The Metaphysical and the Physical

  • Thread starter Mentat
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Physical
In summary: They would think that the physical realm was just one layer of reality, and that there were other layers of reality that we couldn't see. This is where things start to get a little bit fuzzy, because it's not clear how MANY layers of reality there might be. But, it's clear that people thought there were at least two. Then, as man began to develop his understanding of the physical and metaphysical realms, he started to connect the dots and realize that the two were connected. He would think that, for example, things in the physical realm were caused by things happening in the metaphysical realm. And, as he started to
  • #1
Mentat
3,960
3
First, for the purpose of this thread, let's take for granted that there are physical phenomena and that there are metaphysical phenomena. We may or may not actually believe that, but let's just assume it for the purpose of this thread.

Now, here is the question I'm posing: is it possible for metaphysical phenomena to interact with physical phenomena?

I ask this because it appears that any interaction that takes place in the physical realm would be a physical interaction. By similar reasoning, any interaction that takes place in the metaphysical world would have to be a metaphysical reaction.

If both of these (above) assumptions are true, then it is not possible for the physical and the metaphysical to interact - since it couldn't happen in the physical realm, and it couldn't happen in the metaphysical (which encompasses anything other than the physical) realm.

Any/all comments are appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Perhaps if you were to view the metaphysical as another "state" or, dimension? While I suspect it has more to do with the interaction between energy fields or patterns. In which case I would say yes, the metaphysical does effect the physical, because energy is the interior (spirit or motive) of that which is exterior or physical (the physical act).
 
  • #3
Just so you know where I'm coming from - I don't believe in the metaphysical, although I admit that, although extraneous to any explanatory or spiritual needs and totally unproven, it is still a possibility in principle.

But, I'll play - just because it's fun :)

First, in the light of Iacchus32's response, we MUST semantically clarify something about enery...

Energy is physical. It is made up of particles and interacts in the material realm under laws of physics. "Energy" is light, heat, magnetism, electromagnetism, mechanical, etc. Energy is NOT the fuzzy magical stuff people like to use the word for when talking metaphysics, souls, and the like. The word "energy" has been hijacked by mystics who like to use it in the place of "magic" because it sounds more mature and believable. Therefore, I will ONLY be using the word "energy" in it's proper and completely physical definition.

So matter, energy, space, time, all exist in this physical realm. The metaphysical would be all of that which allegedly exists elsewhere. But if the metaphysical were real, as Iacchus32 mentions, it would probably have to be thought of as a sort of extra dimension (or set of extra dimensions) - another "plane of reality" as it were.

It makes sense that, within the metaphysical realm alone, there would be SOME sort of rules as to how the components of that realm interact (What IS possible, what IS NOT possible and so on). Of course, we're keeping this open to be attached to any religion or no religion, but if we were to take any number of examples of things people say and believe about the metaphysical realm/s, then it is clear that there is a form of causality and structure within these realms. For example, in Christianity there was a war between the angels. For this to happen, there would have to be some sort of structure of causality and interaction of parts. Otherwise, there would be nothing to determine who "won" the war because there would be no results for intentional action. So, what we're left with is a sort of "alternate physicality", with it's own "physics" of a sort.


It is possible that this metaphysical realm would NOT have any connection to our own. But if this were true, then we would have NO knowledge of what was there and no connection to it at all. If there were Jesus, or Buddha, or heaven or hell there - we'd have no idea and wouldn't even have LEGENDS of what things were there. So, anything we DID have people believing would most likely be completely wrong. Furthermore, we wouldn't even be able to go there when we died. In essence, this realm would be so incredibly irrelevant that to even discuss it would be ludicrous.

However, if the sort of things that people SAY happens between us and the metaphysical realm actually did, then it would stand to reason that there would be "laws of interaction" between the two realms. These laws might govern such things as what's required for us to see into the other realm, for it to affect things here, and so on. It would look quite a bit like magic actually. For example, if we had souls, then there would be specific laws governing how a soul affects the activity of the brain.

But, in reality, all of this is a lot easier to understand when you look at the history of metaphysical thought...

When early man was first beginning to try and answer the deep questions he had, he had no knowledge of scientific explanations, so anthropomorphized stories got made up to explain things. By the time of the early Greeks, these concepts were pretty intricately developed. But even then, it is clear when you read Plato, that they concieved of "the gods" and the afterlife as MATERIAL and PHYSICAL. When they spoke of heaven, they LITERALLY meant the thing they saw at night when they looked up. Earlier religious people all thought this as well. When they thought about their soul, they LITERALLY thought it was a physical property, like a gas or something, that allowed life for physical scientific reasons.

It was only AFTER the scientific revolution, when alternate explanations for things started coming out, that we began to see that souls and heaven and such were innacurate hypotheses. But by that time, so much ethical, cultural, and personal attachment had been connected to these concepts that no one was ready to just give them up. So what happened was a gradual re-interpretation of old concepts in a framework that our modern scientific minds could accept. After finding out that the heavens were just a bunch of stars like our own, we invented a NEW "heaven" and said that it was in "another dimension" - a decidedly relativistic concept that would have been nonsense to early people mut makes sense to a psuedo-scientific population.

So, while it's fun to think about such things, what we're really talking about here is Science Fiction. :)
 
  • #4
As I understand it, the metaphysical realm is tied in a correaltive sense, to our thoughts and emotions, by which there exists a "spiritual influx" into that which is natural. So how does science classify thought and emotion in relation to energy? In terms of electro-chemical processes of the brain, right? So it wouldn't be unreasonable to classify them as patterns of energy then, right? In which case this is how the metaphysical realm affects us most directly.

Whereas how do you explain the vividness of dreams, which can become a reality unto themselves at times? Isn't this a possible indication that we have a soul, and this is a means by which we all have access to the metaphysical realm?
 
  • #5
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Whereas how do you explain the vividness of dreams, which can become a reality unto themselves at times? Isn't this a possible indication that we have a soul, and this is a means by which we all have access to the metaphysical realm?
No matter the vividness of dreams, we still wake up. We know, with plenty of good evidence that the dreams come from self-stimulation of sensory parts of the brain. I don't see how this suggests a soul, or that this metaphysical realm is anything more than a word for our own illusions.
 
  • #6
Originally posted by FZ+
No matter the vividness of dreams, we still wake up. We know, with plenty of good evidence that the dreams come from self-stimulation of sensory parts of the brain. I don't see how this suggests a soul, or that this metaphysical realm is anything more than a word for our own illusions.
Then how do you explain the fact that dreams are quite often triggered by something that happened earlier in the day? Or, why some dreams are pre-cognitive? Or why dreams hold deep "phsycological truths" about who we are? I don't think any of this can be disputed? Which tells me that there's something more than "physiology" going on.
 
  • #7
a simple, one dimensional answer would be to say no, justified by the literal definitions of the terms in question. for example:

metaphysic(al): adj. 1. (pert. to) branch of philosophy dealing with the nature, character, and causes of being and knowing, the existence of God, ect.; 2. (pert. to) abstract speculative philosophy in general

does not seem to be applicable to

physicsal: adj. 1. relating to physics and physical science; 2. material as opposed to moral or spiritual

(for both the quotes the second definition is more appropriate in the disscusion) and the second definition in 'physical' is pretty much in direct opposition with the possibility of metephysical intervension. but that's only is you trust The Scriber-Bantam English Dictionary.

(and yes i realize that i have not directly answered your question of the possiblity of one affecting the other. I'm only clarifying by showing a contradiction between the words.)
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Originally posted by Tiberius
Energy is physical. It is made up of particles and interacts in the material realm under laws of physics. "Energy" is light, heat, magnetism, electromagnetism, mechanical, etc.

Energy may be physical, but why do you think it is particles? Take light/EM for example. If light is energy, then why does the loss of energy result in a longer wavelength and a slower oscillatory rate? All we should see is less energy and no other characteristics remaining behind. Are you saying energy is wave-ness and oscillitory rate-ness?

And then, what is the "particle" of heat? Heat isn't a particle as far as I know.

Personally, I don't think light/EM is energy, but rather is something that can be energized. Light appears to be something unique to itself -- luminescence plus vibrancy -- which remains present whether you increase or decrease its energy.

Originally posted by Tiberius
Energy is NOT the fuzzy magical stuff people like to use the word for when talking metaphysics, souls, and the like. The word "energy" has been hijacked by mystics who like to use it in the place of "magic" because it sounds more mature and believable.

I don't think you are anybody else knows what energy actually "is." That is why in physics energy is only described in terms of what it does -- work. Energy is a mystery, and if you have the secret of it, please share so we can all know.

Originally posted by Tiberius
So matter, energy, space, time, all exist in this physical realm. The metaphysical would be all of that which allegedly exists elsewhere.

Why must that be? Space, matter, energy and time are here in the same place, why can't the metaphysical be here too?

Originally posted by Tiberius
. . . if we were to take any number of examples of things people say and believe about the metaphysical realm/s, then it is clear that there is a form of causality and structure within these realms. .

What people say and believe have nothing to do with the reality, or not, of anything metaphysical. Just as in empiricism, we need to look for experience.

Originally posted by Tiberius
It was only AFTER the scientific revolution, when alternate explanations for things started coming out, that we began to see that souls and heaven and such were innacurate hypotheses.

You know the soul hypothesis is inaccurate? Who has proven it so, would you cite the studies?

Originally posted by Tiberius
But, in reality, all of this is a lot easier to understand when you look at the history of metaphysical thought...

When early man was first beginning to try and answer the deep questions he had, he had no knowledge of scientific explanations, so anthropomorphized stories got made up to explain things. By the time of the early Greeks, these concepts were pretty intricately developed. But even then, it is clear when you read Plato, that they concieved of "the gods" and the afterlife as MATERIAL and PHYSICAL. When they spoke of heaven, they LITERALLY meant the thing they saw at night when they looked up. Earlier religious people all thought this as well. When they thought about their soul, they LITERALLY thought it was a physical property, like a gas or something, that allowed life for physical scientific reasons.

That is some understanding of the history of metaphysics! You cite pagen beliefs as representing the metaphysical, and then compare that to modern science. Well, I could cite alchemy as representing science and play the same game.

If you are going to contrast physics and metaphysics, at least do a little homework about the phenomenon of enlightenment. The genuinely enlightened were intolerant of the pagan nonsense too.

I hope you aren't going to join the ranks of those who speak about metaphysics without the slightest understanding of it. It is so typical for someone to study everything that supports their belief, merely skim what's on the other side, and then when they make an argument, represent what they are opposed to as idiotic.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Energy may be physical, but why do you think it is particles? Take light/EM for example. If light is energy, then why does the loss of energy result in a longer wavelength and a slower oscillatory rate? All we should see is less energy and no other characteristics remaining behind. Are you saying energy is wave-ness and oscillitory rate-less?

And then, what is the "particle" of heat? Heat isn't a particle as far as I know.

no, this is not entirely correct. the light wave/particle duality allows light to be perceived both as light waves and as particles, depending on which is more useful in a certain observation/experiment. also there is a heat particle . only for radiated heat of course which is light (infared). conductive heat is different.
 
  • #10
Originally posted by Tiberius

Energy is physical. It is made up of particles and interacts in the material realm under laws of physics. "Energy" is light, heat, magnetism, electromagnetism, mechanical, etc. Energy is NOT the fuzzy magical stuff people like to use the word for when talking metaphysics, souls, and the like. The word "energy" has been hijacked by mystics who like to use it in the place of "magic" because it sounds more mature and believable.

I think you should write a FAQ for this site, to make clarifications like that.
 
  • #11
Originally posted by LW Sleeth

...And then, what is the "particle" of heat? Heat isn't a particle as far as I know.

Heat is just another name for radiation. And yes, there is an associated particle for that. Accelerate an electron and it's lost energy shows up as heat, carried off by a photon.

I don't think you are anybody else knows what energy actually "is." That is why in physics energy is only described in terms of what it does -- work. Energy is a mystery, and if you have the secret of it, please share so we can all know.

Well physics has actually come a bit further than the vague concept of work. General relativity gives a geometric structure to energy, which is curved spacetime. The field that defines spacetime then seems to be a matter of pure geometry.

Of course, QM only complicates things with a zoo of particles with varying values, such as spin, mass, etc. So far there is no quantum theory of spacetime that could give us a full answer as to what energy is, but potential TOE's seem to be headed in the direction of geometry. So while we can't say exactly what it is for sure, it's a lot better than what we knew 100 years ago.
 
  • #12
Originally posted by maximus
no, this is not entirely correct. the light wave/particle duality allows light to be perceived both as light waves and as particles, depending on which is more useful in a certain observation/experiment. also there is a heat particle . only for radiated heat of course which is light (infared). conductive heat is different.

I believe you are speaking of the dual nature of EM, and I wouldn't dispute that. But I am talking about something different.

I am suggesting that energy and EM are totally different qualities. Light can have more energy, and it can have less energy. Losing energy doesn't stop light from exhibiting its base characteristics, such a as light speed or oscillation. Can you say energy is in any way linked to lightspeed? Light is, but energy isn't, so how can light and energy be synonomous?

Therefore, light may be something in its own right, something capable of absorbing and yielding energy. Likewise, energy may be something in its own right too, capable of infusing and deflating that which can accommodate it.
 
  • #13
Originally posted by Eh
Heat is just another name for radiation. And yes, there is an associated particle for that. Accelerate an electron and it's lost energy shows up as heat, carried off by a photon.

Ahhhhh . . . I was hoping someone would debate this with me.

How can heat be another name for radiation? Heat is associated with radiation, but there is more to radiation than heat.

If you see an atom at work, oscillating perhaps a trillion times per second, you don't get heat (I couldn't find reliable info on this, so I am guessing a little here . . . physics experts, correct me if I am wrong). Energy is there, and so heat should be there too. However, once a photon is emitted, then you do get heat. Why?

Is it that a photon is heat? Or is it that light is one thing (something capable of carrying energy), energy is another, and heat still another? There is no manifested energy or heat without entropy, there is no energy without heat, but light maintains other characteristics despite its heat or energy (e.g., oscillation and c). So possibly light carries energy and heat is an effect of entropy.

So I say light is one thing, and heat and energy are something else.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Ahhhhh . . . I was hoping someone would debate this with me.

How can heat be another name for radiation? Heat is associated with radiation, but there is more to radiation than heat.

It seems that the notion of energy lost to heat, is another way of saying that a photon has carried away energy from a source.. But I'm not sure if other forms of radiation would be considered heat in the traditional sense.

If you see an atom at work, oscillating perhaps a trillion times per second, you don't get heat (I couldn't find reliable info on this, so I am guessing a little here . . . physics experts, correct me if I am wrong). Energy is there, and so heat should be there too.

Hmmm, let's see if I can remember here. The electrons give off heat if they accelerate. That is, with any change in the speed or direction of a charged particle, it will emit a photon carrying the associated energy loss. Shake an electron, and as it jumps into a lower energy state the photon carries away the energy it had in it's momentum.

Perhaps you're thinking of large machines and friction. Any such machine will be subject to energy loss due to heat, and so will be constantly producing heat.

However, once a photon is emitted, then you do get heat. Why?

Do you you mean the heat that photons can produce, such as in the case of the sun? The energy lost by the source of the raditation, is carried by the photon. But those photons are usually quickly absorbed by something else, such as humans. That's why you will feel "heat" while standing in the sun.

Is it that a photon is heat? Or is it that light is one thing (something capable of carrying energy), energy is another, and heat is an manifestation of entropy? There is no heat without entropy, there is no energy without heat or light, but light maintains other characteristics despite heat or energy (e.g., oscillation and c).

Light as mentioned above, is the particle carrying away the energy lost from the source. So it does not exist without energy - it is the energy. And heat it seems, can be defined as the energy carried away by photons when a charged particle accelerates.
 
  • #15
Originally posted by Eh
Light as mentioned above, is the particle carrying away the energy lost from the source. So it does not exist without energy - it is the energy. And heat it seems, can be defined as the energy carried away by photons when a charged particle accelerates.

I confess to wanting to debate this because I want to understand it better (i.e., not because it has much to do with this thread . . . object Mentat and I will stop).

I don't think you are correct in saying that light "does not exist without energy." If you are right, then you should be able to make light vanish by depleting it of all its energy. But that isn't what happens. Energy disappears, but the base characteristics of light, oscillation and c, remain no matter what you do to it. That means light is "energizable" but is itself not energy.

The conclusion: energy and light must be two different things.
 
  • #16
And what about meditation? Isn't this a process by which we can alter our brainwaves and increase our energy levels? What does that suggest about metaphysics and its relationship to energy? And why is it supposedly possible for people to entertain "visions of God" under such states? Also, when we think and have certain feelings about things, for example when a man thinks about a beautiful woman, couldn't this also be construed as "somewhat metaphysical" -- especially where "great reverence" is involved -- where it too might also raise our energy levels?
 
  • #17
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
How can heat be another name for radiation? Heat is associated with radiation, but there is more to radiation than heat.If you see an atom at work, oscillating perhaps a trillion times per second, you don't get heat (I couldn't find reliable info on this, so I am guessing a little here . . . physics experts, correct me if I am wrong). Energy is there, and so heat should be there too. However, once a photon is emitted, then you do get heat. Why?

are you asking how is it that we percieve heat from radiation (carried by a photon)? this is more biological that physical.



Is it that a photon is heat? Or is it that light is one thing (something capable of carrying energy), energy is another, and heat still another? There is no manifested energy or heat without entropy, there is no energy without heat, but light maintains other characteristics despite its heat or energy (e.g., oscillation and c). So possibly light carries energy and heat is an effect of entropy.
So I say light is one thing, and heat and energy are something else.

you are confusing terms. as i said before heat perceived by radiation and heat from conduction are different things. one is carried by photons and the other (i believe) is the direct induction of energy. but going back to the original topic, energy really is physical (if that's what you're agrueing against). it is observed as matter, and as forces, and as a distortion of spacetime.
also, what do you mean by there is no manifested energy or heat without entropy? entropy has nothing to do with our discussion, it is a measurment of those terms, not a cause for. do you mean that there is no energy or heat that does not have a measurable entropy value?
 
Last edited:
  • #18
Originally posted by Iacchus32
And what about meditation? Isn't this a process by which we can alter our brainwaves and increase our energy levels? What does that suggest about metaphysics and its relationship to energy? And why is it supposedly possible for people to entertain "visions of God" under such states? Also, when we think and have certain feelings about things, for example when a man thinks about a beautiful woman, couldn't this also be construed as "somewhat metaphysical" -- especially where "great reverence" is involved -- where it too might also raise our energy levels?

you are commiting the error that others in this thread have described. you are thinking of 'energy levels' as a mystical thing (or so it reads). during meditation you do, indeed, lower you heart rate and brainwaves, therefore you burn your food calories slower, therefore your 'energy level' drops. (maybe even your body temperature). and when a man meets a beautiful woman his brain (and genetic history) tell him to mate. our 'energy-levels' increase in responce to this instinct in the same way as described above.
 
  • #19
Originally posted by maximus
you are commiting the error that others in this thread have described. you are thinking of 'energy levels' as a mystical thing (or so it reads). during meditation you do, indeed, lower you heart rate and brainwaves, therefore you burn your food calories slower, therefore your 'energy level' drops. (maybe even your body temperature). and when a man meets a beautiful woman his brain (and genetic history) tell him to mate. our 'energy-levels' increase in responce to this instinct in the same way as described above.
All that I'm suggesting (so far), that if in fact we are "metaphysical beings," then there has to be some sort of relationship between that and physical reality. In which case this is the most plausible means I know of in how to get there.

I would also venture to say I've had any number of metaphysical experiences myself, yet it's obvious I can't expect science to back me up (to say the least), so I'm pretty much on my own when it comes to tyring to explain these things. Neither does a metaphysical experience per se', require science for validation, it requires somebody who has been introduced to the experience and has worked with it for awhile. Indeed there's a whole level of experience here that science hasn't even begun to touch.

It's like how do you know how chocolate pudding tastes unless you've actually tasted it for yourself? Or, how can you even begin to describe something, unless you've determined what that something is? In which case I would suggest science has little or no comprehension of what metaphysics is about. So I think science is "committing the error" when it tries to dismiss it, rather than disprove it.
 
  • #20
Originally posted by Iacchus32
It's like how do you know how chocolate pudding tastes unless you've actually tasted it for yourself? Or, how can you even begin to describe something, unless you've determined what that something is? In which case I would suggest science has little or no comprehension of what metaphysics is about. So I think science is "committing the error" when it tries to dismiss it rather than disprove it.

it is impossible to disprove something using science that cannot scientifically be observed (unless that is your agrument). but it can give some ingsight as to other possible scenerios that would produce an effect that is interpretted to be metaphysical. we can show, for example, that when someone believes they have had a supernatural or metaphysical experience there might be other cause for such an interpretation.

to clarify your position can you give me an example of a metaphysical experience? preferably one that you yourself have experienced, Iacchus.
 
  • #21
Originally posted by maximus
it is impossible to disprove something using science that cannot scientifically be observed (unless that is your agrument). but it can give some ingsight as to other possible scenerios that would produce an effect that is interpretted to be metaphysical. we can show, for example, that when someone believes they have had a supernatural or metaphysical experience there might be other cause for such an interpretation.
Or perhaps science is just not going about it the right way?

to clarify your position can you give me an example of a metaphysical experience? preferably one that you yourself have experienced, Iacchus.
Yes. If the first link doesn't suggest anything, then by all means try the second ...

http://www.dionysus.org/x0901.html

http://www.dionysus.org/x0501.html
 
  • #22
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Or perhaps science is just not going about it the right way?

how would you have us do it?


and in reading Book of Ezekiel, and Indian Tapastry i get an idea of what you're talking about. out of body expeiences, messages from beyond, and odd coincidence. some arguememts i could make would be that the dream following the bag of chips was brought on by the chips rather than the other way around. many other occurances mentioned were coincidental. i believe his 'message dreams' were completely self-created and had no connetion to outside influences, and were again, coincidental.
 
  • #23
Originally posted by maximus
how would you have us do it?
How would I have science do it? Would I have them do it my way? I'm not sure. It all depends on how serious they are. The least they could do though, is research some of the more credible people in the field.


and in reading Book of Ezekiel, and Indian Tapastry i get an idea of what you're talking about. out of body expeiences, messages from beyond, and odd coincidence. some arguememts i could make would be that the dream following the bag of chips was brought on by the chips rather than the other way around. many other occurances mentioned were coincidental. i believe his 'message dreams' were completely self-created and had no connetion to outside influences, and were again, coincidental.
That was bag of potatoes, not chips. While there's no doubt that the dream was brought on by the bag of potatoes, and that the whole thing was a "series of events," beginning with the bag of potatoes and ending with the climax with the phone-call during the middle of the movie. Even so, for someone who hasn't experienced this sort of thing, yours is the most plausible explanation.

By the way, if you would like to read about another "metaphysical effect," check out the thread, The Advent of Color, which speaks about my avatar to the left.
 
  • #24
Originally posted by Iacchus32
That was bag of potatoes, not chips. While there's no doubt that the dream was brought on by the bag of potatoes, and that the whole thing was a "series of events," beginning with the bag of potatoes and ending with the climax with the phone-call during the middle of the movie. Even so, for someone who hasn't experienced this sort of thing, yours is the most plausible explanation.

oh? are you saying that if i had had this same experience i would catorgorize it is at metaphysical, instead of coincidental? that's awful presumtious of you! i have, as a matter of fact, had odd coincidental experiances (none quite so unusual as the author in that passuage) and have classified it as a coincidence. you'll have to give me a better example of metaphyhsical occurances to convince me.
 
  • #25
Can the physical and metaphysical interact?

Originally posted by maximus
are you asking how is it that we percieve heat from radiation (carried by a photon)? this is more biological that physical. . . . as i said before heat perceived by radiation and heat from conduction are different things. one is carried by photons and the other (i believe) is the direct induction of energy

I don't know what you are referring to, I am not really saying anything about those things.

Originally posted by maximus
energy really is physical (if that's what you're arguing against). it is observed as matter, and as forces, and as a distortion of spacetime.

I am not arguing that energy is not physical, it is physical.

Originally posted by maximus
what do you mean by there is no manifested energy or heat without entropy? entropy has nothing to do with our discussion, it is a measurement of those terms, not a cause for. do you mean that there is no energy or heat that does not have a measurable entropy value?

What I was pointing out is that there is a relationship between the actual manifestation of energy (as opposed to a potential condition) and entropy. You cannot make energy available for work without increasing disorder and producing heat except that is, for one curious exception, which is the real point I was gradually working toward.

The exception is light (let’s forget about heat for now). The order of light is maintained whether you give or take energy from it. That order is oscillation and c (let’s forget about c too for now). You can temporarily alter oscillation, but nothing you can do will permanently stop it. Therefore, energy is something that energizes, and light is something vibrant (I think it is luminescence too). Light carries energy but is not energy (personally, I believe energy is compression because light yields the energy it carries as its wavelength lengthens).

Now, how might that be translated into something metaphysical? Well, it seems for us to have a theory of existence we do need something uncreated, something that was always here. What if light is the uncreated and indestructible stuff we need? The resiliency light shows in physics indicates it is quite mutable, but so far as we know, imperishable. Some postulate it is matter, ever changing, that has eternally existed. But matter does seem to vanish, as the universe appears to be doing as it expands and radiates itself away.

Theists say it is God that is eternally-existent, but the God theists imagine seems to have a problem too (as the “first cause”) because of the omniscient (all-knowing) aspect they attribute to God. It seems like a creator who has forever existed would know everything just as theologians propose. But then, how do we reconcile an all-knowing creator with one who creates countless species unable to survive? Or a creator who, considering how diseases and molecular freakishness (like destructive mutation and viruses) bring down life, and seemingly creates less than perfectly (plus many of us wonder about certain members of the human race)? Wouldn’t an omniscient creator already understand exactly what to do, and unerringly create a flawless creation?

But assuming (for theists) there is a creator, and if the creator experiments, it means the creator is not omniscient, but would be a learning creator. With the concept of a learning creator we can reason that if the creator is becoming more learned, then before the creator became more learned the creator was less learned. And tracing that process back we see there would have been a condition when the creator was un-learned, which suggests there an event which gave birth to, or originated, the creator and so it cannot have eternally existed (but, of course, it might continue eternally).

Okay, so of that which we know to exist, nothing appears more constant than light. It survives without damage the mega-temperatures and pressures of solar activity, absorbs and emits energy, animates atoms, participates in photosynthesis giving life, runs through neurons participating in consciousness, and then when free from those things goes vibrantly on its way traveling apparently forever without losing speed or oscillatory integrity. Awesome stuff. So maybe, just maybe, it is the uncreated “stuff” we need to explain the origin of the universe. Maybe everything, from matter and forces to consciousness are manifestations of light.

Now, here’s where it gets interesting (at least to some people). If light is the uncreated factor, and consciousness is light, then it appears that light has “emerged” from matter in the human form; that is, light goes in unconscious but emerges on top (in the brain) conscious. This is a type of “meta” of metaphysics (meta- means beyond or transcending). If light really is uncreated and indestructible, and it has become conscious in the human, then is it possible for conscious light to continue without the brain? True, it will lose its emergent vehicle, and all that structure the brain provides, but might there be a way for at least something conscious to nonetheless survive?

Let’s add one more interesting fact, and that is a practice that has been going on for about 3000 years: individuals striving for enlightenment. Now there’s an interesting coincidence. In this practice, people turn their attention inward and attain what they call “union” with an inner light. It is people successful with this practice, in my opinion, who’ve stimulated the masses to theorize about God and metaphysics. But theory isn’t knowing, so if anyone ever knew the potential of this inner union with light, it was those who practiced it.

Of such practitioners, the Buddha is most famous (which is why I quote him, not because I am a Buddhist, which I am not). Here is what the Buddha said, “There is, monks, that plane where there is neither extension nor motion. . . there is no coming or going or remaining or deceasing or uprising. . . . There is, monks, an unborn, not become, not made, uncompounded . . . [and] because [that exists] . . . an escape can be shown for what is born, has become, is made, is compounded.”

So maybe there is a metaphysical potential the human race as a whole has yet to discover. Maybe the relative few who’ve realized the enlightenment potential were evolutionary harbingers (3000 years is an instant on evolution’s time scale). Maybe this realization has nothing to do with religion, theology, and any other sort of speculation about the nature of existence. Maybe it has to do with an inner experience that one has to work hard at for many years to attain; if so, and if it is evolution, then even evolution appears to be evolving since the element of choice has now become part of it.

Finally, I might point out that metaphysics needn’t be nonsense. I am not saying my little presentation makes total sense, but at least it is an attempt to fit the facts and abide by physical laws. The reason many people are interested in metaphysics is because of life and consciousness. It is precisely there that some of us feel physics alone doesn’t work as an explanation. As far as I am concerned, everything else can be physics.
 
Last edited:
  • #26
Originally posted by LW Sleeth

I don't think you are correct in saying that light "does not exist without energy." If you are right, then you should be able to make light vanish by depleting it of all its energy.

What do you mean by deplete? The only photons ever observed have been carrying energy.

But that isn't what happens. Energy disappears, but the base characteristics of light, oscillation and c, remain no matter what you do to it. That means light is "energizable" but is itself not energy.

Any photon traveling at c has momentum, a form of energy. Take away that energy, and light by definition would disappear.
 
  • #27
Originally posted by maximus
oh? are you saying that if i had had this same experience i would catorgorize it is at metaphysical, instead of coincidental? that's awful presumtious of you! i have, as a matter of fact, had odd coincidental experiances (none quite so unusual as the author in that passuage) and have classified it as a coincidence. you'll have to give me a better example of metaphyhsical occurances to convince me.
Not any less presumptuous than what you've just said here. All I'm saying is I can understand why people would doubt. That's fine. I'll just pick up my gear and go to another hole ... And the author in what passage?
 
  • #28
Originally posted by Eh
What do you mean by deplete? The only photons ever observed have been carrying energy. . . . Any photon traveling at c has momentum, a form of energy. Take away that energy, and light by definition would disappear.

If a photon bumps into something and drops to a lower energy state, does that affect c? Can a photon be made to stop oscillating? If not, then I am saying c and oscillation (not the rate of oscillation) are independent of energy.
 
  • #29
If a photon bumps into something, it gets absorbed. The charged particle that absorbed it, then gets a jump in it's energy level. If a photon is undisturbed, it will remain in it's current state for good, and photons travel at c at all times. Maybe you are thinking of electrons instead?
 
  • #30
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I confess to wanting to debate this because I want to understand it better (i.e., not because it has much to do with this thread . . . object Mentat and I will stop).

I don't think you are correct in saying that light "does not exist without energy." If you are right, then you should be able to make light vanish by depleting it of all its energy. But that isn't what happens. Energy disappears, but the base characteristics of light, oscillation and c, remain no matter what you do to it. That means light is "energizable" but is itself not energy.

The conclusion: energy and light must be two different things.

I have no problem with your discussing this here. However, I disagree with the (quoted above) post. You see, oscillation and movement cannot occur without any energy (this is just the obvious conclusion from the fact that all "work" requires energy).
 
  • #31
I'm sorry, but I haven't been able to read all of the posts yet, so tell me if I'm just repeating something that has already been said.

Iacchus, you mentioned dreams, right? Did you assume that a dream was something "metaphysical", non-physical? But this assumption (much like the assumption that consciousness and thought are non-physical things) is not logical, as we would have no way of explaining how something that is metaphysical could possibly interact with something physical. It is better (IMO) to take the scientific approach, and say that a dream (much like a thought) is a physical phenomenon, occurring in the brain.
 
  • #32
Originally posted by Eh
If a photon bumps into something, it gets absorbed. The charged particle that absorbed it, then gets a jump in it's energy level. If a photon is undisturbed, it will remain in it's current state for good, and photons travel at c at all times. Maybe you are thinking of electrons instead?

This was discussed at a thread in the physics area where I asked if light ever spontaneously loses energy. A photon can lose energy if it collides with another particle, and according to Marcus at least, the expansion of the universe is causing light to "stretch" to longer wavelengths and therefore lose energy (the very reason for cosmic background radiation).

My point is, if a photon can drop from infrared to microwave frequency, for instance, and it does not alter c, then it means energy has nothing to do with c. Similarly, if one cannot get light to stop oscillating by lowering its energy, then oscillation (again, not the rate of oscillation) is also independent of energy.

And my larger point is that light is NOT energy, but is something in its own right. It does "carry" energy, and as it is energized it takes on the various characteristics observed at different wavelengths.
 
  • #33
Originally posted by Mentat
You see, oscillation and movement cannot occur without any energy (this is just the obvious conclusion from the fact that all "work" requires energy).

Both light speed and oscillation should be dependent on energy according to the definition of work, as you say. However, the amount of energy a photon has does not affect its speed. That is completely contrary to the rule because if it is energy driving movement, then energy should be expended as the photon travels; likewise, light should expend energy oscillating. Yet in both cases its energy stays the same! Therefore, energy (at least the energy of a particular photon) is not what is causing c or oscillation, something else is.

I don't want to speculate about the cause of c, but if light is vibrant by nature then possibly the increasing oscillation rates we see when it gets energized is the accentuation of that natural vibrancy.
 
  • #34
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
This was discussed at a thread in the physics area where I asked if light ever spontaneously loses energy. A photon can lose energy if it collides with another particle, and according to Marcus at least, the expansion of the universe is causing light to "stretch" to longer wavelengths and therefore lose energy (the very reason for cosmic background radiation).

Wait a minute, the photon can lose energy? I didn't know that. I always thought that the energy that an electron loses and gains was in form of photons. And if so, photons would be massless particle/waves and they would be energy.

My point is, if a photon can drop from infrared to microwave frequency, for instance, and it does not alter c, then it means energy has nothing to do with c.

This is just wrong, a photon doesn't drop in frequency, it is the electromagnetic wave that drops in frequency, and thus produces less energy (photons) through radiation.
 
  • #35
Originally posted by Mentat
I'm sorry, but I haven't been able to read all of the posts yet, so tell me if I'm just repeating something that has already been said.

Iacchus, you mentioned dreams, right? Did you assume that a dream was something "metaphysical", non-physical? But this assumption (much like the assumption that consciousness and thought are non-physical things) is not logical, as we would have no way of explaining how something that is metaphysical could possibly interact with something physical. It is better (IMO) to take the scientific approach, and say that a dream (much like a thought) is a physical phenomenon, occurring in the brain.
And yet dreams are very much a metaphysical topic when people bring up "metaphysics." Not unless I'm totally mistaken? Dreams are also related to visions, which is even more a metaphysical phenomenon, which I ought to know from experience because I've had both.

http://www.dionysus.org/x0901.html
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
663
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
597
Replies
10
Views
718
  • General Discussion
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
3
Replies
100
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
726
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
30
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
802
Back
Top