The Non-Physicality of the Universe

[Nakosis]

When I create an image of a table in my head, is that image physical or non-physical?

If it is physical, what are its physical properties?

If it is non-physical does it even exist?

If we can mentally see that which doesn't exist, how do we see it?

Does reality contain both the physical and non-physical, i.e. the mental images we can create?

If so, is there a relationship between the non-physical and the spiritual?

 

[exchemist]

When I create an image of a table in my head, is that image physical or non-physical?

If it is physical, what are its physical properties?

If it is non-physical does it even exist?

If we can mentally see that which doesn't exist, how do we see it?

Does reality contain both the physical and non-physical, i.e. the mental images we can create?

If so, is there a relationship between the non-physical and the spiritual?

If you have an image of a table on your computer screen, do you think that is physical? There doesn't seem to be any fundamental difference, as far as I can tell, between that and an image in your mind.

The image on the computer screen is due to a physical pattern of energising or switching, within the processor of the computer. And your mental image will presumably be the same, constructed in a rather different way but still physically, by the neurons of your brain.

 

[epronovost]

When I create an image of a table in my head, is that image physical or non-physical?

If it is physical, what are its physical properties?

If it is non-physical does it even exist?

If we can mentally see that which doesn't exist, how do we see it?

Does reality contain both the physical and non-physical, i.e. the mental images we can create?

If so, is there a relationship between the non-physical and the spiritual?

You have a crippling definitional problem. Please clarify your definition before asking philophical question else you will have a collection of answers with no common ground and a very fruitless conversation in the end.

 

[Nakosis]

If you have an image of a table on your computer screen, do you think that is physical? There doesn't seem to be any fundamental difference, as far as I can tell, between that and an image in your mind.

The image on the computer screen is due to a physical pattern of energising or switching, within the processor of the computer. And your mental image will presumably be the same, constructed in a rather different way but still physically, by the neurons of your brain.

There is the data, the electrical 1s and 0s processed by the computer which can be examined separately from the image which the brain would normally interpret from the data. So I'm not arguing the data doesn't exist however consciously, we don't see the data, we see the image. An image that is physically impossible to examine.

 

[Nakosis]

You have a crippling definitional problem. Please clarify your definition before asking philophical question else you will have a collection of answers with no common ground and a very fruitless conversation in the end.

What is that? Physical? Something that is physically capable of interacting with other physical objects and therefore measurable.

 

[shunyadragon]

When I create an image of a table in my head, is that image physical or non-physical?

If it is physical, what are its physical properties?

If it is non-physical does it even exist?

If we can mentally see that which doesn't exist, how do we see it?

Does reality contain both the physical and non-physical, i.e. the mental images we can create?

If so, is there a relationship between the non-physical and the spiritual?

Mental images and thoughts in and of themselves are a product of brain and nervous system. The existence of God, or the non-physical? spiritual realms would reflect a belief system outside the objective world of the physical, I believe if God and Creation exists as well as spiritual realms they would reflect the attributes of our physical world

 

[stvdv]

When I create an image of a table in my head, is that image physical or non-physical?

In science there are specific rules one should follow to get valuable answers.
Without following rules/formulas it will not work. In spirituality there are specific rules too.
It won't work to try to understand the spiritual world using science rules and/or ignoring spiritual rules.
Do you agree with this?

 

[epronovost]

What is that? Physical? Something that is physically capable of interacting with other physical objects and therefore measurable.

Didn't you answered your own questions then? What do you want us to discuss specifically?

 

[Nakosis]

Didn't you answered your own questions then? What do you want us to discuss specifically?

Does the non-physical exist in our universe.

 

[Nakosis]

In science there are specific rules one should follow to get valuable answers.
Without following rules/formulas it will not work. In spirituality there are specific rules too.
It won't work to try to understand the spiritual world using science rules and/or ignoring spiritual rules.
Do you agree with this?

We need to have rules yes. What those rules are, are often up for debate.

In this case the rule between physical and non-physical.

 

[epronovost]

Does the non-physical exist in our universe.

You basically defined "physical" as "that which exist in our universe" (the observable universe is anything that can interact with other objects and anything that can be observed or measured). Knowing this, what is there to discuss or what am I missing? Of course there can't be anything non-physical in our universe since our universe is the sum total of anything physical by your own definition.

 

[exchemist]

There is the data, the electrical 1s and 0s processed by the computer which can be examined separately from the image which the brain would normally interpret from the data. So I'm not arguing the data doesn't exist however consciously, we don't see the data, we see the image. An image that is physically impossible to examine.

But it's not physically impossible to examine, surely?

If you were to partly dismantle your computer, you could in principle determine which switches were ON and which OFF and correlate that with the image on the screen. So there is an observable, physical cause of the image. It might be hard to do but it could be done. In fact, knowing the programming language of the computer you could work out what the binary machine code has to be to generate that image.

There is no reason to think similar principles would not apply equally to neurons and a mental image, i.e. that it has a physical basis in the brain that could be observed or otherwise determined.

 

[Nakosis]

You basically defined "physical" as "that which exist in our universe". Knowing this, what is there to discuss or what am I missing?

An image in our head, like the image of a red ball, can't actually interact with the universe, can it?

 

[epronovost]

An image in our head, like the image of a red ball, can't actually interact with the universe, can it?

Of course, it's the very product of interaction between neurones and will affect other portions of your mind like memory or feelings, etc. We can also measure your brain activity while you think about it and you can even grade and measure the intensity of your own thoughts. It has all of the hallmarks of a physical thing.

 

[Nakosis]

But it's not physically impossible to examine, surely?

If you were to partly dismantle your computer, you could in principle determine which switches were ON and which OFF and correlate that with the image on the screen. So there is an observable, physical cause of the image. It might be hard to do but it could be done. In fact, knowing the programming language of the computer you could work out what the binary machine code has to be to generate that image.

There is no reason to think similar principles would not apply equally to neurons and a mental image, i.e. that it has a physical basis in the brain that could be observed or otherwise determined.

So you're saying the image is physical, it exists right?

 

[exchemist]

So you're saying the image is physical, it exists right?

Yes. The image is the product of a physical pattern in the processor, certainly so in the case of a computer, and by extension expected to be so in the case of the brain, though we don't yet understand the brain well enough to show it directly.

 

[Nakosis]

Of course, it's the very product of interaction between neurones and will affect other portions of your mind like memory or feelings, etc. We can also measure your brain activity while you think about it and you can even grade and measure the intensity of your own thoughts. It has all of the hallmarks of a physical thing.

So then if I create an image of God, does God then have all of the hallmarks of a physical thing?

 

[epronovost]

So then if I create an image of God, does God then have all of the hallmarks of a physical thing?

Yes, the image of God exist. I think it's uncontroversial to say that. Now does that means that this image exist in another place with other characteristics, no absolutely not. An "imaginary thing" has different properties than other types of things.

 

[exchemist]

So then if I create an image of God, does God then have all of the hallmarks of a physical thing?

No, it would be the image of God that is physical.

You can make images of all kinds of things, real or imaginary, and in all cases the image formation process would have a physical basis.

That does not make the thing represented in the image real. You could imagine a unicorn and the pattern of neurons to do that would be somewhere in your brain, but that does not mean you have physically conjured up a real unicorn. Obviously.

 

[Nakosis]

No, it would be the image of God that is physical.

You can make images of all kinds of things, real or imaginary, and in all cases the image formation process would have a physical basis.

That does not make the thing represented in the image real. You could imagine a unicorn and the pattern of neurons to do that would be somewhere in your brain, but that does not mean you have physically conjured up a real unicorn. Obviously.

So a non-real physical image?