• charleton
    630
    So in other words you've not got the first idea of what you are talking about, and have just repeated some shit you have heard.
    Why not just answer the question?
  • charleton
    630
    "QM is stochasticRich

    The landing of a single dice is stochastic too, yet utterly deterministic.
  • SonJnana
    234
    Yes, and they perform directed actions. And it is not understood exactly why they perform directed actions. My point is that there is no living body without such directed actions, so the formula which directs is prior to the body.Metaphysician Undercover

    The way biology is the way it is is because of complex biochemistry. Chemistry is the way it is because of the underlying physics. If you're gonna make this argument, you have to go further at a fundamental level and then ask why physics is the way it is, which is what I think you are essentially doing.

    My claim is that the day of understanding comes around as soon as we consider the immaterial. Failure to consider the immaterial will likely produce the "never will" option.Metaphysician Undercover

    immaterial soul, and this is necessary to properly understand reality.Metaphysician Undercover

    Very bold claims.

    I don't quite understand your question. Aren't all formulae immaterial, and doesn't physics use formulae?Metaphysician Undercover

    We create formulas to describe physics. Science creates models to describe the universe. Why is physics the way it is? We don't know. But to leap frog from we don't know to assert there is a metaphysical soul, you have a lot of demonstrating to do.

    I think quantum mechanics demonstrates that there is an immaterial force behind the way atoms work. Do you understand Pauli exclusion? The concept of "force" is quite useful in physics, and despite assumptions that forces may be accounted for with material particles this approach, is enveloped in uncertainty. Uncertainty indicates flawed principles.Metaphysician Undercover

    Quantum mechanics demonstrates that the universe doesn't act in a way that makes sense to humans as we understand the universe today. Why? Because as far as we know, we have no reason to think the universe has an obligation to make sense to us. And we didn't evolve where it was necessary to understand quantum mechanics.

    The particle-waves are confusing and we don't understand them. Our model of uncertainty does not mean flawed. Flawed as opposed to what? You haven't demonstrated that it is possible for a universe to exist without uncertainty, maybe this is the only way and therefore unflawed. It just means that things seem to act differently at a fundamental level than at a more macroscopic level where it seems to us certain. Asserting that there has to be some metaphysical force to explain uncertainty just because it seems spooky and odd to humans is like saying I can't explain why A is the way it is, so it must be because of B.
  • Rich
    2.5k
    I would recommend you write to the author of the article refuting his claims. I am sure he welcomes comments from religious zealots.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    3.2k
    The way biology is the way it is is because of complex biochemistry. Chemistry is the way it is because of the underlying physics. If you're gonna make this argument, you have to go further at a fundamental level and then ask why physics is the way it is, which is what I think you are essentially doing.SonJnana

    You are losing me with your terminology. Let's see if we can straighten some things out. These terms, biology, biochemistry, chemistry, and physics, all refer to fields of study. Do we agree on this? These fields of study, are the way that they are, because human beings developed them to be this way. Do we agree on that? So if we need to ask why physics is the way that it is, this question is very easily approached with the answer that physics developed in this way because it is the result of human intention. Human intention is the cause of the field of study called "physics" being the way that it is. Do you agree?

    We create formulas to describe physics. Science creates models to describe the universe. Why is physics the way it is? We don't know. But to leap frog from we don't know to assert there is a metaphysical soul, you have a lot of demonstrating to do.SonJnana

    You seem to be using "physics" here in a way which I am not familiar with. Physicists create formulas to describe the activities of the physical world. If we want to create formulas to describe what the physicists are doing (physics), then shouldn't we turn to philosophy?
  • SonJnana
    234
    You are losing me with your terminology. Let's see if we can straighten some things out. These terms, biology, biochemistry, chemistry, and physics, all refer to fields of study. Do we agree on this? These fields of study, are the way that they are, because human beings developed them to be this way. Do we agree on that? So if we need to ask why physics is the way that it is, this question is very easily approached with the answer that physics developed in this way because it is the result of human intention. Human intention is the cause of the field of study called "physics" being the way that it is. Do you agree?Metaphysician Undercover

    You were talking about how DNA somehow gives direction. So with all the terms, I'm referring to the phenomena itself. Why is the phenomena that we study in biology the way it is? Because the phenomena of physics is the way it is. Why is the phenomena of physics the way it is? We don't know.

    You seem to be using "physics" here in a way which I am not familiar with. Physicists create formulas to describe the activities of the physical world. If we want to create formulas to describe what the physicists are doing (physics), then shouldn't we turn to philosophy?Metaphysician Undercover

    Yes I agree physicists create formulas to describe phenomena. Now it's up to you to demonstrate how we go from our lack of knowledge about why the physics is the way it is, to a metaphysical soul.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    3.2k
    You were talking about how DNA somehow gives direction.SonJnana

    No I didn't say that DNA gives direction, I said that the physical parts of the living body are directed. DNA is a physical part, and therefore It follows direction.

    So with all the terms, I'm referring to the phenomena itself. Why is the phenomena that we study in biology the way it is? Because the phenomena of physics is the way it is. Why is the phenomena of physics the way it is? We don't know.SonJnana

    I agree, you don't know, because you deny the immaterial. I have studied in the field of philosophy, and I do know, the phenomena is the way it is because of the active cause which is immaterial. So you ought not say "we" don't know.

    Now it's up to you to demonstrate how we go from our lack of knowledge about why the physics is the way it is, to a metaphysical soul.SonJnana

    I described this already, maybe you should go back and reread, and ask me if you have any questions about what I said..
  • SonJnana
    234
    No I didn't say that DNA gives direction, I said that the physical parts of the living body are directed. DNA is a physical part, and therefore It follows direction.Metaphysician Undercover

    My bad, I misunderstood.

    I described this already, maybe you should go back and reread, and ask me if you have any questions about what I said..Metaphysician Undercover

    Can you copy and paste the demonstration then? Because I don't see a demonstration anywhere.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    3.2k

    This is what I said:
    I came to learn this from my study of philosophy, many years of reading. It is a difficult subject requiring much study. Here's something to consider though. A living body consists of parts which are active, and the activity is directed. The activity must be in such and such a way or there would be no living body. The living body would not exist without these parts carrying out their specified activities. If this is the case, then a living body could not come into existence without these parts each carrying out their specific activities. Therefore the formula, or direction (and this is immaterial), as to which parts must carry out which activities, must be prior to the existence of the living body. So we can conclude that this immaterial formula must be prior to the living body. The living body is dependent on the immaterial formula, and follows from it, not vise versa.Metaphysician Undercover
  • SonJnana
    234
    The living human body is a product of physics. The phenomena of physics is the reason the human body is the way it is. So you are essentially saying the phenomena of physics is the way it is because of a metaphysical direction that must have had to come prior, yes?

    How could a formula/direction for the universe have existed prior to the universe? You have to assume that there was a time prior to the universe. That has to be demonstrated. How can spacetime exist before spacetime exists?
  • charleton
    630
    Since he is a religious zealot then I bet he welcomes such people to write to him.
    But personally I don't waste my time on people promoting mysticism.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    3.2k
    The living human body is a product of physics. The phenomena of physics is the reason the human body is the way it is.SonJnana

    As I said, I don't understand your usage of terminology. "Physics" refers to a field of study. You claim that you use it to refer to the phenomena studied by that field. The human body is not studied by the field of physics, so your use of terminology is inconsistent to the extent of being very confusing.

    How could a formula/direction for the universe have existed prior to the universe? You have to assume that there was a time prior to the universe. That has to be demonstrated. How can spacetime exist before spacetime exists?SonJnana

    You're going backwards. My demonstration indicates that direction must be prior to the physical activities which constitute the living body. therefore direction is prior to the existence of the body. If you want to extrapolate this, and assume that the activities within the physical universe are directed in a way similar to the activities of a living body, then we could come to the same conclusion concerning the physical universe.

    But those are assumptions. And it doesn't appear to be appropriate to assume that the activities of the universe are directed in the same way as the activities of a living body, so this might not be a sound assumption. That there is formula/direction prior to the existence of the universe would be a conclusion drawn from that assumption, if you were to accept it. Whatever preconceived notions you may have concerning the universe, and spacetime, are irrelevant to the demonstration, but I think you would find that they would prevent you from making that assumption.
  • SonJnana
    234
    As I said, I don't understand your usage of terminology. "Physics" refers to a field of study. You claim that you use it to refer to the phenomena studied by that field. The human body is not studied by the field of physics, so your use of terminology is inconsistent to the extent of being very confusing.Metaphysician Undercover

    I told you already multiple times the phenomena we study in biology is the way it is because of the phenomena of biochemistry, which is the way it is because of the phenomena of chemistry. Chemistry is the way it is because the phenomena of physics. Therefore the phenomena of biology is the way it is because of the way the phenomena of physics is.

    You're going backwards. My demonstration indicates that direction must be prior to the physical activities which constitute the living body. therefore direction is prior to the existence of the body.Metaphysician Undercover

    This "direction" of the living body you speak of is a direct product of chemistry and physics. Biomolecules work the way they do because of the properties of atoms. Atoms are the way they are because of physics. Does an apple need some sort of metaphysical "direction" before it falls? It falls because of the way physics works. So the only metaphysical "direction" you could try to argue that is necessary would be the direction of physics itself.

    That there is formula/direction prior to the existence of the universe would be a conclusion drawn from that assumption, if you were to accept it. Whatever preconceived notions you may have concerning the universe, and spacetime, are irrelevant to the demonstration, but I think you would find that they would prevent you from making that assumption.Metaphysician Undercover

    The problem is that one can't say a formula for the universe existed prior to the universe because that statement itself assumes time before the universe. Therefore the assumption itself is flawed and the conclusion can't be made, just as I think you've mentioned here.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.