Proof that we exist on both the physical and the non-physical.

You said in your OP:

Originally posted by Shema
Everything in life has its opposite. We can call this the Law of Opposites The opposite of something might not be readily recognizabe and discovering what it is can be enlightening. Opposites give life motion, make the seemingly impossible possible. Some think of it as duality but its much more than that. It is symmetrics, harmonics, balance. ...

I'm not sure where science or evolution theory stand on this matter. Anyone know?

I answered your question where science stands on the opposites of matter and anti-matter. The ratio between them is scientifically observed by astrophysicists to neither be symmetrical nor balanced....and I provided a source which is more than you did.

You asked the question if anyone knows where science stands on this topic...if you don't like the answer, don't shoot the messenger. By the way, where did I deny the existence of antimatter? I simply asked where it is, the same question asked in the source I provided.

Originally posted by Shema


My science is founded upon personal experience and observation, not philosophical musings. I see and experience what I am putting forward to anyone who might be interested to consider and maybe even go out there and experience and observe for themselves. But typically all I get is negative reactions from people who say I can't do this I shouldn't do that and they have the hide to pass spurious comments on something they know nothing about and clearly don't want to know.

I stand by the message in my thread. I have heard nothing that gives me cause to doubt my own experiences and observations. Lots of guffawing and humphing . Talk about a bunch of grumps.

I have actually been encouraging you in this thread. You claimed to have proof, but it is not there, period. I am not being negative, it would be like me pointing to the sun during the day and saying "the sun is there." Or, at night pointing to the sky and saying "the sun is not currently in sight."

Like I said previously, the concept of duality is literally ancient. If you wish to talk about the philosophy of it, there are plenty of people on the site (myself included) who would love to have that conversation. It just isnt science. There isnt any gray area with this. It seems that many have this proprietary definition of what "science" is.. and never even offer up repeatable experiments or quantification of anything. What experiments have you done and are you willing to share not only your testing method but your test notes and results? Itd be pretty cool if you were able to do that.

Its fine if you want to insult us, but it will not lend any weight to your claims of proof. Its too bad, because the concept is as interesting as it is ancient. To be blunt, I see just as much "guffawing and humphing" coming from you as anyone else.

I guess Ill follow my own advice and leave you be with your philosophy You are right in that it is an interesting topic, too bad we cant discuss it. Thats your choice though!

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
You said in your OP:

Originally posted by Shema
Everything in life has its opposite. We can call this the Law of Opposites The opposite of something might not be readily recognizabe and discovering what it is can be enlightening. Opposites give life motion, make the seemingly impossible possible. Some think of it as duality but its much more than that. It is symmetrics, harmonics, balance. ...

I'm not sure where science or evolution theory stand on this matter. Anyone know?

I answered your question where science stands on the opposites of matter and anti-matter. The ratio between them is scientifically observed by astrophysicists to neither be symmetrical nor balanced....and I provided a source which is more than you did.

You asked the question if anyone knows where science stands on this topic...if you don't like the answer, don't shoot the messenger. By the way, where did I deny the existence of antimatter? I simply asked where it is, the same question asked in the source I provided.

edit on 3-2-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

Fair enough Arbitrageur, you are right to put me in my place. If I can't take it I shouldn't give it.

You are suggesting that because the ratio of matter to antimatter is not equal I must be wrong.
If you burn a log of wood all that is left is a few ashes which are the minerals and such like drawn up from the ground by the original tree via its roots. What became of the rest of the log? The ash weighs maybe a few ounces but the log may have weighed more than you could lift. The heat from the flames released the molecules that actually comprised the log. Where did they go? What drew them together in the first place and held them together? Matter - antimatter are interacting continuously just as is everything else and it is only possible because everything has its opposite. Its not a difficult picture to grasp. And when you do it doesn't corrupt you or bring pain, I promise.

reply to post by Serdgiam


Serdgiam, I know you mean well but I gave my opinion on duality in the first paragraph of the thread. I am not talking about duality, I have no interest in doing so. If you want to do it then go, now, and start a thread. You won't be the first one so you better do a thread search first.

Originally posted by Shema
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

Serdgiam, I know you mean well but I gave my opinion on duality in the first sentence of the thread. I am not talking about duality, I have no interest in doing so. If you want to do it then go, now, and start a thread. You won't be the first one so you better do a thread search first.

Thanks for the advice. Remember, join dates can be deceiving

Its good that you make it your own, but my curiosity gets the better of me here: What is the difference between your "Law of Opposites" and duality? It seems you are selling duality short, or havent learned about its countless incarnations throughout the millennia. To my way of thinking, what you have proposed is actually more simplistic and less encompassing than a similar philosophy like Advaita Vedanta.

I was going to leave it be, but ya got me curious! I have seen nothing that differentiates this from duality (other than being less polished, which is to be expected). I welcome an education on the topic of your personal philosophy.

reply to post by Shema

Initially he denied any possibility of anti-matter, then he reluctantly admits there is some, then he says it should be there but no one can work out where it is. His other arguments are not worthy of intelligent reply.

But you seem to have judged it worthy of a very stupid one.

You are attempting to propagate an argument from ignorance. Arbitrageur is talking about a well-known cosmological deficit – a phenomenon you are clearly unfamiliar with and which does indeed disprove your silly claim. There is plenty of antimatter in the universe – but not nearly as much as there should be.

Frankly, Shema, it is your own arguments in this thread that are not worthy of an intelligent reply – which is why I didn't bother in my first post, but instead presented the stupidest possible argument I know of for the existence of God. Even it is not as stupid – I repeat, stupid – as the argument you presented in your opening post, but clearly the hint flew right past you. I hope I've made myself clearer this time round.

reply to post by Astyanax


You are good for a laugh, Astyanax, if for nothing else in respect to this thread.

reply to post by Serdgiam


I'll reply later, when I have more time.

Originally posted by Serdgiam

Originally posted by Shema
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

Serdgiam, I know you mean well but I gave my opinion on duality in the first sentence of the thread. I am not talking about duality, I have no interest in doing so. If you want to do it then go, now, and start a thread. You won't be the first one so you better do a thread search first.

Thanks for the advice. Remember, join dates can be deceiving

Its good that you make it your own, but my curiosity gets the better of me here: What is the difference between your "Law of Opposites" and duality? It seems you are selling duality short, or havent learned about its countless incarnations throughout the millennia. To my way of thinking, what you have proposed is actually more simplistic and less encompassing than a similar philosophy like Advaita Vedanta.

I was going to leave it be, but ya got me curious! I have seen nothing that differentiates this from duality (other than being less polished, which is to be expected). I welcome an education on the topic of your personal philosophy.

The first observers from your ancient times observed that there was order in Nature along with balance and harmony and duality and they surmised that these were not separate qualities, that they were somehow connected. A blind person can recognize duality in life but you have to look under the hood to find out the how and the why of it.
Duality is the philosophy. The law of opposites is the science that reveals the secrets of the enigma of duality ; an enigma that has spawned the countless incarnations you speak of.

reply to post by Shema


I can assure you that burning a log to ash does not involve matter-antimatter reactions.

Second line!

Originally posted by Shema
The first observers from your ancient times observed that there was order in Nature along with balance and harmony and duality and they surmised that these were not separate qualities, that they were somehow connected. A blind person can recognize duality in life but you have to look under the hood to find out the how and the why of it.
Duality is the philosophy. The law of opposites is the science that reveals the secrets of the enigma of duality ; an enigma that has spawned the countless incarnations you speak of.

The various manifestations of dualistic/non-dualistic philosophies and religions are doing exactly what you are saying they dont. They are also doing exactly what you are doing, your personal philosophy on this is simply another version of the same thing. Told with perhaps a different cultural story at its foundation, but the same concept nonetheless. They attempt to explain the how and why. But, much more importantly, why it even matters at all and how we can use it in every day life in our personal perspective. Maybe I missed it in this thread, but it seems the latter is missing entirely.

You keep using that science term... which leads me to believe you have done experiments, etc that "reveal the secrets of the enigma of duality." Can you please share the testing methods, test notes, and results from those experiments? Like I said before, that would be extremely interesting to me to look through. Since you keep using the term science, as well as proof, I feel I can safely assume that you have actually done scientific research into these things. Unless you have been misleading me/us all along...

So, running under the assumption that you wouldnt be that intentionally deceptive, I have some questions that I would like to get your perspective on. If possible, itd be neat to also get the corresponding experiments and results that are applicable to each question. If you have derived equations that yield consistent results, you might just be my new hero

First: How does duality work? To be clear on this, I am looking for the mechanics behind the attachment between the dualistic polarities. How are these things actually connected? If you can show your work and equations, I would certainly appreciate it.

Second: Why does duality exist? To be clear again, I am looking for the math that describes why duality is critical to the foundation of the universe, as well as the testing method used to derive that data. Why does the universe need duality?

I thank you ahead of time for providing what I feel are really interesting maths and equations!

reply to post by Serdgiam



I've said all I'm going to say. The thread was not about duality as you keep insisting and nor is it an expression of my philosophy since, as I have pointed out several times to you, I don't have a philosophy.

I stand by the thread. Do you see evil intend in it? Do you suspect that my real purpose is to deceive others?
Your 'curiosity' is false. Your sincerity is pretentious. Your purpose is akin to that of a hungry crocodile. Go and patronize someone else. Go find another thread where you can giggle into your lapel. Your odour might be pleasing to yourself but to my nose it reeks.

Originally posted by Shema
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

I've said all I'm going to say. The thread was not about duality as you keep insisting and nor is it an expression of my philosophy since, as I have pointed out several times to you, I don't have a philosophy.

Alright, just replace "duality" in my post with "Law of Opposites." Can we go from there?

Your 'curiosity' is false. Your sincerity is pretentious. Your purpose is akin to that of a hungry crocodile. Go and patronize someone else. Go find another thread where you can giggle into your lapel. Your odour might be pleasing to yourself but to my nose it reeks.

Amazingly presumptuous of you, now lets address a question you asked before you started to attack me:

Do you see evil intend in it?

If we are to take your personal insults into account, that are based on nothing but your own perspective, then my answer is a resounding "YES!" What gives you the right to be so unkind and violent in your words? What gives you the right to address someone who is genuinely curious about your perspective in such an evil and dark manner?

We may disagree on the semantics, but I was actually trying to understand where you were coming from. When it is communicated in math, we can limit the amount of subjectivity that is involved with the communication. You respond to that by throwing aggressive insults and character attacks based on an incorrect assumption?

Yes, yes I do see evil in your dagger-like words.

Are you familiar with Empedocles, in relation to the opposing forces of Love and Strife?

This is what is often refered to as the Law of Opposites...

The Law of Opposites

The Law of Opposites states that every out must have an in, every in an out, every left must have a right, every right a left, in order to be so judged. In the balance, every low swing must have a high swing, and vice versa. Every force must have an equal but opposite.

What goes out must come back in. What rises must fall; what falls must rise. What has a beginning must have an end. This is the Great Law of the manifest universe. A necessary law which displays itself in all the flowerings and wiltings of the world.

Not a word can be spoken confirming or denying the Law of Opposites without it being in evidence; the Law allows opposition, Lawlessness, though it can only seem superficially to be defied. It is inherent in the very process of communication, in speech and hearing. Even this page of text, regardless of what is written, demonstrates it. Being a universal law, stemming from the primordial bifurcation it is the principal means of understanding reality.

It is a law of reflections: what is real, what is not real; what is substantial, what is not substantial; what is significant, what is not significant. It is the means of making manifest the Unmanifest, but only shows a reflection of the Real. Hence the Law of Opposites is not Truth, but can be considered a lesser truth, a relative truth.

By its own direction it contradicts and negates itself, leading towards an unmanifest Unity. It is the same law which divides and unites, Empedocles’ opposing forces of Love and Strife. It has its good points and its bad points, its apogees and perigees, but ultimately demonstrates that opposition is contrary to the Real.

Source

Would you care to describe how this differs from your, "Law of Opposites"?

Also, please provide evidence of nothing after Life as we understand it??

Originally posted by Shema

## Everything in life has its opposite. We can call this the Law of Opposites The opposite of something might not be readily recognizabe and discovering what it is can be enlightening. Opposites give life motion, make the seemingly impossible possible. Some think of it as duality but its much more than that. It is symmetrics, harmonics, balance.

You can't think of something as being of itself, completion, totality unless you include its opposite. What is the opposite of a human being? There is more than one answer. The sexual opposite of a female is a male. The opposite of a good person is a bad person. The opposite of a love filled person is a hate filled person. But what is the opposite of a physical human being? It has to be a non-physical human being, just as the opposite of gravity is non-gravity, and of matter anti-matter. To claim that there is no such thing as a non-physical human being is to deny the law of opposites and that can't be done. So what then is the non-physical aspect of a human? It has to be what we term Spirit, the ethereal quality that manifests us here on the physical. We must be as much of the one as of the other. Therefore we exist not only on the physical but also on the non-physical.

This raises an interesting question: What becomes of our non-physical body when the physical body decays? Or, put it the other way: If our non-physical body is adversely affected by an alien cosmic force what happens to our physical body?

What happens when we die? If the physical no longer exists then neither can the non-physical yet it is illogical to infer that they reduce to nothing if only for the obvious reason that they could not have arisen from out of nothing.

I'm not sure where science or evolution theory stand on this matter. Anyone know? I know I've been ridiculously brief.

I mean in so far as personal experiences it seems apparent you have not died yet.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai




Would you care to describe how this differs from your, "Law of Opposites"?

Also, please provide evidence of nothing after Life as we understand it??



If my thread and the quote you provided read the same to you then go with it, that is my suggestion.

reply to post by Kashai


I mean in so far as personal experiences it seems apparent you have not died yet.

Any thoughts?


None whatsoever.

reply to post by Shema


Dunno about opposites. Spirit lives within the human body.
But i believe that humans have opposite doubles in the other gender

Originally posted by Shema
reply to post by Kashai

 

Would you care to describe how this differs from your, "Law of Opposites"?

Also, please provide evidence of nothing after Life as we understand it??



If my thread and the quote you provided read the same to you then go with it, that is my suggestion.

Actually they do not sound the same.

Your title states you have "proof" where is your proof? i mean the idea, that because you seem to be citing a "Law" is not evidence or proof. in this case this issue of opposites is not a scientific law.

A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science, like Newton's law of universal gravitation. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements. The law must be confirmed and broadly agreed upon through the process of inductive reasoning. As well, factual and well-confirmed statements like "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered to be too specific to qualify as scientific laws. A central problem in the philosophy of science, going back to David Hume, is that of distinguishing scientific laws from principles that arise merely accidentally because of the constant conjunction of one thing and another.[3]

A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to constant currents, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc.

en.wikipedia.org...

Now in relation to the validity of life after death experiences......

But chartered psychologist Christopher French, from Goldsmiths College, London, said there were alternative explanations for NDEs.

'Some people may have developed a false memory based on something called imaginative inflation, where the individual actually takes on board the details of an experience as if it did happen.'

www.dailymail.co.uk...

The problem with that opinion is the time it takes for the brain to stop receiving oxygen to the brain. As well as the fact that the heart is not only a pump but also a battery that supplies electrical current to the brain. To be clear in roughly 3 to 5 minutes, there is neither enough current or oxygen running though the brain. To describe anything going on in their related to consciousness as we commonly understand it. Things like dreams, hallucinations or accurate observation of events are clinically impossible.

Nonetheless people in this condition that are revived have memories of events, specific to what actually occurred while the patient was in this condition. Events like, what was going on with other patients in the emergency room they were in, what the ambulance staff were talking about unrelated the patients care and the names of the people assigned to care for them.

reply to post by Kashai


I was taken on a journey once through our galaxy and making it possible was achieved by closing down my body. It took some time but eventually my breathing stopped completely and my heart ceased to beat. The only connection to my body that remained was, the nearest I can describe it, a narrow band of heated energy that circled my forehead. Its hard to gauge exactly how long in Earth time I was 'away' but I'm pretty sure it was at least an hour.

I can remember perfectly well what I saw and experienced on that journey.