Taylor Seraphim
Angel of Reason
As far as we understand everything is composed of energy.
Therefore isn't monism scientifically proven?
Therefore isn't monism scientifically proven?
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
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?
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?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?
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?
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.
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).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?
<yawn>As far as we understand everything is composed of energy.
Therefore isn't monism scientifically proven?
<yawn>
This doesn't even rise to the level of sloppy circular reasoning ...</yawn>
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.As far as we understand everything is composed of energy.
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.
As far as I know, the evidence is that E=mc2 is an objectively true mathematical relation.Yes, it is confusing. Matter, non-matter. Particle, wave. But a definite relation - E = .... Is it not?
Quarks are elementary particles that possess properties that I don't really understand offhand, such as "color charge". Why do you ask?Do you know what quarks are?
Quarks are elementary particles that possess properties that I don't really understand offhand, such as "color charge". Why do you ask?
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.They are basically a form of compressed energy.
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.
haha.. Like it wasn't you who said that 3 posts ago.Take it up with physicist not me.
As far as we understand everything is composed of energy.
Therefore isn't monism scientifically proven?