Philosophy Now Forum

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:01 am According to Einstein anything with mass will also have energy
Nothing is ever truly at rest so everything in motion has energy

Substituting “God” for “energy” into your statement, as suggested:

According to Einstein anything with mass will also have God
Nothing is ever truly at rest so everything in motion has God

That works too (for illustrative purposes, whether or not Einstein ever asserted that).


“It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is.”
- Richard Feynman

Walker wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
According to Einstein anything with mass will also have energy
Nothing is ever truly at rest so everything in motion has energy

Substituting God for energy into your statement as suggested :

According to Einstein anything with mass will also have God
Nothing is ever truly at rest so everything in motion has God

That works too ( for illustrative purposes whether or not Einstein ever asserted that )

That does not work because energy is an actual phenomenon while God is non falsifiable
You cannot conflate physics with metaphysics because the two are mutually incompatible

No disrespect, but rather than work this premise:

"That does not work because energy is an actual phenomenon ..."

I think that the enquiry should be based on this premise:

“It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is.”
- Richard Feynman

That's why I quoted it in the first place.




This is called, Appeal to Authority.
(I surmise with inference that Feynman considered, what you considered)

Another example of Appeal to Authority is the basis for belief in Global Warming.

Whenever I hear the question, "Do you believe in climate change?" I just laugh and laugh with a big hee haw at the sheer ignorance of the question.

If the Appeal to Authority is admissible for pseudo-scientists, and it is because it's used so much, then why deny thinkers the same leeway?

It is important to realize that in physics today we have no knowledge of what energy is - Richard Feynman
Then the knowledge gap should remain rather than have it filled with the logical fallacy God Of The Gaps

This isn't the Age of Religion.

It's the Age of Science.

So many in the Age of Science are attracted to the tabloids of physics, the extremes of black holes and such, even pondering fictions of inter-galactic travel that defy mathematics, rather than the solid grounding of a structured scientific education.

That's why there's so many believing, pseudo-scientists around.
(Secretly, they think they're Einstein.)

Attention, and the finite energy of a lifetime, would be better placed on the damage done to society with the Climate Change Religion.

Climate Change believers insist that their beliefs are reality, and that any who do not believe in their religion, are Deniers of the truth of what is real.

No one should get too upset or defensive about this.

These are just the facts, and a commentary on modern culture.

If these comments are in the wrong thread, just erase them.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:55 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:54 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:06 am
All these 'Kosha' can be explained by its emergence from the fundamental atomic brain.
The test is, kill the brain and all the "Kosha" vanishes. QED.

That's like saying kill the ''lightbulb'' and the electricty vanishes.

Nothing can be killed because nothing is all that is, was, and ever will be.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:06 amexample a soul that survives physical death and God [aka Absolute] which are impossibilities.

Nothing is physical, there is no such thing as physical death, or birth, except in this conception, AN illusion.

.

Most of your arguments reflect a Buddhist concept of negation, if veritas argues against you he is arguing against central tenets of certain schools in Buddhism, the religion he places such a high emphasis on.

Except I don't know why VA continues to think that non duality is a belief system. Its not based on a belief system rather it is based on direct experience. Non duality puts a 180° spin on materialism. There is NO neural basis for non duality. Any statement regarding a neural basis for non duality is mere concept..nothing more. The concept of non duality as a neural correlate is a belief system. Similar and quite possibly worse in its dogmatic belief system than main stream religion!

Ramu wrote:
I dont know why VA continues to think that non duality is a belief system . It is not based on a belief system rather it is based on direct experience

First person subjective experience that cannot be independently verified can definitely form the basis of belief if not a belief system
But whether it should or not is an entirely separate matter. I accept non duality even though I have no direct experience of it as such

On the two philosophy forums that I've checked, I've only found one person who really understood nonduality. That's where we are in 2018.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:14 am

Walker wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
According to Einstein anything with mass will also have energy
Nothing is ever truly at rest so everything in motion has energy

Substituting God for energy into your statement as suggested :

According to Einstein anything with mass will also have God
Nothing is ever truly at rest so everything in motion has God

That works too ( for illustrative purposes whether or not Einstein ever asserted that )

That does not work because energy is an actual phenomenon while God is non falsifiable
You cannot conflate physics with metaphysics because the two are mutually incompatible

Energy is not falsifiable.
Neither is mass.

They are pre-supposed. Science only measures the consequences of these pre-supposed phenomena.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 3:42 pm On the two philosophy forums that I've checked, I've only found one person who really understood nonduality. That's where we are in 2018.

Of the 10 forums I have been on I’ve found only one person who really understood what it means to understand.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:47 am It is important to realize that in physics today we have no knowledge of what energy is - Richard Feynman
Then the knowledge gap should remain rather than have it filled with the logical fallacy God Of The Gaps

The fact is - the gap remains. You are merely objecting to what we ought to call the gap.

You don’t like the name “God”, but you are OK with the name “Energy”. Occam’s razor says ‘God’ is a better name....

Either way it is just a label! It points to an epistemic phenomenon. Ignorance.

We spend disproportionate time focusing on the word and not enough time focusing on the GAP IN KNOWLEDGE the word signifies!

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:33 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 3:42 pm On the two philosophy forums that I've checked, I've only found one person who really understood nonduality. That's where we are in 2018.

Of the 10 forums I have been on I’ve found only one person who really understood what it means to understand.

Was that person using constructive logic too?

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:39 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:33 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 3:42 pm On the two philosophy forums that I've checked, I've only found one person who really understood nonduality. That's where we are in 2018.

Of the 10 forums I have been on I’ve found only one person who really understood what it means to understand.

Was that person using constructive logic too?

Logic only helps with deduction. It is all mechanical. By the time you reach a deductive conclusion you are necessarily reasoning about the past tense!

No understanding there. Only history and applying the rules of logic.

Understanding lies in Induction.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:58 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:39 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:33 pm

Of the 10 forums I have been on I’ve found only one person who really understood what it means to understand.

Was that person using constructive logic too?

Logic only helps with deduction. It is all mechanical. By the time you reach a deductive conclusion you are necessarily reasoning about the past tense!

No understanding there. Only history and applying the rules of logic.

Understanding lies in Induction.

Maybe you have trouble with applying logic to temporal concepts then.