How are Dark Mtter and Consciousness different from Spirit?

[LadyForCamus]

Right off the bat, there is an implied parity of observational weight or volume (and nature) between the three that isn't representative of the actual situation.  

Consciousness is not hypothetical, and is directly -and- indirectly observed to such an extent that it's inclusion in this list of three seems absurd.

Dark matter is an open hypothetical, and is indirectly observed.

Spirit is a thoroughly discredited hypothetical, that has never been directly or indirectly observed - and worse, a hypothetical whose purpose for existence has long since yielded to more accurate and factual explanations.

Yes, but why is it discredited? Saying that it is discredited without giving a reason why is just an argument from consensus. And I would have to disagree with your assertion about consciousness. If by observed we mean witnessed by our perceptual systems, consciousness as a brain process has never been observed directly. That places the hypothesis that consciousness is a brain process in the same category as the explanations that involve dark matter. There is indirect evidence, but no direct observation. Which is the same situation in which the hypothesis about spirits and souls is in — there is indirect evidence but no direct observation. So your tripartite scheme collapses into itself.

What indirect evidence for souls and spirits exists?

[The Grand Nudger]

Here again, I think you've missed the mark by virtue of your original premise.   Dark matter-is- a description for a set of observations.  Indirect ones, granted.  That without some x we cannot explain some y.  Spirit is not even -that-, until someone makes it so.

By the same token, someone made dark matter the explanation. As one poster mentioned, the solution might be our misunderstanding of Newtonian physics, which corrected might solve the problem that makes dark matter necessary.

Yes, someone did make it so.  Many someones.  We may be mistaken somewhere and this explains the discrepncy, sure.  We have evidence of -something- in all of this and that's a crucial difference.... because we do not have -any- of this for spirit. No one has done the work to show that there's some discrepency in our observations which leads to either spirit or a refinement of underlaying conclusions. It's an undefined solution looking for a problem in every way that dark matter is not.

[Edwardo Piet]

More than 'kind of'; the universe is a physical construct, if something isn't part of the physical realm, it isn't part of anything at all.

Yes. Absolutely. I sometimes say "kind of" in an extremely understating way.

Like I might say "What do I think of young earth creationism? It's kind of absolutely fucking retarded."

So that's what I was doing lol.

God is pretty much a non-existent fuckwit indisitinguishable from his non-existence.

Again, read "pretty much" as "totally and utterly"

And even if it did somehow exist in some abstract non-physical form, we would never know about it, we could never detect it, and it could never have anything to do with our universe on any level whatsoever, it wouldn't even be subject to spacetime.

Agreed. That's basically identical to non-existence as far as I am concerned.

It would be timeless, spaceless and immaterial - nothing.

Abso-fucking-lutely. We are kinda in total fucking agreement here

[Edwardo Piet]

[in response to Rob:] You are also engaging in special pleading when you demand that spirit be something that we have experienced but do not make that same demand on dark matter.

The difference is science has detected dark matter and it's therefore physical. "Spirit" is just completely made up and has no basis in reality.

Furthermore, "Dark Matter" also exists.

...as my favorite rock song of all time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSSC_2Uwl9w

[robvalue]

Thanks Rhonda

It seems most of us are in agreement, but to repeat the question:

Doesn't "physical" simply mean "literally exists"? Or, "Is able to have an effect"? Is there a further property I'm missing?

I agree with Rhonda, if we're hypothesising a spirit, that sounds unfalsifiable. To me, it also doesn't seem like an explanation at all. What is the difference between this and garden variety magic? Why would non-physicality have explanatory properties? If it's simply that the physical cannot ever be an explanation, how did we reach that conclusion?

A very interesting discussion all round, thanks

[Jackalope]

Here again, I think you've missed the mark by virtue of your original premise.   Dark matter-is- a description for a set of observations.  Indirect ones, granted.  That without some x we cannot explain some y.  Spirit is not even -that-, until someone makes it so.

By the same token, someone made dark matter the explanation. As one poster mentioned, the solution might be our misunderstanding of Newtonian physics, which corrected might solve the problem that makes dark matter necessary.

I'm the one who said that. As Alex pointed out, MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) cannot explain some observations, and so-called dark matter does. It wasn't my intention to give the impression that the possibilities were weighted closely. They are not. The observational evidence supports one conclusion at this time.

[Alex K]

Which is kind of a bummer because modified gravity would potentially be much more interesting from a theory perspective than having one more type of particle. That's kind of exciting too, but the ramifications for physics if general relativity had to be modified would be enormous.

[Rhondazvous]

Which is kind of a bummer because modified gravity would potentially be much more interesting from a theory perspective than having one more type of particle. That's kind of exciting too, but the ramifications for physics if general relativity had to be modified would be enormous.

Just as quantum physics revealed a reality that required scientists to abandon the assumptions they had built around classical mechanics, yet after taking a couple aspirin, they did not shy away from it.

A few pages back you mentioned that dark matter may not have enough mass to be detectable by current technology. Is there no connection between mass and gravity? How can low mass particles provide enough gravity to hold galaxies together?

[Brian37]

Which is kind of a bummer because modified gravity would potentially be much more interesting from a theory perspective than having one more type of particle. That's kind of exciting too, but the ramifications for physics if general relativity had to be modified would be enormous.

Just as quantum physics revealed a reality that required scientists to abandon the assumptions they had built around classical mechanics, yet after taking a couple aspirin, they did not shy away from it.

A few pages back you mentioned that dark matter may not have enough mass to be detectable by current technology.  Is there no connection between mass and gravity? How can low mass particles provide enough gravity to hold galaxies together?

NO, QM does not say everything is possible by default. Again, you keep failing to understand that dark matter was not presumed as a starting point, it was discovered through prior data collecting.

And even QM is also built upon prior scientific method.

You don't presume a naked assertion then work to fish for excuses, that's not what QM does, that is not how any scientific method works.

When QM says "forget what you know" it is looking to the future, it is not clinging to the past. It is saying keep an open mind about the future, it is not saying cling to crap from the past. No scientific field tells you to hold on to junk. 

Theists, and I have seen every major label pull this bad tactic. When they cant debunk science outright, they try to use science retroactively. I've seen Christians and Muslims and Hindus pull this, trying to use "second law of thermodynamics" and even QM to point to their particular theism. 

No, there isn't even a si fi version of this, and even si fi fans fail trying to pull this too.

QM does not say "anything goes" as a starting position based on a naked assertion.

Allah exists because QM says anything goes.
Vishnu exists because QM says anything goes.
Invisible pink unicorns exist because QM says anything goes.
The Tribbles from Star Trek exist  because QM says anything goes.

You don't start with a naked assertion then plug it into a scientific formula. You have to have something established based on prior and repeatedly tested and falsified and peer reviewed data.

QM does not equal "If ifs and butts are candy and nuts".

The only thing QM tells us is there is lots we have yet to learn, it does not say every naked assertion made in the past can be plugged into it.

[Alex K]

Which is kind of a bummer because modified gravity would potentially be much more interesting from a theory perspective than having one more type of particle. That's kind of exciting too, but the ramifications for physics if general relativity had to be modified would be enormous.

Just as quantum physics revealed a reality that required scientists to abandon the assumptions they had built around classical mechanics, yet after taking a couple aspirin, they did not shy away from it.

A few pages back you mentioned that dark matter may not have enough mass to be detectable by current technology. Is there no connection between mass and gravity? How can low mass particles provide enough gravity to hold galaxies together?

It's really that simple: if they have less mass in each one, there need to be more of them.