thermodinamic law

#1
Hello everyone, is my first post, I write from Italy( sorry for my English!)..I would like to ask you one thing, some skeptical says that if we possess a soul, a spirit or however in general if something supernatural would interact with the world would violate the laws of the conservation of energy and the law of thermodynamics, then are phenomena impossible..what they think about it? Is Wrong? Thanks
 
#2
I think at rock bottom, physical laws are derived from the observation of nature. There are plenty of physical phenomena that only occur in special circumstances, and if ψ is real, that may well introduce some special caveats to the known physical laws, just as physics had to change to incorporate phenomena that only occur at very high velocities or very high gravitational fields. It is also worth remembering that The second law of thermodynamics really applies to isolated systems (otherwise referred to as closed systems).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

Often people refer to a closed system that consists of the whole universe - this leads to predictions that the universe must be going downhill - but this begs the question as to whether it is closed!

Clearly if spirits are interacting with mater, the universe (as normally conceived of) is not closed!

I think a lot of supposed scientific objections to ψ amount to a form of circular logic - if the physical universe is all that exists (i.e. if we assume at the outset that ψ phenomena don't exist!) , then ψ phenomena are impossible.

I.e. you have to judge ψ phenomena based on the actual evidence!

David
 
#3
Thanks David, I did not quite understand what you mean here: think a lot of supposed scientific objections to ψ amount to a form of circular logic - if the physical universe is all that exists (ie if we assume at the outset that ψ phenomena don't exist!) , then ψ phenomena are impossible. Ie you have to judge ψ phenomena based on the actual evidence! Can you explain me ? Thanks!
 
#4
Thanks David, I did not quite understand what you mean here: think a lot of supposed scientific objections to ψ amount to a form of circular logic - if the physical universe is all that exists (ie if we assume at the outset that ψ phenomena don't exist!) , then ψ phenomena are impossible. Ie you have to judge ψ phenomena based on the actual evidence! Can you explain me ? Thanks!
Well applying the first or second law to the universe implicitly assumes that it is closed - i.e. that there is no energy arriving from a spirit world (for want of a better terminology).

Fundamentally, the laws of science were obtained by observation of systems in which ψ was not obviously operating. Why should they apply to systems where ψ is operating?

David
 
#5
Well applying the first or second law to the universe implicitly assumes that it is closed - i.e. that there is no energy arriving from a spirit world (for want of a better terminology).

Fundamentally, the laws of science were obtained by observation of systems in which ψ was not obviously operating. Why should they apply to systems where ψ is operating?

David
Can you describe a system where psi is not operating?
 
#8
In my opinion, the existence of the spirit is the best explanation for the evidence and empirical evidence cannot be negated by theory (physical laws). Theory can be incomplete or incorrect. However, the best explanation of the evidence is always an opinion - mainstream scientific controversies show this. So even though it might not be much use arguing with materialists, you don't have to agree with everything they say.

http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/62014-...-afterlife.html#articles_by_subject_afterlife
Nobel Prize winners Max Planck, Erwin Schrödinger, Brian Josephson, Sir John Eccles, Eugene Wigner, George Wald and other great scientists and philosophers such as John von Neumann, Kurt Gödel, Wernher von Braun, Karl Popper, and Carl Jung believed consciousness is non-physical because of the evidence:
http://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers
 
Last edited:
#9
I'll just throw out there that General Relativity actually implies that energy is not conserved globally, meaning the theory leaves open whether, or not, the total energy content of the Universe is indeed conserved. It's because you cannot define a time-like Killing vector for a dynamically expanding spacetime . Killing vectors define the symmetries in a curved spacetime and symmetries and conservation laws are related. No Killing vector, no symmetry, no conservation law. However, energy is conserved locally in GR and thus consistent with other theories, like quantum physics, in this regard.

Also, roughly speaking, there are things in physics that do violate conservation of energy. For example, virtual pair creation-annihilation. But, they do so in a subtle way under the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and are not detectable in principle.

I guess what I am trying to say is physics doesn't really seem mature enough to make a statement that the total energy content of the Universe is absolutely conserved, imho, especially if they go so far as to use this to exclude phenomenon they have no inkling about.
 
Last edited:
#10
[Quote = "EthanT, posta: 101238, Membro: 90"] mi limiterò a buttare là fuori Che la Relatività Generale implica in Realta Che l'Energia e non conservata A Livello globale, il Che significa la teoria Lascia aperta La Questione SE, o Menone, il Contenuto totale di energia del Universo e infatti conservata. E 'Perché non Si Può definire un uccisione Vettore di tempo ad arrivare Uno Spazio-Tempo una dinamica Espansione. Uccidere Vettori definiscono le simmetrie in Uno spazio-tempo curvo e simmetrie e leggi di Conservazione Sono correlato. Nessun Vettore Uccidere, simmetria, nessuna legge di Conservazione. Tuttavia, l'Energia e conservata localmente in GR e quindi coerente con Altre teorie, venire la fisica quantistica, al Riguardo.

InOLTRE, grosso modo, ci Sono Cose in Fisica Che Fanno violare Conservazione dell'Energia. For example, coppia virtuale Creazione-Distruzione. Ma, lo Fanno in un modo sottile Sotto il Principio di indeterminazione di Heisenberg e Sono non rilevabili in linea di Principio.

Credo Che Quello che sto cercando di dire e La fisica non SEMBRA davvero Abbastanza maturi per tariffa Una Dichiarazione Che il totale Contenuto energetico dell'Universo E assolutamente conservata, imho, Soprattutto se Arrivano al punto di utilizzare this Fenomeno per escludere Hanno Nessun sentore circa. [/ citazione]


Grazie, SE, for example, l'energia dell'Universo E Completamente conservato, E possibile che "Qualcosa" non Materiale, il Che non obbediscono alle leggi della fisica classica interagisce con il mondo? (Penso for example ai media e dei Casi di materializzazione di Oggetti) ...
 
#12
[Quote = "EthanT, posta: 101238, Membro: 90"] mi limiterò a buttare là fuori Che la Relatività Generale implica in Realta Che l'Energia e non conservata A Livello globale, il Che significa la teoria Lascia aperta La Questione SE, o Menone, il Contenuto totale di energia del Universo e infatti conservata. E 'Perché non Si Può definire un uccisione Vettore di tempo ad arrivare Uno Spazio-Tempo una dinamica Espansione. Uccidere Vettori definiscono le simmetrie in Uno spazio-tempo curvo e simmetrie e leggi di Conservazione Sono correlato. Nessun Vettore Uccidere, simmetria, nessuna legge di Conservazione. Tuttavia, l'Energia e conservata localmente in GR e quindi coerente con Altre teorie, venire la fisica quantistica, al Riguardo.

InOLTRE, grosso modo, ci Sono Cose in Fisica Che Fanno violare Conservazione dell'Energia. For example, coppia virtuale Creazione-Distruzione. Ma, lo Fanno in un modo sottile Sotto il Principio di indeterminazione di Heisenberg e Sono non rilevabili in linea di Principio.

Credo Che Quello che sto cercando di dire e La fisica non SEMBRA davvero Abbastanza maturi per tariffa Una Dichiarazione Che il totale Contenuto energetico dell'Universo E assolutamente conservata, imho, Soprattutto se Arrivano al punto di utilizzare this Fenomeno per escludere Hanno Nessun sentore circa.

Grazie, SE, for example, l'energia dell'Universo E Completamente conservato, E possibile che "Qualcosa" non Materiale, il Che non obbediscono alle leggi della fisica classica interagisce con il mondo? (Penso for example ai media e dei Casi di materializzazione di Oggetti) ...
Tutto bene.

PS- "malf likes this" ← LOL
 
Top