Science 'versus' God and Religion

[Nasor]

Religion is not holding back science. As J.Campbell (a CR scientist) has said "there is no conflict between mysticism and science, but there is a conflict between the science of 2000 CE and 2000 BCE".

Look, simply making up explanations for things doesn't qualify as "doing science." The entire point of science is that you make empirical observations in order to check to make sure that your made-up ideas actually correspond to reality. I could explain the sun by proposing that it's a giant firefly that buzzes across the sky every day, but the mere fact that this theory explains something about the world doesn't make it scientific. Now, I could be a scientist if I try to verify my firefly idea with empirical observation; I could try to find the giant firefly’s nest, or I could try to make a special camera that would let me photograph the firefly’s body through his enormous glare, or I could try to detect the beating of his wings as he buzzed through the sky. But of course my firefly theory isn’t likely to withstand that sort of investigation.

Some guy sitting around a fire 4000 years ago making up bullshit explanations for things without making any attempt to verify the factual accuracy of his ideas wasn’t doing science.

Religion and ritual has the important role in making every day conceptual conventions (peace, freedom, redemption) and social contracts a part of the natural world of the humanity.

The problem is that religion is incapable of doing any of that without also making claims about objective reality. Almost by definition a religion has to make some sort of claim about supernatural deities, forces, or realities. Any objective claim of that natural will be susceptible to scientific investigation. It would be fine if religion only provided the sorts of philosophical insights that you seem to want from it, but it seems to invariably go on to justify those insights with claims about objective reality that can be investigated scientifically.

 

[LaidBack]

There are many believers in what might be characterized as pagan, or nature based religions with pantheistic tendencies that have no problem with the scientific method or most of the specific conclusions of scientific research. On the other hand these people do not assume that the scientific method is the only way of ascertaining truth and further believe that scientists and their worshipers often overestimate their ability to judge the likelihood of certain phenomena that seem (or would seem) supernatural to them. This myopia on the science based believer group is further complicated by their sense that scientific explanation (which tend, for example, to assume things are dead or non-sentient) are the deepest or only possible explanations of phenomena.

Well now?~? I have heard of ignorant individuals being worshippers of concerns they don't understand? As in natives grovelling on their knees worshipping angry gods (air-crafts, volcanoes etc) around over 75 years ago, but an individual with ones knowledge of today who is an advocate to facts and truth bowing down and worshipping?????? what the fer~ark would one be worshipping?

That simply is not an all together logical statement.. REALLY! what in the universe would one be worshipping if one is empowered with real facts and truth?

Lets put it this way... with all the basic facts that you know what would be a prime candidate for worship? I would hazard to say nothing!

Facts are facts truth is truth, and by commanding knowledge of our universe, it empowers one with logical behaviour where the only fear would be the fear of losing the right to the knowledge one holds..

As for paganism I am quite aware of it and let me remind you many of the constructs are the basis for many of the religions that still infect the feeble and or illogical today..

Granted paganism has evolved in another direction from main stream religions somewhat, but as long as it relies on mythical entities and or events that are not fully explainable to their flock, it is hindering their flocks intellect from gaining their full potential..

The deceit and or omissions of details may or may not be intentional, but never the less important details have and are being twisted via some hidden agenda leading ones flock away from real truth to ensure ones income gleaned from them remains lucrative and sustainable enough..

Put simply all religious leaders are the greatest Con artists and believe it or not the more intelligent they are the higher the likely hood they know they are a Con Artist..

 

[Fugu-dono]

One is generally concrete, the other is completely abstract. That said, to put it bluntly the existence of god is but a concept made long ago by us human. Then again in some religion it could possibly be just us glorifying ourselves to be god-like. Today though it's no hypothesis as there's no evidence at all in this omnipotent being's existence. Politically the concept of god is an ingenious propaganda. I don't have much to say other than that. I'd rather believe in something that has plausible explaination than something that doesn't. It's a shame that one has enough influence in politic to halt the advance of another. *sigh*

 

[Grantywanty]

Lets put it this way... with all the basic facts that you know what would be a prime candidate for worship? I would hazard to say nothing!

Worship is a word I associate more with the monotheisms, also all that bowing down, making yourself small in relation to something. Gods, etc. do not have to be dictators whose asses neeed to be kissed. I feel great reverence for nature both specific places and the earth as a whole. As one example.

As for paganism I am quite aware of it and let me remind you many of the constructs are the basis for many of the religions that still infect the feeble and or illogical today..

I am quite capable of logic and rationality. Your assumption is that you know the liklihood of there being gods, spirits, ghosts, etc. based on current scientific knowledge. This is irrational on your part.

Granted paganism has evolved in another direction from main stream religions somewhat, but as long as it relies on mythical entities and or events that are not fully explainable to their flock, it is hindering their flocks intellect from gaining their full potential..

Well, that's a theory. But my experience is that many pagans are just as intelligent, capable of logic AND intuitive mental skills as your run of the mill rationalist athiest. Why not test your theory out? I also notice pagans tend to be less likely to fall for the BS of someone like Bush, for example.

The deceit and or omissions of details may or may not be intentional, but never the less important details have and are being twisted via some hidden agenda leading ones flock away from real truth to ensure ones income gleaned from them remains lucrative and sustainable enough..

I see athiest happily supporting all sorts of ludicrous ventures with their tax monies, for example. They seem quite capable of being manipulated.

Put simply all religious leaders are the greatest Con artists and believe it or not the more intelligent they are the higher the likely hood they know they are a Con Artist.

You are making more unscientific claims. I don't think you know very much or have had much personal contact with pagans, wiccans, indigenous religious leaders. Pure speculation.

But this is OK because you think that since you are arguing in favor of what you think rationality is it's OK for you to just hypothesize in the guise of stating facts.

 

[LaidBack]

Worship is a word I associate more with the monotheism, also all that bowing down, making yourself small in relation to something. Gods, etc. do not have to be dictators whose asses need to be kissed. I feel great reverence for nature both specific places and the earth as a whole. As one example.





I am quite capable of logic and rationality. Your assumption is that you know the likelihood of there being gods, spirits, ghosts, etc. based on current scientific knowledge. This is irrational on your part.

Well, that's a theory. But my experience is that many pagans are just as intelligent, capable of logic AND intuitive mental skills as your run of the mill rationalist atheist. Why not test your theory out? I also notice pagans tend to be less likely to fall for the BS of someone like Bush, for example.


I see atheist happily supporting all sorts of ludicrous ventures with their tax monies, for example. They seem quite capable of being manipulated.

You are making more unscientific claims. I don't think you know very much or have had much personal contact with pagans, wiccans, indigenous religious leaders. Pure speculation.

But this is OK because you think that since you are arguing in favor of what you think rationality is it's OK for you to just hypothesize in the guise of stating facts.

So its agreed then!?? its pointless to worship what or whomever ~ Be-it fact and or some fictitious deity.

As for your inference to a gawd being possible and or highly likely, I don't see it that way at all, specially if truth and facts must conform to what is implied by its conformance to all else..

I am not sure how adept and or astute you are in physics but the facts are if a gawd was possible, its dynamics and or constructs by way of interactions as part of the "possible universe" must itself comply to some basic laws that can not be overlooked... And it is these simple Laws if broken by the inference to magic and or some miracle rendering all of the universe as impossible hence the exercise of intended magical and or miraculous interactions as null and void, and it so happens it is these very laws that every religion I have come across seem to over look this fact..

And yes I agree I know squat about the pagan religion, but the facts are if it is a religion then to me it simply is a cult and or sect that is advocating to anything other than to facts and or truth.. but going by you they don't dispute to facts and truth..

So if paganism advocate them selves as being religious then I have to ask why?...

If they don't worship a and or gawd/s and they don't worship inanimate objects and they don't dispute facts and or truth then really they don't need to degrade themselves as being religious..

 

[Grantywanty]

I am not sure how adept and or astute you are in physics but the facts are if a gawd was possible, its dynamics and or constructs by way of interactions as part of the "possible universe" must itself comply to some basic laws that can not be overlooked... And it is these simple Laws if broken by the inference to magic and or some miracle rendering all of the universe as impossible hence the exercise of intended magical and or miraculous interactions as null and void, and it so happens it is these very laws that every religion I have come across seem to over look this fact..

You are assuming that magic is something that goes against the laws of the universe rather than being something as yet unproven by science. An understanding of QM should put a little humility into your position since much of what has been discovered to be true (light being both waves and particles somehow at the same time, particles moving backwards through time, instantaneous influence over vast distances - in other words faster than the speed of light - and so on) and that were/are very hard for some scientists to accept. Even Einstein who cracked some paradigms himself could not accept some of the ideas (that have been validated over and over) of QM because they contradicted his sense of what was possible and what was known before.

And yes I agree I know squat about the pagan religion, but the facts are if it is a religion then to me it simply is a cult and or sect that is advocating to anything other than to facts and or truth.. but going by you they don't dispute to facts and truth..

Notice the pattern. You don't know much about....then statements of 'fact'. Let's just say if you are trying to role model rationality you are not doing very well for us irrational savages.

If they don't worship a and or gawd/s and they don't worship inanimate objects and they don't dispute facts and or truth then really they don't need to degrade themselves as being religious

You have made a number of assumptions here.
1) you are assuming that magic cannot be phenomena AS YET untested verified by science.
2) the existance of a God must contradict current scientific knowledge
3) There cannot be different explanations for the same phenomenon that do not contradict each other. (as an example, for years scientists viewed animals as machines. They assumed that animals did not have emotions or intentions. They described their behavior in mechanical terms. Other people saw animals as 'like us' with emotions and motivations. Scientists have in recent decades stopped denying the obvious. They see animals now as subjects and not just objects. However much of their observations about animal behavior and physiology was correct. Two different ways of looking at the same phenomenon, both accurate in their own ways.)
4) scientists can determine the liklihood of phenomena despite current restrictions on technology and paradgmatic influence on their thinking. (a concrete example - Rogue waves. Large 'lone wolf' waves that sailors reported seeing. Scientists (oceanographers and fluid scientists) said these sailors were wrong, their emotions were getting the better of them as these rogue waves could not possibly be as big as reported. Oops. Technology improved: video cameras were installed in the bridges of ships and satellite tech. made it easier to 'see' waves. The sailors were right. Then KNOWING that these waves existed oceanographers and fluid scientists (with their little wave machines and computers) came up with the math and physics to explain them. note the pattern: 'strange' phenomenon, scientist denial of its reality and claims that experiencers are 'irrational and emotional', technological change, verification of the phenomenon.

A little humility is in order when ASSUMING ONE CAN KNOW THE LIKLIHOOD OF EXCEPTIONAL PHENOMENA.

 

[Grantywanty]

Put simply all religious leaders are the greatest Con artists and believe it or not the more intelligent they are the higher the likely hood they know they are a Con Artist..

And again, I can only stress that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to what can loosely be called pagan leaders. I am thinking of nature-based believers in the west, many of whom identify themselves as Wiccan or pagans and also many indigenous religious leaders and shamans.

As someone who is advocating the scientific method and rational arguements with proof, etc, such generalizing should be embarrassing to you.

 

[psikeyhackr]

My problem with this entire business is that the argumentation is usually based on the assumption that religion is on the side of God.

I am inclined to suspect that if there is a God then HE/SHE/IT has a lower opinion of religion than I do.

If this God entity is responsible for originating the universe and life then this God entity has to know everything there is to know about physics including what we haven't figured out yet. The same goes for mathematics and chemistry and biology, etc. etc. etc.

So if science is the pursuit of truth about reality then there cannot be a conflict between God and science, if there is a God. So it should just be a matter of time before science tracks God's silly ass down.

I think religion is nothing but a mind control game played by some human beings pretending they know more about God than everybody else. It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of them are actually cynical atheists leading dummies around by the nose. So a lot of this quasi-pseudo-intellectual bullsh!t argumentation about religion is nothing but that, BULLSH!T!

Studying a physics book is a higher form of worship than studying the Bible.

psik

 

[Light Travelling]

So if science is the pursuit of truth about reality then there cannot be a conflict between God and science, if there is a God.

Ipsik

I would agree, if God exists under most definitions it will encompass science. Even a distinct creator being type god would have created the laws of nature and physics as well....let alone a pantheistic type definition

So there cannot be God vs Science; but can there be religion vs science?

Science is the pursuit of knowledge, science means knowledge, but it does not imply what sort of knowledge, just knowledge; omniscience = knowledge of everything; nescience = lack of knowledge, or ignorance.

The pursuit of knowledge of God, self or the spiritual is still science (by its original definitions). There is nothing in the word science that dictates empirical science only!... although the vernacular has come to mean that.


I think as somone else said earlier in this thread, religion contains the science of two thousand years ago. It is the canonnistaion of this old science that renders religion an ineffective tool for going forward. But that is not to say evertying that is found in religion should be automatically discarded. There is much in the old writing still of interst and value.

 

[Nasor]

The pursuit of knowledge of God, self or the spiritual is still science (by its original definitions).

Only if by "original definition" you mean the original ancient Greek. “Science” has implied empiricism for hundreds and hundreds of years.

I think as somone else said earlier in this thread, religion contains the science of two thousand years ago.

As has already been pointed out, simply making up explanations for things does not constitute science.

Seriously now, the amount of BS being thrown around in this thread is almost beyond belief. Everyone here knows damn well that when people talk about the science vs. god or religion, they are talking about empiricism vs. beliefs that have failed all attempts at empirical validation. Stop trying to solve the conflict between science and religion by redefining science to mean "any belief about the world that was arrived at by any method." It's not productive, and it only serves to divert the discussion.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Everyone here knows damn well that when people talk about the science vs. god or religion, they are talking about empiricism vs. beliefs that have failed all attempts at empirical validation. Stop trying to solve the conflict between science and religion by redefining science to mean "any belief about the world that was arrived at by any method." It's not productive, and it only serves to divert the discussion.

My idea of science includes not letting other people tell me what I do or don't know.

http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-proof.htm

And even when I admit I don't know I may have suspicions about some things. Life is short and filled with annoying responsibilities so no one has the time to investigate everything.

psik

 

[Light Travelling]

My idea of science includes not letting other people tell me what I do or don't know.

psik

too true

Everyone here knows damn well that when people talk about the science vs. god or religion, they are talking about empiricism vs. beliefs that have failed all attempts at empirical validation..

Then say what you mean and talk about empiricism vs. beliefs. Not science vs god…

Some religious systems such as Buddhism, Taoism and Certain Hindu systems rely on the Science of meditation to support their doctrines, so belief is limited as one can ‘see for themselves’ by undertaking the necessary meditation disciplines required.

If you say that meditation is not objective. I say only to those who have not disciplined themselves in its practice. The same way science cannot be understood by the uneducated.

 

[Nasor]

Okay, I apologize for giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you were educated enough to know the definition of science that's been in use for hundreds of years, and by further assuming that you would realize that when someone starts a discussion today, in 2007, they probably don't intend for people to revert to the medieval definitions of the words in their opening post.

 

[LaidBack]

You are assuming that magic is something that goes against the laws of the universe rather than being something as yet unproven by science.

Sorry but you are wrong! I treat Magic and Miracles as violations to the basics Laws pertaining to Force and Momentum.

An understanding of QM should put a little humility into your position since much of what has been discovered to be true (light being both waves and particles somehow at the same time, particles moving backwards through time, instantaneous influence over vast distances - in other words faster than the speed of light - and so on) and that were/are very hard for some scientists to accept. Even Einstein who cracked some paradigms himself could not accept some of the ideas (that have been validated over and over) of QM because they contradicted his sense of what was possible and what was known before.



Notice the pattern. You don't know much about....then statements of 'fact'. Let's just say if you are trying to role model rationality you are not doing very well for us irrational savages.


You have made a number of assumptions here.
1) you are assuming that magic cannot be phenomena AS YET untested verified by science.
2) the existence of a God must contradict current scientific knowledge
3) There cannot be different explanations for the same phenomenon that do not contradict each other. (as an example, for years scientists viewed animals as machines. They assumed that animals did not have emotions or intentions. They described their behavior in mechanical terms. Other people saw animals as 'like us' with emotions and motivations. Scientists have in recent decades stopped denying the obvious. They see animals now as subjects and not just objects. However much of their observations about animal behavior and physiology was correct. Two different ways of looking at the same phenomenon, both accurate in their own ways.)
4) scientists can determine the likelihood of phenomena despite current restrictions on technology and paradigmatic influence on their thinking. (a concrete example - Rogue waves. Large 'lone wolf' waves that sailors reported seeing. Scientists (oceanographers and fluid scientists) said these sailors were wrong, their emotions were getting the better of them as these rogue waves could not possibly be as big as reported. Oops. Technology improved: video cameras were installed in the bridges of ships and satellite tech. made it easier to 'see' waves. The sailors were right. Then KNOWING that these waves existed oceanographers and fluid scientists (with their little wave machines and computers) came up with the math and physics to explain them. note the pattern: 'strange' phenomenon, scientist denial of its reality and claims that experience's are 'irrational and emotional', technological change, verification of the phenomenon.

A little humility is in order when ASSUMING ONE CAN KNOW THE LIKLIHOOD OF EXCEPTIONAL PHENOMENA.

The key here is ones understanding of reality and whether the reality is a conforming one to at least another individuals reality or not..

Another key is ones interpretation of what magic and or miracles are..
My reasoning has the inference to magic and miracles being used by those with lacking data on the laws of Physics, and in particular to Force and Motion and or how changes are possible if you will..

My experience in the Electronics Industry during my working days has me with certain advantages over those that have been availed an education recently, as my experience has had me correcting all of my lectures {YES ALL of THEM!} not their fault they don't have access to Industries models..

Never the less here are some key facts to consider when one refers to QM, QED and much to the Standard Models constructs, in particular pertaining to the postulated Particles which may I remind you they don't fully conform to the basics..

But first how familiar are you with Newtons Laws on FORCE and Motion?

Dare I say if one does not fully understand the basic laws that explain proper reality one will more than likely end up advocating to magic and or models and or even some religion, and unless one is adept in the skills of calculus which is a the only way to expose many of the failings in science and physics today..

Anyway the key point I wish to point out is the following..

Change is only possible by way of momentum and momentum is only possible by way of force, but force can only ever exert by way of momentum (velocities)... and if we consider any physics, and if the force and or the velocities don't conform with all other velocities by considering beyond ones models, and or if the numbers don't add up, then ones theory and or Postulations would more than likely be WRONG! and or imply magic and or a miracle..

"The Standard Model, QM, and QED all have their lion share of problems because of the lacking above considerations, due from the fact of not considering proper velocities for our forces, in particular when one should consider the the particles form and what and how velocities are apparent for them.

To put this as simply as possible for others reading this - Imagine our universe is one massive 3 Dimensional Jigsaw puzzle of all that is possible and how it would be destroyed if any piece was removed..

Therefore if a change to any area in our Universe occurs, all else must confirm and conform to this change so the possible remains as possible..

Now magic and miracles infers violations to the above simple physics, such as suggesting an object, a form and or entity one moment can appear in an area where their was a given amount of Energy to the areas mass and or something can magically create something else from nothing and or zero.. Do you agree how absurd that is!?

Perhaps one should consider the velocities for ones postulated particles if I am not making any sense..

 

[Light Travelling]

Everyone here knows damn well that when people talk about the science vs. god or religion, they are talking about empiricism vs. beliefs

If you want to define science as empiricism.....

And if you want to talk about empiricism vs belief, then I would say that a belief system is fundamental to the functioning of individuals and societies. Why? Because empiricism has no morals. It is unable to make moral judgements.

To have morals one must have a belief system. Now I am not saying by any means that that belief system has to be a religion, it may be a philosophy or simply a set of personal beliefs but nevertheless belief system is required for individuals and societies to function.


SO again there is no vs, no contradiction .we need both

 

[Grantywanty]

Sorry but you are wrong! I treat Magic and Miracles as violations to the basics Laws pertaining to Force and Momentum.

I know that you do. But there is no reason to. That was my point.

Another key is ones interpretation of what magic and or miracles are..
My reasoning has the inference to magic and miracles being used by those with lacking data on the laws of Physics, and in particular to Force and Motion and or how changes are possible if you will..

Each generation finds causal relationships that were denied by former generations (and that is within the history of Science).

Never the less here are some key facts to consider when one refers to QM, QED and much to the Standard Models constructs, in particular pertaining to the postulated Particles which may I remind you they don't fully conform to the basics..

This is not a clear sentence. 'Basics' is not clearly used here, for example.

But first how familiar are you with Newtons Laws on FORCE and Motion?

You want a number? I am very familiar with Newton's laws.

Dare I say if one does not fully understand the basic laws that explain proper reality one will more than likely end up advocating to magic and or models and or even some religion, and unless one is adept in the skills of calculus which is a the only way to expose many of the failings in science and physics today..

you are saying the same thing over and over in different ways. yes, I took calculas and physics and quite a bit of both. You are missing the point.

Anyway the key point I wish to point out is the following..

Change is only possible by way of momentum and momentum is only possible by way of force,

This is not correct. And since you are looking down on those who you think know less physics than you, you should know better.

Now magic and miracles infers violations to the above simple physics, such as suggesting an object, a form and or entity one moment can appear in an area where their was a given amount of Energy to the areas mass and or something can magically create something else from nothing and or zero.. Do you agree how absurd that is!?

you are again assuming what magic must be and then saying it is not possible. There are phenomena which seemed impossible because of arguments similar to the one you just made that were later confirmed by scientists to exist. The energy and matter and momentum issues were solved because of new technology or new ways of looking at the problem or phenomena - or simply because the stubborness of the scientists became more flexible.

I am quite sure that magic is natural and will fit the laws of the universe. I do not think that WE KNOW EVERYTHING YET about all the possible causal relationships, energies, interconnections etc. possible in the universe. I also know that at various periods in history science lacked the tools and the paradigmatics vantage to judge the validity of experiences people were having and so scientists decided these experiences were not real. many many times, in fact on a regular basis, scientists later discovered - with new tools or greater flexibility, that these experiences were not hallucinations.

We are still in that situation. We do not have all possible technology or measuring devices. The transition from Newtonian P. to QM should make scientists (and has in many cases) a bit more humble when postulating the liklihood of certain chains of causality or certain phenomena. Others, like you, assume they know what is possible, period.

Perhaps one should consider the velocities for ones postulated particles if I am not making any sense

Even if I considered the velocities of paired particles, you would still not make any sense. We have non-local causality over vast distances. This does not prove certain magical phenomena are possible. It does show that non-local causation is possible, because it is an example of that.

I don't think you really understand what i am saying, nor do I get the sense you will if I continue, so I am going to break off here.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Okay, I apologize for giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you were educated enough to know the definition of science that's been in use for hundreds of years, and by further assuming that you would realize that when someone starts a discussion today, in 2007, they probably don't intend for people to revert to the medieval definitions of the words in their opening post.

Definitions are very curious things.

You may notice that REALITY doesn't give a damn about them.

Take the definition of CONTINENT for instance. Have you noticed there is no water separating the land area of Europe from the land area of Asia. They say the Ural Mountains separate Europe from Asia? But the Himalayan Mountains separate India from the rest of Asia. Why isn't India a continent? I pointed this out to some nitwits I was arguing with on the internet. They said it was because the Himalayas run east and west.

ROFLMAO

Another peculiar thing about the definition of continents. Have you noticed that dictionaries are usually in alphabetical order? Most dictionaries list the continents. For some reason they usually list Europe first. How is it that books that are notorious for being in alphabetical order can't list the continents that way?

Definitions are created by human beings, therefore the assumptions and biases can be built into the definitions. If you want to let other people's definitions control your thinking that is your business.

psik

PS - And we must learn to distinguish between educated and indoctrinated. Another one of those definition things. If people are indoctrinated into thinking in the proper scientific manner then science has just been turned into another religion.

 

[LaidBack]

I know that you do. But there is no reason to. That was my point.



Each generation finds causal relationships that were denied by former generations (and that is within the history of Science).




This is not a clear sentence. 'Basics' is not clearly used here, for example.




You want a number? I am very familiar with Newton's laws.



you are saying the same thing over and over in different ways. yes, I took calculus and physics and quite a bit of both. You are missing the point.

Anyway the key point I wish to point out is the following..



This is not correct. And since you are looking down on those who you think know less physics than you, you should know better.




you are again assuming what magic must be and then saying it is not possible. There are phenomena which seemed impossible because of arguments similar to the one you just made that were later confirmed by scientists to exist. The energy and matter and momentum issues were solved because of new technology or new ways of looking at the problem or phenomena - or simply because the stubbornness of the scientists became more flexible.

I am quite sure that magic is natural and will fit the laws of the universe. I do not think that WE KNOW EVERYTHING YET about all the possible causal relationships, energies, interconnections etc. possible in the universe. I also know that at various periods in history science lacked the tools and the paradigmatic vantage to judge the validity of experiences people were having and so scientists decided these experiences were not real. many many times, in fact on a regular basis, scientists later discovered - with new tools or greater flexibility, that these experiences were not hallucinations.

We are still in that situation. We do not have all possible technology or measuring devices. The transition from Newtonian P. to QM should make scientists (and has in many cases) a bit more humble when postulating the likelihood of certain chains of causality or certain phenomena. Others, like you, assume they know what is possible, period.




Even if I considered the velocities of paired particles, you would still not make any sense. We have non-local causality over vast distances. This does not prove certain magical phenomena are possible. It does show that non-local causation is possible, because it is an example of that.

I don't think you really understand what i am saying, nor do I get the sense you will if I continue, so I am going to break off here.

Good Idea..

But before you do - Consider the Particles form with respects to the rest of the universe, consider the forces and in particular the velocities that infer where your particle ends to where the rest of the Universe begins, and does your model "which I have no doubt is based on The standard Models Particles" treat areas of the Universe as pure void between each Particle?

Think about that, and then ask your self what crazy and illogical person would formulate a model that does NOT consider the need for a greater environmental interaction, Interactions which simply cant be possible if there is nothing to interact with such as that space and or pure void implied by the Standard model, Not very good science, because an area of nothing simply is impossible anyway!

The utmost best is a near Vacuum such as beyond our atmosphere where each mass has the luxury of occupying C^2 of an area..

Let me remind you the utilisation of the electromagnetic spectrum has led the electronics industry with this advanced model which disbanded the quirky particles, oh sure we quanta-size areas with given quanta's that may infer to the uninitiated we are dealing with particles, but the point is Particles are not the proper reality...

The reality is the UNIVERSE is a single medium where areas are with meeting velocities, these meeting velocities imply relativity, compression, Potential Kinetic Energy, and in electronics one area to another imply positive and negative charges.. Electronics infers to The Theory Of Everything "TOE" if anything is observable and then some and it occurs in the universe, science can apply the appropriate forces and or velocities to the event..

Well that is as long as one discards the very old and tired Model of our universe constructed via particles!..

So where does newtons laws come into it?

Well all events in the universe adheres to these BASIC Laws! EVEN in the field of electronics every event complies to it..

The only area where there is non compliance is when one refers to a Model introduced by religiously corrupted scientists with an insane desire for magic and or the impossible to be highly likely..

I am quite sure that magic is natural and will fit the laws of the universe.

As for your statement above!

I am sorry but change is dependent on force and force is dependent on momentum, and they are both dependent on each other for them to be possible!

And as much as it pains for you to hear that magic is simply not possible, its a fact, simply because everything that is possible MUST conform to what ever force and the velocities that imply it and the placement and or replacement for our given areas, do you understand this?

Here's a thought experiment to separate the intelligent from the morons..

Imagine if you will - EVERYTHING that is something via its forces and or the velocities that imply the forces and then define it as part of the universe, the only exclusion is No-Thing and or absolute zero "void" "space" because it is not something.

Now if we go anywhere within the UNIVERSE what we are doing is moving around the velocities that define and redefine us and the area that we now occupy which has been moved elsewhere.. notice how if one fully understands ALL of newtons Laws on force and motion, how "No-thing or void" is possible?

This means "No magic!" Everything that leads to change is via the basic laws on force and motion.. EVEN LIGHT and or radio waves "Electromagnetic waves" which means NO MIRACLES IETHER!

which also means no Angels, Spirits, Demons, Gawds and or other realms and or dimensions.. and if they do exist and don't conform and comply to the basic laws on force and motion they simply are null and void anyway to what complies to all else as a truth statement and or our three dimensional puzzle if you will.. A puzzle may I remind you that SHOULD already consist of everything that is possible!

Our UNIVERSE is our reality to which is dependent on force and motion laws..
So how are we to get nothing to do something?

 

[psikeyhackr]

force is dependent on momentum

momentum = mass * velocity

So if you are locked in a small closet then you can't put your hands against the door and apply force to it with your muscles because your hands don't have any velocity relative to the door?

psik

 

[LaidBack]

momentum = mass * velocity

This is correct but as per below you are overlooking what mass is!

Mass is Potential Kinetic Energy... and when we state this we are referring to the force that an area of mass exerts and or exudes as its density and or the elevated Potential, and therefore we need to consider mass to consist with force.. with force we need to imply a direction and with a direction we have our inferred velocity and or Kinetics... And if we refer to E=MC^2 we have a means to convert the two dimensional area implied as C^2 into a three dimensional area by summing C^2 and then dividing The areas Energy "E" into three dimensions..

But as the formula stands I think it is the best way to imply the two velocities that imply what Potential Kinetic Energy and or mass is..

The c^2 can represent the two meeting velocities where one "c" can represent a velocity to the left and the other the velocity to the right and if we postulate them meeting, the sum of the two stored and or opposing velocities is our area of mass and or implied compression and or increase in density where the velocities remain at "c" to each other, but to the rest of the universe they cancel each other out, hence our storage and or conversion of kinetic energy to potential energy and I would suggest one may need to know what Relativity implies and if one doesn't understand it to how we are are familiar with Newtons Laws on Force and Motion the next few statements may be a little hard to understand..

Here's the most simple model I can come up with of three key moments anyway..
I have uses the symbols ">" for our velocity to the Right.
I have used the symbols "<" for our velocity to the Left.

I have used the symbols "-" as an area implied to be a relative near vacuum..

-><- here is the moment before velocities meet
<=> here is the moment of meeting velocities experience in an area
<--> and here is our repulsive moment, where if there are no more RELATIVE meeting velocities, the area will return to a near vacuum where I should point out the near vacuum areas are really areas with a relative ongoing meeting velocities..

Note the mid moment of relative compression where two velocities ocupy an area inferring compression and or increased potential where an area is double the density. And if we consider another velocity into that moment note how the area must increases in mass and or Potential Kinetic Energy..

So if you are locked in a small closet then you can't put your hands against the door and apply force to it with your muscles because your hands don't have any velocity relative to the door?

psik

Wrong!
Muscles are mass and when the muscles exert their implied exertion it is possible via momentum of Potential energy being exchanged into Kinetic Energy and back again to potential energy but the energy is transposed to another area, in this case the fuel and or food we have consumed is converted to energy for our muscles possible functions..

All changes and or exchanges are only possible via Force and when we consider what and how force is possible in that it is - Via kinetics and or force and the direction of exertion which if considered correctly are basically velocities at "c" which meet other velocities at "c"..

If we consider this momentum in a basic format such as two breezes meeting in our atmosphere we should get a general idea of how an area of our atmosphere can be with a compression when compared to the rest of our atmosphere that is more kinetic, much like when two or more velocities at "c" meet to imply our Potential and or <Stored Energy> which if allowed can become Kinetic Energy, to which if one refers to E=MC^2 we can calculate what energy we may expect via meeting velocities that imply our various densities and or as to how solid an area exudes itself from being a compressed area such as a solid where there are many meeting velocities to consider, right up to an area that is highly kinetic via hardly any meeting velocities such as our relative near vacuum and or space..

"E=1" = "M=1" and "C^2"="cxc" which equals our two dimensional area and or velocities..
2=2xcxc
3=3xcxc
note how if the area remains the same and the more mass that is compressed into the area of cxc the higher the potential energy?

Think about why the propagation of light in a solid takes longer via having to traverse a vast area which in reality is still with the same distances only they are compressed within an area that if uncompressed such as it is when we refer to a near vacuum would ocupy, to which if one considers relativity correctly should know about the Space-Time I am referring to..