Originally posted by black beetleAnd on whose mind are the laws of physics dependent?
Any law itself is always mind-dependent, my dear Monk😵
Before the fruition of humanity's self-awareness and intellect, didn't the universe obey the law of conservation of energy?
The laws of physics are discoveries, as such they are objective (mind-independent).
Originally posted by epiphinehasThis black beetle appears to be an ignoramus.
And on whose mind are the laws of physics dependent?
Before the fruition of humanity's self-awareness and intellect, didn't the universe obey the law of conservation of energy?
The laws of physics are discoveries, as such they are objective (mind-independent).
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsNinety nine times out of a hundred, the craziness of a poster's comments is inversely proportional to the product of the extent to which some collection of batchit crazy fundamentalists think they're crazy, the number of aforementioned fundamentalists + 1, and their own inate craziness.
Well, have you paid attention to his crazy comments?
Originally posted by AgergI hope you have not become crazy, too.
Ninety nine times out of a hundred, the craziness of a poster's comments is inversely proportional to the product of the extent to which some collection of batchit crazy fundamentalists think they're crazy, the number of aforementioned fundamentalists + 1, and their own inate craziness.
Maybe, this is an attempt at humor.
Not funny though. Sorry.
Originally posted by epiphinehasObjectivity is a rare bird; to be frank, it is non-existent.
And on whose mind are the laws of physics dependent?
Before the fruition of humanity's self-awareness and intellect, didn't the universe obey the law of conservation of energy?
The laws of physics are discoveries, as such they are objective (mind-independent).
The laws of physics are mind-only products, always orthogonal to specific events, thus always dependent to a specific interaction between the physical world, our inner world and the world of our collective subjectivity. Constructivism and similar philosophical approaches show how exactly the so called "objectivity" is just another illusion.
Well, in the SpaceTime complex anything goes according to the nature of the observer universe. You can understand rather easily that whenever a consciousness (a specific subjectivity) interacts with an observer in a given SpaceTime, we are in front of a wavefunction that collapses into a value: this is the sole mechanism that triggers all kinds of experience, there is no other way for a consiousness to experience whatever it is experienced. However, after this experience, the wavefunction spreads out again and "disappears" in the pool of the endless probabilities until the time that the consciousness collapses it again. You are probably aware of the fact that, at the subatomic level, the wavefunction dissolves almost instantly into the quantum uncertainty; but when it comes to bigger systems of observation (like, say, our sun, our solar system, our galaxy etc.), which are nothing but a huge complex of atoms held in their relatively specific position by gravity, you are developing the illusion that they will last for an "eternity", virtually for ever. But to consider the existence of these observers as granted simply because they will dissolve into the quantum uncertainty after a very long time, is clearly a delusional approach. In fact, it doesn't matter how slow the proccess of the dissolving of these observers will be: they will definately disappear at a given time.
Therefore, your idea that "...the laws of physics exist on their own somewhere out there separated from our own collective subjectivity", is false. Methinks simply that the proven (by our collective subjectivity) laws of physics hold HereNow: as long as HereNow remains rather stable the laws will probably hold the way we know, but when the HereNow will be radically different (than the HereNow we are experiencing) the laws will change radically as well. Therefore, the physical laws too are SpaceTime/ Consciousness dependent.
Now: before the fruition of humanity's self awareness and intellect, the law of conservation of energy was not known to Us. So what? What this fact itself has to do with the observer universe? Does the universe care? It is only Us the ones who care, because our discovery means amongst else that the conservation of energy leads our everchanging Kosmos into a rather stable in short terms and a fully chaotic in long terms HereNow -and this fact has to be taken into consideration during Our mapping.
But again, the universe doesn't care: either we are aware of this discovery or not, the physical world itself is not affected by this discovery. The sole thing that is affected (due to the fact that our richer world of ideas enables us to interact differently with the physical world and our inner world, and also enables us to expand even more the world of our ideas and thus our inner world too) is our HereNow Mapping regarding the nature of the everchanging physical world that surrounds us
😵
Originally posted by epiphinehasYour understanding of the resurrection is incorrect. After
[b]Is not the Son of God both physical an spiritual?
Jesus Christ as the Incarnate Word was indeed physical and spiritual. That said, before the Incarnation and since the Resurrection, Jesus was/is a purely spiritual being.
Why can not space exist with God without being God...
The answer to that question depends ...[text shortened]... f God.
But, according to the Bible at least, God is spirit—i.e., decidedly spaceless.[/b]
the resurrection Jesus appeared to the eleven disciples
and He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do
doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet,
that it is I Myself: touch Me and see, for a spirit does not
have flesh and bones as you see that I have."
(Luke 24:38-39 New American Standard Bible)
And while they still could not believe it for joy and were
marveling, He said to them, "Have you anything to eat?"
And they gave Him a piece of boiled fish; and He took it
and ate it before them. (Luke 24:41-43 NASB)
Also "space" is not a "being", physical or spiritual, as God
is. We are beings and angels are beings. The sun and moon
are not beings. Time and space are not beings. So your
arguement that space is eliminated because God is the only
necessarly "being" does not hold since space has never been
a "being".
You must have been talking with black beetle too much.
Doesn't the Holy Bible say God the Father is in heaven?
You don't consider heaven a "being" do you?
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleConstructivism and similar philosophical approaches show how exactly the so called "objectivity" is just another illusion.
Objectivity is a rare bird; to be frank, it is non-existent.
The laws of physics are mind-only products, always orthogonal to specific events, thus always dependent to a specific interaction between the physical world, our inner world and the world of our collective subjectivity. Constructivism and similar philosophical approaches show how exactly th Mapping regarding the nature of the everchanging physical world that surrounds us
😵
If truth is a social convention, then constructivism itself is a social convention—true or false depending on the social conventions of a given culture. Why accept it? Far from showing that objectivity is an illusion, constructivism only refutes itself.
Well, in the SpaceTime complex anything goes according to the nature of the observer universe.
You are misconstruing quantum physics. The indeterminacy we find at the subatomic level does not require consciousness to give rise to the laws of classical mechanics.
Worse, by using (correctly or not) the laws of physics (in this case, the laws of quantum mechanics) in order to disprove the objectivity of the laws of physics, you are, in fact, assuming what you set out to disprove—i.e., the objectivity of the laws of physics!
😵
Originally posted by RJHindsLet me ask you this: where is 'heaven' in space?
Your understanding of the resurrection is incorrect. After
the resurrection Jesus appeared to the eleven disciples
and He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do
doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet,
that it is I Myself: touch Me and see, for a spirit does not
have flesh and bones as you see that I have."
(Luke 24:38-39 New A ...[text shortened]... le say God the Father is in heaven?
You don't consider heaven a "being" do you?
Originally posted by Agerg🙂)) Could you write that as an equation thank you. Very good!
Ninety nine times out of a hundred, the craziness of a poster's comments is inversely proportional to the product of the extent to which some collection of batchit crazy fundamentalists think they're crazy, the number of aforementioned fundamentalists + 1, and their own inate craziness.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonTwhitehead said his whole family was Christian, so being an atheist
How can someone who doesn't believe that this 'god' exists be scared of what 'he' would do to him in some kind of 'afterlife'? That makes no sense whatsoever. You claim is logically incoherent.
Is the real reason why you don't believe in the spaghetti monster is because you are scared of what 'he' would do to you in some kind of 'afterlife'?.
is not natural. He had to work hard to justify such a belief. So I
think he has been suppressing the idea that God exists since that
would require a major decision for him. He would have to change
his ways or else. But I am sure his family would be happy if he did.