(April 10, 2013 at 11:47 am)ChadWooters Wrote: [quote='archangle' pid='430010' dateline='1365607119'What is this "non-physical" part of the universe you speak of? I think it just means interactions that we just don't understand yet.There are many unknowns waiting to be discovered within physics. I have no problem with that. My concerns revolve around those things not explicable within physics.
Non-physical means things not explicable within physics. My view of physics is this. Physics is an internally consistent scientific model of naturally occurring interactions between observable objects. Physics itself works because it depends the operation of objects not describable within its internally consistent scientific model. Suppose the so-called Theory of Everything was finally created. Does the TOE truly contain ‘everything?’ Personally, I do not think so. Physics presupposes the existence of things without which physics would not be possible. To me that means an inherent order to reality, one of mathematical certainties, sensible qualities and logical coherence.
That makes me a realist. I believe that universal attributes exist in and of themselves and are not just names attached to observed common features. In essence, common features are identifiable precisely because there are universal attributes capable of being recognized as common.
[/quote]
yes, the universe knows how it works already, and we are finding out how. Yes, we see common threads because of the common threads that are at work. Like F=Ma. It is a function of the universe.
What you are saying is being an architect to deign a beautiful building is more than engineering. I agree to that, but they are not separate either. The theory of everything is just a piece of the puzzle. But a needed piece to be sure.
Physics will give us formulas. But those formulas will have trouble dealing with things like emotions. But if we don't think of the equations as having "a answer", but rather the answer will be another function, then emotions will be able to be addressed and understood as a dynamic interactions of particles. Not a single answer. Or in this case, a single event.
yes, for now, there is far more than we know. It is more of how these particles are inter acting to form the universe to me. what I am suggesting, is that the universe uses "particles" of some type to "be".
The common thread is the interactions that make up the universe. But the added complexity offers a seemingly unknown "thing". When in fact, that "thing" is precisely because of the interactions. "I and the father are one" so to speak.
