Hi George,
Thanks for your comments.
on 9/4/01 5:11 PM, George Andrews Jr. at gandrews@as.wm.edu wrote:
> Hi James;
> I have a few honest questions (and of course some comments :-) ):
>
> James W Stark wrote:
>>
>> In my worldview reality consists of a physical universe
>> (matter), a mental world, (our awareness of the laws of
>> mathematics as well as any subject matter.), and the
>> spiritual realm (known to us through our consciousness.)
>>
> Are not our minds an epiphenomenan of our brains and therefore belong to
> your first category of physical? i.e. mental activity =
> electrical/chemical activity = subsets of physical phenomena.
No, I do not see the mind as an epiphenomenona. Such a reductionistic view
does not have sufficient explanatory power. The mind and brain are
independent worlds connected through human consciousness. The brain is
deterministic in structure, but the mind embraces decision agents that can
use free will, which is not a program.
>
> Can you explain what you mean by a "real" "spiritual realm"? I mean in
> terms other then faith based; e.g. the statement: "I believe that ghosts
> are real" is faith based; qualitatively different then say "electrons
> exist". It seams to me that even the notion of spirit is fraught with
> rational difficulties -- where as the notion of electrons is only
> difficult epistemologically.
>
You are raising the natural problem of measurement for what is real.
Physicists and many other scientists insist on objective measurement, which
is fine for experimental work. However, when you try to extend that model
to explain the mind and a spiritual realm, your objectivity gets in the way.
Whenever you or anyone interprets a model, we all are forced to use indirect
measures, such as a theory. Our estimation of what is real then depends on
our personal worldview. We as interpreters become the measuring
instruments. Our testimony is presented as evidence of what is real. Our
standard of reference for truth becomes the self. Such self-referencing
cannot reach out beyond the self to God as THE truth.
Thus the truth about any spiritual realm can only be measured through
testimony. A barrier between the mind and the spiritual realm exists that
can only be passed by a personal conviction in a belief in God and a belief
in the truth of free will. Deny free will and the true presence of God and
God's guidance will not be available.
>>> God created matter.
>>
>> Or should we say energy rather than matter? Einstein's
>> discovery of E = mc2 can be interpreted to imply how much
>> energy is required to give the appearance of a certain
>> amount of mass, which suggests that matter is an illusion.
>> Did God create matter an illusion? Eastern religions start
>> creation with illusion, while Christianity starts with
>> truth.
>>
>
> Matter is indeed a "form" of energy but this is very, very different
> than an "illusion". Matter really exists as "mass=inertia"; e.g.
> baryons have mass (inertia) -- photons don't. E=mc^2 is a positive
> assertion regarding the existence of matter; not a negation of it; i.e.
> mass = E/c^2.
>
Here, I agree with you that it is more meaningful to just allow matter to be
energy. Here is a quote from Beyond E = mc2 by Bernard Haisch, Alfonso
Rueda & H.E. Puthoff
published in THE SCIENCES, Vol. 34, No. 6, November / December 1994, pp.
26-31
"In the view we will present, Einstein's formula is even more significant
than physicists have realized. It is actually a statement about how much
energy is required to give the appearance of a certain amount of mass,
rather than about the conversion of one fundamental thing, energy, into
another fundamental thing, mass".
"Indeed, if that view is correct, there is no such thing as mass-only
electric charge and energy, which together create the illusion of mass. The
physical universe is made up of massless electric charges immersed in a
vast, energetic, all-pervasive electromagnetic field. It is the interaction
of those charges and the electromagnetic field that creates the appearance
of mass. In other words, the magazine you now hold in your hands is
massless; properly understood, it is physically nothing more than a
collection of electric charges embedded in a universal energetic
electromagnetic field and acted on by the field in such a way as to make you
think the magazine has the property of mass. Its apparent weight and
solidity arise from the interactions of charges and field".
They are not alone in their choice to see mass as an illusion. I'm just
following the story at this time. Extraction of free energy from the
zero-point field is seen as a possibility.
>>
>> How ought we feel about mathematics not always estimating
>> truth?
>>
>> James Stark
>>
> I think you may be confusing matematical truth with physical models and
> observation; 1+1=2 is exactly true and 1+1=3 is not -- assuming one
> accepts the requisite axioms for number theory (which one must in order
> to add two numbers :-) ). Formal mathematics is about precise
> mathematical truths; not estimates of physics. Of course, physics uses
> math in formulating physical theories and models -- because math is so
> very good in explaining physical phenomenon.
>
Apparently, I'm not making my point very clear. To me the logical truth
contained in mathematical equations cannot promise estimates of truth in
reality. Thus, the equations we write may very well be mathematically
sound. That does not mean that there is a valid interpretation of the same
equations as truth in reality. Equations can represent illusions.
James Stark
> Sincerely; George A.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 04 2001 - 21:36:45 EDT