Just How Impossible is the Possible?

[Truly Enlightened]

The Laws of physics and math debunk Myths, Metaphysical, the Supernatural, Vampires and Zombies, Fairy Tales, Ghosts, Telekinesis, Telepathy, Clairvoyance, Psychics, Gods and sub-Gods, Astral Projections, Resurrections, Astrology, Faith Healers, Occultism, Spirituality, and Miracles. Not only do these made-up human constructs not exist in reality, but it is impossible for them to exist. If any one of these constructs did exist, it would be the end of the Universe as we know it. All the natural laws of Thermodynamics(Entropy/Enthalpy), Conservation of Energy, Inertia and angular momentum, the absolute constants(light, time, and temperature), all the fundamental components of matter and the four natural forces, would all simply collapse. Even if only one of these scientific principles were suspended or violated, the consequences would be obvious, and irreversible. For example;

For any ghost to be seen, it would need to be composed of some kind of matter. Matter that can absorb, reflect, or refract light energy(EM). All the different properties of matter and their fundamental building blocks are already known(CERN and LHC). A ghost would need to draw energy from somewhere or it would disappear immediately(2nd law of thermodynamics). To reappear would also require an energy source. Since it can float or pass through matter, it can't exert any force on anything. This is a violation of Newtons Motion laws, as well as Gravity).Therefore, its components must interact with each other differently than the Standard Model would suggest. This is impossible since all the properties of matter are accounted for(including the possibility of dark matter and supersymmetry) by the Standard Model. Since the Universe is still here, Ghost can't exist. Hence, why no verifiable objective evidence can exist.

The Metaphysical(philosophical), the paranormal, and the supernatural are not self-evident. They can't be established by any everyday experiences, or by any natural scientific investigation. These philosophical beliefs can't concern themselves with objective evidence, since no objective evidence exists. They must only concern themselves with exploiting the language, or challenging already established principles with language. They can never become established fact, or be deduced by using formal logic or mathematical reasoning. Especially, since all Metaphysical phenomena exist outside of our senses/experiences. Even an empiricist is not allowed to assert the truth of non-empirical constructs. There will always remain the problems with realism, representation, evidences, and especially with semantics. Challenges to Metaphysical Realism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) . Therefore, if the metaphysical, supernatural and spiritual worlds could exist, they would have no materialistic or practical value, except for those seeking answers that are "a priori" in nature.

My personal belief, is that these were stories created by humans, to generally entertain other humans with a lot of time on their hands. So, to recap, NOTHING that exists within this Universe, can exist outside of the four fundamental forces of the Universe(EM, Gravity, Strong and Weak). NOTHING can be established as fact or certainty, without some additional amount of evidence. NOTHING that is composed of matter and energy, can ignore the four Laws of Thermodynamics, or escape its Entropy. NOTHING composed of matter, mass or momentum can travel faster than light, obtain absolute zero, or occupy zero space. NOTHING, can exist outside of any Quantum Field medium, established by the Quantum Standard Model of Fermions(Matter particles), and the Bosons(Force particles). Nothing on the macro-scale can escape the effects of Gravity, time and space, or the Laws of Motion. And, NOTHING can interact with something, without a medium/mechanism to facilitate that interaction(no medium/mechanism for clairvoyants, telepaths, empaths, or telekinesis). The only exceptions to anything that could violate the physical laws of nature, are the ideas and beliefs that we create using our mind. Since the basis for dis-belief is science, what is the basis for belief? The mind IS truly a terrible thing to waste.

 

[Darkstorn]

I just want to add a small correction: Physics and math don't debunk metaphysics. Rather, they totally ignore it.

Like... Psychology is valid. Therefore... ?

/E: What do you mean with stuff like "Metaphysical phenomena"? I think you're using it with the definition of "not real." But it doesn't mean that. Metaphysics doesn't deal with... "Real" phenomena. It deals with abstract concepts.

So... For me, there's no such things as "metaphysical phenomena."

/E2: I feel like i need to add this but both your text and the article you link to are metaphysics. And you are arguing against a certain "metaphysical model." In this case metaphysical realism. That's pretty much it. Metaphysics exists: You are doing it.

I feel like you should not be using "metaphysics" as a blanket term.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I just want to add a small correction: Physics and math don't debunk metaphysics. Rather, they totally ignore it.

Like... Psychology is valid. Therefore... ?

/E: What do you mean with stuff like "Metaphysical phenomena"? I think you're using it with the definition of "not real." But it doesn't mean that. Metaphysics doesn't deal with... "Real" phenomena. It deals with abstract concepts.

So... For me, there's no such things as "metaphysical phenomena."

/E2: I feel like i need to add this but both your text and the article you link to are metaphysics. And you are arguing against a certain "metaphysical model." In this case metaphysical realism. That's pretty much it. Metaphysics exists: You are doing it.

I feel like you should not be using "metaphysics" as a blanket term.

Thank you for your response. Behavioural disciplines also use the scientific method of inquire to validate their claims. This is the same for the physical science disciplines. Both try to achieve the highest degree of certainty, to explain some aspect of a natural phenomena. Thank you for pointing out my error. I meant the "Metaphysical", and not "the Metaphysics". I have no idea what any Metaphysics would even look like, let alone what it would provide an explanation for. I have since made the correction. You are of course correct, that Metaphysics can never deal with any "real" aspect of any natural phenomena. I not only agree that there is no such thing as a metaphysical phenomena, but that it is impossible for there to be such a thing. And why.

When I use Metaphysical, I am talking all philosophical claims of Absolutes(Absolute Consciousness, Absolute Conscious, Absolute Reality, Objective Reality, Universal Beings, Alternate Consciousness, First Cause, etc.). My point was to highlight(although not in great detail) why metaphysical claims, as well as the other human constructs I mentioned, simply could not exist. And, that it is classical and quantum physics that prevents their existence.

 

[Darkstorn]

Thank you for your response. Behavioural disciplines also use the scientific method of inquire to validate their claims.
This is the same for the physical science disciplines. Both try to achieve the highest degree of certainty, to explain some aspect of a natural phenomena. Thank you for pointing out my error. I meant the "Metaphysical", and not "the Metaphysics". I have no idea what any Metaphysics would even look like, let alone what it would provide an explanation for. I have since made the correction. You are of course correct, that Metaphysics can never deal with any "real" aspect of any natural phenomena. I not only agree that there is no such thing as a metaphysical phenomena, but that it is impossible for there to be such a thing. And why.

When I use Metaphysical, I am talking all philosophical claims of Absolutes(Absolute Consciousness, Absolute Conscious, Absolute Reality, Objective Reality, Universal Beings, Alternate Consciousness, First Cause, etc.). My point was to highlight(although not in great detail) why metaphysical claims, as well as the other human constructs I mentioned, simply could not exist. And, that it is classical and quantum physics that prevents their existence.

Well... In the broadest sense metaphysics refers to the study of the "essence of things." This is for obvious reasons incredibly subjective. Even "what is essential" is a metaphysical question in itself. This is straight up from Wikipedia:

"While metaphysics may, as a special case, study the entities postulated by fundamental science such as atoms and superstrings, its core topic is the set of categories such as object, property and causality which those scientific theories assume. For example: claiming that "electrons have charge" is a scientific theory; while exploring what it means for electrons to be (or at least, to be perceived as) "objects", charge to be a "property", and for both to exist in a topological entity called "space" is the task of metaphysics."

I think that sums it up very nicely. It actually does deal with real things, but it's not about phenomena or events. It's more to do with what it means to be something. Or if it means anything. For this reason, any claims of materialism are also metaphysics.

The problem is that it can also deal with "unreal" things. I don't agree with most metaphysical claims. But i understand that every time we do an assumption of reality, we are guilty of using metaphysics instead of the scientific method.

 

[JoshuaTree]

The Laws of physics and math debunk Myths, Metaphysical, the Supernatural, Vampires and Zombies, Fairy Tales, Ghosts, Telekinesis, Telepathy, Clairvoyance, Psychics, Gods and sub-Gods, Astral Projections, Resurrections, Astrology, Faith Healers, Occultism, Spirituality, and Miracles. Not only do these made-up human constructs not exist in reality, but it is impossible for them to exist. If any one of these constructs did exist, it would be the end of the Universe as we know it. All the natural laws of Thermodynamics(Entropy/Enthalpy), Conservation of Energy, Inertia and angular momentum, the absolute constants(light, time, and temperature), all the fundamental components of matter and the four natural forces, would all simply collapse. Even if only one of these scientific principles were suspended or violated, the consequences would be obvious, and irreversible. For example;

For any ghost to be seen, it would need to be composed of some kind of matter. Matter that can absorb, reflect, or refract light energy(EM). All the different properties of matter and their fundamental building blocks are already known(CERN and LHC). A ghost would need to draw energy from somewhere or it would disappear immediately(2nd law of thermodynamics). To reappear would also require an energy source. Since it can float or pass through matter, it can't exert any force on anything. This is a violation of Newtons Motion laws, as well as Gravity).Therefore, its components must interact with each other differently than the Standard Model would suggest. This is impossible since all the properties of matter are accounted for(including the possibility of dark matter and supersymmetry) by the Standard Model. Since the Universe is still here, Ghost can't exist. Hence, why no verifiable objective evidence can exist.

The Metaphysical(philosophical), the paranormal, and the supernatural are not self-evident. They can't be established by any everyday experiences, or by any natural scientific investigation. These philosophical beliefs can't concern themselves with objective evidence, since no objective evidence exists. They must only concern themselves with exploiting the language, or challenging already established principles with language. They can never become established fact, or be deduced by using formal logic or mathematical reasoning. Especially, since all Metaphysical phenomena exist outside of our senses/experiences. Even an empiricist is not allowed to assert the truth of non-empirical constructs. There will always remain the problems with realism, representation, evidences, and especially with semantics. Challenges to Metaphysical Realism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) . Therefore, if the metaphysical, supernatural and spiritual worlds could exist, they would have no materialistic or practical value, except for those seeking answers that are "a priori" in nature.

My personal belief, is that these were stories created by humans, to generally entertain other humans with a lot of time on their hands. So, to recap, NOTHING that exists within this Universe, can exist outside of the four fundamental forces of the Universe(EM, Gravity, Strong and Weak). NOTHING can be established as fact or certainty, without some additional amount of evidence. NOTHING that is composed of matter and energy, can ignore the four Laws of Thermodynamics, or escape its Entropy. NOTHING composed of matter, mass or momentum can travel faster than light, obtain absolute zero, or occupy zero space. NOTHING, can exist outside of any Quantum Field medium, established by the Quantum Standard Model of Fermions(Matter particles), and the Bosons(Force particles). Nothing on the macro-scale can escape the effects of Gravity, time and space, or the Laws of Motion. And, NOTHING can interact with something, without a medium/mechanism to facilitate that interaction(no medium/mechanism for clairvoyants, telepaths, empaths, or telekinesis). The only exceptions to anything that could violate the physical laws of nature, are the ideas and beliefs that we create using our mind. Since the basis for dis-belief is science, what is the basis for belief? The mind IS truly a terrible thing to waste.

What is the basis for love? Or hate for that matter? A religion is a spiritual expression no different than a gallery is an artistic expression, we should celebrate the expression and ignore what we cannot see.

The little boy went first day of school
He got some crayons and started to draw
He put colors all over the paper
For colors was what he saw
And the teacher said.. What you doin' young man
I'm paintin' flowers he said
She said,
It's not the time for art young man
And anyway flowers are green and red
There's a time for everything young man
And a way it should be done
You've got to show concern for everyone else
For you're not the only one
And she said
Flowers are red young man
Green leaves are green
There's no need to see flowers any other way
Than the way they always have been seen
But the little boy said
There are so many colors in the rainbow
So many colors in the morning sun
So many colors in the flower and I see every one
Well the teacher said
You're sassy…
Well the teacher said
You're sassy
There's ways that things should be
And you'll paint flowers the way they are
So repeat after me
And she said
Flowers are red young man
Green leaves are green
There's no need to see flowers any other way
Than the way they always have been seen
But the little boy said
There are so many colors in the rainbow
So many colors in the morning sun
So many colors in the flower and I see every one
The teacher put him in a corner
She said
It's for your own good
And you won't come out 'til you get it right
And all responding like you should
Well finally he got lonely
Frightened thoughts filled his head
And he went up to the teacher
And this is what he said, and he said
Flowers are red, green leaves are green
There's no need to see flowers any other way
Than the way they always have been seen
Time went by like it always does
And they moved to another town
And the little boy went to another school
And this is what he found
The teacher there was smilin'
She said
Painting should be fun
And there are so many colors in a flower
So let's use every one
But that little boy painted flowers
In neat rows of green and red
And when the teacher asked him why
This is what he said
And he said
Flowers are red, green leaves are green
There's no need to see flowers any other way
Than the way they always have been seen.

The Harry Chapin Archive at HarryChapin.com

 

[blü 2]

What is the basis for love?

Evolved biochemistry. The basis is very simple: critters without an imperative to survive long enough to breed simply die out. We're here because we're full of instinctive behaviors that promote survival and breeding as a gregarious species, through pair bonding, child nurture, family and group loyality, and so on. The biochemistry is on the net ─ just google eg 'biochemistry of love'.

Or hate for that matter?

Hate is simply one aspect of fear. That's why fear is such a good tool for manipulating people.

A religion is a spiritual expression no different than a gallery is an artistic expression, we should celebrate the expression and ignore what we cannot see.

What does the 'spiritual' in 'spiritual expression' mean? As far as I can tell, it refers to particular emotional states and is information-free, or extremely lite. Is that right?

 

[Audie]

Debunking a myth is a fool's errand. As only a fool thinks that a myth is a fact. And as to what is possible or impossible, we humans don't have sufficient information to make that determination. So we are left with establishing probabilities based on the limited and subjectively derived information that we do have. And again, it's only the fool that thinks his reasoned probability is a fact, because he is unable or unwilling to recognize his own limitations.

Only a fool would try to give vocabulary lessons without
at least checking the dictionary.

.MYTH

a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events

he is unable or unwilling to recognize his own limitations

 

[PureX]

Evolved biochemistry. The basis is very simple: critters without an imperative to survive long enough to breed simply die out. We're here because we're full of instinctive behaviors that promote survival and breeding as a gregarious species, through pair bonding, child nurture, family and group loyality, and so on. The biochemistry is on the net ─ just google eg 'biochemistry of love'.
Hate is simply one aspect of fear. That's why fear is such a good tool for manipulating people.
What does the 'spiritual' in 'spiritual expression' mean? As far as I can tell, it refers to particular emotional states and is information-free, or extremely lite. Is that right?

Love is not necessary for procreation, nor survival. Many life forms do so successfully without it.

Also, love is not a "biochemical" phenomena. It is a cognitive phenomena that like ALL cognitive phenomena, has a biochemical component. An idea (like love) is greater than the sum of it's biochemical parts. And to prove that, all one has to do is look at how far beyond the chemistry the effect of an idea can reach.

 

[Audie]

Evolved biochemistry. The basis is very simple: critters without an imperative to survive long enough to breed simply die out. We're here because we're full of instinctive behaviors that promote survival and breeding as a gregarious species, through pair bonding, child nurture, family and group loyality, and so on. The biochemistry is on the net ─ just google eg 'biochemistry of love'.
Hate is simply one aspect of fear. That's why fear is such a good tool for manipulating people.
What does the 'spiritual' in 'spiritual expression' mean? As far as I can tell, it refers to particular emotional states and is information-free, or extremely lite. Is that right?

I have often asked what "spiritual" means The result is more
different meanings than you will find for the word "frog".

Here are some, there are more.

noun
1.
a.
any of various families of tailless, leaping anuran amphibians with long, powerful hind legs,
b.
a toad
2.
a triangular, horny pad in the posterior half of the sole of a horse's foot
3.
a fastening on a belt for carrying a sword, bayonet, etc.
4.
a corded or braided loop used as a fastener or decoration on clothing
5. US
a device on railroad tracks for keeping cars on the proper railsat intersections or switches
6.
a device placed in a bowl or vase to hold the stems of flowers
7.
that part of the bow of a stringed instrument, including the nut, by which the bow is held
8.
a French person

 

[PureX]

Debunking a myth is a fool's errand. As only a fool thinks that a myth is a fact. It's like debunking Star Wars. And as to what is possible or impossible, we humans don't have sufficient information to make that determination. So we are left with establishing probabilities based on the limited and subjectively derived information that we do have. And again, it's only the fool that thinks his reasoned probability is a fact of reality, because he is unable or unwilling to recognize his own limitations.

 

[blü 2]

Love is not necessary for procreation, nor survival. Many life forms do so successfully without it.

Maternal bonding is essential by definition among mammals. Pair bonding is found among mammals, birds, reptiles and I dare say more because it can offer better chances of offspring surviving. Both are biochemical, with >oxytocin< to the fore.

Humans are the only critters whose infants take five years to attain even a small degree of self-sufficiency, so love=pair-bonding is particularly useful.

Also, love is not a "biochemical" phenomena. It is a cognitive phenomena that like ALL cognitive phenomena, has a biochemical component.

Love isn't a 'cognitive phenomenon'. It's something that people do whether they've thought about it or not. In evolutionary terms it was there long before we evolved the additional brain power that put Homo ahead of the other apes and H sap ahead of H neanderthal &c.

An idea (like love) is greater than the sum of it's biochemical parts. And to prove that, all one has to do is look at how far beyond the chemistry the effect of an idea can reach.

Oh, really? Then why do people take drugs? Get obese? Go to war? Diss global warming? Why doesn't intellect, why don't facts, triumph over nature for addicts, fatties, angry folk, self-interest?

For that matter, why do we need testosterone, adrenalin, estrogen, and so on to have any interest in sex at all, with or without the bonding?

Why do pre-adolescents find the whole idea of making out basically yukky?

 

[PureX]

Maternal bonding is essential by definition among mammals. Pair bonding is found among mammals, birds, reptiles and I dare say more because it can offer better chances of offspring surviving. Both are biochemical, with oxytocin to the fore.

Every behavior has a biochemical component. So that proves nothing. And many life forms procreate without pair-bonding. Most, in fact. You are drawing a conclusion based on a pre-assumed causation.

Humans are the only critters whose infants take five years to attain even a small degree of self-sufficiency, so love=pair-bonding is particularly useful.

Is it? Why wouldn't it be more "useful" for humans to create procreation "factories" in which we could ensure maximum genetic diversity and infant survival. We are, after all, biochemically capable of doing so. If the physical survival of our species were what determined our thoughts, feelings and behaviors we would have thought to do this long, long ago.

Love isn't a 'cognitive phenomenon'.

Of course it is.

Oh, really? Then why do people take drugs? Get obese? Go to war? Diss global warming? Why doesn't intellect, why don't facts, triumph over nature for addicts, fatties, angry folk, self-interest?

Because ideas are far greater and more powerful than the sum of their biochemical mechanisms, or even the usefulness of their actualization. It's why metaphysics transcends physics.

 

[blü 2]

Every behavior has a biochemical component.

My point exactly. All living things are biochemistry.

So that proves nothing.

The point you've already conceded proves everything I've said.

And many life forms procreate without pair-bonding. Most, in fact.

I said as much in my post. I also pointed out why it was particularly beneficial for the raising of human infants.

You are drawing a conclusion based on a pre-assumed causation.

How do you explain why pre-adolescents don't seek to practice sex then? What do you think puberty is, if not a biochemical change?

Why wouldn't it be more "useful" for humans to create procreation "factories" in which we could ensure maximum genetic diversity and infant survival.

Brave New World, yet? And what may be useful to the society may not be seen by the individual in the same way. Otherwise tax evasion wouldn't be a problem, would it.

Because ideas are far greater and more powerful than the sum of their biochemical mechanisms, or even the usefulness of their actualization. It's why metaphysics transcends physics.

What do you mean, metaphysics? The supernatural? Humans are powered by woo, you say? Laboratory tests show that love is a golden tingling of the higher planes?

Where does the biochemistry end and the metaphysics begin? Talk me through it, please. When it's not biochemical, what is it, exactly?

 

[gnostic]

I always thought the values of metaphysics as a philosophy to be highly over-rated and in the long run, utterly useless, because it is largely subjective.

And how they rationalised the first principle, whatever that may be, require the metaphysics philosophers to use of circular reasoning to justify it rationality on any subject.

The end results of every metaphysical questions are just matter of unsubstantiated opinions.

 

[Darkstorn]

I always thought the values of metaphysics as a philosophy to be highly over-rated and in the long run, utterly useless, because it is largely subjective.

And how they rationalised the first principle, whatever that may be, require the metaphysics philosophers to use of circular reasoning to justify it rationality on any subject.

The end results of every metaphysical questions are just matter of unsubstantiated opinions.

I think you're suffering from the same issue as the OP. You're using "metaphysics" as a blanket statement stand-in for philosophy in general. It's more than that. Just saying, you should probably do the same thing some people tell others: Read about the subject before you can argue about it.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Well... In the broadest sense metaphysics refers to the study of the "essence of things." This is for obvious reasons incredibly subjective. Even "what is essential" is a metaphysical question in itself. This is straight up from Wikipedia:

"While metaphysics may, as a special case, study the entities postulated by fundamental science such as atoms and superstrings, its core topic is the set of categories such as object, property and causality which those scientific theories assume. For example: claiming that "electrons have charge" is a scientific theory; while exploring what it means for electrons to be (or at least, to be perceived as) "objects", charge to be a "property", and for both to exist in a topological entity called "space" is the task of metaphysics."

I think that sums it up very nicely. It actually does deal with real things, but it's not about phenomena or events. It's more to do with what it means to be something. Or if it means anything. For this reason, any claims of materialism are also metaphysics.

The problem is that it can also deal with "unreal" things. I don't agree with most metaphysical claims. But i understand that every time we do an assumption of reality, we are guilty of using metaphysics instead of the scientific method.

Thank you. I don't rely on any definition that tries to explain the impossible with ambiguity. Metaphysics is a branch of Philosophy that tries to explain those things that can't change in reality. For example, humans change from newborn to adults, but humanhood, can't change. Our consciousness is always changing, but the "ultimate consciousness" doesn't change. The essence of anything can't change, or a new essence would be created. This is not allowed in Metaphysics. This would imply that the essence of anything is not the product of cause and effect, and must exists outside of time and space. This violates Newtons Laws of motion, Conservation Laws, and the particle wave probabilities within the Quantum fields. It also violates the Chaos Theory(entropy) over Time. What I am saying is, that there is NOTHING that exist in reality, that never changes. Or, is not the product of cause and effect.Therefore, material reality is NOT metaphysical.

There is no difference between stating that we will use the scientific method of inquiry to study the origin of the Universe, but will use Metaphysics to find the why and who created the Universe. Or stating that at the Quantum level of reality, the duel nature of electrons behave as disturbances along the EMF, and that it is the interaction with other field disturbances that give all matter their properties and characteristic, but we will use Metaphysics to determine the sentient nature of an electron. We have no other Universe or Quantum reality to compare ours to, or know any creator that has created other Universes. To give any relevance to this line of inquiry seems fallacious, baseless, misspent, and frivolous. But, this is just my opinion, and the fact that it is impossible.

I'm afraid that the charge on electrons are a mathematical and experimental certainty. Not just a theory. At the Quantum level of reality, the duel nature of electrons behave as disturbances along the EMF in the space-time. It is the interaction of these field disturbances that give all matter their properties and characteristics. The assumptions we make about reality are irrelevant. It is only the evidence that we can present that is relevant.

 

[Darkstorn]

Thank you. I don't rely on any definition that tries to explain the impossible with ambiguity. Metaphysics is a branch of Philosophy that tries to explain those things that can't change in reality. For example, humans change from newborn to adults, but humanhood, can't change. Our consciousness is always changing, but the "ultimate consciousness" doesn't change. The essence of anything can't change, or a new essence would be created. This is not allowed in Metaphysics. This would imply that the essence of anything is not the product of cause and effect, and must exists outside of time and space. This violates Newtons Laws of motion, Conservation Laws, and the particle wave probabilities within the Quantum fields. It also violates the Chaos Theory(entropy) over Time. What I am saying is, that there is NOTHING that exist in reality, that never changes. Or, is not the product of cause and effect.Therefore, material reality is NOT metaphysical.

Why do you say thank you when you obviously don't understand what i'm trying to say? Your statements regarding reality are metaphysical statements.

There is no difference between stating that we will use the scientific method of inquiry to study the origin of the Universe, but will use Metaphysics to find the why and who created the Universe. Or stating that at the Quantum level of reality, the duel nature of electrons behave as disturbances along the EMF, and that it is the interaction with other field disturbances that give all matter their properties and characteristic, but we will use Metaphysics to determine the sentient nature of an electron. We have no other Universe or Quantum reality to compare ours to, or know any creator that has created other Universes. To give any relevance to this line of inquiry seems fallacious, baseless, misspent, and frivolous. But, this is just my opinion, and the fact that it is impossible.

You are constructing a straw man and trying to knock it down. It's not really working. You should probably read on the subject. You are essentially using metaphysics in an attempt to discredit all metaphysics.

I'll give you a wikipedia link:

Metaphysics - Wikipedia

What you seem to have trouble with, is particular metaphysical concepts. Not metaphysics. This is what i'm trying to tell you.

I'm afraid that the charge on electrons are a mathematical and experimental certainty. Not just a theory. At the Quantum level of reality, the duel nature of electrons behave as disturbances along the EMF in the space-time. It is the interaction of these field disturbances that give all matter their properties and characteristics. The assumptions we make about reality are irrelevant. It is only the evidence that we can present that is relevant.

I think in your quest for objectivity you have misunderstood both what i'm saying, and my motivations.

The assumptions we make about reality are irrelevant. It is only the evidence that we can present that is relevant.

This is an assumption about reality. You make a definite claim regarding reality. Specifically, you are presenting a metaphysical concept: An inquiry into the very nature of reality itself.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

What is the basis for love? Or hate for that matter? A religion is a spiritual expression no different than a gallery is an artistic expression, we should celebrate the expression and ignore what we cannot see.

The little boy went first day of school
He got some crayons and started to draw
He put colors all over the paper
For colors was what he saw
And the teacher said.. What you doin' young man
I'm paintin' flowers he said
She said,
It's not the time for art young man
And anyway flowers are green and red
There's a time for everything young man
And a way it should be done
You've got to show concern for everyone else
For you're not the only one
And she said
Flowers are red young man
Green leaves are green
There's no need to see flowers any other way
Than the way they always have been seen
But the little boy said
There are so many colors in the rainbow
So many colors in the morning sun
So many colors in the flower and I see every one
Well the teacher said
You're sassy…
Well the teacher said
You're sassy
There's ways that things should be
And you'll paint flowers the way they are
So repeat after me
And she said
Flowers are red young man
Green leaves are green
There's no need to see flowers any other way
Than the way they always have been seen
But the little boy said
There are so many colors in the rainbow
So many colors in the morning sun
So many colors in the flower and I see every one
The teacher put him in a corner
She said
It's for your own good
And you won't come out 'til you get it right
And all responding like you should
Well finally he got lonely
Frightened thoughts filled his head
And he went up to the teacher
And this is what he said, and he said
Flowers are red, green leaves are green
There's no need to see flowers any other way
Than the way they always have been seen
Time went by like it always does
And they moved to another town
And the little boy went to another school
And this is what he found
The teacher there was smilin'
She said
Painting should be fun
And there are so many colors in a flower
So let's use every one
But that little boy painted flowers
In neat rows of green and red
And when the teacher asked him why
This is what he said
And he said
Flowers are red, green leaves are green
There's no need to see flowers any other way
Than the way they always have been seen.

Thank you for your response. Your story truly demonstrates social conformity at its worst. It seems that maintaining the status quo is more important than encouraging individuality, and personal creativity. Fortunately, in science the theme is to question everything, and believe nothing. It reminded me of a young girl that committed suicide, when her school adopted a "no one fails" policy. Answers were given out, open book and re-testing were also allowed. Just to insure that everyone would pass. For this high-achiever, the depression was just too much. Conformity was not an option. For some the will to accel, is directly linked to their self-worth.

The bio-neuro-hormonal-chemical emotional nature of Love, Hate, and Anger, are all well understood. It is hardwired through evolution into our inherited genes. The mental construct(conception) of love and hate are simply an illusion of the mind, and only exist in our subconscious. But the demonstrated emotions and feelings of love and hate are physiologically real. Experiments with mammals such as vole rodents, demonstrated that it is the amount of oxytocin receptors that determines the amount of dopamine that the brain produces. I'm not sure if this is love or lust. When the oxytocin levels were decreased the male vole, had no interest in coupling. At higher levels, they couldn't stay away. But there is a big difference between expressing yourself by creating art, and celebrating a belief in the supernatural.

A religion is a spiritual expression no different than a gallery is an artistic expression, we should celebrate the expression and ignore what we cannot see.

How do you express yourself spiritually? It seems a bit self-serving, and circular to celebrate the expression, as your justification for celebrating what you can't see.
.

 

[PureX]

My point exactly. All living things are biochemistry.

All living things are also spacial, time-bound, expressions of energy. And so is everything else. These characteristics are not what differentiates and defines us. What differentiates and defines us is our unique cognitive abilities. It's like you're trying to assert that what matters about the sky is that it's blue. But that's not what matters about the sky at all. What matters about the sky is it's unique ability to protect the Earth from the cold vacuum of outer space.

The point you've already conceded proves everything I've said.

But your point is pointless. Yes, we are a bio-chemical phenomena. But so what? So is everything other living thing.

What do you mean, metaphysics?

I mean the realm of cognition. The realm of ideas, and of values, and of possibilities and probabilities. The realm that governs human behavior even more than human biochemistry or genetic programming does. The realm that effects everything on Earth, though us.

Where does the biochemistry end and the metaphysics begin?

The metaphysical realm begins with awareness.

Talk me through it, please. When it's not biochemical, what is it, exactly?

It's not an 'either/or'. It's the transcendence from one realm of possibilities and effects, into another. What is impossible in the physical realm can become possible in the metaphysical realm through the cognitive power of comparison, valuation, imagination, reason, and so on. Imagination is, itself, an example of such transcendence.

In the physical realm, those 100 typing monkeys aren't EVER going to write a Shakespeare play. It simply cannot happen. And yet in the metaphysical realm, where the limits of physics can be transcended through idea, it becomes possible.

 

[PureX]

The mental construct(conception) of love and hate are simply an illusion of the mind, and only exist in our subconscious.

Ideals are not "illusions". They are how we understand what we experience of reality. "Illusion" is, itself, an idea born in our experience of the enigmatic nature of reality. "Everything" is a "mental construct", because to experience something, to we humans, is to cognate it: to develop a mental construct (context) within which we idealize it, and connect this experience to all the other idealized experiences we've have previously encountered. You speak as if the experience and the idea of the experience are two different phenomena, one "real" (electrochemical) and the other "unreal" (cognitive) when they are one and the same. The chemistry is just the mechanics of our cognition. The cognition is the "higher" purpose, and the defining characteristic. Not the chemistry.

But the demonstrated emotions and feelings of love and hate are physiologically real. Experiments with mammals such as vole rodents, demonstrated that it is the amount of oxytocin receptors that determines the amount of dopamine that the brain produces. I'm not sure if this is love or lust. When the oxytocin levels were decreased the male vole, had no interest in coupling. At higher levels, they couldn't stay away. But there is a big difference between expressing yourself by creating art, and celebrating a belief in the supernatural.

We humans create ideas, constantly. It's what we do. We "ideate" our experience of existence. To dismiss this as false, or illusion, because the ideas occur in a soup of electro-chemical-neural interactions is just ... silly.

How do you express yourself spiritually?

Every choice I make in life is an expression of who I am at that moment. And if we follow the pattern of my choices over time, we will see how I have become who I am, now, through that succession of choices. I am "creating myself" (defining my spirit) by the choices I'm making, and continue to make.

It seems a bit self-serving, and circular to celebrate the expression, as your justification for celebrating what you can't see.

I don't know what that means.