Could you explain how this works? I understand the idea of it, but not all ideas can be instantiated - for instance a square circle.
Ok fair enough, but both you and I can conceive of a square circle and we are using different matter (ie our brains) to do so, yes? As such we are still capable of transmitting the concept even though we are unable to instantiate it into ‘thingness’. This is a perfect example of something that is an idea but cannot exist materially.
Lets broaden/narrow this a little bit. Lets separate the thingness/instantiation of the house from the thingness/instantiation of a person. If I were to die, you would notice that my body lacked something that it used to possess correct? What is that thing that it lacks? Let say I died just a few seconds ago, I am still warm, but there is a difference, something is gone. My personality/spirit no longer exists. The spirit is the motive principle (consciousness). When I die and everything stops working, it’s still the same material that exists in roughly the same pattern, but something is gone, something immaterial.
Really I am just saying that the metaphysical and physical are mutually dependent, but that they are not the same.
I think I misled you with my example, which was not well thought out. I was wondering about an idea not tied to anything material. You responded to what I wrote, and I agree with your response. I did not transmit my idea very well. 
Can’t argue with this. For another example, I used to work with people who did manufacturing processes. There is something fundamentally different about a factory working, with boards moving from station to station, and a factory which has stopped, even if all the material sits there. A manufacturing process is immaterial but tied to the factory in the same way spirit in your definition is tied to the brain.
What you wrote above I have no argument with at all.
I said from my experience.
Well, when I talk about something like entanglement, we are all connected, or everything is energy, nothing is material, it just goes against commonly held scientific beliefs. Just making an observation.
This, from a guy who doesn’t accept science itself as valid.
Yes… an incorrect observation. What you’ve just described bears no resemblance to quantum mechanics.
Voyager It’s a refreshing change of pace to end on a point of common understanding.
I think this is probably our main point of disagreement. I’m actually claiming that the physical environment already is that which we may define it as, even before the defining (or even without, hypothetically, anyone around to actually do the defining at all).
As far as significance goes, then certainly, I agree. If I don’t think of something as a house, then to me, it is not a house. If I come across some prototype car that bears no resemblance to what i’d consider a car, then i’m likely not going to consider it one, or be able to use it. But it is, nevertheless, still a car. Even if there are no people around to define it as such; it is not the defining that is the point, but the definition. I might mistakenly believe a house is a car, but i’m not going to be able to drive it around. To me, it may be a car, but it does not fulfil the definition of a car, and the physical reality is that it is not a car, no matter what significance it might have to me.
And that’s the case because we can already tell that such things are independent. We all have different ideas of everything. If you passed my house in the street, you likely would have a very different idea of it than I do. Our ideas of even the same physical object are very different; representation is mutable, and in some cases, for some people, might not even represent what the representer had in mind at all. A piece of art might mean something entirely different to you than me, or any of the other people who come to see it. Yet, its physical form does not change.
and here…all the quantum physics I have read about makes those points over and over again. All is energy, all is connected or entangled. As in micro so in macro. Sorry if all these people are wrong save you.
You said in the previous post “everything is energy, nothing is material.” This is incorrect, and is not an accurate characterization of anything quantum physics says. For one thing, the equivalence between matter and energy is something we knew before we knew anything about quantum anything. For another thing, the equivalence between matter and energy means everything (physical) is energy and everything is material. It is incorrect to say nothing is material.
Could you give us a specific reference for a quantum physics book or paper which says this? Written by a real physicist, please, not a swami or New Age nut. I’ve read quite a bit on it, and the stuff I read specifically says this is not true. Entanglement happens in a very specific case.
No, all the quantum physics that you’ve been MISREADING has been making those points – at least, in your perception. I used to teach college physics, and I can assure you that you’re wrong.
Point by point,
[ul]
[li]“All is energy” is an overstatement and a misnomer. All matter can be converted to energy and vice-versa, but that doesn’t mean that matter and energy are all that exist. That’s ultimately a metaphysical statement. Besides, matter/energy equivalence is a tenet of relativity, not quantum mechanics.[/li][li]“All is connected or entangled” is meaningless babble unless one defines what this mean. No self-respecting physicist would accept such a claim without a precise explanation of what it’s supposed to mean.[/li][li]“As in micro so in macro” is likewise way too vague a statement to qualify as an sort of physical law. Physicists demand a great deal more precision than that.[/li][/ul]
Your previous post also included the statement, “nothing is material,” which is completely false. I’d like to respectfully challenge you to cite even a single book on quantum mechanics which makes this claim. It also violates your earlier claim that everything is energy, since energy is considered to be material (and, in fact, ultimately equivalent to matter).
You are surely misunderstanding me. I make no claim that my intreptation is the only correct one, all intreptations can be wrong. My point is that; if Moses used human vision to see a god as he asked, then it would have to have some material appearance for him to see anything. I look at it as a story, not a fact, so it can be either way. What the writer intended can be questioned, and since the writer wasn’t present is a matter of how one wants to see or believe it.
E=MC/2 was Einstein’s contribution. Which to me means energy is equal to mass, etc. Therefor everything is energy at the core.
I really didn’t intend to start a discussion on quantum mechanics.
It seems so simple.
Way to not understand the right way to hold a hammer.
Don’t worry you didn’t. There’s no discussion going on. You’re wrong and people are explaining why. It’s also not much about Quantum Mechanics, it’s about basic physics which you don’t understand because you dismiss science.
As do many things people cannot comprehend at all.
E=MC/2 refers to the motion of matter travelling through time and space. The mass is in the motion thus it conveys energy. As such you can measure the energy by multiplying the mass by its velocity and then squaring the result.
Thus Energy = Mass*Velocity^2
The Mass is still ‘matter’. The point is that energy is relative to mass(matter) not that energy and matter are the same thing.
Sorry, that is not even close to correct.
I think you are confusing this equation with that for kinetic energy
Ek = 1/2 mv^2
Einstein’s equation is the amount of energy obtained when a bit of matter is converted to energy. It clearly has nothing to do with velocity, since no matter with mass can move at speed c.
That energy can freeze into matter doesn’t make lekatt’s misunderstanding of quantum mechanics any more correct.
Your exact words were
“God as spirit makes one wonder what spirit is composed of,if God showed Moses His back side, He must have some material matter, how else could Moses see that?” (Emphasis added.)
That is a pretty unambiguous claim that your interpretation must be the correct one, regardless of what you may have said later on.
It doesn’t matter what it means “to you,” sir. But regardless of the proper way to interpret Einstein’s famous equation, the point remains… what you are describing is NOT quantum mechanics. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
I see. Now that you mention it I know exactly where my mistake came in. I was thinking of travelling in centimeters per second but forgot the ‘light travels at centimeters per second’ part.