It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Magical Materialism and Ufology

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by Malcram
 


Energy is simply the definition for the force applied to a particle.

There are many types of "energy", all those describe is what type of force interacts with said particle(s).

[edit on 1/11/2010 by jkrog08]


But what is a 'particle' composed of? And what are components composed of? What do we end up with?



[edit on 11-1-2010 by Malcram]




posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by Malcram
 


Energy is simply the definition for the force applied to a particle.

There are many types of "energy", all those describe is what type of force interacts with said particle(s).

[edit on 1/11/2010 by jkrog08]


Not exactly. Energy and matter are expressions of the same thing, as Einstein showed us by E = mc^2, energy equals mass time the speed of light squared. Also energy density - the amount of energy in an area of space - bends spacetime, without exerting a force on an object. I believe that Malcram is refering to wave "objects"(for lack of a better word) like radiation and light(and everything else on the electromagnetic spectrum) and perhaps subatomic particles.

[edit on 11-1-2010 by OnceReturned]



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by OnceReturned
 


Yes, but energy is the amount of available force available to do work (sorry, shoulda' specified obviously). Other than that the definition becomes arbitrary.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by OnceReturned
 


It is my content that all matter/energy(same thing) exists on different phases of reality. Thus it is impossible to realistically describe the quantum on our macro scale, and vice versa. IMO everything is fractal and is different phases (or dimensions). Now it is now prolly' best to stray back on topic...



[edit on 1/11/2010 by jkrog08]


It is unfortunate that we have entered into this part of the converstation that is totally off topic but totally interesting. You said that these things exist in different phases of reality, which seems like something that could be said in reference to why quantum phenomena are so different from macro-scale phenomena, but I'm not sure what that phrase "phases of reality" actually means, because macro-scale objects actually are made of quantum-scale objects, so they must not be that out of phase.
I know people through around these terms like different dimensions, different phases, and all that, but I would like for people to explain what all that actually means. What physical properties does that translate into? How can we identify where one phase begins and the next ends if both phases interact with eachother?



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by OnceReturned
It is unfortunate that we have entered into this part of the converstation that is totally off topic but totally interesting.


Indeed. This is a fascinating subject but I'd hate to derail the thread. Can anyone suggest a more appropriate forum for us to take this particular discussion? Or is the OP happy for us to continue this here?



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


Just because we can keep asking, "what is that made of?" for smaller and smaller particles without having an answer readily available doesn't mean that we have to throw out our explanations of reality at larger scales. Clearly this line of questioning "well, what's that made of?" can continue infinitely. It does not seem to me however that just because we don't understand the smallest substrate of reality, we have to throw out all of our beliefs about the way that physical reality is.

I think that there is validity to the notion of "levels of explanation." When we explain the behavior of galaxies we can do so successfully without taking into account the nature of/behavior of the individual stars and planets that make it up. By the same token we can explain the physics of an airplane in flight without understanding the details at a molecular level, and we can explain the behavior of an animal without explaining the behavior of each individual cell. We can also explain the dynamics of a molecule - and I mean really actually explain it successfully - without understanding every single quantum process that makes it up. The point of all this is that whether or not the universe is energy or consciousness on some fundamental extremely "small" level, that doesn't effect the validity of scientific explanations at the scales that they actually take place.

[edit on 11-1-2010 by OnceReturned]



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by OnceReturned
reply to post by Malcram
 




It does not seem to me however that just because we don't understand the smallest substrate of reality, we have to throw out all of our beliefs about the way that physical reality is.


I agree, but when we uncover and start to grasp another underlying layer, don't you think that there should be a concerted effort across the board to integrate that new understanding? Yet here were are, 100 years later... Yes, there needs to be a balance, but that is what I feel is lacking.


I think that there is validity to the notion of "levels of explanation."


I think there are levels of experience, but not actually levels of 'reality'. So, different supposed explanations for experience are - IMO - just another part of the experience and don't actually touch upon 'reality'. So, why should they be preserved? When you accept 'levels of explanation' I think it's a pretty good indicator that they contradict each other and that there is a serious flaw somewhere.

What I feel you are saying is that because something appears to work as an explanation and appears to allow for prediction, that this proves is validity and value (even if it is contradicted by a more fundamental level). I don't agree this proves it's validity and I think it's value continues only as long as you don't have access a more valuable explanation relating to an underlying 'reality'.

We do have access to an underlying reality and - IMO - a more valuable explanation, but it is not being utilized. It's like we have discovered a washing machine decades ago but can't be bothered to read the manual so we just keep scrubbing away with our washboard, content that it makes sense and is functional.



[edit on 11-1-2010 by Malcram]



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram

What I feel you are saying is that because something appears to work as an explanation and appears to allow for prediction, that this proves is validity and value (even if it is contradicted by a more fundamental level). I don't agree this proves it's validity and I think it's value continues only as long as you don't have access a more valuable explanation relating to an underlying 'reality'.

We do have access to an underlying reality and - IMO - a more valuable explanation, but it is not being utilized. It's like we have discovered a washing machine decades ago but can't be bothered to read the manual so we just keep scrubbing away with our washboard, content that it makes sense and is functional.



[edit on 11-1-2010 by Malcram]


Well for one thing, if we tried to explain all phenomena on the smallest/highest resolution scale that we could, things would become unmanageble. We can't go around explaining weather in terms of what every atom is doing, and we can't going around designing technology from the electron up. I guess I'm not entirely convinced that the smallest scale is any better/more important to reality than the scales at which we live or the scale of solar systems and galaxies. I'm not convinced that smaller is better, it just helps explain different things. We used niave physics/intuition to invent the wheel, Newtonian physics to send people to the moon, special relativity to create GPS, and we will need quantum physics to make quantum computers.

My position goes something like this: we can understand water as a noncompressable continuous fluid, and we will be absolutely correct. Water really is those things, and we can use this level of understanding to explain currents, and waves. We can also understand water at the molecular level, and at this level we will also be absolutely correct, and this level affords us an explanation of things like evaporation and why water is a solvent - explanations that we didn't have when we understood water as just a noncompressable fluid. Both levels of explanation are correct and real.

And while I do find the washing machine example very funny, I think that the reality would be more like this: we stand around washing our clothes on a washboard, and one day the local scientist calls a meeting and tells everyone that the dirt on their clothes in not really like it seems - it's made of molecules and the molecules are made of atoms. It may be true that it is molecules, but it is also dirt, and either way you have to scrub it on the washboard to get rid of it.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Totally agree with you Matrix!

Ouspensky said 'Functions are not Consciousness and Consciousness are not Functions'.
He said 'People live on Functions'.


SNC



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Here we go I have dug up these Rupert Sheldrake vids again for those people who dont scientifically understand the idea of consciousness and the morphogenetic field that influences the world around us through experiments done by Rupert etc.








posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   
ssounds like someone went on another epiphonic rant



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram




I agree, but when we uncover and start to grasp another underlying layer, don't you think that there should be a concerted effort across the board to integrate that new understanding? Yet here were are, 100 years later... Yes, there needs to be a balance, but that is what I feel is lacking.

why do you think we should integrate facts or concepts that do not answer the questions the science is dealing with? i don't expect science to work that way why do you? what good is knowing that light can be both a particle and a wave, if you are studying the evolution of the fruit fly? what use is knowing that man evolved from a common ancestor 200 thousand years ago when you are studying astronomy?
now some sciences over-lap but microscopic scales are useless when it comes to things like biology, geology, etc.



I think there are levels of experience, but not actually levels of 'reality'. So, different supposed explanations for experience are - IMO - just another part of the experience and don't actually touch upon 'reality'. So, why should they be preserved? When you accept 'levels of explanation' I think it's a pretty good indicator that they contradict each other and that there is a serious flaw somewhere.

rather black and white don't you think? this really makes you look like you don't understand science all that well. why do we need to throw out what we know because we don't know everything? that is honestly the worst kind of rational, science isn't flawed, it works quite well.


What I feel you are saying is that because something appears to work as an explanation and appears to allow for prediction, that this proves is validity and value (even if it is contradicted by a more fundamental level). I don't agree this proves it's validity and I think it's value continues only as long as you don't have access a more valuable explanation relating to an underlying 'reality'.

again you attempt to claim that in order to understand anything we have to understand it all before we can understand something. that just unreasonable, i think you need to re-evaluate that position, it makes any endeavor man tries basically a waste of time.



We do have access to an underlying reality and - IMO - a more valuable explanation, but it is not being utilized. It's like we have discovered a washing machine decades ago but can't be bothered to read the manual so we just keep scrubbing away with our washboard, content that it makes sense and is functional.



[edit on 11-1-2010 by Malcram]

what? god? aliens? some universal energy?



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Materialism is hocus pocus. Nobody has ever touched matter. When you touch a table top the electrons from the table repel against the electrons from your hand. You then perceive this as matter. All science can say is perception is reality. So you percieve the hardness of a table top or the softness of a pillow.

you mean those electrons aren't part of matter?


Scientist believe in materialism. They believe there's a theory of everything that will explain how dead matter became aware of itself. This is just wishful thinking but materialist treat materialism as if it's true.

nice straw-man of abiogenesis matrix,. unless you can show me something exists outside the material, you are just making an empty claim


The logic goes like this. Consciousness is limited to the human brain therefore before humans it was just dead matter.

again just a straw-man, a human brain was always alive, every step to a fully functional human is alive, sperm and egg are alive, every cell from the first step is alive. i want some evidence that the consciousness is more than brain interaction, we know for a fact that damaging the brain damages human thought and consciousness


Luckily, some scientist are starting to realise that things like life are fundamental properties of the universe and that life finds a way. Life and consciousness manifest in what we perceive as matter.

ah mystical gibberish


Materialism has set the debate around ufology back and things move slowly because of it. This is because for years we looked at life as something rare because dead matter needed the perfect conditions to become living matter. So other planets couldn't harbor life unless they were like earth. They were either too hot, too cold and only earth was just right.

ufology sets itself back, materialism does nothing but ask you to bring some evidence that can't be faked.
everything else here is just a straw-man, you seem to have no clue about what science says.


What we will come to see is that the universe is filled with life and some of those civilizations have become advanced enough to visit earth. This is because things like life and consciousness are not products of our perceived material reality.

evidence please, something concrete, random images of unexplained things do not count


Materialism is a belief system and science doesn't support it.

[edit on 11-1-2010 by Matrix Rising]

right because you can so measure the spiritual, you can test faith healing, or some mystical forces the same way you can test gravity



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by OnceReturned

Well for one thing, if we tried to explain all phenomena on the smallest/highest resolution scale that we could, things would become unmanageble. We can't go around explaining weather in terms of what every atom is doing, and we can't going around designing technology from the electron up. I guess I'm not entirely convinced that the smallest scale is any better/more important to reality than the scales at which we live or the scale of solar systems and galaxies. I'm not convinced that smaller is better, it just helps explain different things.


To talk of this simply in terms of 'bigger and smaller' would be a gross oversimplification and totally misses the point, IMO. It's also about a radical difference in nature and a whole new set of 'laws'. How can they be utilized? Once understood do they provide far more efficient 'tools' with which to operate, even at this level of experience? I think we have been slow to find out because the scientific establishment is dragging it's feet.



We used niave physics/intuition to invent the wheel, Newtonian physics to send people to the moon, special relativity to create GPS, and we will need quantum physics to make quantum computers.


I think it's a mistake to think that quantum physics only relates to the 'quantum level'. The point is, there is only the quantum level. The rest is mere appearance. That is what we have discovered. You are still approaching the level of experience as if it were 'real'. Seeing as everything is really at the quantum level, there is no reason why 'quantum physics' cannot be utilized to more efficiently affect experience. Your response might be 'how'? My reply would be that if science got it's act together we would quickly find out, but our quantum physicists have already been making suggestions, but they are so 'spooky' that the rest of the scientific establishment often reacts with horror and simply refuses to consider them. The quantum world opens a door to a 'technology' in which 'reality' directly interfaces with the observer. That has already been established, but the scientific establishment is scared rigid by the implications.



My position goes something like this: we can understand water as a noncompressable continuous fluid, and we will be absolutely correct. Water really is those things, and we can use this level of understanding to explain currents, and waves. We can also understand water at the molecular level, and at this level we will also be absolutely correct, and this level affords us an explanation of things like evaporation and why water is a solvent - explanations that we didn't have when we understood water as just a noncompressable fluid. Both levels of explanation are correct and real.


I disagree. That the explanation seems to to function does not make it real or correct. It's a workable fiction which should be gradually phased out when this is discovered and the underlying reality is exposed. It should be phased out when a better explanation and a more efficient method of manipulating it is discovered. We have found the explanation but not bothered to try to discover methods of utilizing it, again, I believe because to do so would require a paradigm shift which is too challenging to the scientific establishment, yet which our understanding of the nature of 'reality' demands.




And while I do find the washing machine example very funny, I think that the reality would be more like this: we stand around washing our clothes on a washboard, and one day the local scientist calls a meeting and tells everyone that the dirt on their clothes in not really like it seems - it's made of molecules and the molecules are made of atoms. It may be true that it is molecules, but it is also dirt, and either way you have to scrub it on the washboard to get rid of it.


LOL. What should and could have happened was that they quickly worked out a way to employ the new understanding to remove the dirt in a radically new, infinitely more efficient way, but didn't, because the new understanding, while undeniably true, freaked them out too much and the required paradigm shift was too challenging for them. Plus they were all heavily involved in washboard manufacture and sales, while many had worked for years in washboard design and studied the physics of washboards and it would upset the applecart waaaay too much to change things now



[edit on 12-1-2010 by Malcram]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by demongoat


why do you think we should integrate facts or concepts that do not answer the questions the science is dealing with? i don't expect science to work that way why do you? what good is knowing that light can be both a particle and a wave, if you are studying the evolution of the fruit fly? what use is knowing that man evolved from a common ancestor 200 thousand years ago when you are studying astronomy?
now some sciences over-lap but microscopic scales are useless when it comes to things like biology, geology, etc.


Hi DG. I feel your approach puts the cart before the horse somewhat. Who says that these 'facts or concepts ' we are discussing 'do not answer the questions science is dealing with'? They don't answer them yet because science isn't looking to them for the answers, not because they don't contain answers. The will to look for the answers needs to come before the answers will be found, which requires an open-mindedness I feel is lacking. You can't see how the 'microscopic scale' could provide the answers, so you presume it must not be able to.

Again, as I said above, to think of this in terms of simply 'big and small' is inaccurate. There is also a radical difference in nature and in laws. Our world appears to be dictated by classical physics, but that is only an appearance. We know that now. 'Physical reality' is an appearance, an experience, built from something very different which is not confined to classical physics and which interfaces with consciousness, to some degree at least.




Why do we need to throw out what we know because we don't know everything? that is honestly the worst kind of rational, science isn't flawed, it works quite well.


I'm not suggesting we throw it out. I'm suggesting we phase it out and integrate and thoroughly investigate the practicalities of a new understanding. Any sense of urgency that comes through in my comments just reflects how desperately, shamefully slow I feel the scientific establishment has been in engaging with this process.


[edit on 12-1-2010 by Malcram]



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by OnceReturned
The difficulties when it comes to energy vs. matter within materialism seem trivial when we accept the fact that energy is material - in the sense that it has objective physical properties, which is the important part when it comes to describing reality from a materialist perspective.



Originally posted by Demongoat
You mean those electrons aren't part of matter?


As eminent nuclear physicist Hans-Peter Durr succinctly put it:

"I can tell you, I have spent 50 years of my life doing research into the question of what is matter, and the outcome is matter does not exist! Matter is not made of matter."

His speech "Matter is not made out of matter" can be read here:

www.compasnet.org...


[edit on 27-1-2010 by Malcram]



posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   
I found this video and it reminded me of this thread. So I thought I'd post it for those who may be interested. I'm amazed that this thread has had so little attention seeing as it cuts to the very heart of the matter, IMO.

Or perhaps that is exactly why





[edit on 30-1-2010 by Malcram]




top topics



 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join