| Current Replies for "spritual beings" |
|
 |
| |
spritual beings
lonely eyes
Posted: 28/10/2004
|
|
|
|
|
Alright, I'm not exactly sure how to begin this. I am very interested in this site though, seeing as how I've had basically the same thoughts over the years. I, however, am a strong believer in the possibility of spiritual beings and magic. It seems to me, that with all you have explained, that there would be excess energy involved in completing this circle. Correct? Ok then, would it not be possible to utilize the this excess energy to our benefit? Obviously things like these are generally invisible, so it would be seen as magic if we were able to do amazing, far fetched, almost biblical things by finding a way to use this energy. It may in fact just be a very high form of science, but it could be considered magic, right? As for spirits, ghosts and such, I have somewhat of a matrix theory, or so I've been told, seeing as I've never actually watched the Matrix nor do I know anything about it. My idea is that the metaphysical aspects of a person, a personality, feelings, thoughts, oppinions and such may be stored as a spiritual entity or somewhat of a ball of energy until the time comes for the circle to to "begin" again. Maybe I've confused myself here, but I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on this issue.
|
|
| |
Re: spritual beings
Richard
Posted: 1/11/2004
|
|
|
|
Dear Lonely Eyes,
Thank you for your interest in the site and your very thoughtful comment. I can understand the temptation to cling onto the ideas of 'spirit' and 'magic' but I think you are right when you say that these things, if they exist, will turn out to be 'a very high form of science' rather than inexplicable phenomena. If 'spirits' are made of energy then they will be detectable (even if not by sight). And, all 'magic' will, I believe, be ultimately explicable. There is, as far as I know, no scientific evidence for the existence of 'spirits' but if instruments eventually detect some subtle forms of energy to which we want to attach the name 'spirit', then they won't be mysterious; they will be subject, like everything else, to investigation.
Overall, I think it is preferable to abide by the rule that Occam laid down centuries ago; that when forming a theory of something it's best not to incorporate ideas or entities which are not strictly needed for the purposes of explanation. 'Keep things as simple as possible' seems to be a good maxim. And I think we don't need 'spirits' in a theory of the universe. Of course, if investigation eventually indicates that there are bits of energy which merit the application of the term 'spirit' (for example, if some subtle instrument shows enegy leaving a body as it dies and then, perhaps, floating off into some other entity) then we will need to incorporate this phenomenon into the theory. But, until then, I prefer, as I said, to keep things as uncomplicated as possible. The universe is already sufficiently complex without the invention of what I think are probably needless terms.
However (!) - I would be very interested to hear your counter-argument. What is the case for believing in spirits?
All the best,
Richard.
|
|
|
|
|
