich and famous!

I merely accept it, as it is. Undefined, and proven to be so mathematically by Warner Heisenberg. As well as having been experimentally verified in literally billions of experiements in particle accelerators all over the world.

I accept Quantum Mechanics. I accept the non-physical transformations of QM. I accept the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. I accept the Tao.

Can I define it, or explain it? I wish!

But no, it appears that it will forever remain a mystery, just as Lao Tzu suggests.

Non-physical:

Platonic. (As in "Platonic relationship".)

Metaphysical. (As in "before physics".)

Arguable. (As in "can you prove it exists?")

Chemical or biological.

Emotional / psychological / mental. (As in the opposite of "The doctor gave me a physical check-up".)

Good one!

Non-physical could have many definitions depending on the context of its use. In the most basic definition I can think of, you think of everything that is physical and non-physical is whatever is left.

On a side note Mr. Abracadabra is annoying in regards to this topic. Just an observation. What is the point of writing a big long reply, quoting ancient philosophy, claiming experimental data but not referencing it, and purposely writing in a pompous know it all fashion. Only in the end to say I don’t know and if I did I would be a millionaire. What the hell is precise about that? Hello McFly…Knock…knock…knock… get over yourself. JMO

Ow... Ow... Ow... Ow... Ow...

That which is spirit, essence, being, consciousness without a physical body, and dwells in a dimension other than our own.

A non-physical relationship means "DON'T YOU DARE TOUCH ME!"

Different people find different things annoying. To each his own. JMO.

I appreciate your observation. The only reason that I went into such detail is because I was asked to "define it" after I had already posted a scientific basis for it.

Also, since I had actually offered that I cannot define it, why should you suggest that I should get over myself?

I'm not claiming to know anything more than anyone else should already know. How does that equate to being "pompous"?

Sky:
Well touche indeed. Maybe my post was a bit harsh, but I was following the argument over from a different tread and really wanted Abracadabra to explain his position without sidestepping. When he finally did I was upset to have spent the time reading his responses to find out he had nothing to respond with.

Abracadabra:
Just find that if there are two ways to express an idea
one: clear, concise, in everyday language and terminology
two: Long, obscure, using jargon

You choose #2, and that is in my opinion pompous

I understand.

However, you need to understand that I've been on this site for years and I'm well aware of the capabibilities of the people I'm generally discussing with. So I use jargon that I'm aware they should all be able to comprehend easily.

No problem. I understand where you're coming from.

Abra your like the writers from star trek . . .

That's a nice definition.

I'll support that one as well.

Note to NovaRoma: I would have said something similar to this myself, but I was trying to respond to the scientific-minded people who are always demanding detailed rigorous definitions that can be backed up by known science and/or well-known philosophies.