physics vs metaphysics round 3

[Aether]

i dont want to defend the lesson as such but im speaking generally as there is a parrallel between esoteric philosophy and modern science... metaphysical philosophical concepts of cosmogony as have been taught for thousands of years were not just primitive ideas based on something they just pulled out of their asses, they were based on something - things that people back then in our sciences eyes shouldnt have been able to know.... without getting into a book length discussion about all this i can sum up in saying that there is a gap that is being bridged between the two

I disagree, that isn't a valid comparison with these videos, these videos don't take concept and move forward. They take concept and move backwards, they ignore what has already been learnt and only accept things that fit there concept. They do this without disproving anything, just portraying their cosmic view to justify their conclusions, which as I said is fine for philosophy but dishonest for science.

Though science agrees that everything is relative and there is something that links everything, how that works though has yet to be fully defined but we are getting closer. I'm sure though that these videos aren't in the right direction.

you say that they dont disprove anything - thats because thats what science does .it literally makes things up then disproves or proves them... if the LHC doesnt prove what they want it too isnt it going to dump on all the current theories rendering them useless....philosophy/metaphysics rationalizes what is known and even that which isnt known by science yet.... we dont need a bewilidering amount of mathematics and exact quantum values to think about cosmogonal concepts with the right brain as it is free from the confinements of the left brain

i get you are saying that this lessons of light guy trying to marry our opposing views of philosophical and scientific has is in your opinion done so poorly, but you cant just dismiss philosophical concepts....

chicken or egg?

what was first form or consciousness?

thought or mathematics

im guessing a scientist would say mathematics

a metaphyscicist or philosopher would probably say mind

we obviously think in different ways

Edited March 8, 2009 by Eether

[*zeo]

Yes, we do all think differently. It's what makes things interesting

However the egg came before the chicken, common rookie metaphysical mistake. For scientist all we have to do is account for evolution to get the correct answer (egg layed by previous species that spawned chickens came first). For metaphysics, for some reason this is often forgotten but there are creation myths in which the world was born from an egg. So both agree that the egg came first

And you got the scientist and metaphysics answer backwards for thought and mathematics. Both assume what mathematics describe is part of the universe but scientists are more literal and so would state thought came first as mathematics is a system of thought to describe and understand the physics of the universe, while metaphysics would say consciousness simply became aware of it and thus mathematics came first.

[Aether]

but the difference is scientists see that the egg was first because of evolution ,it must be because thats logic, a chicken comes from an egg! BUT metaphysics may say the egg came first .... but they theorize what IT was that made the egg appear in the first place, it wasnt necessarily a chicken! and thats the difference betwen us.

scientists does not do this

science will never know what there was b4 10-43, will never know what the universe is in, and what the universe actually is with regards to consciousness .............to me, all though science may eventually give us wonderous technology, it can not have an ultimate answer for EVERYTHING including consciousness. science may eventually understand the physical universe but not the spiritual and like it or not that IS a part of the universe.

[*Jess♥]

the thing about the chicken and the egg... many people take it so literally...

if we want to take into account those kinds of people, we have to say, what came first, the chicken or the chicken egg.

it seems that by trying to 'work it out' the peoples have lost the true meaning of the expression. it is like a koan, it is not meant to be worked out. it is meant to be understood as a quandary. the answer would not be either egg or chicken. the answer would be " hmmm, i see what you are saying".

it is teh same as saying, if god created teh universe, what created god?

or if the big bang created the universe, what created the big bang?

that is the meaning, it is not meant to be answered in such a fashion.

when you get to concepts such as infinity, or eternity, a man's mind is too puny to fully grasp such a thing.

if you truly try to understand eternity, you would certainly go crazy.

[*zeo]

Well that is where we differ Eether, I believe nothing is beyond our eventual understanding even if we have to evolve quite a bit before we achieve it. If we acted like things will be forever be beyond our reach or understanding then we would never have evolved to the point we have now. For example we routinely do what our ancient ancestors would have thought impossible in our everyday lives, centuries to millennias from now who knows what we would have achieved and learned.

Though I honestly question your conclusions. For example I do not believe metaphysicists have to ask what came before the original egg because metaphysicists primarily deals with concepts and their meaning(s). This often boxes the analysis to a simple beginning and end. If you only consider the egg and chicken then you box yourself in from any outside answer and thus can't answer the question, the answer requires you to go beyond just the egg and chicken.

It's like science with the singularity that led to the big bang, there simply may be that there was nothing before. But yet science can imagine what may have created the singularity and the big bang (brane theory), but it requires thinking outside the box.

For metaphysicists it is like asking where did the first thought come from? In a universe born from consciousness, as metaphysics often stipulate, then the answer is it sprang from nothing. To take it further then you have to ask what did nothing come from or is it really nothing?

Or spiritually it is like asking what came before god? You'd have to denounce the idea that god is the beginning to even consider it.

So metaphysics doesn't necessarily preclude the idea that the egg came first and doesn't necessarily ask what came before.

Though, I believe you misrepresented the difference between science and metaphysics on the chicken and egg question. Science came up with evolution exactly because they did consider what may have come before. The difference is science tests its ideas and backs it with research and accumulated evidence. Again, BOTH start out with concept/ideas! Remember, both the scientist and the metaphysicist use the same human brain to think on these things. So there is some overlap such as the process of conception and imagination of an idea.

A more accurate difference would thus be to say Metaphysicists are more concerned about the "meaning" of something but Scientists are more concerned about the "how", even though both start out asking "why" and is their common ground.

A good example is intelligent design versus evolution. . .

Or you can just compare the answers between myself (the admittedly scientific minded) and Ryuki (who is far better at metaphysics than I am)

Edit:> Notice for example the overlap on the god point? Mind you I started writing this post before Ryuki's response and so we similarly came up with a similar point but did so independently. So despite the differences in our philosophies we do have a similar basis from which we work our ideas out from. So the differences are in how we process the ideas and what we use to judge them by. . . Understand?

[*Jess♥]

Well that is where we differ Eether, I believe nothing is beyond our eventual understanding even if we have to evolve quite a bit before we achieve it. If we acted like things will be forever be beyond our reach or understanding then we would never have evolved to the point we have now. For example we routinely do what our ancient ancestors would have thought impossible in our everyday lives, centuries to millennias from now who knows what we would have achieved and learned.

in this case, I think there is error... but it depends on your definition of 'us' and this is where it gets tricky! because if we were to understand concepts on the level of god, we would cease to be 'us' and instead would have become 'god'.

Or you can just compare the answers between myself (the admittedly scientific minded) and Ryuki (who is far better at metaphysics than I am)

thanks zeo, i appreciate the comment

[Aether]

Ok ok lets just the leave the bloody egg alone! i really didnt even want to dwell on the thing its just an effin saying!! the whole point of that statement was just a point to lead to saying that we think differently...

theres different non scientific ways to explain the origin point of exsistence the 'cosmic' egg being one which is different to the effin chickn and egg ....anyway.....

the esoteric things ive read, metaphysical principles i understand, compared with science, experienced and believe make up my own personnel belief system..... to label me one thing would be incorrect, i dont profess myself to be a metaphysicist i certainly have no 'grading' to prove so but my thinking generally falls into such a category

i really dont wish to spend ages stating all the points i could discuss, but-

A more accurate difference would thus be to say Metaphysicists are more concerned about the "meaning" of something but Scientists are more concerned about the "how", even though both start out asking "why" and is their common ground.

i totally agree with your statement however Metaphysics is concerned with both

what place does meaning,spirtual purpose, god or anything beyond the physical realm of matter and energy that we can percieve have anything to do with our current science??

....the answer requires you to go beyond just the egg and chicken.

It's like science with the singularity that led to the big bang, there simply may be that there was nothing before. But yet science can imagine what may have created the singularity and the big bang (brane theory), but it requires thinking outside the box.

It's like science with the singularity that led to the big bang, there simply may be that there was nothing before. But yet science can imagine what may have created the singularity and the big bang (brane theory), but it requires thinking outside the box.

For metaphysicists it is like asking where did the first thought come from? In a universe born from consciousness, as metaphysics often stipulate, then the answer is it sprang from nothing. To take it further then you have to ask what did nothing come from or is it really nothing?

Or spiritually it is like asking what came before god? You'd have to denounce the idea that god is the beginning to even consider it.

how can you say it may be that there was nothing b4 the singularity.... you're not allowed to say that -youre a scientist... you must make up theories to think you can rationalize exsistance.... no matter how far science goes to figure things out, even if we find out that we are inside a microcosm the size of cell on the arse of god we still wont fathom what god is or where it inhabits....

I keep having to reitterate the same thing over and over, spirituality transcends science, god transcends science....

Zeo you seem to think science will one day know all - i believe we will know more than we do now, be more avanced than we are now and have a good understanding of how the physical universe we inhabit works and able to manipulate it better, but we wont know it ALL , to think otherwise is just pretentious and deluded.

my concluding words:

in my opinion god is everything, it is you, it is me, and it is nothing.

all that exsists, is all that exsists.....

nothing from something is a paradox and exsistence is an annomaly of oneness.

Edited March 10, 2009 by Eether

[*zeo]

in this case, I think there is error... but it depends on your definition of 'us' and this is where it gets tricky! because if we were to understand concepts on the level of god, we would cease to be 'us' and instead would have become 'god'.

Ah, but lets use an entertainment comparison and say does the audience have to be on the same level as the performer in order to understand the skill and accomplishment of the performer?

I believe in many ways we are god's audience, we may never be god's equal but that doesn't mean we can't understand and admire what god has created.

thanks zeo, i appreciate the comment

Sure thing, we all have our strong points and the differences as stated are what make these conversations interesting.

the whole point of that statement was just a point to lead to saying that we think differently...

However, you miss the point that we also have things in common. Metaphysics and Science aren't totally divorced from each other, there is overlap.

the esoteric things ive read, metaphysical principles i understand, compared with science, experienced and believe make up my own personnel belief system..... to label me one thing would be incorrect, i dont profess myself to be a metaphysicist i certainly have no 'grading' to prove so but my thinking generally falls into such a category

Uh, I don't recall ever labelling you anything. I was under the impression we were just having an honest conversation of what we believe metaphysics and science entale?

i really dont wish to spend ages stating all the points i could discuss, but-

I'm obviously the wrong person to be chatting with then, just ask Ryuki, I can go on for ages and ages and uh, what decade is it again?

i totally agree with your statement however Metaphysics is concerned with both

I don't believe so, metaphysics doesn't require a how only meaning. It wouldn't be metaphysics if it went into the how and came up with an answer, it'd be physics then.

Though Ryuki, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that point?

As for transcending, yes metaphysics transcends science. It's why it's called "meta" I believe. . . However this is only because metaphysics often deal with things that can't be proven or disproven. Such as the existence of god. But my point is that as our accumulated knowledge increases things that were previously only under metaphysics slowly switch to science. Lightning for example was once purely metaphysical but now it falls under science because our knowledge has increased to include it.

You can't really say for certain that the barriers between metaphysics and science will always be there, the one commonality is time changes all things.

how can you say it may be that there was nothing b4 the singularity.... you're not allowed to say that -youre a scientist... you must make up theories to think you can rationalize exsistance.... no matter how far science goes to figure things out, even if we find out that we are inside a microcosm the size of cell on the arse of god we still wont fathom what god is or where it inhabits....

I never said there was nothing before the singularity, I said you have to think outside the box to understand there was something before the singularity. If you only think of a single segment of time then you of course will not be able to think of any other. Thus explaining the folly of the chicken and the egg question, regardless of the egg, if you limit the extent of your questionings then you will always leave possible explanations out of the context of your inquiries. . . Ergo, you can't find something you aren't looking for!

Zeo you seem to think science will one day know all - i believe we will know more than we do now, be more avanced than we are now and have a good understanding of how the physical universe we inhabit works and able to manipulate it better, but we wont know it ALL , to think otherwise is just pretentious and deluded.

my concluding words:

in my opinion god is everything, it is you, it is me, and it is nothing.

all that exsists, is all that exsists.....

nothing from something is a paradox and exsistence is an annomaly of oneness.

Neither you nor I know the full potential of the human mind, to put a limit without knowing the full potential is also pretentious and arrogant to call anyone deluded. Only god knows what our limits are and it is simply my belief, I have them just like you, that god intends for us to one day know all. Whether we have to die and become one with god in order for that to happen is the question, but it is undeniable that god gave us intelligence and the desire to learn and understand. We only differ in what we believe the reason for this is. . .

Btw, did you know science was started by the church?

Scientific questions were once a part of the branch of metaphysics known as "natural philosophy". In fact the term "science" itself meant "knowledge" in reference to the limits of what is known. But with the advent of the scientific method, testing and so forth, that the natural philosophy became more limited to theorizing until the scientific method could either prove or disprove it. . .

[Aether]

Ah, but lets use an entertainment comparison and say does the audience have to be on the same level as the performer in order to understand the skill and accomplishment of the performer?

I believe in many ways we are god's audience, we may never be god's equal but that doesn't mean we can't understand and admire what god has created.

i understand your point and its a valid view - however let me argue by using an oversimplified example of a kung fu master and a student - we are the student and the master is god...

we as a student watch the master performing a kung fu set or kata we see the movemets and memorise them we then perform the set as we think we saw it and we learn them to what we think are a mirror image of the masters set - however the movements of the master are internally very different than that of the student, in the masters movement he utilizes inner structural alignments and workings of his inner energy meridian system that the student simply cannot see or know without being directly told by the master

can the student ever know more than the teacher? the student could eventually make his way of doing the set work but it still wont be the same as the master, if the master dies without correcting the student the student will forever be ignorant to the fact that he is incorrect.....

so yes we can appreciate the skill and accomplishment of the performer - but not 100%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

..........................

i know you didnt label me anything, i was illustrating that within the realms of MY thoughts i am free where as science is somewhat constrained....

my point on metaphyiscs being concerned with both was because you can apply a 'meaning' to a 'how' science isnt concerned with a philosophical for the 'how' as it just 'is' ..

I never said there was nothing before the singularity, I said you have to think outside the box to understand there was something before the singularity. If you only think of a single segment of time then you of course will not be able to think of any other. Thus explaining the folly of the chicken and the egg question, regardless of the egg, if you limit the extent of your questionings then you will always leave possible explanations out of the context of your inquiries. . . Ergo, you can't find something you aren't looking for!

i have already answered this, you just dont seem to want to get or understand my point! you think science is unlimited - i do.

Neither you nor I know the full potential of the human mind, to put a limit without knowing the full potential is also pretentious and arrogant to call anyone deluded. Only god knows what our limits are and it is simply my belief, I have them just like you, that god intends for us to one day know all. Whether we have to die and become one with god in order for that to happen is the question, but it is undeniable that god gave us intelligence and the desire to learn and understand. We only differ in what we believe the reason for this is. . .

my point is that our arms are too short to box with god, and it is pretentious and delluded to try n smack god in the face when our arms are infinitely too short in length to even reach. the human mind is limited, the consciousness is not. thats why the full consciousness is not accessible to a human mind.

i think this boils down to that:

is our purpose in exsistence to experience life or to understand it?

i want to do both, as im sure most of us do, but i dont want to, to the point of fanatacism, which is what i believe is sciences problem if its sets it self as a polar opposite to a metaphysical or philosophical view of things...

Zeo i cant be arsed to discuss / argue this thing anymore, we both have valid points, so can we agree that science and metaphysics were born from the same place, have diverged and will converge one glorious day in a UFT of metascience!!!!!!!!!!

Edited March 10, 2009 by Eether

[*zeo]

can the student ever know more than the teacher? the student could eventually make his way of doing the set work but it still wont be the same as the master, if the master dies without correcting the student the student will forever be ignorant to the fact that he is incorrect.....

so yes we can appreciate the skill and accomplishment of the performer - but not 100%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Two flaws in that line of thought... One, god is immortal. So no worry of him taking the secrets to the grave (though we may need to go to the grave or otherwise transcend our mortal shells to get access but that's a whole other issue). And two, a student may never surpass the master but it doesn't mean the student can't know all the secrets.

For example, a student with a handicap will never be able to do the same things as the master without any handicaps but doesn't mean the student wouldn't know how if it wasn't for the handicap.

It's like knowing how a magic trick is done, it doesn't mean you can do it yourself.

my point on metaphyiscs being concerned with both was because you can apply a 'meaning' to a 'how' science isnt concerned with a philosophical for the 'how' as it just 'is' ..

No, science isn't devoid of faith or the desire for meaning. But rather like I stated before it is just "more" concerned with the how, because only through the how can we expand our knowledge and understanding. For example Einstein originally opposed quantum mechanics because he didn't like the idea that god would gamble. His philosophy was a search for order and purpose of everything and only when faced with evidence did he finally adjust his views that the meaning he sought for existence wasn't the version he originally contemplated.

Being a scientist doesn't mean one has to be an atheist or forgo the desire for a greater meaning, it just tempers it with logic and what can be proven. But is otherwise very flexible in the realm of what could be imagined as being possible and why. . .

i want to do both, as im sure most of us do, but i dont want to, to the point of fanatacism, which is what i believe is sciences problem if its sets it self as a polar opposite to a metaphysical or philosophical view of things...

Except science isn't the polar opposite of the metaphysical or the philosophical views.

A good example is the law, it concerns itself a lot with what is provable but it also retains meaning and purpose. Neither science nor the law fully divorce themselves from philosophy or metaphysics. Science is just a tool for finding the truth, much like evidence is for the law.

Scientific ethics for example cover morality and purpose. Only when science is abused would it divorce philosophy and become some monstrosity.

You want polar opposite though then that would be mathematics, it is inflexible and absolute. Seeking neither meaning nor form, it simply is!

A machine can do mathematics, but when dealing with a scientist or a metaphysicists you are still dealing with a human being. . .

So I put forth to you that it is no more fanatical to seek knowledge with a possible ultimate goal of knowing everything versus seeking meaning and the possible ultimate meaning of everything.

Both a metaphysicist and a scientist have similar ultimate goals, it may be your opinion we may never achieve those goals but it doesn't mean we can't or at the very least that we shouldn't continue to try. . .

Really, would you tell someone with only one real leg that they can't run a marathon? The one thing about human nature is we're very stubborn but this has allowed us to accomplish many things that should have been beyond our capacity to do. . .

A boxer with shorter arms indeed doesn't have the reach of someone with longer arms but that doesn't mean they can't box. But I'm not saying we will ever be god's equal. Even if we do one day understand everything, it doesn't mean we become gods equal any more than an audience who understands how a magician does his trick can necessarily do the trick themselves.

I don't believe our philosophies are really all that different, just our level of optimism of the potential future differ. So whatever your conclusions are from this discussion, we can at least agree it was an interesting discussion.

[*Jess♥]

I don't believe so, metaphysics doesn't require a how only meaning. It wouldn't be metaphysics if it went into the how and came up with an answer, it'd be physics then.

Though Ryuki, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that point?

i think i can offer some additional here.

it depends on wether or not that 'how' will be accepted by others. you see, a philosopher can obtain answers to how something happens, but if he acquires this knowledge from a source that cannot be verified, then it remains internal knowledge. he can share this 'how' but it relies heavily on faith. it could also be verified by somebody else obtaining the information in the same way, but the scientific method would be unable to 'prove' such a thing. that is why science is a tool. in effect, science is an enormous hugely elaborate complicated recording and measuring device.

For example, a student with a handicap will never be able to do the same things as the master without any handicaps but doesn't mean the student wouldn't know how if it wasn't for the handicap.

this depends on your definition of 'knowing' .

in my view, the student would have an 'idea' how to perform hte move, but he would never KNOW. he would have no idea of the feeling of the muscle moving in a certain position. because knowing something is knowing the very essence of it every twitch of ever muscle, ever breath, every angle, every nerve impulse.

but i will finish this paragraph to reiterate that i said "to understand concepts on the level of god". note 'on hte level of god' . that doesn't mean, we can't get a pretty good idea how things work, but to understand 'on the level of god' we would have to be god.

[*zeo]

but to understand 'on the level of god' we would have to be god.

Good distinction, though I believe god is more than just knowledge and understanding. Thus it would take more than knowledge to ever become god. But I also believe god is part of everything, and so the potential to know what god knows is there I believe.

Scientifically, if we could turn the entire universe into a single super quantum computer and then hooked all sentient brains into that then potentially we could know everything.

[*Jess♥]

Good distinction, though I believe god is more than just knowledge and understanding. Thus it would take more than knowledge to ever become god. But I also believe god is part of everything, and so the potential to know what god knows is there I believe.

Scientifically, if we could turn the entire universe into a single super quantum computer and then hooked all sentient brains into that then potentially we could know everything.

considering how quantum mechanics work, would that not make the conscioussness that is formed from that.. "god" ?

omniscient, is the obvious part...

but if you are making everything a quantum computer, then any change in one part effects change in another. in effect, thought, effects matter.

there you have omnipotence.

[*zeo]

Not necessarily, it complicated but quantum also allows objects to act independantly. Like Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy, the whole earth was a computer but not a single part was consciously aware of the process.

It would be more accurate to say we would become part of god, like a vulcan mind meld. Essentially the ultimate level of communication, separate but intermingled. This may give us access to all knowledge, but it doesn't mean by itself that we become god. Basically awareness and control don't always go hand in hand.

So let's call that plan A, result is we get to know all the answers and god finally tells us what it was all for before rebooting and starting the whole process again because omniscience would be ultimately boring.

Your scenario would be far more likely if there wasn't already a god, then sentience becomes a self fulfilling prophecy as we create the cosmic uni-mind and the universe becames aware and at the end of time the cosmic consciousness creates a new universe to start the whole process over again. Something I would call plan B

Plan C though is probably the worse case scenario, no god and no answers means cosmic consciousness goes insane, crashes and the universe reboots to start the whole process over again.

Mind you, I've just built myself a new computer from scratch to save myself 2-3 thousand from the cost it would have taken if I just ordered the damn thing. A 3 day process btw, so I really got computer on the brain right now Later!

[*Jess♥]

Your scenario would be far more likely if there wasn't already a god, then sentience becomes a self fulfilling prophecy as we create the cosmic uni-mind and the universe becames aware and at the end of time the cosmic consciousness creates a new universe to start the whole process over again. Something I would call plan B

or if there was a god and we are simply his dream?

[*zeo]

or if there was a god and we are simply his dream?

Man, that would be one heavy sleeper Course if that is the case then if god ever awakens then we may not even be a memory

Unless we create the uni-mind and become part of the sleeper, then when god awakes we won't be forgotten and can stick around for the next time god sleeps.

[*Youngtusk]

Good discussions.

I saw Zeo mentioning the nature of the term metaphysics and I thought I'd throw in my two cents. It doesn't mean beyond physics as much as it means after physics because in Aristotle's written works these topics of philosophy would be physically following chapters regarding actual physics. Lacking a better name they became known as "after physics," or metaphysics. So it does mean beyond, but in a literal sense of physical arrangement. Needless to say the name has stuck.