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.
Politics : Should God be replaced?

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Solon who wrote (23472)5/9/2006 11:16:39 AM
From: LLCF  Read Replies (1) of 28931
 
<You keep missing the point. I never said Newtonian Physics could explain quantum phenomena. I said: "Newtonian physics has not changed. It is doing quite well. Quantum physics is simply another lens for examination of our physical world...">

You miss the point... Newtonian physics has limitations... of course it's "doing fine"... so is Ptolomy and his ideas... I spoke with him yesterday! (LOL, no, but I learned all about him in Astronomy in University).

< Quantum physics is simply another lens for examination of our physical world...">

I don't know what that would mean... it's certainly not "looking over here" instead of "looking through this lens over there"... why don't we simply differentiate:

en.wikipedia.org

en.wikipedia.org

"Classical mechanics excludes any physics which involves the uncertainty principle, so quantum mechanics is not "classical", and is sometimes called modern physics by contrast. However, note well that classical mechanics does include the principle of relativity used in Einstein's mechanics, which represents classical mechanics in its most developed and most accurate form."

So the point remains, anyone who is anyone in physics is looking at "modern physics" not Newtonian physics... sure Newtonian laws "work" and will be "encompassed" by the new physics, just like the sun and moon cycles had to be encompassed by the overthrow of Ptolomy.

<That's because we're discussing spirituality".

So I take it the origninal point can be dropped, since you dropped it, good.

<Which has NOTHING to do with science. Science does not recognize the existence of spirits.>

(I'll use your use of "spirits here" to include "the ghost in the machine paradox) NOR DOES IT PROVE OTHERWISE, OR PRETEND TO, except those that don't understand science... they tend to think that lack of "scientific proof" means something is false. A problem with putting science 101 first, instead of last... them mind tends to forget the basics sometimes. :))

<Scientists have been studying consciousness for centuries. What in Hell are you talking about?>

But I thought science doesn't recognize spirits??? LOL! No, seriously, Newtonian physics does'nt deal with it AT ALL... mind has been separated from scientific study of "stuff" for a long time:

""However, the best-known version of dualism is due to René Descartes (1641), and holds that the mind is a nonphysical substance. Descartes was the first to clearly identify the mind with consciousness and self-awareness and to distinguish this from the brain, which was the seat of intelligence. Hence, he was the first to formulate the mind/body problem in the form in which it still exists today.""

powells.com

"Consciousness is at the very core of the human condition. Yet only in recent decades has it become a major focus in the brain and behavioral sciences. "

Look, many scientists STILL scoff at psychology as dealing in unproven pseudoscientific realms... and all the great stuff on consciousness is psychology. I might note that "Buddhism" is very interesting to most psychologists.

<In the meantime I will take the stairs and you can take the window...>

Perfect... I can fly!! ROFLMAO

DAK
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext