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

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by Shema

 

What you're saying could just as well apply to every living thing.

I dislike it when only humans gain access to immortality (of any sort).

It's anthropocentric.

Equal access.

Think...

Every ant cell on earth, sextillions of them, all have non-material counterparts. Every mammal. Every sea creature. Every bacterium. Every fungi and single-celled organism.

And everything else out there that's living.

I don't believe any of this. But if I did, it would have equal access.

edit on 2-2-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

What I said in the thread does apply to everything. Obviously.
Equal access to what? What are you talking about?
You think.

I know literally everything. The past,present and future. Every spec of cosmic dust. Everything. I just can't always remember it. According to Edgar Cayce anyway, everybody has all the knowledge of the universe. That would fit into the non-physical part of us. Speaking from experience, every 15 year old knows everything.

Originally posted by InfinitePerspective
A physical human being implies a dense, solid one, while a non-physical human being would imply a light, hollow, airy one, ethereal, if you will. Just because something is non-physical as you say, does not negate it's existence as physicality is not dependent on this.

Your thoughts for example, are non-physical, they carry no weight, no solidity and yet you know they exist. You can manifest your non-physical ideas into the physical universe, such as an architect brings their three-dimensional structure into existence from a two-dimensional blueprint. On the other hand, say when a physical human being ceases to function, their physicality will be manifested into the non-physical, ethereal reality, or in other words, a more thought-based, feeling-based reality.

This is not to say it's one or the other as those are only two polarities of a spectrum. It can be everything in between these two extremes. Many of you exist more in an ethereal, thought-based reality, than you do in a solid, physical one and vice-versa.

You opening sentence is perfectly in line with my thread, your next flies off on a tangent so I presume you misread something I said that I wont try to guess at.

If I am reading you right what you are saying, in your following paragraph, is that when the physical polarity of an energy wanes- ceases to function as you put it - the non-physical polarity increases until it takes on the functions of the physical on an ethereal plane of existence.

But, no, because then you go on to say its not one or the other as they are only two polarities of a spectrum and you give an example in your final sentence.

I agree that while the two poles are in equal harmony and balance (healthy) as opposites there is a great deal of play between the two. This is why opposites animate life while bringing it order, symmetry and balance.

Overall you post reflects your confused thinking on the matter but far less confused than anyone else who took the time to reply, and I thank you for doing so.

Originally posted by jimmiec
I know literally everything. The past,present and future. Every spec of cosmic dust. Everything. I just can't always remember it. According to Edgar Cayce anyway, everybody has all the knowledge of the universe. That would fit into the non-physical part of us. Speaking from experience, every 15 year old knows everything.

LOL; I knew everything, and more, when I was 15 too. It wasn't until I was 18 that I had my first rude awakening and there have been plenty since. I still reckon I really could see everything back then. May you never experience a rude awakening, I think they call it losing your innocence.

Originally posted by Serdgiam

Originally posted by Shema

## Everything in life has its opposite. We can call this the Law of Opposites

I would personally prefer to continue calling the concept what it has been called for centuries; "duality." It is an ancient concept, no need to reinvent the wheel!

It is certainly some interesting stuff, but using the word "proof" in this context would imply that you are able to quantify something which is non-physical. Inherently, there are some difficulties in that assertion. It is philosophy and not science. That doesnt automatically make it less valuable or valid, but it is a distinction.

Well, its as much science as it is philosophy. To me if not to anyone else it is patently obvious that everything has an opposite. This assertion cannot be proven wrong philosophically, what can? it is for science to prove me wrong. Evolutionists insist that their theory is scientifically sound yet science has not proven that they are right. The big bang theory has wide-spread support and many people believe it but science had not proven that is fact.
I base my belief of experience and observation not on philosophical possibilities.

Originally posted by Shema
To me if not to anyone else it is patently obvious that everything has an opposite. This assertion cannot be proven wrong philosophically, what can? it is for science to prove me wrong.

Science has proven you wrong. Where's all the anti-matter?

reply to post by Shema


You are obviously entitled to your subjective opinion! Though, I would still strongly suggest looking into one of the oldest concepts for humans, duality. Everything here in this thread has been presented and gone over for literally thousands of years. It is a pretty interesting area of study, in my opinion.

That being said, it would appear you completely missed my point. You are also asking a lot, saying that you provide quantification and then claim that it is science's job to prove your philosophy wrong. Yet the proof and quantification you claim to provide is ironically non-existant. Its a tricky thing.

So, you are asking those who practice science to do the work for you? It is strangely reminiscent of those who claim God is real, and expect the responsibility of the proof to fall in the laps of those who simply question its veracity. Perhaps I misunderstand you in much the same way you missed my point.

Philosophy, science, and religion are all similar in that they are attempted explanations for the behaviors of the universe around us. All of them can be used/abused for confirmation bias. In that way, they are exactly the same. The distinction comes into play with methodology.

Without experiments, quantification, repetition, and repeatability, it is philosophy or a thought experiment. As I said, it doesnt necessarily make it less valuable but you have posted this in the science forum when there is no actual scientific method being used at any point. The methodology for it to be an actual scientific assertion is, again, ironically absent or non-physical. Perhaps that was intentional.

Either way, Ill leave ya be, best of luck with all that.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Shema
To me if not to anyone else it is patently obvious that everything has an opposite. This assertion cannot be proven wrong philosophically, what can? it is for science to prove me wrong.

Science has proven you wrong. Where's all the anti-matter?

Do you want me to quote from various sources the definition of antimatter? Is that what you are asking me?
I would not have thought that was necessary when you can easily look it up yourself. So what, exactly, are you after. A handful? So you can throw it back in my face? You seem to be itching to throw something.

Originally posted by Shema

Originally posted by SpearMint
I have a couple of issues with your theory.

First of all I don't believe everything does have an opposite.

Secondly, life isn't a single thing and neither are humans, both are a result of many things working together. If the law of opposites existed, then surely it wouldn't apply to things grouped together, that wouldn't really make sense.

I wouldn't argue about whether you believe it or not, its your choice but your second sentence makes no sense. If you were to provide an example of things grouped together maybe I could share in an understanding of what you are inferring.
But I never said life is a single thing, it is because everything has an opposite that everything works together, rather than everything existing in a state of chaos.
I guess you don't understand a word of my thread, you just didn't like it so you reacted negatively without knowing why. Going by several of the posts that followed yours you are not alone.
Talk about negatives grouped together......

An example? Human beings. A human being isn't a single element, it's a lot of things working together to make a human being, we are a bunch of cells and chemical reactions. How can you have an opposite of so many things at once? The same goes for life, it's just a bunch of chemical reactions and electrical signals, how can you have an opposite of that?

I understood your thread perfectly, you didn't understand my reply.

reply to post by SpearMint


Touché

Well, you ask how there can be an opposite of so many things at once. There is not AN opposite, there are countless interactions going on continuously. It is all these interactions between opposites that give life order, balance and harmony without which everything would exist in a state of chaos.
A human body would not be able to hold together, atoms would be shooting off all over the shop crashing into each other. A human cell would not be able to divide if it were not for the coming together of two opposites (sexual union). It is only because everything has an opposite that life can exist on Earth.

Even if life is merely a bunch of chemical reactions and electrical impulses as you assert they would be random and chaotic if they did not have an opposite to react or impulse to.

This is what my own experience and observations have shown me. Your own experiences and observations have led you to a contrary picture. it would seem.

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 think this might fall into "philosophy" or "metaphysics", but it's not true for science or technology.

if you could narrow "everything" to something very very simple and specific, you might be able to formalize it - for example, you could redefine "everything" as "electric charge" and you might be right - there's no way to prove if there is a charge imbalance in the universe as a whole, but in general, charge is conserved, so you'll generally always get opposites.

But if you make any statement of absolutes - "everything has an opposite", then the first thing I'm going to ask you would be what is the PRECISE opposite of, say, a banana pancake? In the sense that there is an EXACT opposite. There is none. You get into verbal comparisons that involve taste and judgement instead of proof - perhaps chili without beans is an anti-banana pancake etc.

Originally posted by Shema
Do you want me to quote from various sources the definition of antimatter? Is that what you are asking me?
I would not have thought that was necessary when you can easily look it up yourself. So what, exactly, are you after. A handful? So you can throw it back in my face? You seem to be itching to throw something.

I'm not looking for the definition.

You said everything has an opposite. The opposite of matter is antimatter, except the problem is, most matter doesn't have an antimatter opposite. The universe is mostly matter.

So if you don't like the question coming from me, then here is the same question from "Ask an Astrophysicist":

So where is the anti-matter?

I don't think anybody knows WHY it's not there, but we know that the universe is mostly matter and the antimatter opposite is missing. Though we don't really know why, that link poses a guess or theory.

But our knowledge that it's not there disproves your claim about everything having an opposite.

To make an analogy, it's like if 6.9 billion of the 7 billion people on Earth were male, and only 0.1 billion were female. In that case if you referred to opposite sex, there would be 0.1 + 0.1 billion with an opposite. The other 6.8 billion males would have no opposite sex. In fact China has a surplus of Males (something like 120 males per 100 females), and it's a problem that many males don't have an opposite sex available.

At least in China we know why there are more males than females.

Hi,
I'm thinking that matter doesn't gain mass until whatever it is to become materially is traveling through space at least as fast as light...Einstein's relativity?

Mass is not accumulated unless it's traveling at the speed of light,
so to me- I think anti-matter is/are particles NOT traveling at the speed of light.

Or, particles that once were alive (traveling through space), are now dead and motionless- left in the past- unattainable because it fell out of existence.

Makes me wonder really; how fast are comets traveling through space.
Only a non-physical particle can remain stationary?

reply to post by Shema


Sorry but I read your post, and all I can see is suggestions.... There is no proof in this thread at all.

Care to point out what I have missed?

Arbitrateur's position on this matter, pun intended, is a weak one; any thinking, unbiased, person would see that his arguments don't stack up.

That statement will set some blood to boiling point I imagine.

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.

Light also has its opposite. The relevant sciences, instead of projecting the theory of the big bang upon all of us as though it has been proven beyond question, would be better employed focusing their genius on what and where is the opposite of light because the answers would undoubtedly unlock huge planks of lost knowledge.

reply to post by TrueBrit


You didnt miss anything.

Its just talking about duality. IMO, its a great subject and concept and pretty intriguing to think about. That is why the idea has persisted for so long (one of the worlds oldest philosophies with things like Advaita and Henosis). It is a philosophy, though to some, it could be considered a religion.

Personally, I was looking forward to seeing some math, or experiments, or.. something quantifiable. This would turn into a pretty cool thread if you could do that Shema Its actually out there to an extent, but ya gots to show yer werk.

reply to post by Shema


Your are not shy of strawman arguments and lying whenever someone disagrees with you. It was a good call I did not reply to your response. This is first class woo. All made nonsense up without anything to back it up.

reply to post by Serdgiam


See, I was hoping for something like what you describe from this thread, but its not there. I think its important to understand that the only way to prove anything, no matter how fantastic, is to make it quantifiable. If one is of the opinion that the non-physical plane cannot provide the sort of evidence that most will accept , then one must simply live with that.

If on the other hand, one believes that all of existence is provable, then one should hunt that proof. But no matter what is being proven, or disproven, one cannot do it with philosophy, or with psuedo religious rambles, and "soul" searching.

Proof of anything requires something irrefutable. Relying on intangibles to prove an intangible is not valid, or reasonable.

reply to post by TrueBrit


I couldnt agree more. Philosophy is like the first step. I feel its important, but its only the beginning of the process!

To be fair though, quantifying something which is specifically non-physical is tricky, at best. In fact, by me saying "specifically" non-physical I have given it a material attribute...

If we are to talk of "balance" though, one could propose that things consistently balance in some form or our math wouldnt be able to function at all. That whole equal sign would become nonsense! Thats not really what this thread is about though, as math is only a way to elaborate on "things" where numbers actually apply. So, that more points towards the physical being the balance of itself.

I think its possible that the physical is mirrored by the non-physical somehow, but actually proving it is troublesome to say the least.

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.