Total Posts:217|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Does a spiritual dimension exist?

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 5:20:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I've been fascinated by testimonies of people who have used a psychedelic drug called DMT, dubbed "the spirit molecule". DMT stands for N,N-Dimethyltryptamine and it's something that we all endogenously produce in our pineal gland. A certain level of this compound is active in our brain right now. Its been a subject of research that more DMT is released when we're dreaming and when people have near-death experiences. It's a compound found in various animal and plant life as well.

A DMT trip has been called "reality-shattering", "spiritual", "indescribable beyond words", "profound beyond imagination" and other such things. I've watched around a dozen testimonies of what it was like (it's super interesting) and they all have familiar elements to them. Those who have "broken through" have said they actually felt their consciousness leave this reality and enter another dimension. A timeless dimension filled with other unimaginably intelligent and powerful spirit beings. The sheer volume of DMT users who have reported coming into contact with other spirit beings is crazy. Is this an elaborate hallucination that occurs within our reality or a chemical cocktail that actually allows the projection of consciousness into a spiritual dimension?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 5:43:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 5:26:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Please define:
1) spiritual
2) dimension

...in such a way that either can be falsified.

It's hard to define such terms because here goes:

Spirit: an immaterial state of pure being. Spiritual meaning of the spirit.
Dimension: the constituents of reality. So a spiritual dimension would not consist of space, time, or matter.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 8:23:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 5:43:22 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/4/2015 5:26:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Please define:
1) spiritual
2) dimension

...in such a way that either can be falsified.

It's hard to define such terms because here goes:

Spirit: an immaterial state of pure being. Spiritual meaning of the spirit.
Dimension: the constituents of reality. So a spiritual dimension would not consist of space, time, or matter.

Space and time are immaterial.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 8:47:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 8:23:50 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 11/4/2015 5:43:22 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/4/2015 5:26:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Please define:
1) spiritual
2) dimension

...in such a way that either can be falsified.

It's hard to define such terms because here goes:

Spirit: an immaterial state of pure being. Spiritual meaning of the spirit.
Dimension: the constituents of reality. So a spiritual dimension would not consist of space, time, or matter.

Space and time are immaterial.

Space and time are components of the continuum that matter and energy exist within. They are not defined as material, just as the container, if you will, for it.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 8:58:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 5:43:22 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/4/2015 5:26:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Please define:
1) spiritual
2) dimension

...in such a way that either can be falsified.

It's hard to define such terms because here goes:

Spirit: an immaterial state of pure being. Spiritual meaning of the spirit.
Dimension: the constituents of reality. So a spiritual dimension would not consist of space, time, or matter.

Ben, as I asked for falsifiable definitions, what's a minimum falsifying test for spirit or dimension?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 9:17:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 8:47:41 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/4/2015 8:23:50 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 11/4/2015 5:43:22 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/4/2015 5:26:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Please define:
1) spiritual
2) dimension

...in such a way that either can be falsified.

It's hard to define such terms because here goes:

Spirit: an immaterial state of pure being. Spiritual meaning of the spirit.
Dimension: the constituents of reality. So a spiritual dimension would not consist of space, time, or matter.

Space and time are immaterial.

Space and time are components of the continuum that matter and energy exist within. They are not defined as material, just as the container, if you will, for it.

So you agree there is an immaterial dimension to the universe.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 9:35:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 9:17:10 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 11/4/2015 8:47:41 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/4/2015 8:23:50 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 11/4/2015 5:43:22 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/4/2015 5:26:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Please define:
1) spiritual
2) dimension

...in such a way that either can be falsified.

It's hard to define such terms because here goes:

Spirit: an immaterial state of pure being. Spiritual meaning of the spirit.
Dimension: the constituents of reality. So a spiritual dimension would not consist of space, time, or matter.

Space and time are immaterial.

Space and time are components of the continuum that matter and energy exist within. They are not defined as material, just as the container, if you will, for it.

So you agree there is an immaterial dimension to the universe.

I agree that space and time are not defined as material but are essential for the existence of matter and energy as the 'container' for them. The universe has four dimensions that we can measure, length, width, height, and duration. These are the dimensions of our known universe. Since they contain all that is material and energy, I would not say they were 'immaterial' since that term can't really be applied.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 10:02:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 8:58:53 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/4/2015 5:43:22 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/4/2015 5:26:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Please define:
1) spiritual
2) dimension

...in such a way that either can be falsified.

It's hard to define such terms because here goes:

Spirit: an immaterial state of pure being. Spiritual meaning of the spirit.
Dimension: the constituents of reality. So a spiritual dimension would not consist of space, time, or matter.

Ben, as I asked for falsifiable definitions, what's a minimum falsifying test for spirit or dimension?

If consciousness can't exist apart from the physical body then the spirit doesn't exist. If the only dimensions that can exist are space, time, and energy then a spiritual dimension doesn't exist. I don't see how we could go about falsifying either of those things, but testimonials of consciousness apart from the body and experiencing a spiritual realm do serve as evidence, I would think.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 10:23:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 10:02:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/4/2015 8:58:53 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/4/2015 5:43:22 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/4/2015 5:26:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Please define:
1) spiritual
2) dimension

...in such a way that either can be falsified.

It's hard to define such terms because here goes:

Spirit: an immaterial state of pure being. Spiritual meaning of the spirit.
Dimension: the constituents of reality. So a spiritual dimension would not consist of space, time, or matter.

Ben, as I asked for falsifiable definitions, what's a minimum falsifying test for spirit or dimension?

If consciousness can't exist apart from the physical body then the spirit doesn't exist. If the only dimensions that can exist are space, time, and energy then a spiritual dimension doesn't exist. I don't see how we could go about falsifying either of those things, but testimonials of consciousness apart from the body and experiencing a spiritual realm do serve as evidence, I would think.

Unfortunately they only serve as evidence of drug or oxygen-starvation induced hallucinations. WE readily observe, measure, and utilize the four dimensions of spacetime. Can you tell me what how to measure the continuum you call the 'spiritual'?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 10:26:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 9:17:10 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 11/4/2015 8:47:41 PM, dhardage wrote:
Spirit: an immaterial state of pure being. Spiritual meaning of the spirit.
Dimension: the constituents of reality. So a spiritual dimension would not consist of space, time, or matter.

Space and time are immaterial.

Space and time are components of the continuum that matter and energy exist within. They are not defined as material, just as the container, if you will, for it.

So you agree there is an immaterial dimension to the universe.

Mathematically, the dimension of a space is defined as the minimum number of coordinates you need to uniquely specify location. [http://mathworld.wolfram.com...] We can show experimentally that our physical space requires not less than four coordinates, and there are multiple ways to construct them so that they're independent -- and that's fine. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

The usage of 'dimension' Ben has appealed to is not a mathematical/scientific usage, but a figurative Science Fiction usage -- typically used to denote an imperceptible 'parallel' reality that shares our coordinates, but is differentiated by some other. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

We know that we need a minimum of four coordinates for the physical existence we share, but we cannot be confident that more are not needed -- it depends on how much more information there is to locate, how it connects and how independently it can operate. The familiar activities of matter work very well in four dimensions, because interactions like movement, impact and gravitational attraction are uniquely predicted when codified that way.

However three other forces are also considered fundamental: weak nuclear force, electromagnetic force and strong nuclear force [http://www.pha.jhu.edu...] -- and they may make more sense (i.e. produce a simpler, more coherent, more predictive model) if additional coordinates are added. In 1921, mathematician Theodor Kaluza and physicist Oskar Klein independently postulated that gravity and electromagnetic force might be unified with a fifth coordinate system, indetectable to normal observation because it would exist only on a tiny scale (about 10E-33 cm) [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. These theories have been explored on and off ever since, and are potentially demonstrable or falsifiable using interactions operating at that scale, such as those produced by the CERN Large Hadron collider. (There's some evidence to suggest that any additional dimensions so detected will not be large. [http://arxiv.org...])

So if we want to postulate extra coordinates as 'real', we need some falsification test that shows:
a) there is additional information -- i.e. it persists, is reproducible, and tied to our objective reality;
b) it uses all of our existing coordinates meaningfully; but also
c) operates so independently of those coordinates that it needs additional coordinates to be predicted unambiguously.

What is that information? It might be a correlation between gravitational and electromagnetic force, or it might be something else.

The relationship of that inquiry to 'spirit' (by which I think Ben may mean massless intelligence) is a separate matter.

First you'd have to demonstrate the existence of massless intelligence, which might be something like intelligence that:
a) persists -- so it can remember its interactions;
b) can solve new problems -- so you'd have to find problems a massless intelligence could solve;
c) is attached to our existing coordinate system (if it weren't, we'd have terrible trouble counting, identifying and distinguishing massless intelligences, or working out how good their memories are); yet
d) needs additional coordinates to be understood unambiguously.

From what I've seen, none of this sort of stuff is considered by people philosophising about DMT and other subjective experiences. I think they don't actually care about being objectively accountable for what they say, because they don't respect how their ideas may harm others.

I think they just want to indulge in making their subjective experiences so authoritative and credible that nobody will tell them they're experiencing transient brain dysfunction, and potentially damaging their minds.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 10:27:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 10:02:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/4/2015 8:58:53 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/4/2015 5:43:22 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/4/2015 5:26:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Please define:
1) spiritual
2) dimension

...in such a way that either can be falsified.

It's hard to define such terms because here goes:

Spirit: an immaterial state of pure being. Spiritual meaning of the spirit.
Dimension: the constituents of reality. So a spiritual dimension would not consist of space, time, or matter.

Ben, as I asked for falsifiable definitions, what's a minimum falsifying test for spirit or dimension?

If consciousness can't exist apart from the physical body then the spirit doesn't exist.

Thanks Ben. I guessed you might mean massless intelligence, and I included that in my earlier response.
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 10:39:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 10:02:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/4/2015 8:58:53 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/4/2015 5:43:22 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/4/2015 5:26:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Please define:
1) spiritual
2) dimension

...in such a way that either can be falsified.

It's hard to define such terms because here goes:

Spirit: an immaterial state of pure being. Spiritual meaning of the spirit.
Dimension: the constituents of reality. So a spiritual dimension would not consist of space, time, or matter.

Ben, as I asked for falsifiable definitions, what's a minimum falsifying test for spirit or dimension?

If consciousness can't exist apart from the physical body then the spirit doesn't exist. If the only dimensions that can exist are space, time, and energy then a spiritual dimension doesn't exist. I don't see how we could go about falsifying either of those things, but testimonials of consciousness apart from the body and experiencing a spiritual realm do serve as evidence, I would think.

Everyday we have strong, albeit not definitive evidence, that suggests exactly that. The mind cannot survive the death of the physical body. And not just that. If certain areas of the brain are physically damaged or exhibit birth defects, then certain faculties of the mind are affected. These two lines of evidence weight way more than anecdote that has never been truly verified.

Personally, I would welcome the idea of a body-independent mind. But I would only be able to do so one evidence surfaced. Which it hasn't. Not in the least.

And that video you posted was terrible.
dee-em
Posts: 6,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 11:00:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 10:39:23 PM, Hitchian wrote:

Personally, I would welcome the idea of a body-independent mind. But I would only be able to do so one evidence surfaced. Which it hasn't. Not in the least.

How about a mind which was convinced its physical body was dead, would that do? :-)

http://www.smh.com.au...

Washington: On November 5, 2013, Esme Weijun Wang came to the remarkable conclusion that she was dead.

In the weeks prior to this, she had begun to feel increasingly fractured --- like being scatterbrained, but to such an extreme that she felt her sense of reality was fraying at the edges. She had started to lose her grip on who she was and on the world around her.

Desperate to fend off what appeared to be early signs of psychosis, Ms Wang went into a soul-searching and organisational frenzy. She read a self-help book that was supposed to help people discover their core beliefs and desires; she ordered and scribbled in five 2014 engagement diaries, reorganised her work space and found herself questioning her role as a writer.

Writer Esme Weijun Wang had Cotard's syndrome, in which patients think they are dead or somehow non-existent.

Then one morning, Ms Wang woke her husband before sunrise with an incredible sense of wonder and tears of joy to tell him it all made sense to her now: She had actually died a month before, although at the time she had been told she merely fainted.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 11:15:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 10:39:23 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/4/2015 10:02:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/4/2015 8:58:53 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/4/2015 5:43:22 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/4/2015 5:26:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Please define:
1) spiritual
2) dimension

...in such a way that either can be falsified.

It's hard to define such terms because here goes:

Spirit: an immaterial state of pure being. Spiritual meaning of the spirit.
Dimension: the constituents of reality. So a spiritual dimension would not consist of space, time, or matter.

Ben, as I asked for falsifiable definitions, what's a minimum falsifying test for spirit or dimension?

If consciousness can't exist apart from the physical body then the spirit doesn't exist. If the only dimensions that can exist are space, time, and energy then a spiritual dimension doesn't exist. I don't see how we could go about falsifying either of those things, but testimonials of consciousness apart from the body and experiencing a spiritual realm do serve as evidence, I would think.


Everyday we have strong, albeit not definitive evidence, that suggests exactly that. The mind cannot survive the death of the physical body. And not just that. If certain areas of the brain are physically damaged or exhibit birth defects, then certain faculties of the mind are affected. These two lines of evidence weight way more than anecdote that has never been truly verified.

Personally, I would welcome the idea of a body-independent mind. But I would only be able to do so one evidence surfaced. Which it hasn't. Not in the least.

And that video you posted was terrible.

How do you explain out of body experiences?

What about near death experiences that occur during loss of consciousness? It's seems to me that if our brain lost consciousness we wouldn't be able to experience anything, like when we faint.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,328
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2015 11:55:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 5:20:36 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I've been fascinated by testimonies of people who have used a psychedelic drug called DMT, dubbed "the spirit molecule". DMT stands for N,N-Dimethyltryptamine and it's something that we all endogenously produce in our pineal gland. A certain level of this compound is active in our brain right now. Its been a subject of research that more DMT is released when we're dreaming and when people have near-death experiences. It's a compound found in various animal and plant life as well.


A DMT trip has been called "reality-shattering", "spiritual", "indescribable beyond words", "profound beyond imagination" and other such things. I've watched around a dozen testimonies of what it was like (it's super interesting) and they all have familiar elements to them. Those who have "broken through" have said they actually felt their consciousness leave this reality and enter another dimension. A timeless dimension filled with other unimaginably intelligent and powerful spirit beings. The sheer volume of DMT users who have reported coming into contact with other spirit beings is crazy. Is this an elaborate hallucination that occurs within our reality or a chemical cocktail that actually allows the projection of consciousness into a spiritual dimension?

Yes of course a spiritual dimension exists without question, it's not a scientific matter per say (nor does it need to be) but there is more testimonial evidence for a spiritual existence than any other topic. I'm not a believer because of here say this is normal territory in Christianity, Jesus without a doubt testifies of a spiritual existence as well as myself, Jesus was no liar and the same goes for me. I think it's pretty obvious but that of course is an opinion.

Leaving the material world to enter into the spirit world literally does not have to be done with "DMT" just so you are aware, there are other natural ways to achieve this, but DMT is an easy short cut. The condition of the body and glands plays a significant role that is one reason why spiritual people fast, though they may not be aware of the chemistry of it but when the body is cleansed the mind and spirit becomes much sharper.
I think there is overwhelming sufficient factors to believe that spiritual Phenomenon are no hallucinations in many cases. Spiritually sharp people don't have mental illness as spirituality comes with a sound mind and a clear conscience, purity and health are essential, hallucinations are the result of mental illness and those are the results of the opposite of the mental stability of the spiritually acute.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2015 1:15:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 11:15:05 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
How do you explain out of body experiences?
What about near death experiences that occur during loss of consciousness?
They and near-death experiences can be more parsimoniously explained by subjective effects arising from trauma, disorientation and loss of consciousness.

But that hypothesis could be falsified if it were demonstrated under clinical conditions that out of body experiences are able to provide current, reliable, specific, significant and falsifiable information about the objective world around them.

I'm not aware of any such reports, and have seen reports showing the opposite -- for example, a message put on a high shelf in an operating theatre is not correctly reported by patients reporting out of body experiences.

This would suggest that whatever patients are reporting, it's not objective.
dee-em
Posts: 6,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2015 1:35:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 11:15:05 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/4/2015 10:39:23 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/4/2015 10:02:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/4/2015 8:58:53 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/4/2015 5:43:22 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/4/2015 5:26:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Please define:
1) spiritual
2) dimension

...in such a way that either can be falsified.

It's hard to define such terms because here goes:

Spirit: an immaterial state of pure being. Spiritual meaning of the spirit.
Dimension: the constituents of reality. So a spiritual dimension would not consist of space, time, or matter.

Ben, as I asked for falsifiable definitions, what's a minimum falsifying test for spirit or dimension?

If consciousness can't exist apart from the physical body then the spirit doesn't exist. If the only dimensions that can exist are space, time, and energy then a spiritual dimension doesn't exist. I don't see how we could go about falsifying either of those things, but testimonials of consciousness apart from the body and experiencing a spiritual realm do serve as evidence, I would think.


Everyday we have strong, albeit not definitive evidence, that suggests exactly that. The mind cannot survive the death of the physical body. And not just that. If certain areas of the brain are physically damaged or exhibit birth defects, then certain faculties of the mind are affected. These two lines of evidence weight way more than anecdote that has never been truly verified.

Personally, I would welcome the idea of a body-independent mind. But I would only be able to do so one evidence surfaced. Which it hasn't. Not in the least.

And that video you posted was terrible.

How do you explain out of body experiences?

We experience the world (reality) through our senses. How do you hear, see, taste, smell, or experience touch without that sensory apparatus? How do you capture photons for an image without eyes? The concept is absurd even at first glance. Even a physical brain put into a sensory deprivation environment will begin to hallucinate and become delusional. The brain generates its own dreamlike images when it is deprived of the real thing. Those images have nothing to with reality.
edgar_winters
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2015 5:55:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 5:20:36 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I've been fascinated by testimonies of people who have used a psychedelic drug called DMT, dubbed "the spirit molecule". DMT stands for N,N-Dimethyltryptamine and it's something that we all endogenously produce in our pineal gland. A certain level of this compound is active in our brain right now. Its been a subject of research that more DMT is released when we're dreaming and when people have near-death experiences. It's a compound found in various animal and plant life as well.


A DMT trip has been called "reality-shattering", "spiritual", "indescribable beyond words", "profound beyond imagination" and other such things. I've watched around a dozen testimonies of what it was like (it's super interesting) and they all have familiar elements to them. Those who have "broken through" have said they actually felt their consciousness leave this reality and enter another dimension. A timeless dimension filled with other unimaginably intelligent and powerful spirit beings. The sheer volume of DMT users who have reported coming into contact with other spirit beings is crazy. Is this an elaborate hallucination that occurs within our reality or a chemical cocktail that actually allows the projection of consciousness into a spiritual dimension? : :

The spiritual dimension is information in the form of waves which can't be seen by the material flesh that is formed from this information.

If you understood how we were created, then this would make sense to you.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2015 8:17:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2015 10:26:22 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

Mathematically, the dimension of a space is defined as the minimum number of coordinates you need to uniquely specify location.

- Although I don't like this definition, for it isn't accurate, I am more interested in broader non-mathematical definitions. After all, dimension, wether in Mathematics or otherwise is just a concept.

[http://mathworld.wolfram.com...] We can show experimentally that our physical space requires not less than four coordinates

- Four dimensions to express what exactly?!!! Location? Well, how about Momentum, Spin, Fluctuation, Force...?!!

and there are multiple ways to construct them so that they're independent -- and that's fine. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

- Independent in Mathematics maybe, not in real life. Or, maybe your perception of the Physical World rests on the Classical Model, not the Quantum & Relativist Model.

The usage of 'dimension' Ben has appealed to is not a mathematical/scientific usage, but a figurative Science Fiction usage

- 'Dimension' is a figurative concept in Science as well. Adding 'fiction' to the usage is pointless sophistry.

-- typically used to denote an imperceptible 'parallel' reality that shares our coordinates, but is differentiated by some other. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

- This is meaningless. Much of our actual reality is imperceptible to us. We are forced, most of the time, to resort to indirect methods to access this immense imperceptible reality.

We know that we need a minimum of four coordinates for the physical existence we share, but we cannot be confident that more are not needed

- The Physical World is much more complicated than you imagine.

-- it depends on how much more information there is to locate, how it connects and how independently it can operate.

- Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about.

The familiar activities of matter work very well in four dimensions, because interactions like movement, impact and gravitational attraction are uniquely predicted when codified that way.

- I grant this is accurate on a non-quantum non-relativist level.

However three other forces are also considered fundamental: weak nuclear force, electromagnetic force and strong nuclear force [http://www.pha.jhu.edu...]

- Wrong. Gravitation & gravitational attraction are not the same thing.

-- and they may make more sense (i.e. produce a simpler, more coherent, more predictive model) if additional coordinates are added. In 1921, mathematician Theodor Kaluza and physicist Oskar Klein independently postulated that gravity and electromagnetic force might be unified with a fifth coordinate system, indetectable to normal observation because it would exist only on a tiny scale (about 10E-33 cm [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. These theories have been explored on and off ever since, and are potentially demonstrable or falsifiable using interactions operating at that scale, such as those produced by the CERN Large Hadron collider. (There's some evidence to suggest that any additional dimensions so detected will not be large. [http://arxiv.org...])

- This talk may confuse the neophyte into thinking you got something to say, but it's just hodgepodge.

So if we want to postulate extra coordinates as 'real', we need some falsification test that shows:

- What do you mean by 'real' exactly?

a) there is additional information -- i.e. it persists, is reproducible, and tied to our objective reality;

- Meaningless. The coordinates we utilise in Physics are tied to our understanding of reality, not to the reality itself.

b) it uses all of our existing coordinates meaningfully; but also

- Meaningless. Quantum Physics & Relativist Physics are incompatible, coordinates to one don't necessarily mean something to the other.

c) operates so independently of those coordinates that it needs additional coordinates to be predicted unambiguously.

- Meaningless. That's not even true for any physical coordinate to begin with!!!

What is that information? It might be a correlation between gravitational and electromagnetic force, or it might be something else.

- The unknown is infinite.

The relationship of that inquiry to 'spirit' (by which I think Ben may mean massless intelligence) is a separate matter.

- Massless =/= immaterial. Why should a spirit not have a mass again?

First you'd have to demonstrate the existence of massless intelligence, which might be something like intelligence that:
a) persists -- so it can remember its interactions;

- 'Remember' is such a loose word! Electrons remember their own interactions.

b) can solve new problems -- so you'd have to find problems a massless intelligence could solve;

- Don't see the point. Can a 2 yo solve new problems?

c) is attached to our existing coordinate system (if it weren't, we'd have terrible trouble counting, identifying and distinguishing massless intelligences, or working out how good their memories are); yet

- Not necessarily the case.

d) needs additional coordinates to be understood unambiguously.

- Not necessarily the case either. It seems to me you're looking for a specific kind of massless objects that fits some pre-conceived model on your mind. I am sorry to inform you that, normally, investigations don't work like that!

From what I've seen, none of this sort of stuff is considered by people philosophising about DMT and other subjective experiences. I think they don't actually care about being objectively accountable for what they say, because they don't respect how their ideas may harm others.

- I agree with this. But that doesn't necessarily say anything about the veracity (or lack therefor) of their accounts.

I think they just want to indulge in making their subjective experiences so authoritative and credible that nobody will tell them they're experiencing transient brain dysfunction, and potentially damaging their minds.

- This again is also a conjecture, & conveniently so. What your reasoning look like here is affirming the consequence. You wanna conclude that something beyond doesn't exist, when testimonies come to that effect, you suppose it doesn't, & postulate that these are delusion & brain dysfunctions.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2015 8:37:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/5/2015 8:17:11 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 11/4/2015 10:26:22 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Mathematically, the dimension of a space is defined as the minimum number of coordinates you need to uniquely specify location.
- Although I don't like this definition, for it isn't accurate, I am more interested in broader non-mathematical definitions. After all, dimension, whether in Mathematics or otherwise is just a concept.
[http://mathworld.wolfram.com...] We can show experimentally that our physical space requires not less than four coordinates
- Four dimensions to express what exactly?!!! Location? Well, how about Momentum, Spin, Fluctuation, Force...?!!
As a simple cut, we could carve the ontology of physics into:
1) stuff (perhaps matter and energy);
2) events that happen to stuff (e.g. energy changes matter); and
3) a spatiotemporal frame to distinguish different stuff and the different events that affect it.

So what I was saying is that in physics, the spatiotemporal frame requires a dimensionality of not less than four. Any less fails to effectively distinguish stuff and/or different events.

But it might need more than four -- especially if it turns out that stuff and/or events altering stuff are more connected than we first thought.

It seems you didn't read this post carefully, Yassine, and your responses got wilder and less relevant as your post progressed.

Since that's happened before, I'm going to leave it there for now. If you want to discuss further with me, please begin by paraphrasing what you believe I actually wrote.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2015 9:58:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/5/2015 8:49:40 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Maybe spiritual dimensions exist and it is the "finite" that is imaginary.

And maybe the FSM waved its noodly appendages to create the universe. See the problem with 'maybe'? Essentially meaningless without facts to support it.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2015 10:07:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/5/2015 8:37:12 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

As a simple cut, we could carve the ontology of physics into:
1) stuff (perhaps matter and energy);
2) events that happen to stuff (e.g. energy changes matter); and
3) a spatiotemporal frame to distinguish different stuff and the different events that affect it.

- I can understand this categorisation, although these 3 are ultimately just aspects of the same thing.

So what I was saying is that in physics, the spatiotemporal frame requires a dimensionality of not less than four. Any less fails to effectively distinguish stuff and/or different events.

- As I was saying, this is true in a Classical Model, it isn't the case in a Quantum Model for instance. The use of "4 dimensional space-time" is abusive language. It may help us understand the Universe as a physical entity, but it is practically useless in properly identifying its elements.

But it might need more than four -- especially if it turns out that stuff and/or events altering stuff are more connected than we first thought.

- They are indeed more connected than we thought in the past, & progressively new connections are ever bound to be found. 3 dimensions of space are nowhere near enough to locale anything on the quantum level. The situation is even more dire in a string model.

It seems you didn't read this post carefully, Yassine, and your responses got wilder and less relevant as your post progressed.

- On the contrary.

Since that's happened before, I'm going to leave it there for now. If you want to discuss further with me, please begin by paraphrasing what you believe I actually wrote.

- I am not your babysitter, I ain't doing your job for you!
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2015 10:15:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/5/2015 9:58:33 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/5/2015 8:49:40 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Maybe spiritual dimensions exist and it is the "finite" that is imaginary.

And maybe the FSM waved its noodly appendages to create the universe. See the problem with 'maybe'? Essentially meaningless without facts to support it.

Based on your assessment, the theory of relativity should have been dropped in it's early staged because at that time maybe's just weren't going to cut it.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2015 10:17:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/5/2015 10:15:01 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 11/5/2015 9:58:33 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/5/2015 8:49:40 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Maybe spiritual dimensions exist and it is the "finite" that is imaginary.

And maybe the FSM waved its noodly appendages to create the universe. See the problem with 'maybe'? Essentially meaningless without facts to support it.

Based on your assessment, the theory of relativity should have been dropped in it's early staged because at that time maybe's just weren't going to cut it.

Old Albert had the math to back him up. So far it's held up under the most rigorous scrutiny. There as no 'maybe'. He made observations, did calculations, made predictions that could be checked. He did it the right way and held his ground when those with 'common sense' challenged him.

Try again.
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2015 10:19:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There are energies and beings flowing all around us and through us that we are unable to account for. Certainly, this should be an evident truth.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2015 10:19:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Spirituality actually explains a lot. A spirit would be a nonfinite entity, a compilation of variables that would never have not existed. It gives cause and comprehension into the idea of needing a first variable for our existance. Science is lost on this part of the equation. In simple terms, no one knows how we got here, and if you ask a biologist,"And...how did that happen?" to each of their answers, eventually the answer is,"Well, no one knows." At least it's an honest answer...
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2015 10:20:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/5/2015 10:19:29 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
There are energies and beings flowing all around us and through us that we are unable to account for. Certainly, this should be an evident truth.

Please identify these energies and beings and tell us how you know of them, since we cannot account for them?