Are these beliefs … umm … religious ?

Talk about anything under the sun or stars - but keep it civil. This is where we really get to know each other. Everyone is welcome, and invited!
suminonA
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:19 am
Location: Anywhere

Are these beliefs … umm … religious ?

Postby suminonA » Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:01 am

For all those that don’t know yet, I’m your average atheist, not the one that knows much for sure, but a very skeptical one about the existence of any deity that requires worshiping.

Now, although I prefer the scientific method over any other when I can choose, there are things that science can’t quite explain (yet or maybe ever).

I notice that the laughter of a child makes me smile, and the tears of my mother make me sad. Why? I can’t even measure the “state of mind” or the “joy” of any given moment. But still, I feel it. And even more, why do I care what others do and feel ?

Therefore, I posit that it is possible that we are all connected by some undetectable ties in such a way that we are affected by others in more ways that we are aware of. That leads me to suspect that all the individuals in the Universe (all living beings) are part of a bigger structure, an entity that cannot be directly perceived and measured. Let’s call it Meta Entity (M.E.). Now, there is no reason for this M.E. to be destroyed when any one individual is destroyed (i.e. dies), given that there are so many individuals composing it. Maybe (but not necessarily) there is a balance at the scale of the whole Universe in such a way that every time an individual dies somewhere, another is born somewhere else (maybe on some incredibly distant galaxy). This is to say on one hand that the M.E. isn’t transitory the way the individuals are (therefore “eternal”) and on the other that “reincarnation” isn’t so farfetched after all. Still, there is no way to “talk” to the M.E. as it is to be found on another level of Reality (the metareality) and it can’t interfere in the Universe, as it doesn’t have “a mind of its own” the way conscious beings that are to be found in reality have.

This would explain what I originally intended :
- we are affected by others because we are “the same”, parts of one M.E.

But as a bonus this explains much more (not an exhaustive list):
- we come from (when born) and go to (when die) M.E.
- our individuality is just an “illusion” of this Universe, the way we “see” it.
- affecting others we affect the M.E., so hurting others we hurt ourselves, and bringing joy to others brings joy to us too
- the religions that talk about reincarnation and “life after death” aren’t that wrong
- being good doesn’t have to be an imperative imposed by others, because there are no “others”.
- there are no scientific proofs to be found about M.E.
- the M.E. doesn’t control us in any way, it’s just our origin and “home” in metareality.


I’ll end this post admitting that all this was inspired by some books I’ve read, therefore it’s in no way “original”, nor “the absolute truth” about Reality. It is a possibility, though.

Now it’s your turn to tell me if this could/should be called a set of “religious beliefs”.

A.
It's all just a matter of interpretation.

vendor
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:09 pm
Location: In Dicator

Postby vendor » Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:33 am

The other day I spoke with a unitarian universalist wiccan. As he described it, it means that he can believe however he likes and it may or may not be true, but who cares as long as he's not harming anybody and he's happy.

The unitarian church accepts all beliefs and backgrounds. So a pagan, a jew and an atheist can all go there to learn about each other. They don't believe in pushing an infallible text or authoritative religious figures. They believe in sharing and learning. How would one expect to know a muslim without knowing their culture and what they believe?

So, I guess a religious belief can be anything you want it to be. Your writings could be a religious belief. If your not comfortable with that, I bet it could be explained scientifically in the near future.

I'm pleased to read that you accept that there might be a metareality and an interconnectedness of humanity, but if you didn't that would be ok too.
...but paranoia is all I have!!

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Postby Boothby » Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:06 am

SuminonA,

It's called "mirroring," and is expressed because of the activity of "mirror neurons" Go and look it up on SciAm.com.

If the baby was right next door to you, in a sound-proof room, with opaque walls, would you feel the same joy? I think not. Therefore, no "underlying connectedness." You've got a sympathetic response going on there, based on visual and audible cues.
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
Wil
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1373
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 8:07 pm
Title: Not the mama!
Location: 36° 11' 39" N, 115° 13' 19" W

Postby Wil » Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:48 am

To counter Boothby's pretty good argument... what about twins? Or people who just "seem" connected? Even at a distance that is not visible or audible. I'm sure you've read about it.. and I've seen it. People who are connected on a level that just seems... surreal. Where one twin can be sad and the other is also sad. Where one is hurt and the other can feel it.

My mother has told me that all the time that when my sister and myself were little she would just "feel" something is wrong all the time. She would be washing dishes or whatever, and she would just feel like something was about to happen. So she would dry her hands and walk into the room one of us were in and, sure enough, we'd be moments away from getting hurt.

Picking up a phone the same time someone is calling you... answering it before it rings. The chances of that are insurmountable, but I have a friend that does it several times a WEEK. Often it is the person he wishes to call that he answered the phone of before it rang.

There are just too many inexplainable things. I'm sure one could argue that my mother "heard something unconsciously which set off a set of cues in her mind that consciously alerted her", but is it so difficult to think that maybe there is something there? Not even of a religious or spiritual nature, but just something we have yet to be able to detect or explain scientifically?

Or, could you explain it that way? Is something of a religious belief until it is explained by science?

People every day pull miracles off on themselves. All the stories where it seemed hopeless when someone was sick, but they pulled through it? Or how about the stories where people were told they were going to die in a matter of months and they laid down and died that very day? The mind seems to have much more power than anyone can explain... and it seems pretty evident that something IS there. We just can't explain it yet. Anyone who doesn't see this is just a closed minded fool. :)

suminonA
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:19 am
Location: Anywhere

Postby suminonA » Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:59 pm

If the baby was right next door to you, in a sound-proof room, with opaque walls, would you feel the same joy? I think not.
Nor do I. If I would smile at every laughter in the world, the chances are my face would hurt from being constantly forced into one position :D

I was talking about the ones I could see/hear. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Therefore, no "underlying connectedness." You've got a sympathetic response going on there, based on visual and audible cues.
Well, go easy with “absolute” declarations like that. We both know you can’t prove such a claim ;) But see, I was talking about that sympathetic response. It might be “mirroring” and firing of “mirror neurons”, but that doesn’t explain why I care! And it surely doesn’t explain all the people who don’t care.

Edit to add:
Your writings could be a religious belief. If your not comfortable with that, I bet it could be explained scientifically in the near future.
Well, I wouldn’t feel uncomfortable if others would see these beliefs as religious. I don’t think religious people should be ashamed of their beliefs. I just present here some thoughts that are not “irrational”. They don’t contradict anything else I know, and they help me “understand” things that scientifically I couldn’t find an answer to (like where we come from and where we’re going ;) ) I don’t NEED this to be true in order to enjoy life, it’s just my take on metareality :)

A.
It's all just a matter of interpretation.

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Postby Boothby » Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:10 pm

And to cast my lot in with the rest of you sorry, irrational fools...

When my daughter was only a few months old, she started talking. She quickly rose to a level far above normal (and she's pretty much stayed at a level far above normal). When she was 1-1/2 years old, and my wife and I were grocery shopping with her, talking as we wound through the aisles, a stranger came up to us and said, "I'm a linguist, and I have to say that your daughter talks better than many 13 year olds that I know."

Or the receptionist at the OB-GYN's saying (about the same time), "She's been here before!" and not talking about previous office visits.

I would look at my daughter's head, and wonder, "How does she fit all that thought into such a tiny little space; such a tiny little organ..?"

So there!


And, suminonA, "caring" may just be a learned/chemical response to the firing of those mirror neorons. There are people (Asperger's for one) who just don't have those neurons, or the proper chemical neuro-transmitters.

When twins can start sending each other instantaneous, psychic morse code, then you'll have my interest!
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

suminonA
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:19 am
Location: Anywhere

Postby suminonA » Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:31 pm

And, suminonA, "caring" may just be a learned/chemical response to the firing of those mirror neorons.
... may just be ..., being the operative emphasis ;)

A.

PS: Congratulations, again, on your family. I'm sure you smile when you see your daughter laughing, even if it is just mirroring :)
It's all just a matter of interpretation.

User avatar
seamusz
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: USA

Postby seamusz » Fri Oct 19, 2007 4:07 pm

I think that there can be a big difference between religious and spiritual. What you described to me was more spiritual than religious I think. Not that that is bad or good, just my observation.
Strangers passing in the street by chance two separate glances meet, and I am you and what I see is me....

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Postby Boothby » Fri Oct 19, 2007 8:40 pm

SuminonA,

First, that should be "neurons" (my bad).

Second...mirror neurons (already proven) vs. a large, invisible amorphous well of souls? Interesting choice.
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
Wil
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1373
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 8:07 pm
Title: Not the mama!
Location: 36° 11' 39" N, 115° 13' 19" W

Postby Wil » Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:20 pm

Second...mirror neurons (already proven) vs. a large, invisible amorphous well of souls? Interesting choice.
Why is a "soul" so hard to grasp? WHY? 100 years ago EVERYTHING we rely on today was barely a dream. 500 years ago simply using a light bulb would have labeled you a witch. Stop being closed minded... you can't say what does or does not exist or what we will or will not know in 10.. 20.. 30.. 100 years.

Come on now...

vendor
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:09 pm
Location: In Dicator

Postby vendor » Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:34 pm

That's the trouble with science and sin. Society is pushed into every wind of change. 500 years ago science and sin were perceived completely different than they are today. Maybe in another 500 years we can be altered into immaterial beings of pure energy. Maybe killing babies will be a rite of passage in some belief system. Who knows.
...but paranoia is all I have!!

suminonA
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:19 am
Location: Anywhere

Postby suminonA » Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:30 am

I think that there can be a big difference between religious and spiritual. What you described to me was more spiritual than religious I think. Not that that is bad or good, just my observation.
Now we're getting somewhere ;) This is a good point: is there a difference between spiritual and religious? What is it? Are the two incompatible? Can, and if yes, then at what point a spiritual belief becomes religious?
Second...mirror neurons (already proven) vs. a large, invisible amorphous well of souls? Interesting choice.
Well, does it really have to be a choice? I mean, do you see them as mutually exclusive alternatives? Mirroring neurons can explain the "how it works" part, but they cannot explain the "why does it work" one. If there is a M.E. in metareality, we have here a candidate theoretical explanation of the "why" too. :) (To be sure, there are countless such candidates, I just happen to like this one.)

So if I have to choose, I choose both.

A.
It's all just a matter of interpretation.

User avatar
seamusz
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: USA

Postby seamusz » Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:04 am

In my observation someone who is religious is not necessarily spiritual, and visa-versa. But I do not think that the two are incompatible. I would like to think of myself as a spiritual person who is very religious. I go to "a" church and prescribe to a certain set of beliefs and moral rules, this to me is what it is to be religious. I can't think right now what a good definition of spiritual is. I think that to be spiritual, but not religious is understandable. However, I think that it would be hypocritical to be religious, not spiritual.

EDIT: Are you happy now? :wink:
Last edited by seamusz on Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Strangers passing in the street by chance two separate glances meet, and I am you and what I see is me....

suminonA
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:19 am
Location: Anywhere

Postby suminonA » Sun Oct 21, 2007 5:25 am

seamusz, you should edit your fist sentence in the previous post, the repetition makes it a bit confusing (and funny) even if I know what word is missing.
I would like to think of myself as a spiritual person who is very religious. I go to "a" church and prescribe to a certain set of beliefs and moral rules, this to me is what it is to be religious.
Well, the way I see it, the only thing I “miss” (in order to be “religious”) is not having “a” temple to share my beliefs with many people I don’t necessarily know. I do have a set of beliefs and I have and follow moral rules, I’m not that “undomesticated” ;)

I’m not sure if ”a” church refers to the physical building where you meet more people sharing your beliefs, or the people themselves. In sure that I’m not alone in my beliefs exposed in the opening post (as I said, they are not originally mine, I’ve encountered them among many others during my lifetime). The question is, what would having a temple to gather in bunches would change?

I invite the ones who consider themselves religious to explain what makes them so, as opposed to those that are mere “spiritual” or those that “are not even spiritual”.

Thanks,

A.
It's all just a matter of interpretation.

User avatar
seamusz
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: USA

Postby seamusz » Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:32 am

Thanks for the edit hint. :)

My opinion is that its all just labels. My perception of a religious person is someone who has spiritually identified with a group or established religious organization, and strives to live by the principles that they/it teaches. I think there are a few basic reasons that people chose religion:

They like the social aspect. I think that this could be further divided up into those who enjoy the sense of family and belonging, and those who desire to control and manipulate.

They identify strongly with the doctrine/teachings.

They feel an obligation as a result of parenting, marriage, or some other relationship.

These are just some ideas that I had. My question is, do you want your beliefs to be considered religious?
Strangers passing in the street by chance two separate glances meet, and I am you and what I see is me....

suminonA
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:19 am
Location: Anywhere

Postby suminonA » Sun Oct 21, 2007 11:07 am

My question is, do you want your beliefs to be considered religious?
I don’t have a preference one way or the other. They may be just labels, but understanding how the others use these labels help me communicate more easily with them :)
So, it’s simple curiosity, where does “spiritual” ends and “religious” begin? In the history of human kind, the “spirituality” surely appeared before “religiosity”. Has it not?

A.
It's all just a matter of interpretation.

User avatar
starlooker
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3823
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:19 pm
Title: Dr. Mom
First Joined: 28 Oct 2002
Location: Home. With cats who have names.

Postby starlooker » Sun Oct 21, 2007 11:23 am

I imagine they appeared so close to simultaneously that the "which came first" question is rather pointless.

I mean, if you're talking cause and effect, yes, probably the first train of thought went something approximately like this, "I believe ______, and therefore the appropriate response is _______." Belief = spirituality, response = religion.
There's another home somewhere,
There's another glimpse of sky...
There's another way to lean
into the wind, unafraid.
There's another life out there...

~~Mary Chapin Carpenter

suminonA
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:19 am
Location: Anywhere

Postby suminonA » Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:14 am

Belief = spirituality, response = religion.
Ok then, I believe that there is a M.E. in metareality. As a response I made a post presenting it to PWeb. Does that make me religious?

Now seriously, what kind of response makes one religious? I ask this because if “being religious” is so overrated today it’s supposed to be because it means something important, like a specific response to spirituality, not a random act made just after forming a belief.

If you don’t know where the “overrating” bit comes from, look at the politicians, and how many of them are self-declared atheists. Or the other way around: how many self-declared atheists are elected into political office?

A.
It's all just a matter of interpretation.

Eaquae Legit
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 5185
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:30 pm
Title: Age quod agis
First Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Location: ^ Geez, read the sign.

Postby Eaquae Legit » Mon Oct 22, 2007 3:07 am

Although I am usually a solid opponent of the "look what the root word used to mean!!!11!" M.O., I am going to take a stab at that question with a little etymology.

The word "religion" comes from the Latin word religio. Religio was the obligations humans had to the gods, and the gods' obligations to humans. It was the system of give-and-take. It often gets translated as "duty."

I think "duty" is a good way of thinking of it. Not duty to gods or external forces, though.

Religion is when we act out of duty to our spirituality. When what we believe forces itself into our actions.
"Only for today, I will devote 10 minutes of my time to some good reading, remembering that just as food is necessary to the life of the body, so good reading is necessary to the life of the soul." -- Pope John XXIII

suminonA
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:19 am
Location: Anywhere

Postby suminonA » Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:28 am

Ok, if religion means following rules like “if you want to get X (e.g. salvation) then you have to do/give Y”, then my beliefs are 100% non religious :)

A.
It's all just a matter of interpretation.

Eaquae Legit
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 5185
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:30 pm
Title: Age quod agis
First Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Location: ^ Geez, read the sign.

Postby Eaquae Legit » Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:01 am

I think "duty" is a good way of thinking of it. Not duty to gods or external forces, though.

Religion is when we act out of duty to our spirituality. When what we believe forces itself into our actions.
I'll try to re-phrase...

Religion is the acted-out consequences of our spirituality. It is what our spirituality impels us to live. It is the material results of spirituality.
"Only for today, I will devote 10 minutes of my time to some good reading, remembering that just as food is necessary to the life of the body, so good reading is necessary to the life of the soul." -- Pope John XXIII

suminonA
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:19 am
Location: Anywhere

Postby suminonA » Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:53 am

Man, this is getting complicated again ;)

Well, the fact that the individuality is just an illusion (my belief), makes me want to do good for the others as I would do it for myself. I also try no to hurt the others as that would also affect me. There, I act differently than I would if I were purely driven by my selfish genes ... :)

Am I religious again ?

A.
It's all just a matter of interpretation.

eriador
KillEvilBanned
Posts: 2512
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:02 pm
Location: North Plains, OR (read Portland)

Postby eriador » Mon Feb 04, 2008 8:47 pm

Religion is the acted-out consequences of our spirituality. It is what our spirituality impels us to live. It is the material results of spirituality.
Although... I know some people who are definitely religious and not very spiritual... And when they're in positions of power they scare me.

Eaquae Legit
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 5185
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:30 pm
Title: Age quod agis
First Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Location: ^ Geez, read the sign.

Postby Eaquae Legit » Mon Feb 04, 2008 8:58 pm

Notice I didn't put any qualifiers on the type of spirituality. Those people could be spiritual. You can't know the details of others' private lives. "Spirituality" is a broad, broad umbrella.
"Only for today, I will devote 10 minutes of my time to some good reading, remembering that just as food is necessary to the life of the body, so good reading is necessary to the life of the soul." -- Pope John XXIII

eriador
KillEvilBanned
Posts: 2512
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:02 pm
Location: North Plains, OR (read Portland)

Re: Are these beliefs … umm … religious ?

Postby eriador » Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:28 pm

This would explain what I originally intended :
- we are affected by others because we are “the same”, parts of one M.E.

But as a bonus this explains much more (not an exhaustive list):
- we come from (when born) and go to (when die) M.E.
- our individuality is just an “illusion” of this Universe, the way we “see” it.
- affecting others we affect the M.E., so hurting others we hurt ourselves, and bringing joy to others brings joy to us too
- the religions that talk about reincarnation and “life after death” aren’t that wrong
- being good doesn’t have to be an imperative imposed by others, because there are no “others”.
- there are no scientific proofs to be found about M.E.
- the M.E. doesn’t control us in any way, it’s just our origin and “home” in metareality.
This begs the question "Does the metareality matter?" If you think about it as another spatial dimension, we're all living on the same intersection of it. The reality of our plane is unaffected by the nature of the meta-reality. Isn't it?

Edit: Imagine the metareality as a sphere, and our reality (as many dimensions as it may have) as a plane. Our reality is the intersection of the plane and the sphere. Make a little more sense?
Last edited by eriador on Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Postby Boothby » Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:36 pm

Hmmm...and I know some people who are very spritual but not very religious...


BTW, SumononA, the bullet points you make about the meta-reality don't actually "explain" anything. They create an ill-defined, unproveable myth that attempts to explain some relatively straightforward "natural" phenomena in a complicated and eventually meaningless way:
- there are no scientific proofs to be found about M.E.
- the M.E. doesn’t control us in any way, it’s just our origin and “home” in metareality.
I mean this in the nicest possible way, you know.
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

suminonA
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:19 am
Location: Anywhere

Postby suminonA » Wed Feb 06, 2008 4:46 am

This begs the question "Does the metareality matter?" If you think about it as another spatial dimension, we're all living on the same intersection of it. The reality of our plane is unaffected by the nature of the meta-reality. Isn't it?

Edit: Imagine the metareality as a sphere, and our reality (as many dimensions as it may have) as a plane. Our reality is the intersection of the plane and the sphere. Make a little more sense?
Well, it being immaterial, the metareality doesn’t matter. (this is the best pun I can come up with here ;)).
But seriously, what we can interact with, is by definition included in this Universe, or “reality”. Therefore, for us, as “individuals”, the metareality doesn’t matter, because we can’t affect it and it can’t affect us. You may think of it as another dimension, but having an “image” of it is irrelevant, at a practical level. If “visualizing” it helps you understand it, then go ahead. But the metareality, by my definition doesn’t influence anything in this Universe at all, while this Universe is “a part of” it.
Hmmm...and I know some people who are very spritual but not very religious...

BTW, SumononA, the bullet points you make about the meta-reality don't actually "explain" anything. They create an ill-defined, unproveable myth that attempts to explain some relatively straightforward "natural" phenomena in a complicated and eventually meaningless way:
- there are no scientific proofs to be found about M.E.
- the M.E. doesn’t control us in any way, it’s just our origin and “home” in metareality.
I mean this in the nicest possible way, you know.
Don’t worry, I don’t mind at all your observation. I thank you for your input. :)

But thinking about it, there are people who find quite meaningful explanations in some (other) religions. When I analyse rationally many religious beliefs, I find them “ill-defined” and “meaningless” (for me!). So I reject them too.
My beliefs, as exposed in this thread, are my version of some “self consistent” explanation of the unexplained. The self consistency (i.e. free of logical contradictions) is the only restriction I put on these beliefs.
I remember your point about “mirroring” and I don’t reject it flat out, I think it can explain the form and function of the “mechanism” but non the existence of the “mechanism”.

Let me apply it to consciousness. I am optimistic and believe that science would be able to find the “how” of it, and even duplicate (as in create) it. Yet it won’t explain the “why” such a thing can exist.

Don’t get me wrong, the Anthropic Principle can be a good enough explanation for me, but the idea of a M.E. that intentionally tried many versions of the “Universe” until it came upon the one we observe, is not contradictory to it, it just adds a “why”, which is un-falsifiable of course, and as such, adds nothing practical to our (or in this case my) understanding. It just rests the search for the ultimate questions, wile science still has a long way to go in order to discover the things that we know as being in its capabilities.

The only “practical” result of my “explanations” is that I can consider them, rationally, and not feel they were introduced into my life just for control or power or any other selfish reasons. I chose them, I don’t impose them onto anyone else, and I find value in them as long as they are self-consistent, while not contradicting the scientific knowledge Humans have so far.

Now the question arises: Is religion more than “spiritual” because it brings some (more) “meaningful” explanations to the questions I try to find an “explanation” in this thread? Why is any other religion more “meaningful” than my “spiritual philosophy”?

Again, I don’t insist in having my beliefs labelled as “religious”, I just try to understand what makes “religious” different from “spiritual” (with the implication that I see that “religious” is MORE than “spiritual”).

A.
It's all just a matter of interpretation.

eriador
KillEvilBanned
Posts: 2512
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:02 pm
Location: North Plains, OR (read Portland)

Postby eriador » Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:43 am

So are you saying that it doesn't really matter? Because in the end that's the conclusion I've come to concerning just about every metaphysical claim.

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Postby Boothby » Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:02 pm

What about the meta-reality of the square root of -1 ???

Seriously, "i," as defined, doesn't exist in our reality, yet it provides a very useful means of understanding our reality (well, mostly electrical circuits--but not only!)

Does a metaphysical metareality do the same? It certainly gives us inrteresting talking points, and ways of looking at things. But, as stated earlier, it doesn't "really" exist.
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

eriador
KillEvilBanned
Posts: 2512
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:02 pm
Location: North Plains, OR (read Portland)

Postby eriador » Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:13 pm

The exception that proves the rule. In this case, that fact that metaphysics CAN be useful makes it significant that not all are.

jotabe
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:59 am
Title: Leekmaster Kirbyfu

Postby jotabe » Wed Feb 06, 2008 5:28 pm

Just my few pointers:

-Exceptions don't prove rules. Exceptions destroy rules, and we have to look for a new rule.

-"i" as the imaginary unit has nothing of imaginary. It just doesn't belong with your everyday euclidian geometry, but it belongs with its own geometry (the "complex" geometry). Just the same as irrational numbers are perfectly rational (allow me the game on words).
Truth is that, when it comes to classical physics, the imaginary component of a solution can easily be discarded. But modern physics more and more realize the physical meaning of the imaginary component of a solution.

-methaphysics is useful: it gives us a topic we can argue over endlessly, a topic that isn't life threatening in itself, so arguably it raises less passion than politics or sports, and gives room for elaborate and pedantic, high-level points. It's fun. But its usefulness doesn't go beyond that.
Image

eriador
KillEvilBanned
Posts: 2512
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:02 pm
Location: North Plains, OR (read Portland)

Postby eriador » Wed Feb 06, 2008 7:44 pm

Most people don't get that expression: what I meant is that it wouldn't be valid to say that THIS metaphysical example is useless unless there's such a thing as a valid metaphysical entity (i).

As to your third point... that's fair.

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Postby Boothby » Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:51 pm

jota,

All the "Non-imaginary" numbers have some sort of physical representation in our "real" world. Even with pi and e, you can create objects with those ratios (like a circle, for instance).

But sqrt(-1)??? I can't think of a real-world example of where you can see that, unless you set up an oscilliscope with some RLC circuit, and leads on the input and output frequencies and observe the phase shift...

An interesting discussion, but I think he's working a bit to hard to try and make his point...

http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/ans ... exist.html
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

suminonA
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:19 am
Location: Anywhere

Postby suminonA » Thu Feb 07, 2008 2:49 am

Wait a minute ... is anyone here putting the numbers (e.g. 1, ¾, 0.33, pi, sqrt(-1) ) and the meta-physics on the same level?

Let me explain: for me, the numbers are just concepts that help us describe the “reality” (or generally speaking physical phenomena). As it happens, we can count objects using Natural numbers, but we need more to do other kind of operations. We need complex numbers (the points in the Complex plane) to describe waves and their properties. The waves are Physical Reality, the numbers describing their properties are just concepts helping us describe them.

Let me ask you, can you find a real representation of the number –3 ? The fact that half the ratio between the length and the radius of a circle is defined as Pi, doesn’t make Pi more than a concept describing something (very precise, to be sure) , but doesn’t make it real. Even so, it is not “less real” than 3, sqrt(-1) or any other number.

I won’t call the numbers “metaphysical”, they are just concepts, like any other thing Human mind can imagine. The numbers may be more useful than the concept of the IPU, but they are basically concepts.

Now, what about the meta-reality and Meta Entity that I describe in this thread? They are concepts, and they are “meta-physical” because by definition they are not detectable in this Universe, by any scientific means. They may be useful to describe something that people like to discuss (see Jota’s point), but they are not describing the Physical Reality (as numbers can). My connection with this reality was the “why do I care?” question, but they don’t demonstrate anything, their usefulness stops at giving a self-consistent interpretation of a possible answer to the unanswered questions.

BTW, what is the relation between Religion in general, and the numbers as defined in mathematics? I mean, are they on the same level of “meta-reality”? (to reiterate the first question in this post).

A.
It's all just a matter of interpretation.

jotabe
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:59 am
Title: Leekmaster Kirbyfu

Postby jotabe » Thu Feb 07, 2008 6:34 am

In classical physics, phase might not seem that important... but ask one electron to go through a double slit, and when you see him (yeah, electrons are male, duh) interfering with himself, phase matters a big deal! :D Most quantum phenomena are depending on the phase.
Image


Return to “Milagre Town Square”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 47 guests