SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!!
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Dayuhan who wrote (25299)10/7/1998 6:47:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte  Read Replies (1) of 108807
 
>How does the scientist deal with the possibility (near certainty, I would guess) that
forms of energy exist which we are not yet able to measure?<

That depends - are we talking about "described but inexplicable" phenomena or "as yet completely unknown" things? Each has its own proper mode of inquiry.

At the turn of the century atomic spectra became described and rather precisely measured. But the mechanism by which these spectra were generated was a big mystery - until quantum mechanical theory was proposed. The fact that it made spectral frequencies and intensities suddenly make real good sense was an early anchor for the theory.
So - if it's detectable - it gets measured as well as possible. If the measurements are good - with limits on what happens when - any future theory can be tested to see how it fits the catalog of data. Astronomy works this way a lot - we see it, and we can measure it very precisely. But we can't hope to touch or model it in a lab. Theories are made or broken by how well they fit the plates and spectra coming from the world's big telescopes - optical or radio.

Now - if a sort of energy is not even measurable directly or by some consequence - it simply isn't interesting. Scientists take a minimalist approach which can be paraphrased "if it has no effect, it as good as isn't there." No need to posit the existence of a X material or energy if it has no effect.

I feel the term "energy" as used for spirit effects is at best a metaphor and at worst a con job. For the scientist or engineer, "energy" has a definite meaning.
The spirit effects of which you speak are undoubtedly real. But I don't think they are "energy" in the way many like to think. I think they are closer to being a special sort of "information". Thoughts and cybernetic actions are things which have almost vanishingly low use of matter or energy. And yet they are kick-a-rock real.
But I strongly suspect that spiritual "energy" is a sort of information processing which affects our moods and our will. As such it is immensely powerful because it directs what we will feel and do. Nonetheless, there is no instrument currently available which will measure or record that "something happened". Here then is the paradox.

I do not like the appropriation of the term "energy". It implies that there is a force external to our conscious minds which can be harnessed or channeled to affect e.g. inanimate objects. I have seen no evidence for "energy" being nothing more than the first derivative of attitude. But hey, that's me.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News