Exactly.
-
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!
The simplest explanation is best. --The case against the immortal soul--
- Thread starter Jeremiah
- Start date
Exactly.
Not so. Energy is a property of matter. It doesn't "form" matter any more than "blue" forms the sky, or than "length" forms a ruler.
Energy never exists on its own -- you will never find a clump of only energy in the universe any more than you will find a clump of only "length" or only "softness." You will only find things which possess energy. It has no independent ontological existence since it's merely an attribute.
I thought that only kenetic energy is a property of matter.
Aren't matter and energy equivalent? (E=mc2)
No, all forms of energy are only properties.
The "m" in E=mc^2 stands for "mass," not matter. Energy and mass are indeed equivalent; however mass is just a property as well -- you will never find a clump of mass existing on its own, only things which possess mass (e.g., matter).
Matter is not the same thing as mass, though many texts use them interchangeably because the metaphysics behind their ontology is usually unimportant for whatever the popular science is talking about; but it's ultimately true that mass =/= matter.
Mass is a property of matter in the same way length is a property of a ruler.
Edit: Also to pre-emptively take care of a common misconception, light is not composed of energy either. Photons, the quanta of light, are particle-like matter which also possess energy. Light is often confused by nonphysicists as being pure energy because it doesn't possess mass, but that's actually not true: light merely doesn't possess rest mass because it never rests.
It does possess mass in the sense that it has momentum, p, expressed: p = E/c
This is actually where E=mc^2 comes from. Matter's momentum is p = mv, where v is the velocity. So, if discussing the momentum of light, E/c = p = mv.
However with light v = c (because c is just a character that represents the velocity of light). So, E/c = p = mc
Using algebra we cut out the unnecessary equivalence (p), so E/c = mc
Also with algebra we multiply both sides by c: E = mc^2
Last edited:
I'm assuming you responded before I edited my post.
Light is not energy. It possesses energy. Refer to my post above yours to see the explanation.
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
I enjoy reading this interview with Einstein.He is one of the few physicists who recognize what he called the arch-force.
INTUITION IN-DEPTH: EINSTEIN'S INTUITION
Einstein nodded: he was a good listener. After a pause he said, "The cosmic man must be restored, the whole man who is made in the image and likeness of the arch-force, which you may call God. This man thinks with his heart and not with party dogma. As I've explained before, there is an order in the universe – a cosmic order – and humans have the possibility of understanding these laws."
Hermanns is constantly pushing Einstein to acknowledge his inherent mysticism. He succeeds in getting Einstein to say something that probably few scientists today would say—that there is a vital force or energy in creation. Einstein is willing to associate energy with what are generally seen as spiritual concepts.
INTUITION IN-DEPTH: EINSTEIN'S INTUITION
Einstein nodded: he was a good listener. After a pause he said, "The cosmic man must be restored, the whole man who is made in the image and likeness of the arch-force, which you may call God. This man thinks with his heart and not with party dogma. As I've explained before, there is an order in the universe – a cosmic order – and humans have the possibility of understanding these laws."
Hermanns is constantly pushing Einstein to acknowledge his inherent mysticism. He succeeds in getting Einstein to say something that probably few scientists today would say—that there is a vital force or energy in creation. Einstein is willing to associate energy with what are generally seen as spiritual concepts.
I pulled out some notes. "Once, in England, I was at dinner with people highly trained in meditation, among them Professor Suzuki who asked me to ask you if spiritual vibrations and electricity have the same original cause or force."
"I believe," Einstein answered, "that energy is the basic force in creation. My friend Bergson calls it élan vital, the Hindus call it prana."
"I believe," Einstein answered, "that energy is the basic force in creation. My friend Bergson calls it élan vital, the Hindus call it prana."
Last edited:
Yes, I did write it before your editing.
As is obvious, my knowledge of science is extremely limited.
Even my Vedic understanding is extremely limited.
So let me get back to before, with this acknowledgement in mind.
Yes, everything is 'composed' of consciousness. This consciousness is described as the 'mind of God' (figuratively) and the Shakti is the energy that makes the 'thoughts' manifest. In other words, the universe is God's 'idea'.
If you wish to comprehend the idea of consciousness being the fundamental basis of all existence then I really do suggest watching What the Bleep Do We Know (first movie, not 'down the rabbit hole'), not because I base my beliefs on this documentary, but because the concepts it explores reflects those of ancient Vedic explanations. It's something worth knowing if you have an interest in understanding the concepts of the different main world religions (ie/ not just Christianity and Islam).
I've seen What the Bleep and disagree with it nearly entirely, especially since it deals a lot with my field (foundational cosmology). That movie is nearly universally rejected amongst physicists for taking quantum physics out of context and utilizing terrible metaphysics/philosophy of science.
That being said, I didn't say that to belittle it or to offend: valid metaphysical ideas are often bad science; and only because science is limited to the empirical. It's just dishonest on their part to portray the movie as if it had anything really to do with science.
Personally I fear our metaphysics will most likely clash if your beliefs are at least in part represented by What the Bleep Do We Know?!, but that's ok. Diversity is interesting. Don't ever be offended if I go on the offensive regarding ideas you may espouse though: it's all in good fun. We're all friends here
Brain ends, soul ends. Ezekiel agrees. Ezekiel wrote the soul dies.
At death the soul ends in death. [18vs4,20]
Brain thoughts or thinking ends. [Psalm 146v4]
'Ending' does not necessarily mean can't be brought back to life.
Adam had both a beginning and an ending.
Adam did not exist before being created.
After receiving the breath of life, then perfect Adam 'became a living soul'.
Adam was a living soul or living person. Gen 2v7.
Not possessing a separate soul, or coming to have a separate soul,
but Adam was a soul or enjoyed life as a living soul.
At death Adam became a dead soul or lifeless soul.
Adam ceased to exist.
Because Adam was created as a perfect human with sound mind and body Adam could only disobey on purpose.
As a human falling from human perfection Adam forfeited any hope for future life anywhere.
So Adam was created as a mortal soul meaning can only continue to live forever if obedient.
Since we are imperfect souls and can sin by mistake we are offered what was originally offered to Adam: The prospect of everlasting life if obedient.
In order for eternal life to become a reality for us mortal souls we need to be resurrected or brought back to life. Since we can not resurrect oneself or another we need Jesus to do that for us and he can and he will bring us back to become perfect living souls [either heaven or earth] during his 1000-year reign over earth with the prospect for most of having everlasting life in view on a beautiful paradisaic earth.
Don't ever be offended if I go on the offensive regarding ideas you may espouse though: it's all in good fun. We're all friends here
Oh, I know.
I also acknowledge my need to gain more knowledge about science. That will help me to link Vedic concepts with appropriate scientific understandings (ie/ the whole energy/matter confusion).
The only part of that film that refelcts my beliefs is when it comes to consciousness being at the centre of everything manifest. I've known for a while that the doc has a bad rep for being dishonest, but I remember when it came out and I was so excited thinking that scientists were finally discovering these things. Obviously it was disappointing when the film was crushed...
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
I keep forgetting that science "owns" the term, energy. How terribly silly of me. From a purely scientific perspective, you will get no quibbles from me, however, I'm not meaning "energy" in the same vein that you are.
My guess is that science won't be up to speed for at least another 1-200 years... if then.
On a personal note: I do find your thinking stimulating and it serves to highlight the weaknesses in my own. Like many, I have relied on too many words with their garden variety definition, for too long. Perhaps it's time to redefine what I am thinking, using different parameters.
Last edited:
Firstly, let me say that I will agree to an extent that our consciousness (little "c") is at the center of our epistemology which therefore influences everything we know about reality -- so maybe we have some common ground there but I think it's a small ledge.
Second, I think we should all rejoice when something is shown to be incorrect or untenable. It's better to believe what's true than to believe what we "want" to be regardless of how nice it would be if it were true. As an atheist I admit that I sort of want a god to exist because it would be nice to have a safety net under all of our respective belts in the ultimate end, or that I might see my family again eventually...
So, don't feel bad that What the Bleep wasn't what it promised to be. If you think that it was close but off the mark just enough to be wrong, it doesn't hurt to refine its mistakes and make a better hypothesis and see how that one goes. I guarantee that 100% of us at RF are wrong about something even if we don't know what it is yet, the best we can do is ever strive for the truth...
Making new words couldn't hurt. I've often thought of making new words for concepts though after the amount of whiskey I've had tonight I can't think of specific examples.
Using existing words isn't that bad either as long as you're cognizant of the fact that if it's a word popularly used in a different context that you'll have to be clear about it when you use it. For instance, atheists are in a near-constant battle against a definition of atheism long used by theists to mean "belief there is no god" rather than as a simple "lack of belief in gods." We just make sure we're clear what we mean when we say it.
Can you cognitively define the context of energy that you're speaking of?
A few questions and thoughts:
1) If I understand it correctly, matter is defined by a set of properties, including mass and volume. I wasn't aware that physics understands energy to be a property of matter.
Is it at least conceivable (in the physical sense) that something might exist without being matter (e.g. due to a lack of mass) or a property of matter?
It is still not clear to me why energy must necessarily be "tied" to matter. Assuming for a moment that it hasn't be proven to be the case, is there an existing name for a hypothetical physically-detectable entity that is neither a property of matter nor has the necessary attributes of matter itself? Something that may be proven to exist yet not be matter (e.g. something that has no mass, yet has visible boundaries and other detectable properties)?
2) Meow Mix, we atheists also use the word to mean "belief that there is no god". That is why the expression "strong atheism" was coined.
Incidentally, I don't wish there were a God. That would make the existence of such an imperfect world that much more depressing. It is far more conforting to believe that the injustices of existence are due to garden-variety chaos and lack of proper care.
3) I may be mistaken, but apparently you use "consciousness" in a cognitive sense, perhaps even as a strictly personal atribute, while Madhuri is talking about a far more ascended Consciousness, perhaps even a Pantheist conception of God. Not really one and the same thing, although some (perhaps most Theists) will see the first as an emanation of the second.
1) If I understand it correctly, matter is defined by a set of properties, including mass and volume. I wasn't aware that physics understands energy to be a property of matter.
Is it at least conceivable (in the physical sense) that something might exist without being matter (e.g. due to a lack of mass) or a property of matter?
It is still not clear to me why energy must necessarily be "tied" to matter. Assuming for a moment that it hasn't be proven to be the case, is there an existing name for a hypothetical physically-detectable entity that is neither a property of matter nor has the necessary attributes of matter itself? Something that may be proven to exist yet not be matter (e.g. something that has no mass, yet has visible boundaries and other detectable properties)?
2) Meow Mix, we atheists also use the word to mean "belief that there is no god". That is why the expression "strong atheism" was coined.
Incidentally, I don't wish there were a God. That would make the existence of such an imperfect world that much more depressing. It is far more conforting to believe that the injustices of existence are due to garden-variety chaos and lack of proper care.
3) I may be mistaken, but apparently you use "consciousness" in a cognitive sense, perhaps even as a strictly personal atribute, while Madhuri is talking about a far more ascended Consciousness, perhaps even a Pantheist conception of God. Not really one and the same thing, although some (perhaps most Theists) will see the first as an emanation of the second.
Jeremiah
Well-Known Member
It is better to accept ourselves as we truly are, limited; it is only by doing this can we truly began to know ourselves and the reality around us.
Technically, only by doing this can we truly begin to imagine ourselves and the reality around us.
Reptillian
Hamburgler Extraordinaire
Its not the case that energy is always tied to matter. The example that comes to my mind is the electromagnetic field. In order to satisfy conservation of energy in electrodynamics, we are forced to ascribe an energy density to the electromagnetic field. So there can be no matter in a region of spacetime, but as long as there is an electric or magnetic field present, there is still some energy. A long time ago it was even hoped that the mass of the electron could be attributed to the energy stored up in its electromagnetic field, but unfortunately it doesn't work. Also, in relativity it isn't mass that changes geometry and creates gravity, its four-momentum. So even in that theory, energy and momentum attain a superior status.
To me it all hinges on ones definition of God. There are some types of God I would be in favor of existing. Personally, I've always liked the idea of a judgement day where injustices are righted, imperfections are understood, and everyone is held accountable for their actions.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
An additional observation here: There are no known particles, AFAIK, that have mass but no electric charge. But other than that, I thought that mass-energy was what warped spacetime in Relativity? (So if you collided enough photons together, you could get a black hole out of them)
Reptillian
Hamburgler Extraordinaire
The neutron has mass, but its supposedly composed of quarks so I guess it doesn't count. Hasn't it been shown that the neutrino has a rest mass though? If mass could be attributed to charge, that would certainly be interesting.
As for relativity, remember from special relativity that momentum can look like energy to observers with a different state of motion. Energy and momentum in relativity are related in the same way as time and space. In fact, E/c can be thought of as the "time momentum". In general relativity, the energy-momentum stress tensor is what warps spacetime, no need for mass to influence geometry.
Photons aren't fermions, so I don't see any immediate reason why one couldn't cram a bunch of them together to create a black hole.
Last edited: