does everything have to be "physical" to exist.

[Gordon]

does everything have to have atoms or physical energy/force to exist and effect our universe?



peace.

There are very many things that exist that have no physical existence;
Information, Music, Love and other emotions, Poetry, etc.

Some of these need physical media to be used, such as information which needs books, cd's, hard disks, etc. but the physical media are not the information and of course the same information can be represented on many different types of media and it still remains the same information.

This gives a very difficult philosophical problem if you believe that everything came from inorganic molecules by chance because you have to believe that somehow that which is not physical came from that which was - and all by chance too!

This has been recognised by Dawkins, a naturalist UK zoologist, and he has come up with the concept of the 'Meme' (a sort of non physical version of a gene). There is of course no evidence for the existence of such things and I have to say that the theory is in my view particularly unsatisfactory.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Music, Love and other emotions, Poetry, etc.


all of those things exist physicaly, music is sound waves wich realy exist, love is an emotion that realy exists, emotions all exist in chemical form, poetry exists as a thought in your mind, then as words on paper, or as sound waves through speach,





ok a challenge to everyone, can you name something that exists that has no phyisical energy/force/matter/atoms.

and no abstracts do not exist,

the empty force, the space time fabric, the empty space exists without bieng physical, and thats wierd wich means spiritual things are actually possible, like a soul etc, that you cannot sense or see or hear or feel etc,


say you have a rock, and then you move the rock, the empty space that the rock was previously in is now empty of physical mass roughly. except for particals etc, now how can that rock even be there in the first place, if the empty space was not real then the rock wouldent be able to reside in its emptyness would it,



wich proves that empty space exists and it is not physical, so that means other things that are not in physical existence could also exist, and we cant see them,


peace.

 

[c7ityi_]

and no abstracts do not exist,

thoughts are also physical. mental waves.

the empty force, the space time fabric, the empty space exists without bieng physical, and thats wierd wich means spiritual things are actually possible, like a soul etc, that you cannot sense or see or hear or feel etc,

space is also physical, otherwise physical things couldn't exist in it.

but what does it mean that something is physical? if it means something we can detect "outside our mind", then nothing physical, because when we observe something, it is in our consciousness.

according to the dictionary, physical means stuff separate from the mind. nothing is separate from the mind, thus it is more correct to say that the universe is mental (spiritual).

"you can't be aware of something outside your consicousness", so everything is mental.

there can be no real separation in nature (physical - spiritual, male - female, light - dark), only apparent separation. reality is like light, it is one, but you can find many colors in it. there is no light without darkness, but darkness is only the absence of light. only light exists. only heat exists, cold is the absence of heat, motion.

of course, this means that you could as well say that only cold exists, or only darkness exists. they're only abstracts. all opposites are illusory.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

so whats your conclusion?

peace.

 

[c7ityi_]

nothing is physical. there is only mental separation. body and mind are one. the universe is mental. but you can still talk about the physical illusion.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

ok i understand that, but personaly i believe everything is physical, and everything we see is actualy real and can be studied,

but i think there is alot that we cannot see and sense, and i think there is alot more to the real universe than things that are physical,


peace.

 

[c7ityi_]

ok i understand that, but personaly i believe everything is physical, and everything we see is actualy real and can be studied,

of course everything can be studied, but what does it mean that something is "real"?

but i think there is alot that we cannot see and sense, and i think there is alot more to the real universe than things that are physical,

impossible, only physical things exist. nothing non-physical has ever been detected, only nothingness can be non-physical.

 

[Gravage]

yes but time itself is not composed of energy or matter, to my knowledge

It is known that gravity affects both space and time, which means both space and time are some kinds of forms of energy.

 

[youreyes]

In my opinion existence simply implies an energy differential. If energy was uniform throughout the universe, nothing would exist (except perhaps the universe itself). One cannot define existence without boundaries.

the universe would not exist without a difference in energy, it wouldn't be a universe...it would be nothing. And just because an energy differential does not exist in this universe, does not mean there is not an energy differential in another realm of existence, another spatial dimension or perhaps a parallel universe.

 

[prometheus]

It is known that gravity affects both space and time, which means both space and time are some kinds of forms of energy.

This is, quite frankly, utter bullshit.

 

[Pete]

And six years late.

 

[Gravage]

This is, quite frankly, utter bullshit.

Why, exactly? We all know that gravity affects both space and time, if space and time will bend because of the sufficient mass in it, than you cannot discount a link between space/time and energy in the first place. If both space and time were not some forms of energy they would not be affected by gravity at all.

 

[Gravage]

the universe would not exist without a difference in energy, it wouldn't be a universe...it would be nothing. And just because an energy differential does not exist in this universe, does not mean there is not an energy differential in another realm of existence, another spatial dimension or perhaps a parallel universe.

Universe would exist without a difference in energy, but if the theory of the big bang is actually correct, than there would not be universe in the first place (because there is no difference in energy).
So it would be some pre-universe infinite space with with no difference in energy, there would be energy in that space but it would look like there is not energy at all because of zero difference in energy there would not be any action, interaction function or whatever, because there would be no difference in energy.

It would not be nothing but simply universe/space without and function. Like Sleeper said you have an particle/particles without any action, interaction function or whatever, particle still exists 8meaning it has energy-potential energy???), no energy no particle.

 

[Syne]

We all know that gravity affects both space and time, if space and time will bend because of the sufficient mass in it, than you cannot discount a link between space/time and energy in the first place. If both space and time were not some forms of energy they would not be affected by gravity at all.

Space and time are simply intrinsic properties of energy and matter. You are confusing a model for the reality. Just because we can model the space and time to be pliable doesn't mean the model provides any more reality than that of the behavior of interactions between energy and matter.

 

[Gravage]

Space and time are simply intrinsic properties of energy and matter. You are confusing a model for the reality. Just because we can model the space and time to be pliable doesn't mean the model provides any more reality than that of the behavior of interactions between energy and matter.

Ok, I lost you. But haven't experiments proved Einstein's theory of relativity to be true? are you saying that there is no interaction between energy and matter? I'm not sure I understood you.

 

[Syne]

Ok, I lost you. But haven't experiments proved Einstein's theory of relativity to be true? are you saying that there is no interaction between energy and matter? I'm not sure I understood you.

No, I am saying that the interactions between energy and matter are what is real, the model of pliable space and time is just that, a model of these interactions. The interactions are real, the model is just a convenient way to describe them.

 

[Gravage]

No, I am saying that the interactions between energy and matter are what is real, the model of pliable space and time is just that, a model of these interactions. The interactions are real, the model is just a convenient way to describe them.

Thanks for this, I must admit that I thought the interaction between space time and energy and matter was actually proven.
But didn't they prove the difference in time in the Earth's orbit compared to the time on Earth's surface, the difference was I guess a few milliseconds, doesn't that prove at laeast partially the model of space time?
Thanks again.

 

[Syne]

Thanks for this, I must admit that I thought the interaction between space time and energy and matter was actually proven.
But didn't they prove the difference in time in the Earth's orbit compared to the time on Earth's surface, the difference was I guess a few milliseconds, doesn't that prove at laeast partially the model of space time?
Thanks again.

Again, you seem to confuse the model with the reality. Yes, there is a difference in the passage of time of two observers situated at different heights in a gravity gradient. This in no way makes time an independent entity, as the difference is only in the relationship between these two observers. We cannot observe time or space independently of energy or matter. While it is useful to model these abstractly, it is important to keep in mind this empirical reality.

Like the probably misquoted or misattributed saying goes, "mass tells spacetime how to curve and spacetime tells matter how to move". If you remove the spacetime we find convenient to abstractly model this interaction with, you are left with only mass telling matter how to move. In other words, just the interactions of energy and matter.

 

[Gravage]

Again, you seem to confuse the model with the reality. Yes, there is a difference in the passage of time of two observers situated at different heights in a gravity gradient. This in no way makes time an independent entity, as the difference is only in the relationship between these two observers. We cannot observe time or space independently of energy or matter. While it is useful to model these abstractly, it is important to keep in mind this empirical reality.

Like the probably misquoted or misattributed saying goes, "mass tells spacetime how to curve and spacetime tells matter how to move". If you remove the spacetime we find convenient to abstractly model this interaction with, you are left with only mass telling matter how to move. In other words, just the interactions of energy and matter.

Ok, thank you very much for clearing this up, than I don't know why some physicists think space and time are forms of energy..., at first I was extremely surprised.
But I guess the diffference is they didn't mention this as only being a model of interactions.
Thanks again.

 

[Gravage]

Again, you seem to confuse the model with the reality. Yes, there is a difference in the passage of time of two observers situated at different heights in a gravity gradient. This in no way makes time an independent entity, as the difference is only in the relationship between these two observers. We cannot observe time or space independently of energy or matter. While it is useful to model these abstractly, it is important to keep in mind this empirical reality.

Like the probably misquoted or misattributed saying goes, "mass tells spacetime how to curve and spacetime tells matter how to move". If you remove the spacetime we find convenient to abstractly model this interaction with, you are left with only mass telling matter how to move. In other words, just the interactions of energy and matter.

As bizarre as it may seem, space itself is expanding - specifically, the vast regions of space between galaxies. According to Einstein, space is not simply emptiness; it's a real, stretchable, flexible thing and not just a model. In fact, understanding the properties and behavior of space is a major goal of modern physics.
The notion that space is expanding is a prediction of Einstein's theory of gravity, which describes a simple but universal relationship between space, time, and matter. But it was a prediction that Einstein didn't believe; in fact, he tried to modify his theory to get rid of it.
In the late 1920's, the astronomer Edwin Hubble first observed that distant galaxies are moving away from us, just as would be expected if the space between galaxies were growing in volume - and just as predicted by Einstein's theory of gravity. Since then, astronomers have measured this recession for millions of galaxies. But there's other evidence as well, the galaxies sit more or less passively in the space around them. As the space between galaxies expands, it carries the galaxies further apart - like raisins in an expanding dough.
Cheers.