Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
“… “from what does the mind arise? How do I know I am aware? These are all variations of the same sacred question, and it is in the form of this question that the divergent disciplines of science and religion are united. The desire for knowledge and the love of God are realized to be the same quest. “
~~Rupert Spira, Advaita Vedantist
Science doesn't discount spirits for science to accept it you would have to measure the energy of a spirit if you could do that science would have to accept it.We can only measure electromagnetic energy.Science tells us we can only account for the energy that was converted to matter in the big bang. A tiny little 4.9 % the rest has yet to be found.Science has barely scratched the surface of reality we still don't know we have theories.
Really we only have two theories - the theory of relativity and quantum physics - the second is not recognized and has stood for 27 years without anyone being able to prove it wrong which is the hologram theory.That theory says that nothing really exists that it is all a illusion and everything really exist as information on a two dimensional surface.Which would also make you wonder where that information is coming from opening up even more questions.
Really we only have two theories - the theory of relativity and quantum physics - the second is not recognized and has stood for 27 years without anyone being able to prove it wrong which is the hologram theory.That theory says that nothing really exists that it is all a illusion and everything really exist as information on a two dimensional surface.Which would also make you wonder where that information is coming from opening up even more questions.
The "hologram theory" has its proponents and detractors -- there's some evidence in its favor but nothing conclusive. It is more proper in scientific terms to call it a hypothesis, although some argue that even that is too strong a word, since it isn't a fully testable (falsifiable) hypothesis. A hypothesis, if scientifically valid, goes through an extensive vetting and may eventually become a theory, which in the scientific sense of the word, is just about the opposite of "some idea I just extracted from my nether regions because I like the sound of it". Keep in mind that while scientific theories have been tuned around the edges at times, none has ever been invalidated.
If the hologram hypothesis became a theory (proven explanatory framework) then it would not conflict with, but rather would complement, the theories of general relativity, special relativity and quantum physics. At the very least, both would be true in their appropriate contexts and scopes.
I would say in science you have to be careful because you can come up with things that work great in thought experiments and on paper that cannot exist in reality.Infinity is one which really is a breakdown in math show me anything infinite in this reality. I agree everything has to be actually proven in reality in order for it to be true in science.Could infinity only exist in our minds or can it be proven to exist in reality.
An example on paper would be that I can take any object and divide it infinitely on paper but in reality that object only has so much mass / energy it is finite.
I would say in science you have to be careful because you can come up with things that work great in thought experiments and on paper that cannot exist in reality.Infinity is one which really is a breakdown in math show me anything infinite in this reality. I agree everything has to be actually proven in reality in order for it to be true in science.Could infinity only exist in our minds or can it be proven to exist in reality.
An example on paper would be that I can take any object and divide it infinitely on paper but in reality that object only has so much mass / energy it is finite.
That's all a fair assessment and a reasonably accurate statement of the problem space.
Although I would say that when scientists speculate in search of a falsifiable hypothesis, they know they're doing it. Keep in mind that the media often fails (or maybe just neglects) to understand the distinction, as it's in search of provocative headlines. Popular media is rife with breathless news of "discoveries" that confuse association with proof, or represent too small a sample size or severe study limitations, and need a lot more work (and time and money) to get to a place where it's more than just an interesting fact.
What I said is actually a falsehood I said I could divide a object infinity on paper but that's not true I simple overlooked all the other information about the object that I needed and did not bring it into the equation.
If you actually did it you could just start with a proton and I think that eventually you would end up with one bit of information either a 1 or a 0.
Last edited by Paul888; Yesterday at 04:30 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
