Experts have expressed diverse views ranging from the assertion that elementary particles exist independently as real, distinct entities to the view that there is no objectively existing quantum realm at all! As physics continues to progress, the primary status of matter becomes increasingly elusive. Physicist Steven Weinberg goes so far as to proclaim, "In the physicist's recipe for the world, the list of ingredients no longer includes particles. Matter thus loses its central role in physics. All that is left is principles of symmetry."
Upon confronting such startling lack of consensus about the nature and primacy of matter, scientific materialists may take refuge in the notion of energy and its conservation as the primary stuff of the universe. But this provides little consolation, for according to Richard Feynman, the conservation of energy is a mathematical principle, not a description of a mechanism or anything concrete. He then goes on to acknowledge, "It is important to realize that in physics today we have no knowledge of what energy is.
Taken from B Alan Wallace' book, Contemplative Science, Where Buddhism and Neuroscience Converge.
You know who you are! 😉
I think this is more of a philosophical statement than a scientific one.
Everything in life is philosophical 😉 so I think it fits ok in Scientific Matter as it's referring to various quantum physics principles and Richard P Feynman is a quantum physicist.
I like Richard Feynman especially when he says things like
according to Richard Feynman, the conservation of energy is a mathematical principle, not a description of a mechanism or anything concrete. He then goes on to acknowledge, "It is important to realize that in physics today we have no knowledge of what energy is.
This is exactly the point that many complementary therapists raise when they are challenged by scientists. Science only says that something is proven if they can fit it into a mathematical model or it is accepted by "peers". Yet now, even science is looking deeper into its own theories and realising that they just can't describe it using existing mathematics. I've always chuckled when they've invented new maths to 'fill in the gaps' where something wasn't working... and then they've had a whole new field of investigation to explain that new thing they've just created. 😀
So science has no knowlege of what energy is. Yes they agree that it exists. Hang on, they're starting to sound like energy/light workers. 😉
Call out the Woo fighters.... ah... problem... they are the Woo fighters. LOL. 🙂
All Love and Reiki Hugs
mmm...
Science only says that something is proven if they can fit it into a mathematical model or it is accepted by "peers".
Hi Giles,
Just a min... I think you overstep the mark a little!
Scientists observe phenomena. They then try to record them. Then they created a hypothesis to explain the processes that result in a recordable phenomenon. They then have to imagine false hypotheses (null hypotheses). Then they create ways to repeat observations, if possible in controlled conditions, and they then record their observations. These repeated observations then can be used to rule out the false hypotheses. Eventually the hypothesis which is the object of testing may become a theory as no-one is able to disprove it.
In the case of most things observed in empirical science this all boils down to describing the interactions of objects and energy mathematically. What is being pointed out here by Alan Wallace is that there is no means of saying that anything exists in and of itself.
"Energy"/prana/ki etc are subjective experiences but there is no scientifically peer reviewed, good recordable evidence (so far) using some kind of measuring tool that can record things like mass or force of anything that can be described mathematically either in terms of an object or its energetic action.
There are ways of recording neurological phenomena and correlating them with behaviour, stimulae and even subjective reports but there is also no way of recording or measuring consciousness or awareness!
There is a difference...
Norbu
Hi Norbu and all,
While I would never try to claim any understanding of the new physics (or even the old), being a student of metaphysics, there is a relationship and a friend of mine (who is both) says that one day science and religion will come together, but not while either is matter-based.
This article has some interesting observations which I feel fits in with this thread:
[url]Is what you see really what you get?[/url]
We’ve often talked in class about the apparent dualism of visible matter and invisible spirituality—how there seems to be no connection between the two irreducible elements, because “spiritual” things seem fundamentally different from “material” things we can touch and see. We came to the idea that, just as the entire electromagnetic spectrum is made of one “substance” called light, perhaps we and our world are actually made of a single substance—call it thought, idea, or consciousness. .................
It may turn out that the apparent matter-spirit dualism is simply a temporary gap in understanding. As the visible spectrum of light was found to be included in the broader electromagnetic spectrum, could it be that what we now perceive as the visible physical world is just part of the broader spectrum of human consciousness?
Judy