Let there be light

In so much as the fundamental basis of universality is materialism...Fast forwards and therefore hence philosophy, whereby answers are somewhat thin on the ground.

SergeantLynch wrote:

In so much as the fundamental basis of universality is materialism...Fast forwards and therefore hence philosophy, whereby answers are somewhat thin on the ground.

What?

Well, you asked how can a materialist argue that light exists...Wherein an obvious contradiction arose in respect of "a materialist and materialism"...Which is to say that you and electromagnetic radiation are both perceivably occurrent, and therefore philosophically one cannot argue for the non-occurence of the other...To do so would imply that you and I have not actually corresponded.

Hmmmm...Such is the impossibility of the conundrum, though I am inclined to err on the side of temporal reality, whilst also remaining open minded.

We need light to end darkness. We need darkness to rest. Both complement each other.

I'm all for Yin and Yang.

You are an open and close case.

As are we all.

Speak for yourself.

So you can dream of slavation.

While you dream of life in hell.

Nope, I just dream of you in your devil outfit.

So you dream about the devil in different outfits.

No just you, sometimes on the bed in delicate lingerie.

I'm guessing that she devils slip into something more comfortable after a hard day of dealing with long males.

a particle cannot have a periodicity, nor can it be spread out in space.

Albert Einstein and some associates, in about 1935, theorized a concept they called "Quantum Entanglement," which refutes your claim of particle non-periodicity and non-spread [expansion or proliferation?] in space.

a particle cannot have a periodicity, nor can it be spread out in space.

Albert Einstein and some associates, in about 1935, theorized a concept they called "Quantum Entanglement," which refutes your claim of particle non-periodicity and non-spread [expansion or proliferation?] in space.

fauxlaw wrote:

a particle cannot have a periodicity, nor can it be spread out in space.

Albert Einstein and some associates, in about 1935, theorized a concept they called "Quantum Entanglement," which refutes your claim of particle non-periodicity and non-spread [expansion or proliferation?] in space.

Entangled particles share a single, non-local wave function, but that has nothing to do with particle periodicity or it's spread out in space. Entangled particles are non-local, which means they can be separated by great distances and still share a single, unified quantum state, but they are still two discrete particles and they are not spread out in space.

By definition, particles do not have a periodicity, and they are not spread out in space, which are two of the things that distinguishes particles from waves.

Quantum entanglement can be applied to the spiritual link with God which leads to entanglement.

Debby wrote:

Quantum entanglement can be applied to the spiritual link with God which leads to entanglement.

I know what all of those words mean, but when you put them together into a sentence that way, I don't think it has meaning. Did you sequence them randomly perhaps?

I just applied Quantum Entanglement to God’s creation.

Debby wrote:

I just applied Quantum Entanglement to God’s creation.

Were you speaking in tongues perhaps?

Hempel’s Dilemma kind of deals with this and reflects some of my own thoughts as well. A physicalist 500 years ago would probably see modern physics as basically magic. If the rules of physics change based on new discoveries, no matter how wacky the stuff we discover, then it seems like it has the potential to include ghosts or spells. I question the extent to which a spirit would really seem crazier than quantum mechanics to a physicalist a few centuries ago. If something breaks the laws of physics, then it's really our understanding of physics that's wrong.

There are still wild theories that stretch the imagination like black holes, quantum entanglement and multiverse.

Savant wrote:

Hempel’s Dilemma kind of deals with this and reflects some of my own thoughts as well. A physicalist 500 years ago would probably see modern physics as basically magic. If the rules of physics change based on new discoveries, no matter how wacky the stuff we discover, then it seems like it has the potential to include ghosts or spells. I question the extent to which a spirit would really seem crazier than quantum mechanics to a physicalist a few centuries ago. If something breaks the laws of physics, then it's really our understanding of physics that's wrong.

That’s what I’m getting at with the OP, physicalism/materialism seems to be the default position for most people that believe they are being scientific, but it appears that they are presuming 400-year-old science. There’s been a lot of progress since Newton and the mechanistic view of nature, the belief that a deterministic reality can be defined as “matter in motion” has been untenable for more than a century. Science has gone so far beyond those ideas that the presumption of physicalism is not consistent with the current scientific paradigm. I don’t know about ghosts and spells, but it’s clear that science is telling us that there exists dimensions of reality that lay beyond the four-dimensional framework of physicalism.

The progress of science has forced a much more generous view of the nature of reality on us, it's clearly pointing to realities that fall outside of science’s frame of reference, not multiple worlds, but one world encountered at multiple different levels.

There I so much discussion about what “exists” or is “real”, but nobody seems to be able to tell what they mean when they use the word “exist” or “real”. Whenever someone does explain the criteria of existence, they give a definition that when applied to the physical world, tells us it doesn’t exist either. A criterion of existence that says nothing exists is illogical.

I’ve asked repeatedly, but nobody that talks about what does and doesn’t exist can tell me what they really mean, what are the qualities that something that exist has, or something that doesn’t exist, doesn’t have. We know that light exists, but it has none of physicalism’s traditional standards of existence. Most people who claim science supports their belief in physicalism, upon examination, are in the end, flatly unscientific.

That’s why Elon Musk suggests we complete the journey to Mars where he thinks it all began.

Sidewalker claimed that I wrote, in my #15 [& 16, though that was added in error]: "a particle cannot have a periodicity, nor can it be spread out in space."

I did not originate that, my friend. I was quoting the originator of this thread. Oh! that's you!

And your conclusion is, effectively, in agreement with what you [your #1] & I [my #15] originally said. mutual appreciation society?

Most people who claim science supports their belief in physicalism, upon examination, are in the end, flatly unscientific.

It appears what you're saying is that not only what "exists" and is "real" are undefinable, but what "science" is, as well. Said another way, it's as Bill Clinton testified in his grand jury testimony almost exactly 28 years ago [on Aug. 17]: "'It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.'"

I knew he was a better president than what Republicans were trying to paint him! In short, I might accuse Repubs of creating the conditions under which "woke" was allowed to generate. I knew somebody had to be at fault! And that has led to a new thread I started just a few minutes ago in "Current Events"

You are using Bill Clinton’s legal definition of what is to define rape when science wasn’t even discussed in the courtroom.

fauxlaw wrote:

Sidewalker claimed that I wrote, in my #15 [& 16, though that was added in error]: "a particle cannot have a periodicity, nor can it be spread out in space."

I did not originate that, my friend. I was quoting the originator of this thread. Oh! that's you!

Yes, you quoted my statement and then tries to refute it with an absurd misunderstanding of quantum entanglement, what you said:

"Albert Einstein and some associates, in about 1935, theorized a concept they called "Quantum Entanglement," which refutes your claim of particle non-periodicity and non-spread [expansion or proliferation?] in space."

And your conclusion is, effectively, in agreement with what you [your #1] & I [my #15] originally said. mutual appreciation society?

Nice try at misrepresenting the exchange, I made the statement, you refuted it with an illogical statement, and I responded by explaining my OP.

You didn't know what you were talking about, and now you want to give the false appearance that you did.

Quantum entanglement needs good to prevent chaotic entanglement. Einstein observed the Godly order behind Quantum Entanglement.