a midnight star Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 I know that this has already been posted. But the question of energy has been brought up in three different threads that I have been posting in, I thought that it would be best if I just opened up a thread discussing the scientific theorys that are open to the possiblity. OK Magic is defined as "the science and art of causing change to occur in comformity with will" Aleister Crowley Is this logical? NO. Is there some scientific basis for it? Yes, actually there is. Quantum Physics. It is called the Einstien-Podolsky-Roisedan Paadox. Things that are physically disconnected work in unison. Ex. If you put separate living cells from a heart into a petri dish they beat in the same pattern. Here is better explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein-Po...en_paradox Quote: "Albert Einstein, .. produced a series of objections to the theory, the most famous of which has become known as the EPR paradox. John Bell showed that the EPR paradox led to experimentally testable differences between quantum mechanics and local hidden variable theories. Experiments have been taken as confirming that quantum mechanics is correct and the real world cannot be described in terms of such hidden variables. "Loopholes" in the experiments, however, mean the question is still not quite settled." There is just as much evidence to prove the paradox as there are to disapprove it. Kind of like the theory of evolution. It all comes down to what you decide to believe. If given a choice of believing something that has some scientific basis or believing some book, I will always choose the science. There are simply some things that can't be explained away by science, yet. http://www.ahisee.com/content/epressay.html Quote: a scientific theory must be: 1. Guided by natural law 2. Explanatory by reference to natural law 3. Testable against the empirical world 4. Tentative; that is, its conclusions are not necessarily final 5. Falsifiable The influence of Popper is very clear here; however, is there anything here that scientists or philosophers would find problematic? Take item 4. Clearly this distinguishes between a religious theory - which is inescapably absolute and thus final - and a scientific theory, which is neither. Now, a complete theory of physics would necessarily be final. But by this criterion, any complete theory is not tentative. It would cease to be a theory and become absolute, and thus enters the realm of religion, in the same moment leaving the realm of science. I therefore argue that necessarily science and its theories must remain incomplete in order that they remain science. Conclusion Let's make this brief. In my view the EPR paradox does not show that the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum theory is incomplete. Quantum theory is nonetheless incomplete, and indeed all theories in science must necessarily be incomplete. If this was not the case, we would not have two entities - science and religion - but one, science-religion There are many truths out there and not all will coincide with the others. I do not believe that things are black and white only, but shades of grey where discussions and differing opinion come in. Besides, the forum would be boring if we all only echo each other's thoughts. Where is the fun in that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 I would say that it's impossible to know, but one day science may find out. I've had a weird experience myself -- I saw someone's aura briefly. Does that mean it was metaphysical in nature? Who knows? Maybe I was just stressed out. The experience has not repeated itself, so I can only conclude that it was a random event, never to happen again. And just maybe, someday science will explain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 Y'know, a lot of what you just wrote I learned about in the game xenosaga. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killa_chuck Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 indeed all theories in science must necessarily be incomplete. If this was not the case, we would not have two entities - science and religion - but one, science-religion Maybe they are incomplete now, but in the future more and more can be added, and then someday, perhaps, the theories might become complete. I disagree that all theories must "necessarily" be incomplete. It is not a necessity that they are, most just are that way. Think of it as writing a computer program. You write some code that does something. It works, but there are some bugs. As newer versions come out, the number of bugs in the program decrease as you fix them. Eventually, (hopefully ) all of the bugs will get worked out and you don't need to bother testing anymore. I don't really see how you bring religion into the picture at all here. Care to elaborate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a midnight star Posted August 10, 2005 Author Share Posted August 10, 2005 I apologise for starting a thread and not following up. I have been going through some personal shit with my jackass of a husband, I haven't slept more than 2 hours a day for the last 4 days and my mind it not up to this kind of serious debate. Give me a day or two please to get my head back together and I will follow up on this. This is one of those subjects that I enjoy, but I don't want to cheat it or put down half assed answers. Again sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyinasuitcase Posted August 13, 2005 Share Posted August 13, 2005 I would say that it's impossible to know, but one day science may find out. I've had a weird experience myself -- I saw someone's aura briefly. Does that mean it was metaphysical in nature? Who knows? Maybe I was just stressed out. The experience has not repeated itself, so I can only conclude that it was a random event, never to happen again. And just maybe, someday science will explain it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree. Science will most likely explain a lot of things about our universe. But as long as there's the "God of the gaps..." scientists will keep investigating until they come up with an explanation for whatever it is the non-scientific and postmodernists keep asking, and the cycle continues. Scientists are the REAL philosophers, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spamandham Posted August 13, 2005 Share Posted August 13, 2005 OK Magic is defined as "the science and art of causing change to occur in comformity with will" Aleister Crowley Is this logical? NO. Is there some scientific basis for it? Yes, actually there is. Quantum Physics. It is called the Einstien-Podolsky-Roisedan Paadox. Things that are physically disconnected work in unison. This doesn't prove things change in conformity with will, unless you first demonstrate that your brain is entangled with that which you are trying to control, and that some aspect of your subconscious is aware of how to make the change occur, which of course would require minute knowledge of all the details. I don't see how this can be considered scientific in any sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted August 13, 2005 Share Posted August 13, 2005 Science will most likely explain a lot of things about our universe. But as long as there's the "God of the gaps..." scientists will keep investigating until they come up with an explanation for whatever it is the non-scientific and postmodernists keep asking, and the cycle continues. Scientists are the REAL philosophers, IMO. I agree with you on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts