• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Scientific monism

F

freethinker44

Well-Known Member
I think you might be missing a few steps there.
How do you go from everything is composed of energy to there is one true god?
 
Taylor Seraphim

Taylor Seraphim

Angel of Reason
freethinker44 said:
I think you might be missing a few steps there.
How do you go from everything is composed of energy to there is one true god?
Click to expand...

Monsim does not nessecarly have anything to do with a deity.

Even so if you consider the universe a non-sentient deity and everything in the universe is composed of energy would that work?
 
F

freethinker44

Well-Known Member
Taylor Seraphim said:
Monsim does not nessecarly have anything to do with a deity.

Even so if you consider the universe a non-sentient deity and everything in the universe is composed of energy would that work?
Click to expand...
No, it's a huge leap from everything is energy to a proof of a deity, and this doesn't explain that leap at all. Why does everything being energy necessarily prove a deity?
 
Taylor Seraphim

Taylor Seraphim

Angel of Reason
freethinker44 said:
No, it's a huge leap from everything is energy to a proof of a deity, and this doesn't explain that leap at all. Why does everything being energy necessarily prove a deity?
Click to expand...

I said Monsim =/= theism.

I was also saying on a different note, you could think of the universe of a non-sentient deity.

Quite trying to turn my argument into something it is not.
 
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Everything's composed of energy? How so?

A non-sentient deity? You may think of the universe as sanctified, maybe, but a God is always thought of as some sort of personage, it seems to me.
 
Aupmanyav

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Taylor Seraphim said:
Monsim does not nessecarly have anything to do with a deity.

Even so if you consider the universe a non-sentient deity and everything in the universe is composed of energy would that work?
Click to expand...
Yes, it works in Hinduism in both the styles. I go by the non-deity style. Most people go by the deity style. Brahman - involved (Saguna), or uninvolved (Nirguna).
 
Nous

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Taylor Seraphim said:
As far as we understand everything is composed of energy.
Click to expand...
It’s so very interesting that “everything is compose of” something that no one has ever seen or touched (as Davies and Gribbin point out in The Matter Myth), something that is, in fact, a quantity (the product to two other quantities--mass times the speed of light in a vacuum squared), a conserved quantity in closed systems.

Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume I

Chapter 4-1 What Is Energy?

There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing all natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law--it is exact so far as we know. The law is called the conservation of energy. It states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not change in the manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same. (Something like the bishop on a red square, and after a number of moves--details unknown--it is still on some red square. It is a law of this nature.)​

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_04.html

And energy exists in both potential and actual (kinetic) forms.

Of course, the nonlocal correlations found in Bell-Inequality experiments are not accounted for as the product of a transfer of energy (or information) between polarizers.
 
Aupmanyav

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Yes, it is confusing. Matter, non-matter. Particle, wave. But a definite relation - E = .... Is it not?
 
Taylor Seraphim

Taylor Seraphim

Angel of Reason
Nous said:
It’s so very interesting that “everything is compose of” something that no one has ever seen or touched (as Davies and Gribbin point out in The Matter Myth), something that is, in fact, a quantity (the product to two other quantities--mass times the speed of light in a vacuum squared), a conserved quantity in closed systems.

Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume I

Chapter 4-1 What Is Energy?

There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing all natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law--it is exact so far as we know. The law is called the conservation of energy. It states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not change in the manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same. (Something like the bishop on a red square, and after a number of moves--details unknown--it is still on some red square. It is a law of this nature.)​

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_04.html

And energy exists in both potential and actual (kinetic) forms.

Of course, the nonlocal correlations found in Bell-Inequality experiments are not accounted for as the product of a transfer of energy (or information) between polarizers.
Click to expand...

Do you know what quarks are?
 
Nous

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Taylor Seraphim said:
They are basically a form of compressed energy.
Click to expand...
Obviously there is no problem in noting the energy equivalency of a quark's mass and momentum. I'm unsure if you're suggesting that quarks are some kind of special kind of energy.

Actually the adjective "compressed" seems to imply that energy is somehow spatially extended or has volume. I don't think one should promote that idea.
 
Taylor Seraphim

Taylor Seraphim

Angel of Reason
Nous said:
Obviously there is no problem in noting the energy equivalency of a quark's mass and momentum. I'm unsure if you're suggesting that quarks are some kind of special kind of energy.

Actually the adjective "compressed" seems to imply that energy is somehow spatially extended or has volume. I don't think one should promote that idea.
Click to expand...

Take it up with physicist not me.
 
Spirit_Warrior

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
Taylor Seraphim said:
As far as we understand everything is composed of energy.

Therefore isn't monism scientifically proven?
Click to expand...

Well not quite --- because there two models that describe physics and ends up with different fundamentals that make up physical reality.

GR ------ Particles, of which there are 61 or so elementary particles, meaning they cannot reduce further, a photon is just one example. They have spin, charge, mass
Quantum physics --- non-particle, an abstract field, non-local, virtual, non-massive properties

Hence very far from monism.

"Everything is energy" is just a modern cliche.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top