A shame that Pop missed this. I'd like to hear an explanation of the relation between spirit and energy, too. — Banno

Science tells us that everything is fundamentally made of energy!
So sayeth @Adughep and Einstein, E=mc2

We speak of a spirit or soul that we feel ourselves to be. I imagine even you have one of these Banno?
If so, what is its substance? What do you feel it to be? If it is something energetic, then is it this energy, entangled in your own particular way, that creates your being?

If so, is the energy that you entangle at peace with its current arrangement? Or is it something that has far more potential, something that you cannot quite put your finger on, but it feels itself to have great possibility, far more then it is currently realizing? Does it feel like it could possibly end? You and me will end some day, but does our energy feel like it will? Or does it continue on confidently as if there will be no end?

I think the energy is related to the spirit / soul we feel ourselves to be
— Pop

What about intelligence? Or mind? Where does that fit into the picture? Is it ‘a product of’ energy? I think not.
— Wayfarer @Wayfarer

A shame that Pop missed this. I'd like to hear an explanation of the relation between spirit and energy, too. — Banno

Out of respect for Jack's thread, lets continue this here.

I was pleased to see that you had put an entry in my thread, but, then disappointed that in wishing to respect my thread you wished for the discussion to move elsewhere. This keeps happening and ends up with my thread not continuing at all. In particular, my thread was going fine until @Banno suggested to @ Manuel that he started a new thread on metaphysics. This meant that became the replacement for my thread. I was a bit disappointed with the way my thread ended, and I am sure that @Banno believes that my whole thread and all my ideas are complete rubbish but I do wish to continue the discussion with energy and spirit too.

Of course, I could move to any threads which break off from mine, but I already wrote one in the metaphysics thread and no one replied to me. I would still like to continue discussion about reality with you or anyone else.

I didn't include you in my reply above, but you contributed well to the discussion on my thread and I would like my thread to continue because I do believe that what is reality is is a valid philosophy question.

I should not doubt or question. — Jack Cummins

Delphic Maxims

1. Know thyself [Atman - Brahman]
2. Nothing in excess [Golden mean, Madhyamaka]
3. Surety brings ruin [Skepticism/Doubt]

I'll talk about 1 and 2 as they seem relevant.

In a certain broad sense, every person is like a miniature model with approximate or even perfect 1-to-1 correspondence with the universe itself. We can look at ourselves as a perfect scaled-down copy of the totality of the cosmos. That being so, to "know thyself" is to know the universe itself. I suppose what reality is can be found along the way on your journey to self-discovery. Perhaps, reality, if one assiduously removes all that which can be doubted, essentially boils down to Descartes' cogito ergo sum.

This keeps happening and ends up with my thread not continuing at all. — Jack Cummins

Your threads might go further if you directly answer questions in such a way that your answers engender counterpoint-to-counterpoint (dialectical) replies. For instance

The OP raises an issue of "understanding reality" and (some) "understandings" have been presented. What about yours? — 180 Proof

If you avoid being pinned down, Jack, that's okay but there other threads to make or play on which will be more engaging. Good topics, mate, just not so good follow-ups.

I do think that each person is like a miniature part of the universe too, and that it goes back to the idea of the microcosm and the macroscom, which is a tradition going back to Plato. I think that many people nowadays don't recognize the value of the human being, or of a connection between the internal world and a larger reality. I think that is probably because people stopped believing in the idea of a 'soul'. I am not saying that there are not any problems with the idea of a soul, going back to dualism, but, at the same time it does seem to me that what has happened is that many people have come to disregard the interior universe and underplay its importance whatsoever.

Okay, I will probably need to work harder if I want my threads to work. I think that a couple of people have suggested that often I am inclined to listen to others rather than put my own views forward. I think that is partly my own approach in life, but it is something which I need to work on.

I think that my own picture of reality is based partly on quantum reality, but I am probably also interested in the reality of the world within us too. I know that you don't dismiss the numinous aspect of life, especially in the realm of the arts, but I think that many people do miss the numinous side of life, whether they are religious or not. I do see this as being the essential aspect of reality.

Also, you say that it is hard to pin me down, but I think that is also true of reality too, because it is constantly changing. Also, in a way it includes everything, including every theory and every philosophy that exists at all.

You never enjoy the world aright, till the Sea itself flows in your veins, till you are clothed with the heavens, and crowned with the stars: and perceive yourself to be the sole heir of the whole world, and more than so, because men are in it who are every one sole heirs as well as you. Till you can sing and rejoice and delight in God, as misers do in gold, and Kings in sceptres, you never enjoy the world.

Till your spirit fills the whole world, and the stars are your jewels; till you are as familiar with the ways of God in all Ages as with your walk and table: till you are intimately acquainted with that shady nothing out of which the world was made: till you love men so as to desire their happiness, with a thirst equal to the zeal of your own: till you delight in God for being good to all: you never enjoy the world. — Thomas Traherne

‘That shady nothing...’ speaks volumes to me.

Spirit / energy is till here Jack. The consciousness question has gone elsewhere.

Also, you say that it is hard to pin me down, but I think that is also true of reality too, because it is constantly changing. — Jack Cummins

There you go, sir, you've pinned it down with some of the very best thinkers (Laozi, Buddha, Heraclitus, Democritus & Epicurus ... Artie & Freddy ... Zapffe & Camus ...): "its constantly changing". :up: ... Isn't this the numinous (Artie's, not Cant's, noumenon)?

So the hard thinking begins. And now what are the implications? How does this reality account for our religions and philosophies, arts and sciences, histories and politics? How can this "constantly changing" be used to make sense of things in general and make human life significant in particular? What are its ramifications for love and death? subjectivity and truth? ego and self? And on and on.

But what is God? If everything is the one substance, and that substances is God then I would agree. Then it would be that G=mc2! :smile:

Then it would be that G=mc2! — Pop

:yikes:

But what is God? — Pop

Depends on who you ask.

I will write an answer a bit later this morning when I have got up and had breakfast. I often write replies lying in bed, which probably doesn't help me in writing ones of quality...

Your quote talks of something singular and all encompassing, all I can think of that fits the description is energy.

Yes but energy is dumb, by itself it has no direction. It’s really no different to materialism, and matter, likewise, doesn’t act, but is only acted upon.

Not true If everything is made of energy. Energy has unlimited potential.

You missed an opportunity (if you don't mind me saying so): If "everything", which includes subjective-purposeful entities like us, "is energy", then

Yes but energy is dumb, by itself it has no direction. — Wayfarer

cannot be true.

I thought I was saying something like that. My expression often lets me down. Thanks

Does E=mc2 prove materialism false?

Arguably, quantum physics has done exactly that, but let’s not go there.

Until your head is crowned with stars, until the sea flows in your veins, we don’t see things aright.

If we are going to philosophize we have to be prepared to go wherever the logic takes us, imo. Otherwise we are like explorers who will only tread a paved path.

The quantum realm is also made of energy. The fundamental stuff is energy. It leads to a very different paradigm. I'm not sure its suitable for a public forum? And I have to go and make dinner! :smile:

Enjoying mine as I write this. We must be in a similar timezone.

The reason quantum physics tends to undermine materialism in any form, has nothing to do with the equivalence of matter and energy. It has to do with the observer problem/measurement problem. It is because quantum physics failed to find an ultimate material point-particle, and also because it undermined the idea that the object (read Universe) exists totally independently of the act of observation.

See The Mental Universe, by Richard Conn Henry. A qualified physicist’s OP in an esteemed journal.

undermined the idea that the object (read Universe) exists totally independently of the act of observation. — Wayfarer

That is one of the metaphysical problems - that it is not possible to make a mind independent observation. So reality at any level is a function of mind. To be continued.

So reality at any level is a function of mind — Pop

as distinct from…….

Does E=mc2 prove materialism false? — Pop

@Wayfarer

:clap:

E = energy
m = mass
c = speed of light

Materialism: all that's real is matter & energy. E, and also m. What are we left with? The speed of light (c). Speed of light = 300,000,000 m/s

I have a mass of about 70 kg.

That means, I have an energy E = 70 kg × 300,000,000 m/s × 300,000,000 m/s = 6.3 × 10^18 Joules.

More germane to the claim that E = mc² disproves materialism is c² = E/m = [6.38 × 10^18 Joules]/[70 kg].

We, each one of us, are in some sense the speed of light squared (c²). Speed is neither matter nor energy. Materialism, to that extent, must be false.

Imagine, we have two flashlights perpendicular each other. We set our stopwatches and switch both flashlights on simultaneously. At 1 second, the light from the flashlights would've traversed 300,000,000 meters in their respecitive directions (90 degrees to each other). c² = the area of the space, a square with sides 300,000,000 meters. We are space and all of us are the exact same square (Hurrah! for equality) in space. What does materialism have to do with space?

as distinct from……. — Wayfarer

Not sure what you mean?

This is a Phil papers survey Note the differences of opinion and paradigm. Each paradigm is a different reality. Each paradigm sees things slightly differently. Of course they know how to get on - they are well socialized. :smile: But they will put things together differently. Their observations will be biased by their paradigm. I've gota go.

Sorry for bundling the two of you together but I need to bounce something off of you guys.

There seems to be something terribly amiss insofar as I'm concerned about what we mean by real. Ask any person, any person at all, and real = physical. This belief that real is simply a synonym for physical is a deeply entrenched belief, one that in all likelihood develops early on in one's infancy, reinforced as it were as we encounter the "real" :chin: as we live our lives and as the final line of a proof for the physicality of realness, we die, never to be seen again by anyone. QED.

However, the problem, if it's one, is that just because we live in what appears to be a physical world, just because we die in it with a finality that seems irreversible, doesn't actually provide sufficient warrant that everything is physical. It would be like a person who spends faer entire life in, say, Paris and forms the belief that Paris = The universe. A frog in a little pond kinda situation [the frog believes, erroneously, that the little pond it lives in is the universe itself].

I may have bitten off more than I can chew.