Religion does not reject science entirely, but science does reject religion entirely.
Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by schuyler
Science does not "reject religion", in part or in toto -- it has, by definition, nothing to say on the matter. Science is constrained to the observable and measurable natural world, while the core aspects of religion are supernatural, and thus beyond the scope of science.
Originally posted by schuyler
reply to post by Kashai
Interesting concept. It would suggest that we are multi-dimensional beings "as we sit" and do not travel discretely from one realm to the next. It also suggests the part of the realm we don't see is very close, indeed. On the whole this would seem a positive idea. It's not as if our "other half" is in another galaxy far, far away, but right here, and that goes along with some of the other stuff we have been hearing.
It also makes sense that in a place made of finer stuff emotions would be given a bigger role because they could not be as easily suppressed. The whole emotion thing, including "love" is kind of elusive to me and I admot to not getting it.
Originally posted by Kashai
If God is love then, love is a substance.
The story is an example of love, in the case the man was prepared to be without water for the same of the dog.
Heaven having existed before creation, its structure is consciousness (in this concept). The idea being that what we acknowledge here as taking up space (A car, house, our bodies...), is what is subjective in heaven.
Open a door on Earth and more than likely it is made of wood, but open a door in heaven and it is made of feelings.
Near-death experiences occur when the soul leaves the nervous system and enters the universe, claim two quantum physics experts
Ground-breaking theory holds that quantum substances form the soul
They are part of the fundamental structure of the universe
Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...
In physics, the principle of locality states that an object is influenced directly only by its immediate surroundings. Experiments have shown that quantum mechanically entangled particles must either violate the principle of locality or allow superluminal communication.
Einstein assumed that the principle of locality was necessary, and that there could be no violations of it. He said:
"(...) The following idea characterises the relative independence of objects far apart in space, A and B: external influence on A has no direct influence on B; this is known as the Principle of Local Action, which is used consistently only in field theory. If this axiom were to be completely abolished, the idea of the existence of quasienclosed systems, and thereby the postulation of laws which can be checked empirically in the accepted sense, would become impossible. (...)
A closely related term is counterfactual definiteness (CFD), used to refer to the claim that one can meaningfully speak of the definiteness of results of measurements that have not been performed (i.e. the ability to assume the existence of objects, and properties of objects, even when they have not been measured).
Local realism is a significant feature of classical mechanics, of general relativity, and of electrodynamics; but quantum mechanics largely rejects this principle due to the theory of distant quantum entanglements, an interpretation rejected by Einstein in the EPR paradox but subsequently apparently quantified by Bell's inequalities. Any theory, such as quantum mechanics, that violates Bell's inequalities must abandon either local realism or counterfactual definiteness; but some physicists dispute that experiments have demonstrated Bell's violations, on the grounds that the sub-class of inhomogeneous Bell inequalities has not been tested or due to experimental limitations in the tests. Different interpretations of quantum mechanics violate different parts of local realism and/or counterfactual definiteness.
Heisenberg's principle was an attempt to provide a classical explanation of a quantum effect sometimes called non-locality. According to EPR there were two possible explanations. Either there was some interaction between the particles, even though they were separated, or the information about the outcome of all possible measurements was already present in both particles.
The EPR authors preferred the second explanation according to which that information was encoded in some 'hidden parameters'. The first explanation, that an effect propagated instantly, across a distance, is in conflict with the theory of relativity.
They then concluded that quantum mechanics was incomplete since, in its formalism, there was no space for such hidden parameters.
Bell's theorem is generally understood to have demonstrated that their preferred explanation was not viable. Most physicists who have examined the matter concur that experiments, such as those of Alain Aspect and his group, have confirmed that physical probabilities, as predicted by quantum theory, do show the phenomena of Bell-inequality violations that are considered to invalidate EPR's preferred "local hidden-variables" type of explanation for the correlations that EPR first drew attention to.
However, Bell's theorem does not apply to all possible philosophically realist theories. It is a common misconception that quantum mechanics is inconsistent with all notions of philosophical realism, but realist interpretations of quantum mechanics are possible, although, as discussed above, such interpretations must reject either locality or counter-factual definiteness. Mainstream physics prefers to keep locality, while striving also to maintain a notion of realism that nevertheless rejects counter-factual definiteness.
Originally posted by St Udio
what you think?
Originally posted by QueenofWeird
OK then read the '___', the spirit molecule. Only thing I can come up with right now.
As to string theory, the other dimensions are rolled up and tiny. So what do you want with them?