Will science ever accept?

[EdmundJohnstone]

Originally Posted by Busby

There are plenty of scientists out there who have all different kinds of views, one voice is simply one of many.
But yes, we have to assume, and to a good extent it has been shown that the fundamental laws of physics are universal. A litre of pure water on a planet millions of light years away will weigh one Kilogram if the planet has the same mass as ours. Nor would one be able to walk on water.

There are also a significant number of scientists who refute evolution, who accept the idea of spiritual dimensions, who believe even in the Biblical God. Scientists are human too. From wherever our fears, frustrations, passions, and further non-physical forms may stem we are surrounded by them. By these natural human mental constructs we live our lives, constantly being blown and maybe battered by them. It is these mental constructs which, in the end, separate us from the animal kingdom.

Scientific discoveries, proven by various appearances and measurements show us that the universe (that is what we call this place in which we are individually in a state of awareness) show us that we have not yet seen most of what is really out there. Maybe we perceive about 5% of what really exists but how should we even know that? We do however know sufficient to have a civilisation that is built of many scientific discoveries giving a basis on which more is learned and used every day. Which is more than can be said of those of us who like to call ourselves 'spiritual' with being in any agreement whatsoever about what that is.

There is it seems only one real truth or reality, this truth is called you. You call this truth, this reality, 'me'. You know nothing else. You awaken each morning to yourself. When you look out into the world what you see is atomic structures some formed by nature and some formed by man. In reality they are all just bundles of energy as you and I are - what more can we desire than having our beliefs turned into forms? There are two planes of existence, one is physical the other is mental. The physical world appears as a solid world - if you fall off your bike you'll notice it. The mental world is that hidden reality, the one of imagination, beauty, love, of the above mentioned fears, frustrations and passions and of everything else. You and I have our roots in this magnifient place and are experiencing the joys and fears of having adapted a physical form a n d all its diversities.

Fair enough.

So what is your take on the energy inside us? What happens when we die? Energy can't be destroyed but conserved. Does it get conserved in the ground to grow plants and feed bacteria, to hear up the air, is it the end of our existence and consciousness? Or does it conserve as going back to a different realm (dimension) of spirits?

Originally Posted by Busby

Scientific discoveries, proven by various appearances and measurements show us that the universe (that is what we call this place in which we are individually in a state of awareness) show us that we have not yet seen most of what is really out there. Maybe we perceive about 5% of what really exists but how should we even know that? We do however know sufficient to have a civilisation that is built of many scientific discoveries giving a basis on which more is learned and used every day. Which is more than can be said of those of us who like to call ourselves 'spiritual' with being in any agreement whatsoever about what that is.

There is it seems only one real truth or reality, this truth is called you. You call this truth, this reality, 'me'. You know nothing else. You awaken each morning to yourself. When you look out into the world what you see is atomic structures some formed by nature and some formed by man. In reality they are all just bundles of energy as you and I are - what more can we desire than having our beliefs turned into forms? There are two planes of existence, one is physical the other is mental. The physical world appears as a solid world - if you fall off your bike you'll notice it. The mental world is that hidden reality, the one of imagination, beauty, love, of the above mentioned fears, frustrations and passions and of everything else. You and I have our roots in this magnifient place and are experiencing the joys and fears of having adapted a physical form a n d all its diversities.

Thanks, do you have a perspective on so-called bad things happening, Busby?

[r6r6]

Originally Posted by EdmundJohnstone

Or does it conserve as going back to a different realm (dimension) of spirits?

"differrent relam" of spirits, is likened to;

1} geodesically shaped positive curvature ( ) that I associate with cosmological phenomena of Gravity ( ), and,

2} geodesically shaped negative curvature )( that I associate with cosmological phenomena of Dark Energy )(.

Humans only quantise the resultants of these two and they are associated with sine-wave topology /\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Busby]

Originally Posted by EdmundJohnstone

Fair enough.

So what is your take on the energy inside us? What happens when we die? Energy can't be destroyed but conserved. Does it get conserved in the ground to grow plants and feed bacteria, to hear up the air, is it the end of our existence and consciousness? Or does it conserve as going back to a different realm (dimension) of spirits?

My 'take' on the energy inside us is something like this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...begins-when-s/

The planet (and the universe of course) is full of energy, something remarkably similar to what we call electricity. Everything has poles, everything has opposites and these opposites cause 'conflict' and thus action.

There are no different realms or dimensions, this is all based on fallacies developed from religious beliefs and the search for explanations. There are no souls and no astral planes, and all the rest, these 'things' are the result of confusion initiated by false interpretations.

Do we die? I don't think so. Do we die at night when our consciousness leaves us and we disperse into nothingness? no, we don't. Sleep, I suggest, is a small death, something we are used to. When our bodies die (all bodies)our consciousness(es) - that is the awareness of our self/selves, is still on hand.

We divert eternally between two opposite conditions or 'lives' each one reflecting the other and both driven by the mind of which we are part.

The driving force of the universe is the wish of the universal mind to experience. To this end the thing we call God (the universal mind) allows everything possible to happen. Once everything has happened that is possible in this universe or in these universes the next universe or universes will form just with a slightly different make-up to this one and a whole landscape of new experiences (under these different conditions will be experienced).

The field in which this all happens is IMAGINATION and our small but immensely powerful minds are not thinking fields but imagination fields. These imagination fields (I use the word field here for want of a better one) are all there is and all there is stems from them.

You are the only true reality.

Observe yourself!

[Busby]

Originally Posted by janielee

Thanks, do you have a perspective on so-called bad things happening, Busby?

Is there anything in nature that is good or bad? Can you think of anything?
No there isn't - if a lion eats a deer it's only taking its natural place in nature and as the natural wish of nature is nothing other than to multiply, the lion is only following nature's plan as is the deer when it eats grass.

Good (God) and evil (Devil) only stem from that thing we call free will and occupies space as conditions based on a cause within circumstances. Change the cause and circumstances and good and evil vanish. They are not needed in the universal mind. Humankind set up the laws of morality - and each culture has its own understanding of what is moral but mixes its understanding up with a visual conception of right and wrong.

The perfect recipe for a mishmash.

It's a virtual mind field but good and bad things happen. For example, a human rights lawyer jailed.

But yes, noted about nature.

Thanks busby for your comments and perspectives.

JL

Originally Posted by Busby

The driving force of the universe is the wish of the universal mind to experience. To this end the thing we call God (the universal mind) allows everything possible to happen. Once everything has happened that is possible in this universe or in these universes the next universe or universes will form just with a slightly different make-up to this one and a whole landscape of new experiences (under these different conditions will be experienced).

The field in which this all happens is IMAGINATION and our small but immensely powerful minds are not thinking fields but imagination fields. These imagination fields (I use the word field here for want of a better one) are all there is and all there is stems from them.

You are the only true reality.

Observe yourself!

Thanks for this sharing.

JL

[Petey]

Originally Posted by EdmundJohnstone

Will science ever accept spirituality in terms of souls and afterlife?

Will science ever accept objective verified proof? It seems that science doesen't accept at all subjective proof like reincarnations, NDE, mediums communication, even if they are verified and confirmed

Why doesen't it accept reincarnation verified evidence, NDE, and mediums? Can there be a hidden reason behind not admitting this?

One reason science doesn't accept those things is that the explanations of those things do not follow the scientific method. So this would be like asking science to give up its identity. Even "proof" has to follow the scientific method for it to even be called proof. The scientific method provides objectivity; the phenomena science deems true are measurable and predictable. Reincarnation, medium communication, etc. cannot be objectively proven...yet?

[Altair]

Originally Posted by EdmundJohnstone

Will science ever accept spirituality in terms of souls and afterlife?

Will science ever accept objective verified proof? It seems that science doesen't accept at all subjective proof like reincarnations, NDE, mediums communication, even if they are verified and confirmed

Why doesen't it accept reincarnation verified evidence, NDE, and mediums? Can there be a hidden reason behind not admitting this?

There's no hidden agenda. If the spirit was at all scientifically proven it would provide them with many subsidies, a new field of study, and more jobs..

Science deals with empiricism and repeatability. It has no reason to assume there are spirits and other realms because there's no need to, as it looks for explanations with the least assumptions..

Detecting it is not in the realm of science, so I don't think it will verify spirits or 'afterlife'. Even among religions there is no singular definition of these things. The notion of an afterlife also seems to be a misnomer..

Shouldn't bother you. Just do your spiritual practice.. :-)

[dmacfour]

Originally Posted by EdmundJohnstone

Will science ever accept spirituality in terms of souls and afterlife?

Will science ever accept objective verified proof? It seems that science doesen't accept at all subjective proof like reincarnations, NDE, mediums communication, even if they are verified and confirmed

Why doesen't it accept reincarnation verified evidence, NDE, and mediums? Can there be a hidden reason behind not admitting this?

Some of the research you're probably referring to helped expose just how low the bar for "verified evidence" was in the field of psychology (and science in general):

In psychology, the origin of the reproducibility crisis is often linked to Daryl Bem’s (2011) paper which reported empirical evidence for the existence of “psi”, otherwise known as Extra Sensory Perception (ESP). This paper passed through the standard peer review process and was published in the high impact Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The controversial nature of the findings inspired three independent replication studies, each of which failed to reproduce Bem’s results. However, these replication studies were rejected from four different journals, including the journal that had originally published Bem’s study, on the grounds that the replications were not original or novel research. They were eventually published in PLoS ONE (Ritchie, Wiseman, & French 2012). This created controversy in the field, and was interpreted by many as demonstrating how publication bias impeded science’s self-correction mechanism. In medicine, the origin of the crisis is often attributed to Ioannidis’ (2005) paper “Why most published findings are false”. The paper offered formal arguments about inflated rates of false positives in the literature—where a “false positive” result claims a relationship exists between phenomena when it in fact does not (e.g., a claim that consuming a drug is correlated with symptom relief when it in fact is not). Ioannidis’ (2005) also reported very low (11%) empirical reproducibility rates from a set of pre-clinical trial replications at Amgen, later independently published by Begley and Ellis (2012). In all disciplines, the replication crisis is also more generally linked to earlier criticisms of Null Hypothesis Significance Testing (e.g., Szucs & Ioannidis 2017), which pointed out the neglect of statistical power (e.g., Cohen 1962, 1994) and a failure to adequately distinguish statistical and substantive hypotheses (e.g., Meehl 1967, 1978). This is discussed further below.

The long and short of it is up until recently, you could get away with taking advantage of statistical hacks to make absolutely anything look significant. This was just as true for accepted psychological theory as it was for the more fringe stuff like ESP or reincarnation. The ESP research was not only not replicable, but it exposed that most mainstream results were not replicable.