The physical proves the existence of the immaterial

[warpspeedpetey]

There is nothing physical that can account for our existence. therefore physical reality can only be the result of non-physical events.

 

[cerad]

There is nothing physical that can account for our existence. …

Do you have any support for this assertion?

 

[JDaniel]

There is nothing physical that can account for our existence. therefore physical reality can only be the result of non-physical events.

So, the demonstration for The Warpspeedpetey Theory of the Existence of Physical Reality would thus be its unfalsifiability, correct?

jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Do you have any support for this assertion?

sure, the laws of conservation, no physical process can create or destroy matter. ergo, leaving only non-physical events as possibilities.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So, the demonstration for The Warpspeedpetey Theory of the Existence of Physical Reality would thus be its unfalsifiability, correct?

jd

its not testable from a physics or scientific method, because of their basic physiocal nature, logic being then the only eivdence acceptable in those areas.

 

[JDaniel]

There is nothing physical that can account for our existence. therefore physical reality can only be the result of non-physical events.

But, the converse is not true, e.g., “only the physical can account for our existence. Therefore, physical reality can only be the result of physical events.” I am correct in thinking that this cannot be true, right? So, its non-falsifiability proves it.

jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

But, the converse is not true, e.g., “only the physical can account for our existence. Therefore, physical reality can only be the result of physical events.” I am correct in thinking that this cannot be true, right? So, its non-falsifiability proves it.

jd

i dont know, your going to have to explain how that proves it to me. i dont understand what you mean.

 

[MindOverMatter]

i dont know, your going to have to explain how that proves it to me. i dont understand what you mean.

Forgive me for being so rude as to assume to know how my spirtual brother j daniel thinks, but I think that what he really means is that a physical account of all existence can never be used in a scientific theory because it cannot be falsified. But i don’t see how that relates to your arguement since neither can a spirtual account of nature be falsified.

But in terms of logic, in principle, only a non-physical order of being can fully explain the existence of the physical order of being; since it is physical reality as a metaphysical whole that we are trying to explain, not just apart of it.

That being said, it follows neccesarily that only the non-physical can give an explanatory account in terms of ultimates.

 

[geometer]

That being said, it follows neccesarily that only the non-physical can give an explanatory account in terms of ultimates.

What do you mean by non-physical? It seems to be an empty term lacking definition. What do you know about the non-physical that leads you to believe that is does anything?

Best regards,

Vincent

 

[MindOverMatter]

Do you have any support for this assertion?

Well. The only thing that can exist by its nature of being, is Existence. Which means that physical reality cannot have Existence as a property, or be Existence if it began to exist. Neither can it be Existence if every part of it has a beginning, since Existence does not begin or pass away; otherwise it would not be trully Existence by nature. Existence cannot have causally related parts, for existence does not exist in relation to prior events, for it is existence by its nature of being; thus it does not have the potential to exist. There can be no pontentail in any part of its being since existence is pure actuality by nature of its being; therefore the Universe cannot be Existence since Existence is timeless, devoid of potential change. Potentiality and posibility cannot infinetly regress because then there would be no explanation for why there is any such thing as posibility or pontentiality for the existence of anything. This would also create an impossible paradox, because this would mean that posibility and potentiality infinitely transcends and transverses being and thus Existence, which would render both concepts as meaningless; since they only have meaning in respect of being, and thus being at some point must precede potential. If Existence, as a nature of being, does not pre-exist physical beings, then there can be no such things as “beginnings” as a potential; for physical things exist because they have the potentail and the posibility to exist in so far as they relate to being, and you can only speak meaningfully of potentail and posibility in so far as the relate strictly to being.

 

[geometer]

Well. The only thing that can exist by its nature of being, is Existence. Which means that physical reality cannot have Existence as a property, or be Existence if it began to exist. Neither can it be Existence if every part of it has a beginning, since Existence does not begin or pass away, for it would not be trully Existence by nature. Existence cannot have causally related parts, for existence does not exist in relation to prior events, for it is existence by its nature of being; thus it does not have the potential to exist. There can be no pontentail in any part of its being since existence is pure actuality by nature of its being; therefore the Universe cannot be Existence since Existence is timeless, devoid of potential change. Potentiality and posibility cannot infinetly regress because then there would be no explantion for why there is any such thing as posibility or pontentiality for the existence of anything. This would also create an impossible paradox, because this would mean that posibility and potentiality infinitely transcends and transverses being and thus Existence, which would render both concepts as meaningless; since they only have meaning in respect of being. If Existence, as a nature of being, does not pre-exist physical beings, then there can be no such things as “beginnings” as a potential; for physical things exist because they have the potentail and the posibility to exist in so far as they relate to being, and you can only speak meaningfully of potentail and posibility in so far as the relate strictly to being.

Well, that is easy for you to say, I guess, but how is any of it meaningful? What would force us to accept your definition of existence? I am assuming that you were trying to define existence in your paragraph…

 

[MindOverMatter]

Well, that is easy for you to say, I guess, but how is any of it meaningful? What would force us to accept your definition of existence? I am assuming that you were trying to define existence in your paragraph…

First, please prove to me that you understood my arguement. Otherwise we cannot move forward.

 

[geometer]

Well. The only thing that can exist by its nature of being, is Existence.

Here you seem to be saying that existence is a being. Why is existence limited to a singular being?

Which means that physical reality cannot have Existence as a property, or be Existence if it began to exist.

I do not follow this…

Neither can it be Existence if every part of it has a beginning, since Existence does not begin or pass away; otherwise it would not be trully Existence by nature.

It is commonly thought that the universe began to exist when it was created.

Existence cannot have causally related parts, for existence does not exist in relation to prior events, for it is existence by its nature of being; thus it does not have the potential to exist.

I don’t follow this…

 

[JDaniel]

Originally Posted by JDaniel
But, the converse is not true, e.g., “only the physical can account for our existence. Therefore, physical reality can only be the result of physical events.” I am correct in thinking that this cannot be true, right? So, its non-falsifiability proves it.

OK, let’s see: the above statement, “only the physical can account for our existence. Therefore, physical reality can only be the result of physical events…” cannot be proven, nor is it true. You know the reasons why better than most, e.g., the Laws of Conservation, the experiences of mankind, the nature of the Big Bang theory of the universe’s beginnings, the theory of the expansion and contraction of the universe, entropy, etc.

Thus far, to my knowledge, there are no other Laws, Theories, or Hypotheses about the nature of the creation of the universe from any other causes except physical(matter, energy), or, non-physical(spiritual) - except for the purely postulated argument of multiple universes.

So, if it can’t have come into being by physical causation, what’s left?

You can falsify my converse statement, which turns out to be your original OA. But, when you falsify your OA, as I did, it is shown that it cannot be proven, or, even reasonably hypothesized.

Not that this is proof absolute, but, it is rather interesting, and, perhaps somewhat compelling. That the universe has a non-physical (spiritual) cause can only be denied without sufficient reason(s) - in my opinion.

jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Forgive me for being so rude as to assume to know how my spirtual brother j daniel thinks, but I think that what he really means is that a physical account of all existence can never be used in a scientific theory because it cannot be falsified. But i don’t see how that relates to your arguement since neither can a spirtual account of nature be falsified.

But in terms of logic, in principle, only a non-physical order of being can fully explain the existence of the physical order of being; since it is physical reality as a metaphysical whole that we are trying to explain, not just apart of it.

That being said, it follows neccesarily that only the non-physical can give an explanatory account in terms of ultimates.

oh…ok, i get it.

i guess that goes back to the idea of empiricism and the disconnect that it causes between science as a purely observable method of inquiry and the necessary non-physical nature of the greater metaphysical sphere.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

What do you mean by non-physical? It seems to be an empty term lacking definition. What do you know about the non-physical that leads you to believe that is does anything?

Best regards,

Vincent

non-physical means those things thats lack any of the normal physical qualities of mass, dimension, momentum, etc.

the non-physical is a logical necessity as no physical process can account for our existence.

thats why.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

OK, let’s see: the above statement, “only the physical can account for our existence. Therefore, physical reality can only be the result of physical events…” cannot be proven, nor is it true. You know the reasons why better than most, e.g., the Laws of Conservation, the experiences of mankind, the nature of the Big Bang theory of the universe’s beginnings, the theory of the expansion and contraction of the universe, entropy, etc.

Thus far, to my knowledge, there are no other Laws, Theories, or Hypotheses about the nature of the creation of the universe from any other causes except physical(matter, energy), or, non-physical(spiritual) - except for the purely postulated argument of multiple universes.

So, if it can’t have come into being by physical causation, what’s left?

You can falsify my converse statement, which turns out to be your original OA. But, when you falsify your OA, as I did, it is shown that it cannot be proven, or, even reasonably hypothesized.

Not that this is proof absolute, but, it is rather interesting, and, perhaps somewhat compelling. That the universe has a non-physical (spiritual) cause can only be denied without sufficient reason(s) - in my opinion.

jd

ok, your getting smarter, and its leaving me confused lol, but i get it now

 

[geometer]

non-physical means those things thats lack any of the normal physical qualities of mass, dimension, momentum, etc.

Well, you still have not defined what the non-physical things are. You have only said what they are not.

the non-physical is a logical necessity as no physical process can account for our existence.

thats why.

Well, the non-physical what, is a logical necessity? And, how does that, what ever it is, account for our existence?

Are you saying that the non-physical is a process? If so, please describe that process…

 

[JDaniel]

Well, you still have not defined what the non-physical things are. You have only said what they are not.

Well, the non-physical what, is a logical necessity? And, how does that, what ever it is, account for our existence?

Are you saying that the non-physical is a process? If so, please describe that process…

Geometer:

At the serious risk of being chastised for intruding, I’ll take a stab that he means, “metaphysical” being. I think he wants us to surmise what we will, but, all in all, he means God.

If I am wrong, warpspeed with correct me.

jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, you still have not defined what the non-physical things are. You have only said what they are not.

im not sure what else to say, non-physical seems self explanatory too me, much like non-sugar sweetners or non-alcoholic beer. its defined by the qualities that it lacks.

Well, the non-physical what, is a logical necessity? And, how does that, what ever it is, account for our existence?

the correct metaphysical term for “non-physical” would be “supernatural”, but there is too much confusion when using that terminology, people understandably equate it to ghost, goblins, etc.

the non-physical is made logically necessary by the inability of physical things to self causate

Are you saying that the non-physical is a process? If so, please describe that process…

who knows? its possible i suppose, but starts top sound more like theology at that point

the argument illustrates the necessity of the non-physical, as to its further nature, intrinsic to the state of being non-physical is an inability to describe it in empirical terms.

anything beyond that which we can infer by our existence, is the domain of theologians