No, mass and energy are.
The Equivalence of Mass and Energy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME/
No, mass and energy are.
Oh yeah that's what I wanted to write.Consul wrote: ↑February 4th, 2019, 1:28 amNo, mass and energy are.
The Equivalence of Mass and Energy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME/
I see it the other way around, the apparent retroactivity of quantum phenomena shows that the universe is actually timeless (and spaceless, nonlocality), so the spacetime of relativity is probably not fundamental, just a necessary kind of arrangement of the quantum world for humans to exist. As for the classical psychological sensation of space and time, those are rather illusions, ways how the human experience is constructed.Greta wrote: ↑February 4th, 2019, 1:03 am We don't really understand time, though, do we? Relativity tells us that future and the past are the same, already part of an existing fabric of reality. Meanwhile retroactivity has been observed at quantum scales. We figure that there was no time before the BB introduced radioactive decay, rotations and orbits.
Imagine if, after the BB, amorphous energy just pulled apart in the expanding space and dissipated without ever forming particles - no decay, rotation or orbits, just stuff flying randomly about. Would we say such a universe was timeless or that it had a different kind of time?
I'm not sure the above is incompatible with my thoughts above, just taking different angles.Atla wrote: ↑February 4th, 2019, 2:49 amI see it the other way around, the apparent retroactivity of quantum phenomena shows that the universe is actually timeless (and spaceless, nonlocality), so the spacetime of relativity is probably not fundamental, just a necessary kind of arrangement of the quantum world for humans to exist. As for the classical psychological sensation of space and time, those are rather illusions, ways how the human experience is constructed.Greta wrote: ↑February 4th, 2019, 1:03 am We don't really understand time, though, do we? Relativity tells us that future and the past are the same, already part of an existing fabric of reality. Meanwhile retroactivity has been observed at quantum scales. We figure that there was no time before the BB introduced radioactive decay, rotations and orbits.
Imagine if, after the BB, amorphous energy just pulled apart in the expanding space and dissipated without ever forming particles - no decay, rotation or orbits, just stuff flying randomly about. Would we say such a universe was timeless or that it had a different kind of time?
As such there isn't much reason to believe that the BB was an actual beginning. At one point, our part of the universe used to be condensed into that singularity.
Not sure what you mean, the Big Bang stuff and the quantum foam are two forms of the same thing. And time as we know is gone even if we only look at the Big Bang stuff.Greta wrote: ↑February 4th, 2019, 6:11 amI'm not sure the above is incompatible with my thoughts above, just taking different angles.Atla wrote: ↑February 4th, 2019, 2:49 am
I see it the other way around, the apparent retroactivity of quantum phenomena shows that the universe is actually timeless (and spaceless, nonlocality), so the spacetime of relativity is probably not fundamental, just a necessary kind of arrangement of the quantum world for humans to exist. As for the classical psychological sensation of space and time, those are rather illusions, ways how the human experience is constructed.
As such there isn't much reason to believe that the BB was an actual beginning. At one point, our part of the universe used to be condensed into that singularity.
I see spacetime as simply being expanding space (hyperspace/the bulk/quantum foam) that's infused with the stuff of the big bang. Take the stuff out (or diffuse it as per the projected heat death of the universe) from the quantum foam and time as we know it is gone. The quantum foam is purported to basically consist of constantly and instantly annihilating ripples (virtual particles), so the appearances and disappearances presumably happen over some extremely small timeframe, but it's more like snippets of time appearing and immediately disappearing, as if each ripple was a quick big bang that immediately creates and destroys time as opposed to the flow of time intrinsic to energy and matter.
Very poetic, but kind of short on logic, though your red statement is clearly completely accuratePolaris wrote: ↑April 7th, 2020, 8:28 am This topic is interesting and important. For that reason and because I have some input of my own, I'm going to revive it.
What can be said for certain about death is that it won't be, for the person who dies, a total annihilation of him or herself and the universe. This is apparent for various reasons including the following:
1. Nothingness presumes consciousness. If I say a jar is empty, for example, what is there in front of me, objectively speaking? There are air molecules, clear glass, the table on which the jar rests. What I don't find there as an object is a void. A void gives off no light, no scent--in short, no sensory data. So I couldn't possibly have a void there before me as an object of my awareness. In what sense is there ever a void, then? There is a void only in the sense that I can imagine a different state of affairs than the one given to me. I can imagine the empty jar containing honey, for example. The emptiness is a phenomenon that depends on the contrast of my own state and the real state of affairs. It requires a consciousness and a world for it to be conscious of.
2. If I say that all will become nothing, what do I really mean? When I say it, I don't conceive of a genuine annihilation of all things, one that would necessarily render my very utterance nonexistent. What I conceive of, really, is a certain quality or set of qualities. I feel still, quiet; my mind's eye perceives a dimness. It can all be described in positive terms. It is negative only in the sense that it is less than what I am accustomed to. It isn't a genuine, absolute void, and it can't be because if I really grasped a genuine, absolute void, I wouldn't be able to speak or think. It is not only impossible to say that all will be annihilated, it is impossible to believe.
3. Nothingness has a relative rather than independent existence. Coldness is not a thing; it is merely the absence of warmth. Darkness is not a thing; it is merely the absence of light. Nothingness is always the lack of a thing; nothingness never stands on its own.
If death isn't nothingness, what is it? It is a room that many have entered but that none have ever returned from. The only way to find out what lies beyond the door is to step through it yourself.
Your lack of knowledge about the complete physical and mental nature of the body is not evidence that nothing remains after the death of what you know about our physical/mental being.
Very true, we are all equally ignorant in this area.
Ad hominem.
Actually Sculptor, while science knows a great deal about the difference between a living body and a dead one and what happens when you die it knows little about the mental and physical roots of a living being. Knowing a great deal about the difference between a living body and a dead one is a good start but it is not definitive. Again the lack of knowledge of the nature of our mental/ physical nature is not evidence that there is no deeper nature that science has yet to understand. Science has at its disposal only very simple metaphysical constructs that disqualifies it from understanding the real nature of the roots of our metaphysical being.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 14th, 2020, 6:48 amAd hominem.
The fact is that science knows a great deal about the difference between a living body and a dead one, and what happens when you die.
There is great evidence; in fact ALL the evidence points to the simple fact that death is the end of the person, and all the organisation of the matter that makes a person what they are.
The rest is just wishful thinking.
Wrong again.BigBango wrote: ↑April 15th, 2020, 5:01 amActually Sculptor, while science knows a great deal about the difference between a living body and a dead one and what happens when you die it knows little about the mental and physical roots of a living being.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 14th, 2020, 6:48 am
Ad hominem.
The fact is that science knows a great deal about the difference between a living body and a dead one, and what happens when you die.
There is great evidence; in fact ALL the evidence points to the simple fact that death is the end of the person, and all the organisation of the matter that makes a person what they are.
The rest is just wishful thinking.
Double negative weasel words.Knowing a great deal about the difference between a living body and a dead one is a good start but it is not definitive. Again the lack of knowledge of the nature of our mental/ physical nature is not evidence that there is no deeper nature that science has yet to understand.
simple compared to what, exactly?Science has at its disposal only very simple...
So what? Even if this were true, there is nothing you could possibly offer this thread which would add to that knowledge....metaphysical constructs that disqualifies it from understanding the real nature of the roots of our metaphysical being.
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023