String Theory and the Spiritual Realm (mystic, experience, bible, miracles)

[Opethian]

If science and theology don't have room for each other, then both are wrong. Eventually, the one true scientific doctrine will not only explain, but prove the essence of spiritual beliefs to be true.

No. Science will explain what is perceived by some people to be spiritual, to be in fact completely physically.

Science as a community has not approached UFO phenomena

Because UFO's are just unidentified flying objects, and are usually just special natural phenomena which have only a small chance of occuring.

spiritual phenomena

There are no spiritual phenomena, only unexplained physical phenomena. Many times experiments have been done to explain all kinds of spiritual phenomena, and every single one of them turned out to have a regular physical explanation.

nor psychic phenomena

Example?

How then can we trust science when it runs from the greatest questions man has to offer?

Science only answers what it can answer from the available evidence, it doesn't jump to conclusions before it has any information on how to explain something. That is the beauty of science. It doesn't make up any answers, it goes where the evidence leads, and stops to find more evidence if there is none left.

String theory can bridge a gap between science and theology because it leads to the doorway of things existing outside the known physical realm.

Just a different way of looking upon the physical.

True science and true theology will be equal.

They are entirely different, and one should not meddle with the other.

The string theory will help mankind get to that point.

It will not.

[Zsr1973]

Originally Posted by Fade

True Spiritual Teachings? What are true spiritual teachings? And on what authority do you define them as such?

I'm not claiming I have true spiritual teaching. However, there is only one truth to our reality, though it may have many corridors. Spirituality as well as science are two paths to the same eventual truth about reality.

Using logic, if God is real and God is the creator of All and science is a real part of all things, then God created the laws of nature (foundation of science). Therefore, true science was created by God. I use the term "true science" to describe proven theories, not hypothetical ones not proven by any means. its easier for a spiritual person to accept science because most modern inventions that we use everyday are the product of scientific advancement. However, its not a given for scientists to feed their spiritual selves.

One cannot prove spiritual reality exists, one can only experience it and know it exists. i know of spiritual reality from experience just as many other people who have had experiences. Unfortunately, such as in the UFO phenomena, experience doesn't count for much in the scientific community.

Authority is part of the problem in religion and science. As long as the authority says somethings is so, most people follow, creating the "mainstream". I am not mainstream. I do not accept easy answers. Authority in science is why it takes so long for scientists to approach "taboo" areas of science, like the world not being flat, the existance of black holes, or the reality of extraterrestrial life.

You should pose the question of authority to the church and the islamic community. Why do they give radical clerics so much authority when they have not truly scrutinized whether his words match the words of the Qur'aan? Why do Christians accept the common beliefs on who and what God is without any research on the bible whatsoever? And why do they simply accept a bible that was gathered by the same "authority" that rejected Christ (and who Christ rejected spiritually) in the first place?

My friend, sometimes "authority" is part of the problem, not the solution. Especially in the mainstream. Historically, the mainstream has almost never been correct in its direction and opinions. And history repeats itself.

That is what I meant.

[mr.guy]

Originally Posted by jerrel

Using logic, if God is real and God is the creator of All and science is a real part of all things, then God created the laws of nature (foundation of science).

Perfectly reasonable, if one isn't distressed by how big an "IF" you needed to start your argument with.

[Zsr1973]

Originally Posted by Opethian

No. Science will explain what is perceived by some people to be spiritual, to be in fact completely physically.



Because UFO's are just unidentified flying objects, and are usually just special natural phenomena which have only a small chance of occuring.



There are no spiritual phenomena, only unexplained physical phenomena. Many times experiments have been done to explain all kinds of spiritual phenomena, and every single one of them turned out to have a regular physical explanation.



Example?



Science only answers what it can answer from the available evidence, it doesn't jump to conclusions before it has any information on how to explain something. That is the beauty of science. It doesn't make up any answers, it goes where the evidence leads, and stops to find more evidence if there is none left.



Just a different way of looking upon the physical.



They are entirely different, and one should not meddle with the other.



It will not.

You are no different from the religous mainstream who stand firmly on the tailor made answers to the difficult questions. It is your personal opinion on spiritual matters that keeps you from seeing that our answers are equal. Spiritual and religous are not the same.

And by only relying on things already proven by evidence, you've allowed yourself to be closed to the fact that all proven things were at some point unproven. And it has never gone the way mainstream initially thought it would go. You are mainstream. A follower.

By the way, I know what UFO means. Most people refer to extraterrestrial life as UFO's, so thats the language I'm using. If you paid attention to my meaning and not the letter of the words, you would have seen that. But you don't strike me as the kind of person to look at the meanings of things. Nothing in known existence is unique. So why do you think intelligent life is? And as for the SETI program, it only shows man's arrogance in thinking that all lifeforms have the same effect on nature that we do. Thats silly. But thats mankind.

I have a question for you. How will science explain everything to be physical when not all real things are physical? Einstein's equation proves that mass is only a form of energy, so I think once again you are trying to be too technical (just because you can) and you are missing the point. Science still doesn't even know for sure whether an electron is a wave or a particle yet you are here telling me that all things are physical?

Let me rephrase that. How can you claim everything will have a physical answer when that equation alone proves that nothing is really physical?

Are dreams physical? Science can detect what a person physically does during a dream, but can you detect the dream itself? Have you ever had a dream? Can you prove you've had a dream to someone who has never experienced it? It doesn'y matter whether or not science has proven the physical cause of dreams, because we accept that there is a scientific explanation. Or what about a thought. I had one but can science detect the thought itself?

There is more to reality than today's science. Thats what I'm trying to get you to see. When science rounds the curve, it will find itself in a place completely unexpected by today's standards. that is what has always happened, and that is how it will be, my friend.

[Zsr1973]

Originally Posted by mr.guy

Perfectly reasonable, if one isn't distressed by how big an "IF" you needed to start your argument with.

True. It was just for the religous people.

[Æsahættr]

Originally Posted by messianicmystic

My very basic understanding of string theory is that certain mathematical aspects of it require dimensions beyond those we experience directly. It seems that perhaps this provides a framework for understanding the spiritual realm in a somewhat scientific manner. For example, laws of math and physics are only applicable to a given set of dimensions. The sides of a triangle in two-dimensional space always add up to 180 degrees, but if you were to draw a triangle on a sphere this would no longer hold true. Likewise, what we perceive as miracles or impossibilities in four-dimensional space may indeed be reasonable when more dimensions are considered. I believe there is a book called "Flatland" that elaborates on a very helpful analogy regarding this possibility. My question for discussion is assuming string theory is true, how may it help explain (or not) spiritual things.

Hmm, while I can't think of any examples within string theory that could resemble a miracle, there is at least one possible example in higher dimensional theory. I think that's the one you're reffering to with Flatland. That is, that a 5 or more dimensional object passing through our 4d universe would appear to be an object that appeared from nowhere, grew from a point, then shrank back down again and disappeared. But that isn't part of string theory, as that relies on large extra dimensions, while string theory is based on small extra dimensions. In regards to most of the claims of miracles that have been claimed at one time or another, I don't think that we need to be looking for scientific explanations beyond those of psychology at present.

Originally Posted by messianicmystic

I have a question for you. How will science explain everything to be physical when not all real things are physical? Einstein's equation proves that mass is only a form of energy, so I think once again you are trying to be too technical (just because you can) and you are missing the point. Science still doesn't even know for sure whether an electron is a wave or a particle yet you are here telling me that all things are physical?

Just saw this as I was reponding to the OP....you seem to be using the word "physical" in a rather odd sense. Most people would use "physical" to refer to matter and energy, as understood at present. And, as regards to electrons, science does know what they are. They are both a wave and a particle. The term used is "wave-particle duality."

Originally Posted by messianicmystic

Are dreams physical? Science can detect what a person physically does during a dream, but can you detect the dream itself? Have you ever had a dream? Can you prove you've had a dream to someone who has never experienced it? It doesn'y matter whether or not science has proven the physical cause of dreams, because we accept that there is a scientific explanation. Or what about a thought. I had one but can science detect the thought itself?

The dream and the thought can both be detected. They are both electrical signals in your brain. If you mean, can science show you the dream or thought so that you would recognise it, then the answer is no, because although we know that the brain interprets electrical signals as qualia, we don't know how it does it, so we can't reproduce it.
As an analogy, it's as if we had the information for a digital picture on a computer, but had no graphics software, and as such were only able to see the information as a string of apparently meaningless text. In that case we would not recognise it as being the image, but we still had the picture.

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by Æsahættr

Most people would use "physical" to refer to matter and energy, as understood at present. And, as regards to electrons, science does know what they are. They are both a wave and a particle. The term used is "wave-particle duality."

Most people use the word physical to refer to things that they can see and touch, a basketball, a car, a doorknob etc. But when we start talking about sub atomic partials things become quite different. You mention wave/particle duality for example. Consider the idea that a “particle” (a bit of “physical” matter) can exist in different places simultaneously. Consider that particles can be linked in such a way that they affect each other when nothing “physical” can move between them. Consider particles moving backwards through time. Consider effect preceding cause. Absolutely everything that we think we knew about the “physical” can be tossed right out.

I don’t think we can say that the new understandings in science are leading us in the direction of the “spiritual”. But that is largely because the “spiritual” is by nature undefined. But what it is leading to is a completely different understanding of that it means for something to be “physical”.





p.s. has anyone else read a book called the “Tao of Physics”? I highly recommend it.

[logician]

There is no spirit world, when you're dead, you're dead.

[Ody]

Originally Posted by logician

There is no spirit world, when you're dead, you're dead.

That's your opinion however

[Comet]

Originally Posted by messianicmystic

How can it or can't it explain/provide a framework of reason for spiritual things, not simply can it or can't it? The question requires at least a bit of elaboration in the answer. In other words, why would you or would you not consider string theory to be a possible bridge, not only between relativity and quantum mechanics, but also between physics and metaphysics?

(I've only read to post #6 in this debate... but felt the "urge" to answer twice now, so I am. I'll read the rest and catch up to the where it is at now)

I see at least three things in this post so far:
1. A valid question
2. A fast reaction to that question due to not understanding of it
3. Valid counterpoints that come from the "reaction" point of view

REACT if you will, but I will try to answer the ACTUAL question asked by the OPer-

(Depending on the definition of "spiritual")
1. Roots of string theory: namely 11 dimensional theroy. If we only exist in say 4 dimensions, but we know there are 11 and just can't be in those others ones and are limited in understanding by our point of view...... Then yes. It would give a bridge (though unexplained to us) to the spiritual (where we can't go due to our limitations though we may "know of" it)
2. String theory itself: Wave lengths. Some religions view the "next place" or the "kingdom of God" as a kingdom of light. Light is the shortest (fastest) wave length we know. Without that even the often not-understood theory of RELATIVITY would be useless to us. Even this theory causes things that most do not understand, like a diffent view of that we call "time". If you move at the same speed or wave length and I move to the speed of light: you would see me as moving VERY slowly, though I'd not view a diffence till I returned to "where" you are...... a year to me would be 36,000 Earth years to you! Thus I am "infinite" and perhaps godly in your view. It gives you something you understand a bit more but still can't comprehend. Then yes. It would bridge the limited understanding by our point of view again.
3. P-BRANE theory: Multiple planes. Though on the same lines as "dimensional" theories, it is on diffent parrallel "planes" only held by that which is not understood in gravity. Need I say more if you understood all of that!?!

When a dimension is so "big" that all others exist within it: then by rational a dimension so "small" would come into play it IS IN everything.......

When a wave length is so "small" it begins to appear as a straight line. When a wave lenght is so "big" it does appear as a straight line........

When it comes to parrallel planes, they all move by the same "wave length" and have the same "dimensions". Thus it is only "gravity" that is unexplained in all these things still for what it is........... What is spirituality????????