A picture is a picture, or a symbol. It represents whatever a conscious person decides it represents.

WHAT? How do you get that from what I have said?

Do ideas, symbolism, or spirituality exist if you remove the physical human? My belief is no. That without the neural network of interactions between charged particles to interpret an idea, it does not exist.

It only serves to define non-physical in an abstract manner,or under a specific context. A proper definition should be apparently obvious and unarguable. I think non-physical only applies to the space beyond the outer reaches of the universe, or the space between matter.

VERY SIMPLE.

you said it yourself. Do I have to post your words here AGAIN???

Billy's words:

OH DARN! - good thing I was reading all these posts before replying -
Looks like the lovely Ladylid beat me to it.

I would only add that further charcterization would be impossible as "experience" can only be related in terms that are common to ALL of us - and all of us only have one common denominator - we all experience in the physical. Leaving descriptive characterizations to a purley subjective vernacular of uncommon definition.

Hi NovaRoman, nice to meet ya.




You know I was thinkg about this as I was reading the latest posts on the 'designer 2' thread.

If it were possible to isolate a square foot of space (as in outer space) and then apply a multidemensional matrix to it. Could we account for every (?) whatever the smallest unit of space is, I'll just say micron? Is there such a thing as totally unoccupied space? I mean wouldn't there at least me gas or maybe a constant flux of neutrinos or something?

Just curious - becasue if there such a thing as totally unoccupied space wouldn't that be 'non-physical'?

One thing about the idea of spirit is that it doesn't even need to be "non-physical" in the truest sense of the term.

As Ladylid suggested, (It dwells in a dimension other than our own).

This definition can easily bring a concept of spirit right smack dab into the very heart of modern science.

Just look at "String Theory". The scientists are suggesting that these strings (which are indeed hypothesized to affect our physical reality) vibrate in dimensions that we cannot personally experience.

Yet these "strings" can supposedly vibrate in those dimensions that are unavailable to us, yet in doing so those "strings" can theoretically directly affect our physical reality.

Therefore, we have science itself postulating the existence of dimensions that are simultaneously unavailable to our direct experience, yet can indeed affect our physical reality.

So here we have a modern theory of science suggesting the very existence of hidden dimensions that are beyond our senses, yet can still directly have an affect on our physical universe.

So why would any serious scientifically-minded person object to the notion of spirit based on science?

It is in no way in conflict with what scientists themselves are proposing.

Spirit doesn't truly need to be "non-physical", all it needs to do is exist in a dimension that can interact with this physical unviverse, yet is beyond are normal ability to percieve.

This is so true!

As long as Scientists are taking String Theory seriously I am never going to accept anyone's claim that science cannot be used to support an idea of spirit.

That's utter non-sense. The very notion of String Theory is handing us the scientific and mathematical tools to create a very sound and even mathematically rigorous scientific theory of spirit.

So this notion that science can't be used to support a notion of spirit is utter nonsense and cannot be supported by scientists as long as they continue to propose hidden dimensions that are beyond our senses where strings can vibrate in such a way as to affect our physical universe whilst existing in some dimensions that are inaccessible to our physical senses.

Science is practical proposing a theory of spirit via String Theory!

Sorry, Di. This post wasn't aimed at you. I just happened to take off from your post. I was actually bouncing off Ladylid's comments about how all spirit truly needs to do is reside in a different dimension. Spirit doesn't even truly need to be 'non-physical'. Spirit might be just as physical as we are! It just resides in a dimension that we can't directly sense.

So the idea that spirit necessarily must be "non-physical" doesn't even need to apply.

I'm totally done with anyone who tries to claim that science can't be used to support an idea of spirit. As long as science is open to String Theory then they are stuck with condoning an idea of spirit as well. If strings can vibrate in "hidden dimensions" then so can spirits! Science can indeed be used to support spiritual concepts.

I rest my case!


In fact, if they allowed signature files on this site: this would be my signature file:


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Abracadabra ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If strings can vibrate in "hidden dimensions" then so can spirits! Science can indeed be used to support spiritual concepts. I rest my case!

Theoretical physics are very fascinating and exciting, but are just abstract ideas with no scientific support. I have an issue calling them science until they can actually be tested using the scientific method. So please do not refer to them as science unless there is scientific support, and if there is please link it.

I'm actually in agreement with you NovaRoma!

But the fact of the matter is that String Theory is being researched by scientists, in the name of science, and through the government funding of science.

So until that's changes, for all intents and purposes it IS science. Perhaps not "proven" science, but that's beside the point.

Being new here you may be unware of the positions people have been taking around here. They've been trying to hold out the idea that to even remotely suggest that ideas of spirit should be considered with the same intensity and consideration as other scientific ideas is "unreasonable" and "illogical".

I for one am sick of it.

Still, I am in complete agreement with you that String Theory is NOT science and it should be called "String Superstition!"

I've often refer to Lee Smolin's book, "The Trouble with Physics" that addresses this very notion that String Theory is unsupportable as "science". Just the same, it is being conducted and funded as science.

So whilst I'm in agreement with you, the scientific community does not seem to be in agreement with either of us.

NovaRoma,

Just for the record. And just so you know.

I'm not claiming that spirit has been 'proven' to exist.

I personally remain intellectually agnostic whilst leaning toward a belief in spirit in the emotional and intuitive realm.

I do have a very strong background in the science of physics and I do consider the scientific 'feasibility' of how spirit might exist and interact with the physical realm.

So it bugs me when people try to claim that it's illogical or unsupportable to even consider spirit on a scientific level.

That's simply not true. Especially when I'm only considering it as a plausible case (not unlike String Theory).

So I hope you better understand my position and don't automatically chalk me off as a radical idiot. I'm not claiming to have proof or evidence of anything. I just offer plausiblity theories not at all unlike String Theory.

Abra....I do not think you are a radical idiot.

Just to clarify. For something to be scientific IMO it needs to have been tested using the scientific method and must have supporting data in at least one peer reviewed journal article.

Just because a scientist supports something, or someone is paying for research does not make it science.

And I agree with you there does seem to be a pervasive opinion that you can talk about spiritual matters as fact, when there are no facts, nor support that is not anecdotal.

I am for a logical and philosophical argument in regards to spiritual matters, but to assume that they are fact because you have faith is IMO silly.

that which is not affected effected or under the jurisdiction of the laws of physics

We agree. Except that last part. Even space is something, what exactly is unknown but is something. It has properties, it stretches, it effects other things we call existent, such as time, in fact one could say, and has said, that they are two sides of the same coin, it effects matter, and matter effects it.

I think I know what you mean and where you where going with that underlined statement, after all its not like we can take and identify "nothing" by the properties it does not have, nothing is the same as nonexistent which is the same as non-physical . . . IMHO, and I think we agree.


Well said.

I agree, becuase my definition for physical is its opposite.

Physical:
That which interacts, is effected and can be affected and lies under the jurisdiction of the laws of physics is pretty close to exactly what I think it means for something to be physical, or existent.

So if something does not interact with our reality at all, then regardless of if it exists and interacts with some other reality, it does not with this one which is the set of things I co-exist with.

There fore IMHO its synonymous with non-existent, and can be readily abandoned in favor of that word which is much more clearly understood.

That's a fairly empty semantic definition though isn't it?

By that I simply mean that the "laws of physics" are nothing more than a description of what we see going on around us.

Take Quantum Mechanics for example. When we view quantum behavior we see probabilities. So we write a law that says that quantum behavior is 'probabilistic'. So now we have a "law of physics" that says that "probabilistic" behavior is physical.

Do you see the semantic emptiness of this?

Using this sort of scheme we could claim that the Boogieman is "physical" simply because we can semantically define the boogieman as the case of any "bump in the night".

In other words, the laws of physics are nothing more than feeble manmade descriptions that merely attempt to define labels in such a way as to attempt to justify our notions of 'physical'.

When it come right down to it we truly don't even have a good defintion of what is "physical".

Mass is not the property of things that gives them their 'solidity'.

The thing that gives things their 'solidity' is the Pauli Exclusion principle what states that no two Fermions can occupy the same quantum state. But that definition is as illusive as the "boogieman" definition. No one knows or understands what actually causes the Pauli Exclusion principle to hold, or why Fermions behave this way.

In fact, we also consider "bosons" to be "physical", yet bosons do not even obey the Pauli Exclusion principle (i.e. they do not have the property of being solid objects", they can pass right through each other like ghosts. Yet we consider them to be "physical".

They have the property of Ghosts, yet we consider them to be "physical".

This gives the boogieman more clout than not. For all we know it's the boogieman that prevents fermions from occupying the same quantum states. We have no clue what causes fermions to behave this way.

The laws of physics are truly just "unexplained" descriptons. Not unlike the descriptions of the boogieman.

People talk about the "laws of physics" like as if they actually explain something. But do we really have any reason to believe this?

What is it that they truly explain?

Nothing.

Utimately they merely describe, in very feeble and unexplanatory ways.

All things that have positive characteristics that can be identified interact in such a way as to be physical.

Bosons do interact abra, how else could we identify them? Try to read what is written you may gain some understanding. I can even reference several research papers about boson self interactions if you would like . . .

If anything you yourself have pointed out in this thread that making a distinction between physical and non physical (outside of solidity) is meaningless which is essentially agreeing with me, its kind of funny you do not see that.

Non-physical is meaningless it has only negative characteristics to define it. (unless referencing solidity)

Physical on the other hand cannot be defined in terms of solidity with out specific context, this has already been said, and so you going back to that shows a lack of comprehension.

So physical instead is that which interacts, in any way what so ever. This includes the set of things that which interact in such a way as to be UNIDENTIFIABLE, as well as interact in such a way as to be identifiable, so the whole notion of what we can and cannot known DOES NOT EFFECT this at all, the definition is at a higher level then the distinction of epistemological ramifications.

This whole thread has demonstrated that most people agree that physical can have meaning, but non-physical can only ever mean: non-existent, unless you are referencing solidity in which case this is a contextual definition that only has meaning when applied within certain limiting contexts.

Seems clear as day to me, thank you very much everyone for contributing I think this one is dead unless someone else has something meaningful to add.

Experience...we all have our own experiences. It matters not to me if something is proven or not scientifically..it is more than faith. I actually have very little faith in most everything. I rely on my experiences, that speaks volumes to me, much more than any logical argument.
Which, by the way I won't engage in...there are many who will banter, I'm not one.

Abracadbra...semantic or not ..it's simply no way something non-physical would be under the jurisdiction of the laws of physics

every action has an equal yet opposite reaction simply would not apply to something non-physical in a physical world

Abracadbra....the laws of physics are that which governs happenstance and circumstance ...to explain that in it's purest form is ..."sh_t happens"

I love it when one attempts to claim semantical failure of another's claim without showing it. What a non-argument.



Perhaps we should communicate our intelligence with moans and grunts.