Are the laws of physics based on magic?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mazulu said:
Hi wegs,
I've grown tired of titillating my mental faculties with logic, mathematics and endless arguments that move me away from the sacredness of Creation. But others should feel free to do so if they wish. I am truly tired of seeing the skeptics and atheists trample those things that we consider sacred. In that sense, the benefits of technology do not justify the feelings of meaninglessness. Nevertheless, the skeptics and atheists have the upper hand right now, and spiritual bliss is considered a form of insanity by scientific authorities. As to the issue of whether or not an eternal universe existed before the big bang, I believe that something did exist, something that is beyond our ability to measure or understand within our current physics models.
Click to expand...

Hear hear! So well said, and diplomatically too.
What's that saying? You have to stand up for what you believe in, even if you are standing alone.

If you believe in God and that has enriched your life in some way, then it doesn't matter what anyone tells you.

I have more friends who are atheists than not, interestingly.

I would say the only thing that I don't care for is the misconception that if one believes in God, then he/she must not have an understanding or respect of or for science. And that's not so.
:eek:

Keep the faith, Mazulu! :)
 
river said:
The laws of physics are based on a timeless truth
They will never change
Magic however is based on timeless learning
Hence the laws of physics are not based on magic but based on doctrine
Click to expand...
Doctrine is based on a point of view; a point of view that is rooted in what is phenomenologically possible.
 
Mazulu said:
Actually my ideas are inspired by the basic infrastructure of science, solutions to differential equations, physics constants, observed laws of nature. But creative extrapolations from observations about science are still pseudoscience.


I think matter (particles of the Standard Model) owes its existence to the space-time continuum. But the space-time continuum probably owes its existence, its choice of physics constants and laws of physics to unknown phenomena. This same unknown phenomena is what is eternal.
Click to expand...
I will reply to this later.
I like your insights, they are similar to mine. It's cool to see someone else on this forum who thinks like me when it comes to God, spirituality and science.
 
wegs said:
Hear hear! So well said, and diplomatically too.
What's that saying? You have to stand up for what you believe in, even if you are standing alone.

If you believe in God and that has enriched your life in some way, then it doesn't matter what anyone tells you.

I have more friends who are atheists than not, interestingly.

I would say the only thing that I don't care for is the misconception that if one believes in God, then he/she must not have an understanding or respect of or for science. And that's not so.
:eek:

Keep the faith, Mazulu! :)
Click to expand...
Thank you wegs.:thumbsup:
 
Mazulu said:
Sometimes restrictive thinking is helpful. Then again, there are times when you are better off facing the world with a wand.
Click to expand...

And sometimes a sound different theory has a better explaination for how things work , then does the doctrine
 
river said:
And sometimes a sound different theory has a better explaination for how things work , then does the doctrine
Click to expand...
Given a choice between having a soul (religion) and not having a soul (atheism) maybe it's not clear which explanation is better. Or even which explanation is correct.
 
Mazulu said:
Given a choice between having a soul (religion) and not having a soul (atheism) maybe it's not clear which explanation is better. Or even which explanation is correct.
Click to expand...

Uh oh. The term ‘’religion’’ has entered the thread…eek. Lol Religion doesn’t equal God, but maybe it’s just semantics we’re talking here. I think I know what you meant. That said, everyone has a soul. Not everyone chooses to believe that, though. An atheist chooses to not believe in God, for he/she believes there are no gods. That doesn’t mean an atheist doesn’t have a soul, though. A soul to me, is what makes us human…as we evolved, we developed a conscience and a moral compass, so to speak. Charles Darwin believed this, too. (not the soul part)

http://philosophynow.org/issues/71/Darwin_On_Moral_Intelligence
 
Definition of the word doctrine.

noun
noun: doctrine; plural noun: doctrines

1.
a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.
"the doctrine of predestination"
synonyms: creed, credo, dogma, belief, teaching, ideology; More
 
wegs said:
Uh oh. The term ‘’religion’’ has entered the thread…eek. Lol Religion doesn’t equal God, but maybe it’s just semantics we’re talking here. I think I know what you meant. That said, everyone has a soul. Not everyone chooses to believe that, though. An atheist chooses to not believe in God, for he/she believes there are no gods. That doesn’t mean an atheist doesn’t have a soul, though. A soul to me, is what makes us human…as we evolved, we developed a conscience and a moral compass, so to speak. Charles Darwin believed this, too. (not the soul part)

http://philosophynow.org/issues/71/Darwin_On_Moral_Intelligence
Click to expand...

I sent an email to Alphanumeric asking to move this thread to Pseudoscience. I guess the moderators are very busy with that forum hacking incident. In the mean time, I have ideas I want to express.

Personally, I think we have a soul, even if we can't get scientific evidence for it right now. Coincidentally, science can't get evidence for other universes, even though they are thought to exist. Who says that a universe has to be gigantic? Maybe a universe can manifest as a soul? One big universe and lots of little ones.
 
Mazulu said:
Definition of the word doctrine.

noun
noun: doctrine; plural noun: doctrines

1.
a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.
"the doctrine of predestination"
synonyms: creed, credo, dogma, belief, teaching, ideology; More
Click to expand...

Dogma : a principle of law established through past decisions
 
Lots of different ideas and semantics getting thrown around here.

I cannot honestly say that I disagree with any of them, entirely.

Personally, I do not buy into the "Big Bang" theory - to me it just somehow seems to be a "creationists" dogma or doctrine of some kind, that has just been given a "public relations" overhaul and presented as "science".

Just like everything else, it has no description of, nor even an actual concept for, the physical nature of what existed prior to the event - other than a "singularity" that popped into existence at the immediate commencement of the event.

Whether or not a person is a "theist" or an "atheist" or a "spiritualist" or any "ist", has anything to do with their ability to actually philosophize, or express their viewpoints of said philosophy, about the "pseudoscience" of the "mainstream accepted theories" or of those that have been expressed in this Thread.

Just my $153.82! ($00.02 adjusted for inflation!)
 
dumbest man on earth said:
Lots of different ideas and semantics getting thrown around here.

I cannot honestly say that I disagree with any of them, entirely.

Personally, I do not buy into the "Big Bang" theory - to me it just somehow seems to be a "creationists" dogma or doctrine of some kind, that has just been given a "public relations" overhaul and presented as "science".

Just like everything else, it has no description of, nor even an actual concept for, the physical nature of what existed prior to the event - other than a "singularity" that popped into existence at the immediate commencement of the event.

Whether or not a person is a "theist" or an "atheist" or a "spiritualist" or any "ist", has anything to do with their ability to actually philosophize, or express their viewpoints of said philosophy, about the "pseudoscience" of the "mainstream accepted theories" or of those that have been expressed in this Thread.

Just my $153.82! ($00.02 adjusted for inflation!)
Click to expand...

Both science and religion evolve, philosophies live or die on their ability to be relavent. Some people say that science and religion will complement each other or fit together somehow. I think that science and religion are like two stars in a decaying orbit around one another, and will eventually meet in a violent collision; or at least that's what the debates around here look like.

If there was any way that science could have wiggled away from anything resembling Christianity, it would have done so. I think the big bang really does reflect honest scientific efforts, I think the big bang really happened. But nobody knows where the big bang came from. A quantum fluctuation is the most "sciency" reason that scientists can come up with. But if big bangs can pop into existence as a mere quantum fluctuatation, then what else can come through as a quantum fluctuation?
 
Mazulu, hear what you are saying. But, what if - and is that not what we are philosophizing about..."what ifs" - what if "big bangs" cannot, did not and do not, merely pop into existence through a mere quantum fluctuation?
 
dumbest man on earth said:
Mazulu, hear what you are saying. But, what if - and is that not what we are philosophizing about..."what ifs" - what if "big bangs" cannot, did not and do not, merely pop into existence through a mere quantum fluctuation?
Click to expand...
"Quantum fluctuation" has negative emotional impact designed to perpetuate feelings of randomness and meaninglessness. It's one of the prices we pay for having technology. But think of it. If a whole universe can come through a "quantum fluctuation", then what about other things? It's really your preference as to which COSMIC VIEWPOINT you prefer. If you prefer meaninglessness, than you can interpret the facts that way. If you prefer paranormal, occult, spiritual, Christian outlooks, then there is a "quantum fluctuation" that can manifest in your favor.
 
Mazulu said:
It was Carl Sagan who said, "Any technology sufficiently advanced looks like magic", or something like that. Anything unexplained could be thought of as magic. There are plenty of magicians who can pretend to do magic. But what about the laws of physics? The laws of physics, like the physics constants, do not have any known cause or reason to be what they are. Conservation laws seem intuitive enough with sayings like, "no free lunch", and "money doesn't grow on trees".
Click to expand...
I use to say (and herd that) money doesn't grow on trees long before i ever herd or knew about physics.
 
Mazulu said:
"Quantum fluctuation" has negative emotional impact designed to perpetuate feelings of randomness and meaninglessness. It's one of the prices we pay for having technology. But think of it. If a whole universe can come through a "quantum fluctuation", then what about other things? It's really your preference as to which COSMIC VIEWPOINT you prefer. If you prefer meaninglessness, than you can interpret the facts that way. If you prefer paranormal, occult, spiritual, Christian outlooks, then there is a "quantum fluctuation" that can manifest in your favor.
Click to expand...


Mazulu, would you care to explain, in a rational and reasonable fashion, how : - quote - ""Quantum fluctuation" has negative emotional impact designed to perpetuate feelings of randomness and meaninglessness." ?

How, again exactly, can an abstract concept, such as "Quantum fluctuation" , have any "emotional impact"?

Are you absolutely sure that you are not confusing "Quantum fluctuation" with fantasy or imagination?

Facts can indeed be interpreted in a myriad of different ways! However, interpretation or misinterpretation cannot and will not change those facts!

Take the "Big Bang" theory as an example - according to the "theory", the "observed universe" is 14 to 15 billion years along in its "evolution".
However, many "Fudge Factors" have needed to be introduced or added to the "theory" to account for or allow for the "theory" to maintain any true credibility when it is applied as the "theoretical model" for the manifestation of "observed" data or information gleaned from nature or reality.

If you research or study the Hubble Telescope's "Ultra Deep Field" views or "pictures" of the "observed universe" - we are able to "see" galaxies that were already in existence more than 20 billion light years in the "past" - prior to the inception of the proposed "Big Bang", in said theory.
Therefore, scientists have had to infer or "theorize" that during the first few seconds or moments of the "Big Bang" - the "Created out of Nothingness" matter must have been moving at least 3 times faster than "c" (the "observed" and "measured" speed of light) - which is in direct opposition to the "theory" that matter or mass of any kind can never attain, let alone exceed the velocity of light!

This link : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei97pr5Yc9k - may be an interesting "starting point" to any research or study one would choose to attempt.

Again, just my $153.87! ($00.02 re-adjusted for inflation!)

p.s. - There are many more "videos", even "3-D Flights" through the "observed universe" available for viewing on youtube.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top