If energy can neither be created nor destroyed...

I agree with Urwrong here (with my insertion).

Furthermore, this style of argument is often misused. We are identifying a source of matter and energy for the whole universe and based solely on that, we deem it appropriate to label that source ‘God’. This is fine, I suppose, if this is really how you want to define God (i.e. the source of all matter and energy), but people usually mean more than this. The argument is usually carried a lot further than just tacking on a label–it’s usually followed up with: therefore, there is a Heaven and Hell, and God loves us, and everything the Bible says is true, etc., etc., etc., which of course is an equivocation. For example, the introduction of an intelligent source of all matter and energy seems to have slipped in? Why? Well, because if we are to identify this source as God, he’s gonna have to be intelligent. But a source of matter/energy as such need not possess any intelligence whatsoever.

In a nutshell, I’m not sure what labeling this source ‘God’ gives you.

We do not really know where the energy comes from. So we do not know either where the universe comes from, why it exists, if it exists (note that „universe“ is a concept) … and so on. The task of the physicists is not to answer questions like those. Science does not think (cp. Heidegger). Those questions must be answered or at least discussed by philosophers or theologians.

If there is only matter and energy and if there is convertability of both and if we too consist of both, then the energy may be the godlike one (thus also: the cause/reason for everything else), whereas the matter may be just the other one. If that is true, then God is always everywhere, thus also around you and in you.

Is that true? What do you think about that?


There are at least two realms: a physical one and a spiritual one.

Are there two realities then, or do both realms belong to the same reality?

Both realms belong to our world. I would not use the word “reality” in this case, because this word has got too many definitions that are too much controversal.

This is what Wikipedia wrote introductorily about “reality”:

More: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality .

Reality may pertain to things that exist but science makes a distinction between what is real and what can be observed
Since it only investigates observable phenomena and has absolutely nothing to say about whether or not any of it is real

Science speaks loud and clear to the masses via osmosis … ergo …if “it” isn’t proven by science … it isn’t real/true.

I can give you a vague idea of that but neither know exactly nor have anything to prove that.

That is simple to answer.

You are slightly misunderstanding the issue here. It is not about energy only but the sum of energy and mass. As both are interchangeable thus their total sum always stand constant, though their ratio in that sum changes.

When lights hits any object, it either increases the mass of that object or energy in the form of heat.

Because, as we know that we or any other force can neither create or destroy anything, but merely change its ratio of mass and energy.

with love,
sanjay

That is true. In a sense, universe is not infinite.

But, the thing here to understand is that the total sum of the all the ingredients is finite. But, being interchangeable, the ratio its ingredients in that grand total always kept changing. And, space ( or expanding quality ) is also one those ingredients. Thus, even if the universe is expanding ( which i do not think is true), it does not mean that is not finite.

with love,
sanjay

This is what Wikipedia says about “scientific realism”:

Source.

It is not expectable to get a proper definition for “reality” from science - especially because of the fact that science itself is more idealistic than realistic (see above: “ideal science”).

Science cannot prove anything only disprove it and it also has nothing to say about whether or not anything is real

What branch of knowledge decides what is real and what is the reasoning behind the decision?

That would be philosophy as determining reality is an ontological matter not a scientific one

But philosophy doesn’t do any experimental testing, so all sorts of strange philosophical concepts stay around for a long time.

How do you refute solipsism? By kicking a rock.

I think that’s why science and the scietific method is more reliable and closer to the truth - it seeks feedback from ‘reality’.

A very good question. If science strikes out, then philosophy seems next up to bat. But even that can strike out as history proves. What about one’s own personal experiences?

Example: It is not possible that a physical experiment explains what physics “is”. This was what Heidegger meant when he said: “Die Wissenschaft denkt nicht” (“the science does not think”).

**

So philosophy (especially its ontology) has to say what physics “is” and what reality “is”.

It is human beings who decide what is real.
Many do so by employing what we call intelligence.
But no human is under obligation to employ intelligence in order to decide what is real.
They can do so any way they want.
The only restriction is fate itself.

Every “branch of knowledge” studies what is real.
There is no “branch of knowledge” that does not study what is real.
The main difference is in their METHODOLOGY.
Some fields rely on intelligence (e.g. science, philosophy, etc) others on faith (e.g. religion, pseudo-science, pseudo-philosophy, etc.)

S57 is a parrot so it’s no wonder he’s so confused.

Really? So science cannot test its predictions? It cannot say something like “tomorrow will rain” and then test that claim by observing whether it rains or not the following day? It appears to me that science can both prove and disprove its predictions. What science cannot prove, and can only disprove, is an infinite series of predictions. This is because you can only prove what is finite. In order to prove an infinite series of predictions you need to run an infinite number of tests which means these tests can never be completed. And this does not apply only to science. It applies to any kind of study in general. In other words, nothing can prove an infinite series of predictions.

Really?

We’re not talking about individual human beings deciding what is real because then the schizophrenic says that his hallucinations are real.

What is objectively real for everybody?

A “branch of knowledge” can potentially makes up some nonsense and claim that it is ‘real’ or a true interpretation of reality. Intelligence allows you to do that more effectively than stupidity or ignorance. Intelligence can weave together a plausible explanation which is hard to dispute.

It would be nice if real philosophy came with a convenient label “Philosophy” attached and the nonsense philosophy came with the label “Pseudo-philosophy”. That would make life so much simpler.

That’s exactly what we’re doing. It’s only sentient beings who have the ability to decide what is real and what is not. Noone and nothing else.

I’ve notived that most people find it difficult to OWN their opinions. They cannot simply say “this is just my opinion”. They have to delude themselves into thinking it’s something more than that.
They interpret the statement “truth is independent from what we think” too literally.
Naturally, since they are parrots.

Schizophrenics have their opinion(s).
I have my mine.

Schizophrenics think their hallucinations are real.
I think they are not.

Schizophrenics think I am crazy.
I think that schizophrenics are crazy.

And so on.

That’s a meaningless question.
What does it mean for something to be “objectively real for everybody”?
I am sure you can’t answer that.

There is only consensus between people.
Or more precisely, only similarities between people.

Yes. What I meant by intelligence is intelligence proper.

It would.

If everything is just “my opinion” then there is no common ground and it’s literally impossible to interact with the world or other people.

It’s not just a personal opinion. It’s stuff outside of your head. It’s going to be interpreted the same way by people who have functioning biology.

Ah, ‘proper’ intelligence as opposed to intelligence. Whatever that means.