The philosopher Wittgenstein suggests that philosophy’s concern with metaphysics is due to bad language. He also suggests that language is irreducible.

My question is rather simple, who are some modern philosophers that have responded to this claim, if so who are they?

Has anyone ventured past Wittgenstein?

Best answer:

Answer by (((CUERVO))) (corvus corax)
Philosophy is only a small dust partical of our mistaken reasoning.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

Related Modern Philosophers Articles

Autism, as you may have heard, is on the rise at an alarming rate. So are many other disorders, including those no one knows about until commercials for the wonder drugs that manage those disorders are aired on television. Is it a coincidence that we are plagued with so many diseases and disorders? No. As we continue to pollute our bodies (and the planet) with increasingly toxic food, air, water, politics, cultural habits, etc, I hardly see the great mystery behind our exploding health crisis. In a piece I posted some years ago on our country’s Disorder Disorder – the disorder of having many disorders – I touched on the need for us to start addressing the larger health issues (including emotional and spiritual health issues) that surely underly our crises.

Interestingly, the new findings on autism may open that door. From a physical perspective, pieces of the autism puzzle could open the health industry’s eyes to the interconnectedness of seemingly unrelated disorders and potentially (fingers crossed) take the world down a new path and approach to medicine. The link between “the gut” and autism in terms of Energy Medicine is a very interesting and revealing bit of information. The subtle or spiritual anatomy of the gut is involved with the processing of emotion. Metaphysically speaking, in a society where members have become largely disengaged from one another at the spiritual and emotional levels, and in which attention is frequently focused on the negative and the destructive (which often makes people want to disengage), it does not surprise me that a condition like autism would manifest and be on the rise at this particular point in time.

Look at this summary of the behavioral characteristics of autistic disorder from the Cambridge Center of Behavioral Studies web site:

1. significant difficulties with social interactions – does not pay attention to other people; does not play with other children; does not reciprocate

2. significant difficulties in verbal and nonverbal communication – grabs what is wanted or leads to get what is wanted; copies or parrots words (echolalia); if has words, does not converse

3. significant difficulties in the development of play – uses only parts of toys; lines up or stacks objects; no imaginative play

4. highly restricted, repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior and interests. May talk continuously about one topic or repeat the same questions; may spin and stare at objects; may flap fingers or pieces of string; mouth or hit self

5. highly resistant to even slight changes in routines

If you read that summary with your spiritual eyes, do you not see in it a description of how our society behaves? I certainly do.

Discuss this article at www.HealingSpirit.com

Related Metaphysics Articles

The belief of the Druzes on reincarnation is based on the Doctrine of Reincarnation contained in their scriptures which is said that life doesn’t stop. Once a person dies at a given time and place, the soul transfers to another person in another place to be born again to another parent. The mind is the most powerful human tool, thus the Fifth Science or the spiritual mind science is strictly practiced by the Druzes. The Druze Wisdom has been greatly influenced by great thinkers of the ancient Greek philosophers whose knowledge theories became the basis of their doctrines. The mind science they espouse emanates from their belief that the mind speaks to the soul and without this, human expressions are impossible.

Metaphysics plays a pivotal role in the Druze Wisdom particularly by the ancient Greek philosophers who, according to them, have molded their spirituality. The unique Fifth Science which evolved from the ancient wisdom of the great Greek philosophers became the spiritual dogma of the Druzes. This made the uniqueness of the Druze spirituality. One thing is unfortunate though, the Druze Gnostics contained in the Forbidden Manuscript became very vulnerable and the subject of exclusion and distortion by other religious sects and societies. Substance online is appealing from its readership to be open while exploring the sections of the site. Furthermore, www.substance.com provides an English translation of the original Forbidden manuscript for the benefit of those non-Arabic speaking Druze members around the world. The virtual publication is a bold move to allow a universal understanding of the the Druze Wisdom and the Fifth Science. It is the interest of the Druze society to make known its spiritual identity because of the universal nature of its spirituality. Visit the site to learn more about the Spiritual Mind Science innate to the Gnostics.

Order at: www.indiemerch.com Robin Staps discusses the song “Metaphysics Of The Hangman” from their “Heliocentric” album.

Related Metaphysics Articles

In fact, our performance and personal productivity is strictly linked to the way we feel, to our emotional state. There are so many reasons for which we might temporarily feel stressed or anxious or depressed, reasons due to problems both at work and at home; in fact, what goes on at home is brought into work and vice versa.

Now, is there something we can do when we do not feel good that is really effective and lasting? Can we empower ourselves to take control of our emotional state? Is it possible to feel good no matter what goes on in our lives or around us? Yes, but let us consider first the approach we would normally have when we experience an emotional problem.

Perhaps the first thing we would do is try to figure out why we feel anxious or stressed or depressed in order to do something about it and solve the problem. Now, if the reason is of a practical nature, let’s say for example we need to delegate, then the problem resolves itself as we take action. But often the reason which causes us not to feel good is of a different nature and that approach does not work. Let me explain.

The way we feel depends on our thinking, on our beliefs and attitudes; it depends on our language, our self-talk, our physiology; it depends on the questions we ask ourselves; it depends on our focus; it depends on our assumptions, on the meanings we give to events, people’s behaviours, situations we experience, which determine our reactions / responses; and it depends on the way we treat ourselves, on the level of care we have for ourselves. And the majority of our thinking patterns are below the consciousness, they are stored in our subconscious mind.

Now, if we focus on the problem, let’s say we feel anxious, and we try to analyse it to find a solution and we try to understand the reasons why we feel this way, maybe even looking back to childhood, it would actually create more of a problem. And the reason is very simple, but often we not aware of it.

It is simply basic metaphysics: what we focus on increases in our neurology and we create more of it. We often are not aware of how the basic spiritual laws of the Universe really influence our life, but once we know something about them, our life becomes much easier: the pain and struggle tend to disappear to make space for wellbeing and flow.

And there is something else to say about problem solving. Let’s say for example we have a problem and we try to find a solution; do we find a solution? No, otherwise we would not have the problem now! It is just our mind that tells us that the solution is in our mind and even more, it tells us that if we do not find a solution, we need to beat ourselves up! Smart, isn’t it? Our mind tells us we need to beat ourselves up because we have not tried hard enough or maybe because we ‘should be smarter’ or something similar. And so, we beat ourselves up, but we still have the problem and so we try to figure it out harder, we do not manage, so we beat ourselves up even more, and the circle goes on again and again trying to find a solution. And how do we feel? Worse!

Now, Albert Einstein said: ‘No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.

The solution is not in the same level of consciousness and it does not come from the mind. If we think we are our feelings or our minds, if we identify ourselves with our feelings or our minds, then we get stuck. We are not our feelings, we are not our minds, no matter how bright we might be, we are by far immensely more than that.

And if we let go trying to figure out long enough, we will actually allow the solution to the problem to come to our awareness. Does it make sense? Probably not!

This is a different way of thinking which, combined with NLP techniques, will bring us freedom from limiting patterns, and thus wellbeing.

NLP, in fact, is very effective to help change the thinking patterns: our thinking, our beliefs, language, self-talk, meanings, physiology, and so on. It enables us to instantly feel good and no matter what goes on in our life. And if we combine NLP with metaphysics, with the knowledge of who we truly are and our real power, than we know the secret of true wellbeing.

Copyright Piercarla Garusi 2008- All rights reserved.

Related Metaphysics Articles

Some five centuries ago two donkeys on two legs proclaimed scientific reasoning. Their assertions of the so-called scientific method to find about the truth in things has misled sciences ever since.

Rene Descartes proclaimed the following presumptions in his treatise Discourse on Method for looking for the truth in our world:

- The first rule was never to accept anything as true unless I recognized it to be evidently such: that is, carefully to avoid precipitation and prejudgment, and to include nothing in my conclusions unless it presented itself so clearly and distinctly to my mind that there was no occasion to doubt it.

- The second was to divide each of the difficulties which I encountered into as many parts as possible, and as might be required for an easier solution.

- The third was to think in an orderly fashion, beginning with the things which were simplest and easiest to understand, and gradually and by degrees reaching toward more complex knowledge, even treating as though ordered materials which were not necessarily so.

- The last was always to make enumerations so complete, and reviews so general, that I would be certain that nothing was omitted.

This reasoning does not admit anything except what is visible to the naked eye, nothing else. We believe in what is exposed to our senses. If a thing is not subject to our senses then, according to the genius Descartes, this thing is non-existent. So for example if three billions of people today believe in God and we cannot see God or hear God then God does not exist.

What bullshit!

The entire intelligible world is dismissed by this idiot at an abrupt sweep of his hand.

Thus and according to Descartes we cannot believe in religious texts for there is no proof they are divine scriptures. We cannot neither believe in God’s word for we need proof. We cannot believe in God’s angels, God’s messengers, God’s messages, nor can we believe in a day of judgment, where everyone shall be brought up to account for his, or her, own deeds in this life. No more belief in the Hereafter is necessary, for according to Descartes we cannot have proof of it. In this way the whole metaphysical existence that explains our reality is dismissed.

But with his wisdom Descartes forgets the big essential questions and that humans are in need for that. Who cares! As long as Descartes explains things. But he does not explain anything, nothing at all. Blind as he is to close his eyes to reality and truth in its ultimate sense, he recommends some erroneous rules to understand the universe, our existence and our purpose in life.

According to Descartes, there is no purpose for man’s existence for e cannot verify the empiric validity of such assumption.

Cartesian Scientific thinking and reasoning has dominated the world ever since the time of Descartes. Annulling all intelligible knowledge and reducing things to material existence. But in his superficial thinking Descartes omits from thought the most important questions of ultimate knowledge. He was blinded to the enigmatic problematic of the universe including his own existence and thought. No science, then ventures into such mysteries looking for explanations and light.

Francis Bacon, another genius on two legs, suggests in his scientific method in his treatise Novum Organum:  

That such a method required:

 (1) accepting as “truth” only clear, distinct ideas that could not be doubted, (2) breaking a problem down into parts, (3) deducing one conclusion from another, and (4) conducting a systematic synthesis of all things.

 Descartes based his entire philosophical approach to science on this deductive method of reasoning.

In short, Bacon’s method required (1) accumulating a store of particular empirical observations, (2) from these inductively inferring lesser axioms, (3) from these inductively inferring middle axioms, (4) and then proposing the most general of notions, each in progressive steps.

If we read modern meaning into the language used by Bacon, we might see a foreshadowing of the idea of a hypothesis in a “lesser axiom” and a theory in the “middle axiom.” This would make his method agree with the mature conception of science in use today; however, the context indicates that his ideas were not yet so fully developed.

Bacon also argued that this inductive method “must be used not only to discover axioms, but also notions,” which may be taken to correspond to the concept of a paradigm, but again this may be reading into the text. In any case, it is clear that Bacon’s view of the scientific method is progressive and cumulative.

The radical commitment to empiricism advocated by Bacon may imply for some that he did not accept any knowledge that was not received by personal observation.

In the same way we observe how Bacon advises us to use a certain method to find truth about knowledge. He like Descartes suggests that we do not believe in anything except of what we can verify and prove.

Again, another genius blinds himself to the intelligible world and limits his vision and knowledge to what he sees and can experience.

For such a genius there is no need for a God for we cannot see or hear or smell God and thus the whole religious argument is brought to ashes just like the bones of Bacon and Descartes.

The who question of what we see is presumably what we see. There is no one proof for what we see. There is no one proof for matter, its presence, its origin, its function, its nature and its finality. How did matter, subject of human knowledge come about? What made it in its shape and form, color and what controls its atoms? Who has created atoms? Who has assembled atoms together to be what it is?

But according to these two geniuses there is no need to break our heads of such problems. Matter is there in all shapes and forms, but in order to explain it we simply have to apply four idiotic rules, dismissing all other ultimate questions of the reality of matter, time, space and energy.

No one has access to what atoms are, quarks or strings, how did they come about and why? No one knows, not even Einstein had access to such knowledge, the reality and truth of things.

How naïve can Descartes and Bacon be along side their imbecile scientific followers.

What they see is false knowledge and what they miss is real knowledge.

Hypatia and Simplicio discuss the basics of metaphysics: what is it about? And what is the input of science on metaphysical questions? Is a theory in philosophy something different from a theory in science?
Video Rating: 5 / 5

cientists are proud with their scientific discoveries. Science now explains everything as most scientists believe. But scientists forget that science does not explain everything. It only explains the how relationships among certain objects. But there remain an immense world where science, with all its progress, cannot even touch.

Values and value systems and evaluations of things are some examples where science does not even venture to explain. Morality and moral codes, where good and evil essential and dominant for man’s existence. Humans are not mechanical robots with springs and calculating devises. Good and bad is central in humanity.

These criterion decides the inter-relations among humans, groups, societies, states, super states. Science does not touch at all on morality. It is simply not its domain. Thus values an value judgment dominating men’s lives are outside the domain of science.

Morality with its complicated systems of judgment and arbitration, a criterion for self-assessment, self- esteem, self-respect and self evaluation is not even mentioned by science. Scientists are concerned with what they discover of how matter behaves.

This is limited strictly to what they can analyze and observe in the laboratory of experimentation. Scientists do not deal in the least with values and morality. Humans life is but subject to the criterion of evaluation and morality.

Science can measure the distance between two objects, does not explain whether such a procedure can be evaluated nor whether or not is subject to good and evil. Science is concerned of the physical aspect of things and never of the aesthetic or spiritual or moral aspect of objects. Thus anatomy, biology, chemistry, physics and mathematics deal only with the physical aspect of what is object to observation.

A tree, an animal, a metal, a microbe or a human being are all subject to physical investigation, study, analysis and conclusions. But the aesthetic side of an animal, flora, metal or a human being is not subject to scientific research, reasoning and concluding. It cannot be subject to science for its cannot be verified.

Science does not deal with value judgment and morality for these cannot be subject to empirical investigation. But knowledge is not only limited to physical chemistry, physics, biology, genetics, nano- engineering or astrophysics. Knowledge is especially concerned with everything, including the behavior of humans.

]]>

This is left to social sciences that are not at exact or applied sciences but left to experimental experiences that does not yield scientific fruits.

Scientific reasoning leading to scientific knowledge does not explain, with all its advancement today, scientific evidence for ultimate questions. Ultimate questions are concerned with scientific investigation as with regard to the origin of objects of science. What is the origin of a tree, an animal or a human being.

The Origin remains one of the fore enigmatic, a complete mystery, that science does not discover, or unveil. It falls short of explaining the origin of matter, the universe, galaxies and stars, life dimensions. Science does not explain in any way the presence of objects, the presence of the universe and the presence of life itself. Science is handicapped in explaining death for example, let alone explaining life and its development, life cycle, ageing and then death. These are domains of scientific investigations but science does not uncover its mysteries until the present time. Science with all its scientific discoveries is unable to explain its first subject namely matter. What is matter? Science remains silent. How did matter come about? Science remains silent. What is the origin of matter? Science remains silent. How did the structure of matter come about? Science remains silent. Well, what science is this?

Scientific thinking doe not deal with the most important question for mankind: God is or God is not? Scientists, being mechanical instruments of calculation and observation, in their scientific do not consider the question whether or not there is a creator for the universe. They do not answer the questions of where did the universe, object of their scientific research, come from. They are no concerned with its origin, its, presence, nor with its finality.

Finalities to science are in the real of conjecture for it cannot be subject to scientific analysis, evidence and proof. Everything has a finality which is made for. An apple tree has finality in the apple itself. Finality of a species is its mature adult form. Finality, science it cannot be subject to laboratory investigation, remains outside the real of science and scientific thinking.

The plausibility or implausibility of the religious argument is outside the real of science since it cannot be seen, or be subject of observation, analysis and conclusion. God is not subject of empirical knowledge, which explain the reject and denial of God by most scientists. In their scientific investigation they do not need a God. When Napoleon Bonaparte asked Laplace : ‘Your work is excellent but there is no trace of God in your treatise.’ Lapalce answered : ‘Sir, I did not need this hypothesis for my work.’

Thus science does not deal with God and hence rejects God as a hypothesis. But scientists themselves do not have any answers, scientific or otherwise to ultimate questions such as the presence of the universe, its origin, its dilution , its control, its foundation structures, and its change.

They have no answers about two millions of animal species, their presence, their coming about, their origin and their development and finalities.

Thus the most important questions are not dealt by science.

It is at this very crossing point that man is need to explain his presence, the universe, his origin and that of the origin of the universe. Until science uncovers such knowledge science remains limited and handicapped, just like Stephen Hawking, the astrophysicist who denied the existence of God, without explaining the origin of the universe, its presence and matter-structure.

The realm of metaphysics deal directly with the most important questions namely the reality of everything. It deals with the real, the principles of everything and the first principles at that. God being the first principle to Aristotle is not neglected by Descartes Bacon and Laplace, who believed in God by faith and tried to reason out His presence.

Only metaphysics asks such ultimate questions and attempts answers. Metaphysics is in this way more complete than science dealing not only with physical aspect but with all aspects of a thing or an object.

Find More Metaphysics Articles

What is real and what is unreal? What is true and what is untrue, or false? We must have criteria of definitions and identifications. If real refers to the concrete, verifiable to everybody then we are facing a big problem. That is if what we observe and verify by experience and then classify as empirical knowledge, is simply an illusion and our identification of the object or the subject or event is false.

If things, being constituted in its recognizable form and shape, are made of atoms then we are against a wall of complete mystery. Our knowledge of atoms is limited to that atoms are the smallest element of matter. Here we are completely at loss, for no one can tell what matter is, substance is, or atoms are! Scientist pretends to such knowledge.

Atoms, are unknown in their structures, function, origin, the substance that constitute atoms, their presence and their characteristic features, not to forget their finality, intern or extern. We acknowledge that matter , or substance, is made of atoms, but how matter came to be in its shape, form, function, structure and myriads of other characteristics, no one can tell.

What makes atoms different from each other and why? Remains a mystery. We only deal with what atoms allow us to discover about its structure and function. But we are never intelligent enough, at the present time at least, to get to know the nature, essence and what put the atom in its form, shape and gave it all its qualities and characteristics.

]]>

Some atoms of uranium enriched 236 being object to bombardment by some protons at a high speed we face an immense energy of the atomic power. This energy can be used industrially to produce electricity or other energy or for war purposes, as terror deterrent, for example. We have not the faintest idea why should such few atoms of plutonium produce such an energy.

The secret lies in the atoms itself. Where did atoms come from and why? No one can answer the question. Is there a God creator that created atoms then made substances from it? Your guess is as good as mine, someone must have done it. If is not you nor I then someone did. Ni proof for this assumption but our mind is unsatisfied with materialistic explanations and spiritual ones lack any evidence. Such questions such as who made the atoms and how did the universe, being made of these, atoms came about, with such a perfection, order, harmony, control and precision, are still unanswered.

If the subject of metaphysics must deal, a priori, with what is real, then how real is metaphysics? Science has killed metaphysics for it demands proof and there is no one proof, or evidence for all the real of metaphysics or any one of its subjects.

In metaphysics we have to consider physics in order to attain metaphysics. If metaphysics deal with fundamental principles then how can we verify any of its presumptions or conclusions in this respect.

No one subject can be scientifically identified. It is simply not the domain of science.

Science considers what is real when we are able to verify it, but as mentioned above this cannot be the case, not even in verifying anything of wht science is able to claim real.

Is our presence real in this universe? No one knows, unless you do. We are made of atoms ourselves and we have not the faintest idea who are we, where we came from, what are we doing here and where are we going? All is mystery, big enigmas in the domain of the unknown, whether scientific proclamations or metaphysical presumptions.

We simply do not know!

Here, the real loses its reality and becomes utter conjecture.

The Zeno paradoxes have interested mathematicians for ages, especially with the basic issues in regards to the infinite divisibility, or otherwise, of space and time that it raises. What is the smallest unit or quick of time? Is there a smallest unit of space? Is feasible to find a mathematical point in space and time?

Quantum Mechanics was founded within the late 1920s from a reconciliation from the interpretation of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and Schrodinger’s wave equation; and has, because that time, been the topic of in depth metaphysical and philosophical debate, for Quantum Mechanics raises fundamental philosophical inquiries about our universe that are of your identical important nature as individuals raised by the Zeno Paradoxes.

One of the most beneficial known of Zeno’s Paradoxes goes forth: Contemplate a race involving Achilles and the tortoise. Achilles makes it possible for the tortoise a headstart because he’s quicker. The race starts with Achilles at point An as well as the tortoise at point B. By the time Achilles gets to point B, at which the tortoise started off off, the tortoise has moved somewhat additionally to position C. When Achilles reaches point C, the tortoise has moved additional nevertheless to level D closer to C than C was shut to B. When Achilles reaches level D, the tortoise has moved to position E nearer to position D than D was near to stage C; and so ad infinitum these that Achilles will by no means catch up with the tortoise.

Zeno’s argument is far more that just amusing, for if our assumptions of the spacetime continuum were proper then it can be difficult to explain why Zeno’s argument shouldn’t be true! However the truth that we do not observe this paradox in nature raises questions about our assumptions that spacetime is really a continuum. The importance with the Zeno Paradox is always that we had had, for centuries, conceptual theoretical grounds, ahead of Planck and Einstein, to think from the notion of the quantized spacetime universe. The discovery of Quantum Mechanics should only have confirmed our sensible hunch through the Zeno paradox that we live in a broken or fragmented spacetime universe. The question which Zeno unwittingly raised about whether or not spacetime is often a real or apparent continuum appears to possess been settled by Quantum Physics.

]]>

Regarding the identical time as Heisenberg’s function inside the 1920s, Schrodinger created what arrived to be recognized as wave mechanics (in contrast to”matrix mechanics”). In his wave mechanics, he addressed himself to the problem of building an equation for”matter waves.” He introduced the famous Schrodinger wave equation which, in accordance with Bohr’s Copenhagen interpretation, measures the probability that specific observable quantities would consider specific values at a specified spot. The so-called quantum”jump” in the mechanics is a probabilistic celebration for the impact that the movement of particles came to get observed as obeying laws of probability.

The unfolding of your bizarre earth of subatomic particles, in the area of quantum mechanics, stretches the creativity and problems long held and cherished materialistic philosophies. If a fundamental particle constituent of nature assumes an appropriate state only when a measurement is taken, to what extent can we talk with the particle as”real” in our naive knowledge of that phrase? What perception does it make to talk, as some do, of the distinction involving the classical earth of macroscopic objects, in which things are”real,” and also the microscopic earth of”quantum particles” during which it is admitted that issues are not”so real?”

Could phantom particles add approximately ontologically substantial”things?” Why do some”mind theorists” continue to assert dogmatically that dualistic philosophies have already been consigned the moment and for all to the trash bin of history when physicists, like Stapp, borrowing insight from quantum mechanics are proposing interactive subject-object dualistic theories that are simply sophisticated variations from the aged Berkeleyan-type idealism. Some major physicists, like Wolfram and Deutsch, have even suggested that we may actually be some thing like consciousness-brains immersed in the output of the virtual fact generator.

Everett’s”many world” remedy of the”measurement problem” was the pioneer try, in what exactly are now”multiverse” theories, which propose that our globe is a virtual truth projection. In his original”many world” concept, Everett recommended the universe may be continually splitting right into a stupendous number of branches, all of the end result of”measurement” interactions, and (in his see) because there exists no entity exterior the system that can designate which branch is the”real world” we need to regard all branches as”real.”

The multiplication of variations from the fundamental Young double-slit experiment (the delayed alternative and quantum eraser, for example), making use of subatomic particles, provides us a peep, from a fresh new angle, right into a globe of causality we’d in no way dreamed of. In the crazy earth of subatomic particles, one could truly get a decision later on to determine an celebration previously!

Indeed, there is a lot more under the sun than we had ever dreamed of in our materialistic philosophies. How far physicists have occur in the naive materialism of your nineteenth century earth!

Related Metaphysics Articles

gives us the grounding and stability and

the direction of where we want to go, while

expresses the fluidity of life and our willingness to adjust to change,

presents us with the ability to grow and expand and

provides us with enthusiasm and the joy of life.

Let’s take a closer look at the Water Person

the Water Element is best characterized by its ability to take on different forms – under heat, it becomes steam, under extreme cold, it turns to ice; it can rush down from a high mountain or in giant waves to the beach; as a lake, it always levels itself to a smooth surface.

we find in a person whose birth chart (basis of a Personality Analysis) is dominated by Water – being particularly flexible this person will adjust to situations quickly and is able to move through the passages of life with ease. He/she does not like pressure and usually solves problems alone preferring to stay in the background. Having an interest in the mysterious depth of life, the Water person is constantly looking for answers to the ‘eternal questions’ and is often particularly interested in spiritual topics.

]]>

a tendency to withdraw from others might result in voluntary isolation, becoming excessively introverted and loosing drive – literally drowning in one’s own imaginative thoughts.

and is often under challenged academically. Resenting bragging and ‘bribery’ he/she preserves consequence and integrity which can result in loneliness. However, being of an imaginative and independent mind this rarely poses a problem.

he/she resents hierarchy and routine and is rarely suitable for work in a big company. Autonomy, an individual work space away from the crowd and the freedom to create his/her own agenda are particularly important.

are considered the guardians of our basic constitution (Jing), they should be protected as they belong to the Water Element and are responsible for our immune system. Warmth on all levels – physically and emotionally – would be crucial for this type of person as too much Water attacks Fire which is associated with the joy of life.

is (existential) fear – evident in the expression ‘paralyzed with fear’ – which attacks the bladder and the lower back resulting in back pain. Furthermore, the strong need for privacy can easily change into a fear of being left alone and a tendency to becoming depressed.

Copyright 2010 Life Balance

Apart from an early interest in the Art and Culture of Asia, Ina Niemann’s professional background is in languages but most of all, in Design (Graphic, Fashion, Furniture, Interior) and painting. Ina got interested in Traditional Chinese Medicine in order to help a close family member – with amazing results. This was followed by many years of intensive professional studies of Acupuncture, Reiki, BACH Flowers, JinShinJyutsu, EFT, Personality Analysis (Four Pillars of Chinese Destiny) etc. Throughout the last 23 years, the Theory of the Five Elements – a fundamental outlook on life based on the laws of nature – has influenced her the most. Ina offers help in getting your Life in Balance at http://www.lifebalance.com.sg/Water

This lecture is taken from Professor Morteza Abyaneh’s 60th birthday Professorial lecture on ‘Physics, Metaphysics and the Big Bang’, organised by Coventry University as a celebration of his years of research and endeavour. The Professor talks about his approach to creation, other dimensions and hyperspace. To find more about Professor Abyaneh please visit www1.coventry.ac.uk
Video Rating: 4 / 5

Related Metaphysics Articles

Tomorrow’s God will arrive down to earth and be component of us, as humankind awakens to locate that its idea of the supreme becoming wrongly reflects the actual deity. Daily life is God acting out its purpose, becoming actual in bodily kind. An universal thoughts underlies the entire world; speak to it and it will provide an solution. Make up your thoughts; assume constructive thoughts; enrich oneself; depart your person ego and develop a brand new Earth.

And so the new spirituality speaks of a tidal wave quickly to wash over us, joining the aged truths of religion with new-age optimism; one brain, 1 globe.

Since the teachings with the new spiritualism reflect the teachings in the previous spiritualism, it can be tough to oppose this optimistic viewpoint. But for the teachings to be real, the new spiritualism will will need far more than high thoughts, bright-colored textbooks, and promises of the better globe. It’ll will need a logical, credible grounding. It’s going to want a coherent worldview, a metaphysics, and exclusively, an integrated picture with the universe that explains both spirit as well as the substance entire world.

Which is all very good and great. No one reads, significantly less agrees with, Berkeley and Hume any much more. But then here arrives the shocker for anyone who treatment to dedicate some attention towards the problem.

When we turn to quantum idea, physic’s major theory in the nature of truth, we find that physicists along with the idealist philosophers are stating quite close to exactly the same point but in different methods. Physicists repeatedly remind us that “atoms will not be things.” Fairly, in the base of fact all we have are “quantum waves,” one thing resting from the borderland involving a particle and a wave, or even the wave function, a system telling us where we might find a particle if we determine to search for one particular. (See Bruce Rosenblum & Fred Kuttner, Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness). Nobel prize-winning physicists, Robert J. Laughlin, tells us that “[q]uantum mechanical matter consists of waves of nothing.” (A Different Universe). Jim Al-Khalili, in his book, Quantum: A Guide for the Perplexed, acknowledges that “no 1 really knows what the wave purpose actually is.” It really is not a “classical particle with a definite location at each time.” Instead it’s a probability wave that “collapses” into a discrete particle when observed.

]]>

As Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner write, “There is no way to interpret quantum principle without encountering consciousness.” Why? Because even though quantum theory says only wave functions exist, scientific observations somehow convert the wave perform into a particle. As quickly as consciousness is found to play a role within the “collapse from the wave purpose,” the next question is, how considerably of the role? Instead of mind-independent matter, are there mind-independent wave functions “out there” waiting to be collapsed into a true planet? Or, was Berkeley right after all? Are we simply looking at a dream from the head of an Eternal Spirit?

Quantum theorists say that conscious observations are necessary to produce a photograph of bodily reality; Berkeley said that a head or spirit is necessary for us to experience a substance entire world. Isn’t the difference among these two viewpoints one particular of emphasis instead than of doctrine? Have scientists, in belittling Berkeley’s philosophy, missed out on a chance to integrate science with idealism?

Despite the findings of quantum physics, the scientific thoughts cannot bring itself to dispense with the principle of objectivity, the belief that “there is a real entire world independent of human perceptions.” (Ernst Mayr, This is Biology: The Science of the Living World.) Science remains the emotionally-detached search for truth; it does not want to inject spirit, daily life, or mind into the wave perform; it only wants to observe particles in motion.

Equally the idealist philosophers and quantum theorists agree that there is no such point as a mind-independent planet of matter. Somewhat, under both fields of thought, matter is an idea we’ve got implanted upon the external world. In other words, the two matter and spirit are internal concepts and exist on the very same level. Therefore, spirit should be able to affect matter from the same way that the substance entire world – a bad day with the office, the home team comes from behind to win, our best friend moves away – affects spirit.

So we are now ready to outline a metaphysics for the new spirituality. And it really is simple. All of physical actuality does in fact reside in an Eternal Spirit, and this spirit is what we call God. If we are a single thoughts inside the midst of a powerful dream, then most everything the new spirituality says can be true: thoughts can make up issues because the thought and also the issue are connected, like a dreamer and its dream. If we can solve the problem of solipsism and find a way to integrate science into this new viewpoint, then we will really be on to one thing.

The prediction here is that the “new spirituality” will eventually divide into two camps: individuals who practice spirituality (or religion) within the worldview of materialism and pray for an omnipotent God to change the world through a miracle, and these who conclude that to make spiritualism genuine, it’s going to be necessary to eliminate the independent-world assumption of scientific materialism and join spirit with matter, the dreamer with its dream.

Philip Mereton is a practicing lawyer with a philosophy degree whose mission is to expose the fallacies in our current materialistic worldview and to advance an a lot more rational — and promising — outlook. His first book, The Heaven in the End of Science – An Argument for a new Worldview of Hope, began as a college essay in 1974. The theme is the same: idealism (the world is really a dream) much better explains the entire world than materialism (the entire world is a decaying machine). His website and blog appear at http://www.heavenattheendofscience.com.

Mr. Mereton asks all viewers who have doubts about the truth with the Big Bang, the origin of daily life from a primordial swamp, humankind’s descent from bacteria, or even the death of God (among many other doubtful findings of modern science), to join the revolution against scientific materialism. The revolution begins with a question: is materialism correct? Is there a much better way to explain the entire world we live in? After all, if the entire world is really a dream, it’d be to our advantage to learn and understand that fact now so that we can learn how to master the dream and thus our individual lives, instead than manipulate particles in materialism’s grand machine. So what can you do? Visit the website; read guides that question materialism; raise your hand in class and question science teachers; be type. Under the tenets of science, the truth will remain standing after all the questioning and experimentation ends. But we must start first start the debate. Join in.

Related Metaphysics Articles