Reality and Faith

[Sandie33]

No doubt...I would encourage any person who considers themselves to be a true “Christian” to read the Biblical Apocrypha.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha
http://apocrypha.org

The omitted chapters of the Bible are quite illuminating in the sense you are speaking.
They contain such terrible suggestions such as God being everything including you.

I have a copy and have read them @Skarekrow, The Gnostic Bible elaborates even further in Truth. However, I take much of what I read or hear lightly...the filters if men's minds have altered and pimped out much of what was original intent...I don't 'religion, I faithfully 'believe'.

Please forgive me, today has not proved as fruitful as others, I'm going to take a break from the forum, I beg your pardon if I've been offensive. Thank you again for the attached info, I've been sifting through some of it. tc-

 

[Actual]

How do you define “faith”?
Does it have positive or negative associations and why such a perception?
Is it purely subjective?
@wolly.green
Feel free to expand on the OP question for this thread.

My definition of faith comes from the Bible, but I hope to shed new light on it that you may not have heard before.

Faith can ultimately be viewed as simply believing what God has said about Himself.

Unbelief (lack of faith) is actually the original sin. Adam and Eve broke a rule (don't eat from this one tree), but they only broke the rule because they chose to believe that God had led them astray for His own impure ends. That is a lack of faith and was actually maligning the character of God as well.

So it is no coincidence that this original sin must be remedied by an individual's faith to bring things full circle. (Along with the gospel which is necessary to make the faith effective and even possible at all.)

Note that faith is not defined as belief *in* God or belief *in a* God. That isn't good enough and is assumed. Adam and Eve did both when they originally sinned. Faith is believing that God is who He says He is and that He rewards those who seek Him.

Of course there's a lot more to it than that, but that's what's in the Bible at least.

And this faith is not subjective, based on the premise that the Bible as we know it an actual communication from God that allows us to discover who He is and believe Him based on what is revealed there. We can believe in real attributes and objective happenings that were recorded there.

 

[Skarekrow]

The fact that something can be a particle and a wave at the same time is a logical contradiction. This view of quantum physics actual emerged as popular quite suddenly. Most physicists at the time believed that we can never have knowledge of what we can not observe. And thus because we can not observe what the quantum world is doing when we are not looking, our theories must rely solely on appearances alone; on what appears to be the case. But this view is quite clearly flawed. Consider the theory of relativity. We do not ever observe the buckling and bending of space time; we can never, even in principle measure it. But we can know about it; and we can test its logical consequences. It is possible to "know" what is happening when we are not looking, even though we can not "observe" or "measure" it. Therefore, we do not need to violate the laws of logic to explain the quantum world. You could try to if you like, but you must do so only with a good explanation.

Actually it’s quite proven.
And we do observe the bending of space and time...it was proven by a solar eclipse, where the star behind the sun was visible to those on Earth even though it would normally be obscured...but such is the gravity of the sun that it bent space/time.
Google it...basic stuff.
Not at all in the realm of pure theory.
Take a look at the large hadron collider...it’s thoroughly gone from the world of theory into being able to prove the existence of things like the Higgs-Boson particle...which is a bit reductionist in their methodology, but they have gotten significant results.
As far as something existing as both a particle and a wave, again has been proven.
"A central concept of quantum mechanics, duality addresses the inadequacy of conventional concepts like "particle" and "wave" to meaningfully describe the behaviour of quantum objects.

The idea of duality is rooted in a debate over the nature of light and matter dating back to the 1600s, when competing theories of light were proposed by Christiaan Huygens and Isaac Newton.

Through the work of Albert Einstein, Louis de Broglie and many others, it is now established that all objects have both wave and particle nature (though this phenomenon is only detectable on small scales, such as with atoms), and that a suitable interpretation of quantum mechanics provides the over-arching theory resolving this ostensible paradox.”

We now have quantum radar...something that Chinese are supposedly way ahead of us on....this uses the same concept of wave particle duality (entangled particle superposition), hell man...I can find you the link, but a Japanese lab even have an electron microscope picture of such a thing...speaking of which, it is through wave particle duality that electron microscopes even function.
The question is not if duality exists, but rather how much influence we (our consciousness) have on such particles and are we entangled with other particles of matter around us (providing a possible working model of how we could influence something separate from our physical self)?
Because we at all times have particles passing through our bodies and brain...through the spaces in-between, perhaps there is some transfer of information back and forth as time on such a minute scale would seem reasonably slow enough for such a thing to occur and entanglements to be made?
I am reminded of “the ego-centric predicament” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentric_predicament
Is that kind of what you are leaning toward?
There is some truth in that viewpoint, but I don’t adhere to it all in it’s entirety.
I’m still trying to understand your POV, forgive all the questions.
Don’t feel I am attacking you or anything please.

So clear things up for me...would you consider yourself an Epiphenomenalist, an Interactionist, or a Substantialist?
Also, I have quite a few links showing how human consciousness interacts with reality, which is leaning toward my own definition of “faith”.
If you like, we can go through some of them and you can explain why they are wrong?

 

[Skarekrow]

My definition of faith comes from the Bible, but I hope to shed new light on it that you may not have heard before.

Faith can ultimately be viewed as simply believing what God has said about Himself.

Unbelief (lack of faith) is actually the original sin. Adam and Eve broke a rule (don't eat from this one tree), but they only broke the rule because they chose to believe that God had led them astray for His own impure ends. That is a lack of faith and was actually maligning the character of God as well.

So it is no coincidence that this original sin must be remedied by an individual's faith to bring things full circle. (Along with the gospel which is necessary to make the faith effective and even possible at all.)

Note that faith is not defined as belief *in* God or belief *in a* God. That isn't good enough and is assumed. Adam and Eve did both when they originally sinned. Faith is believing that God is who He says He is and that He rewards those who seek Him.

Of course there's a lot more to it than that, but that's what's in the Bible at least.

And this faith is not subjective, based on the premise that the Bible as we know it an actual communication from God that allows us to discover who He is and believe Him based on what is revealed there. We can believe in real attributes and objective happenings that were recorded there.

Thank you for your descriptive post.
I am quite familiar with the Biblical view of faith.
I am also not one to argue or debate anyone on their own religious beliefs.

There are just some things that always seem to...hmmm...concern me.
Maybe you can help clear some up? I’m not being facetious, just curious of other’s viewpoints and if they can clarify questions I have myself.
Please don’t think I am attacking your personal beliefs...I respect yours and everyone else’s on this forum.

It was also the tree of knowledge...if you read the Gospel of Phillip...Gnostic Bible...it explains that the fruit was a necessary thing.
Just from a biblical standpoint - If this was God’s plan, then why punish them for it?
If this was not His plan, then he has less control over things than we are lead to believe.

I understand they had “free will”, but it was “free will” with a fence around it, no?

Part of this discussion was the idea of “free will”, how can we truly have free will if God intervenes on the part of those who pray or worship Him?
Doesn’t that violate the free will of another to do good or evil?
Also...why send Jesus, with the specific charge of “saving the whole world” when most Christian churches today seem to think that a very small percentage of souls will be headed to “heaven” or be “saved”...I’m pretty sure that when God says he’s going to save the whole world it means just that, unless Jesus failed...which would not be acceptable to most Christians.

Also the concept of Hell is faulty.
The word is Norse in origin and never was in the Bible.
Gehenna, Tartarus, Sheol, Hades.
All combined into the word “Hell” taken from the Niece of Odin “Hel” who rules the Norse underworld...in middle age times Hell was what people called a root cellar and associated it with underground/underworld...enter Dante and his Inferno...snatched up and those four words - each with separate meanings, and made them into one word that means eternal damnation and torture.
Never was.

 

[Skarekrow]

I have a copy and have read them @Skarekrow, The Gnostic Bible elaborates even further in Truth. However, I take much of what I read or hear lightly...the filters if men's minds have altered and pimped out much of what was original intent...I don't 'religion, I faithfully 'believe'.

Please forgive me, today has not proved as fruitful as others, I'm going to take a break from the forum, I beg your pardon if I've been offensive. Thank you again for the attached info, I've been sifting through some of it. tc-

Yes the Gospel of Phillip (I mentioned above ^^) is not to missed!

The Lord said, "Blessed is he who is before he came into being. For he who is, has been and shall be.”


"Jesus came to crucify the world."

"It is not possible for anyone to see anything of the things that actually exist unless he becomes like them... You saw the Spirit, you became spirit. You saw Christ, you became Christ. You saw the Father, you shall become Father. So in this place you see everything and do not see yourself, but in that place you do see yourself - and what you see you shall become."

 

[Sandie33]

Yes the Gospel of Phillip (I mentioned above ^^) is not to missed!

The Lord said, "Blessed is he who is before he came into being. For he who is, has been and shall be.”


"Jesus came to crucify the world."

"It is not possible for anyone to see anything of the things that actually exist unless he becomes like them... You saw the Spirit, you became spirit. You saw Christ, you became Christ. You saw the Father, you shall become Father. So in this place you see everything and do not see yourself, but in that place you do see yourself - and what you see you shall become."

and, How I Live My Life from St. Thomas ... and of St. Francis ;-)

all great saints were once extrordinary men & women

I hope you are having a peacefull day @Skarekrow ... grab a ride on the loving energies the holidays offer up into the universe ... may your winter solstice be blessed for you and your family @>å

 

[Skarekrow]

and, How I Live My Life from St. Thomas ... and of St. Francis ;-)

all great saints were once extrordinary men & women

I hope you are having a peacefull day @Skarekrow ... grab a ride on the loving energies the holidays offer up into the universe ... may your winter solstice be blessed for you and your family @>å

Right back at you dearest friend!
May you have a wonderful day, week, and new year!!!

 

[Milktoast Bandit]

@Sandie33 @Skarekrow

No doubt...I would encourage any person who considers themselves to be a true “Christian” to read the Biblical Apocrypha.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha
http://apocrypha.org

The omitted chapters of the Bible are quite illuminating in the sense you are speaking.
They contain such terrible suggestions such as God being everything including you.

I don't really care to be too much of this discussion, though I find it interesting. My purpose is to just chime in with a wee bit of info regarding some things I read.

Eastern Orthodox Christians use the old Jewish version of the Old Testament called the Septuagint of which the books of Apocrypha are a part of. It was a part of the KJV until the early 1600's. There's a bunch of history as to why it's not a part of it today, but the Orthodox kept it as it was in the early church.

A purpose of Christianity, at least Pre-denominational Christianity, is Theosis or deification, becoming one with God, or partaking in the divine nature. They say that God is unknowable essence and knowable energy. God is within and transcends all things. The Orthodox say we become through adoption what Christ is by nature. So how do we become "adopted" by God? That is a matter of free will. God does not intervene so much as he meets people half way. It is said God loves man so much that He will not force man to know or love Him. Man can (and does) do whatever. Deification then, requires use of our free will to genuinely seek to know God with all our heart and mind. The mind and heart are prepared through the various spiritual practices, prayer, fasting etc.

The use of parables is not to hide or distort Truth, but rather to explain and teach what is indescribable or virtually impossible for people to understand. It's hard to understand because to know God is to know "peace beyond all understanding..." human words cannot begin to describe God so parables were used to get people into the ballpark.

In the Philokalia and other writings by the early church fathers and Saints they often break down and explain the parables as they relate to mind and nature of man. It's good stuff.

That is all. Toddle-oo!

 

[just me]

Depending where one is on their journey to know God, if they are at all, I feel strongly that faith becomes reality. Faith is out tutor to bring us to know God and be one with Him. After that we have become one with our spirits, faith seems to take on a new dimension.

As was written, "The law was our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."

 

[wolly.green]

Actually it’s quite proven.
And we do observe the bending of space and time...it was proven by a solar eclipse, where the star behind the sun was visible to those on Earth even though it would normally be obscured...but such is the gravity of the sun that it bent space/time.
Google it...basic stuff.
Not at all in the realm of pure theory.
Take a look at the large hadron collider...it’s thoroughly gone from the world of theory into being able to prove the existence of things like the Higgs-Boson particle...which is a bit reductionist in their methodology, but they have gotten significant results.
As far as something existing as both a particle and a wave, again has been proven.
"A central concept of quantum mechanics, duality addresses the inadequacy of conventional concepts like "particle" and "wave" to meaningfully describe the behaviour of quantum objects.

The idea of duality is rooted in a debate over the nature of light and matter dating back to the 1600s, when competing theories of light were proposed by Christiaan Huygens and Isaac Newton.

Through the work of Albert Einstein, Louis de Broglie and many others, it is now established that all objects have both wave and particle nature (though this phenomenon is only detectable on small scales, such as with atoms), and that a suitable interpretation of quantum mechanics provides the over-arching theory resolving this ostensible paradox.”

We now have quantum radar...something that Chinese are supposedly way ahead of us on....this uses the same concept of wave particle duality (entangled particle superposition), hell man...I can find you the link, but a Japanese lab even have an electron microscope picture of such a thing...speaking of which, it is through wave particle duality that electron microscopes even function.
The question is not if duality exists, but rather how much influence we (our consciousness) have on such particles and are we entangled with other particles of matter around us (providing a possible working model of how we could influence something separate from our physical self)?
Because we at all times have particles passing through our bodies and brain...through the spaces in-between, perhaps there is some transfer of information back and forth as time on such a minute scale would seem reasonably slow enough for such a thing to occur and entanglements to be made?
I am reminded of “the ego-centric predicament” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentric_predicament
Is that kind of what you are leaning toward?
There is some truth in that viewpoint, but I don’t adhere to it all in it’s entirety.
I’m still trying to understand your POV, forgive all the questions.
Don’t feel I am attacking you or anything please.

So clear things up for me...would you consider yourself an Epiphenomenalist, an Interactionist, or a Substantialist?
Also, I have quite a few links showing how human consciousness interacts with reality, which is leaning toward my own definition of “faith”.
If you like, we can go through some of them and you can explain why they are wrong?

And we do observe the bending of space and time...it was proven by a solar eclipse, where the star behind the sun was visible to those on Earth even though it would normally be obscured...but such is the gravity of the sun that it bent space/time.

In his book Conjectures and Refutations, Karl Popper showed that proof is impossible. That the role of science is falsification, not verification. When a large object affects the path of other things such as light, we can infer that "something" is happening to the space around it. The theory of relativity tells us that this "something" is actually the bending and buckling of space under the force of gravity. Notice however that we never actually "see" space itself warping, all we see is light whose path has somehow changed. This experiment is actually a failed attempt at falsification, not a successful attempt at verification.

As far as something existing as both a particle and a wave, again has been proven."A central concept of quantum mechanics, duality addresses the inadequacy of conventional concepts like "particle" and "wave" to meaningfully describe the behaviour of quantum objects.

No not proven; proof is impossible. Concepts like "particle" and "wave" on their own are inadequate precisely because they represent an old and outdated way of thinking about the properties of physical objects. For example, there are other other competing explanations like the "many worlds interpretation" that do not violate the laws of logic and reveal wave-particle like behavior. The failure to accept other explanations is a truly remarkable example of the fact that physicists don't understand basic philosophy. Even though the scientific method depends on philosophy.

So clear things up for me...would you consider yourself an Epiphenomenalist, an Interactionist, or a Substantialist?

None of them. It depends on what you want explain.

through the spaces in-between, perhaps there is some transfer of information back and forth as time on such a minute scale would seem reasonably slow enough for such a thing to occur and entanglements to be made?

This doesn't even sound scientific. It sounds like astrology with new clothes.

 

[Sandie33]

@Sandie33 @Skarekrow


I don't really care to be too much of this discussion, though I find it interesting. My purpose is to just chime in with a wee bit of info regarding some things I read.

Eastern Orthodox Christians use the old Jewish version of the Old Testament called the Septuagint of which the books of Apocrypha are a part of. It was a part of the KJV until the early 1600's. There's a bunch of history as to why it's not a part of it today, but the Orthodox kept it as it was in the early church.

A purpose of Christianity, at least Pre-denominational Christianity, is Theosis or deification, becoming one with God, or partaking in the divine nature. They say that God is unknowable essence and knowable energy. God is within and transcends all things. The Orthodox say we become through adoption what Christ is by nature. So how do we become "adopted" by God? That is a matter of free will. God does not intervene so much as he meets people half way. It is said God loves man so much that He will not force man to know or love Him. Man can (and does) do whatever. Deification then, requires use of our free will to genuinely seek to know God with all our heart and mind. The mind and heart are prepared through the various spiritual practices, prayer, fasting etc.

The use of parables is not to hide or distort Truth, but rather to explain and teach what is indescribable or virtually impossible for people to understand. It's hard to understand because to know God is to know "peace beyond all understanding..." human words cannot begin to describe God so parables were used to get people into the ballpark.

In the Philokalia and other writings by the early church fathers and Saints they often break down and explain the parables as they relate to mind and nature of man. It's good stuff.

That is all. Toddle-oo!

It's good stuff.

Good stuff indeed! Thank you @Milktoast Bandit for chiming in with your thoughts and information.

I'm reading Lebreton's Life and Teaching of Jesus Christ currently, it is a tough read for me and I've been taking more time with it as I read a bit, then contemplate on the reading. I daily read what I call my little black book: The pocket version of My Way of Life St. Thomas's Summa Simplified. It was previously owned and is beat up, but it suits my needs.

I was influenced growing up from the Catholic faith and Baptist Church (in my little town our church sat 45, with many standing at Easter and Christmas. Intellectually I've visited many religions...yet I find kinship with Jesus. He was a grand teacher I think. I follow the message of John the Baptist as he too was a good teacher.

The wonderful thing about parables are they are subjective to individual interpretation, as is opinions, as is all of life really...free choice to persue what works for you

Thank you again for taking time to ring in

 

[Skarekrow]

@wolly.green And we do observe the bending of space and time...it was proven by a solar eclipse, where the star behind the sun was visible to those on Earth even though it would normally be obscured...but such is the gravity of the sun that it bent space/time.

In his book Conjectures and Refutations, Karl Popper showed that proof is impossible. That the role of science is falsification, not verification. When a large object affects the path of other things such as light, we can infer that "something" is happening to the space around it. The theory of relativity tells us that this "something" is actually the bending and buckling of space under the force of gravity. Notice however that we never actually "see" space itself warping, all we see is light whose path has somehow changed. This experiment is actually a failed attempt at falsification, not a successful attempt at verification.

If you only believe science to put up falsehood then later make a statement like -
"This doesn't even sound scientific. It sounds like astrology with new clothes.”
You seem to be quite contradictory.
I don’t believe all the taboos science seems quite stuck on...such as a constant speed of light, as well as many other things.
Please don’t assume that I too ascribe to all such things that “science” tells me is true...but then don’t insult me later by inferring that my head is in the clouds, please be civil or we will cease to discuss.
Often times, I will interject questions to see the interesting thoughts that someone might have on the subject...it doesn’t mean it is something that I inherently believe.

Einstein predicted that light should be bent by gravity...Sir Arthur Eddington lead an expedition to photograph the 1919 Total Eclipse of the Sun.
The photographs revealed stars whose light had passed near to the Sun...their positions showed that the light had been bent exactly as Einstein had predicted...the experiment was repeated in 1922 with another eclipse with the same confirmation.
If Einstein was right then the sun is bending space and we should be able to observe this by looking at the stars behind the sun.
In other words...if the sun were between us and certain stars whose exact positions in the sky we know to six decimal places then we should see the light of those stars bending through space as that light passes the position of the sun on its way to earth...as a result the stars should appear to us to be out of place by a certain calculable number of degrees.
Not only did Einstein say the the sun would bend the light of the stars, he also knew how much bending would be done.
Why would this be an issue with you?
It’s been proven on many different levels.
Including a $700 million Gravity Probe B Nasa sent up.
That doesn’t mean that the “Many worlds theory”, or “String Theory”, or a “Unified Field Theory” is incorrect, why would you assume such a thing?
Just because we don’t know how the pieces of the puzzle fit together yet does not mean that they don’t fit together to form a more clear picture.

As far as something existing as both a particle and a wave, again has been proven."A central concept of quantum mechanics, duality addresses the inadequacy of conventional concepts like "particle" and "wave" to meaningfully describe the behaviour of quantum objects.

No not proven; proof is impossible. Concepts like "particle" and "wave" on their own are inadequate precisely because they represent an old and outdated way of thinking about the properties of physical objects. For example, there are other other competing explanations like the "many worlds interpretation" that do not violate the laws of logic and reveal wave-particle like behavior. The failure to accept other explanations is a truly remarkable example of the fact that physicists don't understand basic philosophy. Even though the scientific method depends on philosophy.

Wrong (at least, by the proof so far)
(See picture below with link)

(^^ I present, a particle/wave^^)

​

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html​

So clear things up for me...would you consider yourself an Epiphenomenalist, an Interactionist, or a Substantialist?

None of them. It depends on what you want explain.

Your belief in the position and/or existence of a human soul, thusly having some manner of control via faith over reality.
It’s the basis of this thread and would be helpful to understand what your actual vision of faith and reality is...because it is very unclear right now.
Hence, the questions.

through the spaces in-between, perhaps there is some transfer of information back and forth as time on such a minute scale would seem reasonably slow enough for such a thing to occur and entanglements to be made?

This doesn't even sound scientific. It sounds like astrology with new clothes.

The above statement by me was some metaphysical musing, try not to be insulting when someone is only trying to carry on and go further in depth.
Again...I don’t infer that what you say is not scientific.
And I don't discount anything, because the moment you think you have it figured out is the moment you stop thinking critically and also the moment when you are burying your head in the sand...even something such as Astrology when you are speaking of our inability to see gravity therefore it doesn’t exist type talk^^^.
Just because we don’t see in the ultraviolet range doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
That would be an Epiphenomenalist and that is why I asked you.
Let’s be civil friend.

 

[wolly.green]

@wolly.green And we do observe the bending of space and time...it was proven by a solar eclipse, where the star behind the sun was visible to those on Earth even though it would normally be obscured...but such is the gravity of the sun that it bent space/time.

In his book Conjectures and Refutations, Karl Popper showed that proof is impossible. That the role of science is falsification, not verification. When a large object affects the path of other things such as light, we can infer that "something" is happening to the space around it. The theory of relativity tells us that this "something" is actually the bending and buckling of space under the force of gravity. Notice however that we never actually "see" space itself warping, all we see is light whose path has somehow changed. This experiment is actually a failed attempt at falsification, not a successful attempt at verification.

If you only believe science to put up falsehood then later make a statement like -
"This doesn't even sound scientific. It sounds like astrology with new clothes.”
You seem to be quite contradictory.
I don’t believe all the taboos science seems quite stuck on...such as a constant speed of light, as well as many other things.
Please don’t assume that I too ascribe to all such things that “science” tells me is true...but then don’t insult me later by inferring that my head is in the clouds, please be civil or we will cease to discuss.
Often times, I will interject questions to see the interesting thoughts that someone might have on the subject...it doesn’t mean it is something that I inherently believe.

Einstein predicted that light should be bent by gravity...Sir Arthur Eddington lead an expedition to photograph the 1919 Total Eclipse of the Sun.
The photographs revealed stars whose light had passed near to the Sun...their positions showed that the light had been bent exactly as Einstein had predicted...the experiment was repeated in 1922 with another eclipse with the same confirmation.
If Einstein was right then the sun is bending space and we should be able to observe this by looking at the stars behind the sun.
In other words...if the sun were between us and certain stars whose exact positions in the sky we know to six decimal places then we should see the light of those stars bending through space as that light passes the position of the sun on its way to earth...as a result the stars should appear to us to be out of place by a certain calculable number of degrees.
Not only did Einstein say the the sun would bend the light of the stars, he also knew how much bending would be done.
Why would this be an issue with you?
It’s been proven on many different levels.
Including a $700 million Gravity Probe B Nasa sent up.
That doesn’t mean that the “Many worlds theory”, or “String Theory”, or a “Unified Field Theory” is incorrect, why would you assume such a thing?
Just because we don’t know how the pieces of the puzzle fit together yet does not mean that they don’t fit together to form a more clear picture.

As far as something existing as both a particle and a wave, again has been proven."A central concept of quantum mechanics, duality addresses the inadequacy of conventional concepts like "particle" and "wave" to meaningfully describe the behaviour of quantum objects.

No not proven; proof is impossible. Concepts like "particle" and "wave" on their own are inadequate precisely because they represent an old and outdated way of thinking about the properties of physical objects. For example, there are other other competing explanations like the "many worlds interpretation" that do not violate the laws of logic and reveal wave-particle like behavior. The failure to accept other explanations is a truly remarkable example of the fact that physicists don't understand basic philosophy. Even though the scientific method depends on philosophy.

Wrong (at least, by the proof so far)
(See picture below with link)

(^^ I present, a particle/wave^^)

​

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html​

So clear things up for me...would you consider yourself an Epiphenomenalist, an Interactionist, or a Substantialist?

None of them. It depends on what you want explain.

Your belief in the position and/or existence of a human soul, thusly having some manner of control via faith over reality.
It’s the basis of this thread and would be helpful to understand what your actual vision of faith and reality is...because it is very unclear right now.
Hence, the questions.

through the spaces in-between, perhaps there is some transfer of information back and forth as time on such a minute scale would seem reasonably slow enough for such a thing to occur and entanglements to be made?

This doesn't even sound scientific. It sounds like astrology with new clothes.

The above statement by me was some metaphysical musing, try not to be insulting when someone is only trying to carry on and go further in depth.
Again...I don’t infer that what you say is not scientific.
And I don't discount anything, because the moment you think you have it figured out is the moment you stop thinking critically and also the moment when you are burying your head in the sand...even something such as Astrology when you are speaking of our inability to see gravity therefore it doesn’t exist type talk^^^.
Just because we don’t see in the ultraviolet range doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
That would be an Epiphenomenalist and that is why I asked you.
Let’s be civil friend.

If you only believe science to put up falsehood then later make a statement like -

What? I never said anything close to this? Where is this coming from?

Not only did Einstein say the the sun would bend the light of the stars, he also knew how much bending would be done.
Why would this be an issue with you?

No issue whatsoever. Remember you said it is possible to observe the bending and buckling of space; my comment was to show that this is not the case.

It’s been proven on many different levels.

Certain predictions have been corroborated with certain observations. This is not proof that space bends under the force of gravity. Again, proof is impossible.

hat doesn’t mean that the “Many worlds theory”, or “String Theory”, or a “Unified Field Theory” is incorrect, why would you assume such a thing?

Oh ok I get it now, you didn't understand what I said. I don't mean to be a dick, but unless you read a book that tracks the progress of specific scientific disciplines through time, this conversation is just going to waste both our time. We are having two different conversations, and I don't think I can help you understand what Im talking about without first having to write an essay.

 

[Milktoast Bandit]

Oh ok I get it now, you didn't understand what I said. I don't mean to be a dick, but unless you read a book that tracks the progress of specific scientific disciplines through time, this conversation is just a waste of both our time

Shenanigans!!!!!!!

 

[wolly.green]

Shenanigans!!!!!!!

I edited what I said to

"Oh ok I get it now, you didn't understand what I said. I don't mean to be a dick, but unless you read a book that tracks the progress of specific scientific disciplines through time, this conversation is just going to waste both our time. We are having two different conversations, and I don't think I can help you understand what Im talking about without first having to write an essay."

 

[Milktoast Bandit]

I edited what I said to

"Oh ok I get it now, you didn't understand what I said. I don't mean to be a dick, but unless you read a book that tracks the progress of specific scientific disciplines through time, this conversation is just going to waste both our time. We are having two different conversations, and I don't think I can help you understand what Im talking about without first having to write an essay."

Lol ok fair enough. This is an internet forum, unless I'm mistaken there is plenty of room for an essay...

 

[wolly.green]

Lol ok fair enough. This is an internet forum, unless I'm mistaken there is plenty of room for an essay...

I doubt anyone would read it. I mean really, would you read a 3000 word essay? Well maybe some people, but hardly anyone.

 

[Milktoast Bandit]

would you read a 3000 word essay?

No.

 

[Skarekrow]

Oh ok I get it now, you didn't understand what I said. I don't mean to be a dick, but unless you read a book that tracks the progress of specific scientific disciplines through time, this conversation is just going to waste both our time. We are having two different conversations, and I don't think I can help you understand what Im talking about without first having to write an essay.

There are many such books.
Just as there are many theories surrounding the universe and the nature of reality.

I don’t mean to be a dick either ( I do), but it was fairly big news capturing that picture of wave/particle duality, and you obviously have not been keeping up with current discoveries that were made a couple years ago.
(But I’m the one too dumb to read)

Also you said - "Remember you said it is possible to observe the bending and buckling of space; my comment was to show that this is not the case.”
Upon which time I supplied you with an example where the bending and buckling of space IS observable and was observed on more than one occasion.
You contradict yourself again, and though it may make perfect sense in your head...perhaps an essay would be the correct clarification needed when you are obviously so far ahead of us peons.
I’m done trying to explain nicely what you have rigidly not even entertained.
"I don't think I can help you understand what Im talking about without first having to write an essay.”
Right...because I’m far too stupid to understand it otherwise.
When you start acting arrogant, I’m out.
Ciao.

 

[Skarekrow]

"We do know how the wave and particle are the same.
They are two possible manifestations of a single unified, unambiguous underlying description.

This description, called quantum mechanics, is of a world full of things called wave vectors evolving in something called Hilbert space.
And it gives mathematically precise predictions of exactly what circumstances you will see wave-like behavior, and exactly what circumstances you will see particle-like behavior, and everything in between.

This theory has been tested in thousands of different ways by thousands of different research groups, and it has always been exactly right.

These 'wave vectors' and 'Hilbert spaces' behave in very new ways, that are hard to understand without the mathematics of linear algebra.
And so when these things are taught at the introductory level, sadly, it is often in terms of the outdated (and often misleading) notion of wave-particle duality.

The universe is stranger than we suppose, but apparently it is not a priority to communicate this to our children.

Anyway, there was a time in history when we knew that sometimes light behaved like a wave, and sometimes like a particle, but didn't have a complete, univocal theory of this like we do today.

That time period was roughly 1905-1926."