The Force as described by a physicist?

There is so much more that we do not know. To pursue knowledge is grand adventure.

Be happy. Enjoy what you do. Stay close to those you love.

haber was also of jewish decent - i didnt know anyof that, thank you

when you say "most often its the people with their religons and their myths [who do the stabbing]

i could just as easily say "its usually people with their shoes and hair who do the stabbing"or "people with legs and arms"

yes of course you can say most of the people who have commited violence throughout history have been devotees of some or other religion, for no other reason because more people historically have been religious than not (although my view is that we are all religious however thats not important atm)

this is not to say that religion was the cause of the violence

much as people like to believe that the all of the worlds savagery is attributable to religious fanaticism, HISTORY does not bear this out

it has happened, certainly, but if we put together a list of every war and conquest and genocide and every invasion and every enslavement and occupation ever recorded in the annals of history you will find VERY FEW of them were to prove any particular religion was right

most of them, DARN NEAR all of them, were about AQUISITION, specifically; of wealth and power via resources and land and authority or influence

this includes even the churches sponsorship of the decimation of indigenous peoples of the americas and then the general trend of indigenous conquest wherever such people were found, the original call to the first "holy" crusade, the north ireland conflict, and the 911 attacks

all of these events are commonly "blamed" on religion

in a few cases there was sponsorship and blatant endorsement by the religious institution/s, and certainly religious language was used in most or all of them, but with each, when you scratch the surface and you say "why did this REALLY happen?" you find that the issues i named above are always the actual reason

there have been instances of war and conquest that were really about spreading the religion, but they are rare

a more appropriate word would be IDEOLOGY, and thats certainly lead to a lot of deaths, but that is distinct from religion proper

mostly however these events are clearly about one or another manifestation of radical greed

and what does religion say about valuing wealth over life, aka radical greed?

that its desctructive and sinful and the consequence is hell

well YEAH, thats actually right

and i say this too, at least with religiously motivated conquest there is a place for "good guys"

a "chosen" collective who you dont destroy because THEY are YOU
there is some semblance of value for SOME life (which is not to justify it or make it ok, thats not my position)

but when you throw religion completely out the window, and im looking specifically to the idiological movements of communistic regimes, where we have ample precedent and documentation, man, EVERYONE is eligible for extermination!
if you BLINK its off to the gulags or the lime pits, or whatever HELL - HOLE they use in the given locality

and hey, WHY NOT? i mean, its not like its WRONG or something

Ok.....So in that respect, science still has little or anything to do with what will be our destruction.

Which was your original conclusion.

More,it seems now, it is greed,etc, by your estimation.

Religion,or science,being tools of convenience,or rationalization.

You have in no way outlined any real evidence of why religion and myth is needed to be good, or do good however.

There are good religious people and bad religious people, and good atheist and bad atheists.

What I have yet to see, is a radical,extremist, atheist group.

Also, you lost me with the reference to communistic regimes.

If you need stories to supply moral and ethical checks and balances, fine.

But not everyone with hair and shoes do.

We're also way off the topic I was remotely interested in discussing.

I wouldn't say entirely off topic, the topic was is this scientist describing the Force?

I've been away for a while and have thoroughly enjoyed the discussion. I've also since dived into Lesson 1 of the IP and have come to this conclusion: No, the physicist is not describing the Force.

A physicist can't describe the Force because it can't be defined in scientific terms. Much like Lucas' Force can't be measured my midichlorians...it's hogwash.

But allow me this: to say science will be the end of us, definitively, is arrogant.

What is the greatest threat to humanity, other than humanity itself? My opinion is that climate change is the greatest threat to mankind and, if anything, science can (will?) become our savior. What is the cause of climate change? One could argue science/technology: Man's use and addiction to fossil fuels. And I would not disagree with that statement. However, again, we would 'have' to look to science/technology to hinder our CO2 emissions, to clean up our mess, to redeem our transgression in the misuse of the planet.

I find the argument that one needs religion to be or do good to be an infallible one, as it has been proven that the opposite is true, one does not need 'religion' to be good. One simply needs empathy, compassion, and love; which is not exclusive to religion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also, I am quite happy my first post/topic to the Forum has created quite the discussion.
Cheers!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Khaos wrote: Ok.....So in that respect, science still has little or anything to do with what will be our destruction.

Which was your original conclusion.

More,it seems now, it is greed,etc, by your estimation.

Religion,or science,being tools of convenience,or rationalization.

You have in no way outlined any real evidence of why religion and myth is needed to be good, or do good however.

There are good religious people and bad religious people, and good atheist and bad atheists.

What I have yet to see, is a radical,extremist, atheist group.

Also, you lost me with the reference to communistic regimes.

If you need stories to supply moral and ethical checks and balances, fine.

But not everyone with hair and shoes do.

We're also way off the topic I was remotely interested in discussing.

1) we agreed that its not really fair to lay the bad decisions of humans directly at the feet of science or religion since
"its people who did the stabbing"
so thats why in my last post i didnt directly pursue that point

2) yes, greed is PROBABLY the single most motivating factor in wholesale slaughter - and i would be willing to concede "ideology" is a really big one as well

and i would take a slightly different track from war and conquest and point instead to global climate change

has greed played any part in that?
ideology?
science?

the answers are open to multiple interpretations but only up to a point

you can very easily say "oh well science will save us from climate change" but thats not going to work - if science didnt CAUSE climate change (cause remember thats PEOPLE who caused it) then neither will science SAVE US from it (again that would be people)

but if science does save us from climate change (which there is no reason to just ASSSUME that it will) then it equally can be said to have subjected us to climate change in the first place, and the idea that "oh well it put us in a terrible position but maybe - MAYBE it will get us out of that position eventually" is untenable

3) the communists ARE the radical, extremist, atheists
that EXACTLY describes the communist regimes that have been responsible for the mass murder of BILLIONS of people - radical, extreme, atheists

4) since you cannot produce a single instance of any human being who has any sort of "ethical checks and balances" who HASNT LEARNED THESE THINGS FROM STORIES, at least partially, or rather hasnt learned them from a society which learned them from stories, i dont think its me who carries the burden of proof

i can demonstrate how these stories DO teach powerful and functional ethical lessons, and it will take longer but i can also demonstrate how the development of culture, ALL HUMAN CULTURE, is intrinsically linked to mythology

this wouldnt be ME really, it would be me finding the sources who have already established these things

i am 100 percent confident that you CANNOT LOCATE THE ORIGIN OF ETHICAL THOUGHT without reference to mythology

i am confident of this because it was the through medium of mythology that ethical thought was originally articulated and refined

you can take this back to ancient mesopotamia and we have every reason to believe that it goes further, we just dont have documentation to that effect because there isnt any (that i know of - i mean we have some cave art and its suggestive but its not in the same sphere as like the epic of gilgamesh, or tiamat and marduk

but as soon as we (human beings) recognized the value of ethical behavior, or more appropriately, the consequences of NOT behaving ethically, and we made stories to explain what we recognized

thats what mythology is, and its where our developed sense of ethics began, although myth is bigger than ONLY ethics

4) since you feel that i have not presented "any real evidence of why religion and myth is needed to be good, or do good however." i have to ask if you have reviewed any of the evidence that i presented?

i specifically referenced j campbell and jordan peterson (i prefer peterson, but jc is part of the temple IP and you can review it smaller chunks) as being much better qualified than me to make that case - im just a guy on the internet - i dont even HAVE an expertise, i just like to shoot my mouth off, and im good at it, but thats not exactly academia

if youd like another specific reference i would suggest "Dragons, Divine Parents, Heroes and Adversaries: A complete cosmology of being"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqONu6wDYaE

lol the title is just goofy but the material is extremely good

he also talks about SW, which is why i decided to post it

or

the story of jonah and the whale and why you need to know it

jonah is a prophet, and gods will in his particular case involved him going to the city of ninevah to preach gods word

but he doesnt want to do this

his particular reason for wanting to refuse his responsibility is that he is resentful towards the people of ninevah and he doesnt want to see anything good happen to them, and definitely doesnt want to participate in that


he doesnt want them to benefit, especially not as a result of HIM

so he decides to go somewhere else

hes on a ship to another city and during the voyage, out in the middle of the ocean, they are overtaken by a raging storm, which imperils the whole crew

but he doesnt know about the storm, because he is fast asleep in his bunk



next

well, he wakes up and he understands instantly that this storm is his fault

and he says:

"Take me up and throw me into the sea; then the storm will cease and the waters will be calm; for I know that for my sake this great tempest is upon you.

But the men were not willing to throw Jonah into the sea. They rowed hard to bring the ship to the land, but they could not.

At last, when they could do nothing else to save themselves, they threw Jonah into the sea.

At once the storm ceased, and the waves became still."



"Now the Lord provided a huge fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.



And the Lord commanded the fish, and it vomited Jonah onto dry land.



and thats where im going to leave the story, theres a little more but this is enough to get my point across ( i hope)

while it doesnt matter if we call him "jonah" or if its a him or a her or if we use a whale or a fish call the fish a whale - whatever - the details can be changed around to suit the times and culture, but the essence of this story is about ALL OF US, no matter who we are or what culture we come from, and we NEED to understand the REALITY which is explained in this myth, because that reality will devour us, in a very real sense, if we do not respect it

i dont think we should abandon science

it wouldnt matter if i did anyway because its not going to happen and a "solution" that just isnt going to happen is not a "solution"

and, according to our current scientific understanding, there willl come a day when the earth is totally inhospitable to life

theoretically, scientific advancement will result in the ability to have already populated other planets or at least made civilizations in space

if we dont use science to eradicate us first and there is no again no reason to be all that optimistic that we wont

what i think people need to understand is that science is not the new god - lol

despite what people say to the contrary, that is the underlying consensus of modern intellectuals

and there are concurrent presuppositions associated with that consensus - such as that "religion" (which very few people understand to begin with) is inferior and out dated

no, its not

people tend to draw this conclusion that "oh well i dont believe that theres an old man in the sky with beard and a bad attitude so im not religious"

which is only true if your definition of religion is particularly restrictive and that restrictive understanding is not the only - or the best understanding one can have

many people LIKE to be able to feel as if they are above being religious and it is RELIGIOUS PEOPLE themselves who are responsible for this because they have ruined the name to the broader world

BionicPianoMan wrote: A physicist can't describe the Force because it can't be defined in scientific terms.

then a scientist would tell you that it doesnt exist

if it cant be defined in scientific terms (which is not the same as to say it cant be measured with current technology) then either it isnt real, or, science is not "good enough" to understand it, and you will have a difficult time finding a legitimate scientist who would say that science isnt good enough

OB1Shinobi wrote: you can very easily say "oh well science will save us from climate change" but thats not going to work - if science didnt CAUSE climate change (cause remember thats PEOPLE who caused it) then neither will science SAVE US from it (again that would be people)

but if science does save us from climate change (which there is no reason to just ASSSUME that it will) then it equally can be said to have subjected us to climate change in the first place, and the idea that "oh well it put us in a terrible position but maybe - MAYBE it will get us out of that position eventually" is untenable

Here's what I said: "What is the cause of climate change? One could argue science/technology: Man's use and addiction to fossil fuels. And I would not disagree with that statement."

"That's PEOPLE who caused it," caused it how, by breathing? People didn't cause climate change any more so than the cows did. Man's addiction to fossil fuels, thus science and technology, has brought about climate change. How does one propose we stop using fossil fuels without the use of science and technology? If science and technology can't be used what is our alternative? No one's allowed to drive cars, buses, trucks, planes...boats must be by sail only...
Yes, science and technology put us here and brought about climate change...how did it not? PEOPLE did! Well, through the use of science and technology people did. Again, how do we go about changing it without the use of science and technology?

I'm pretty sure the scientists of our ancestors thought that science was good enough, after all the Earth was flat and was the center of the universe in which the Sun revolved around it. Furthermore, how does science define Love? Or empathy? What is the scientific breakdown of remorse? I'm not saying that if science can't explain it it doesn't exist. I'm saying simply science can't explain it. I am a man of science, but to say science knows and explains all is ignorant. And you'd be hard to find a scientist that says that it does.

OB1Shinobi wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqONu6wDYaE

Loving this lecture, thanks :side:

On a side note, while I will not at all say humans have had no part in the current condition of climate change, it should also be noted that climate change has happened on this planet since there was a planet to begin with.

Where I currently reside was once under ice for example.

To say science and people brought about climate change exclusively, is, well, a lie.

OB1, on your other post, as I said, I have remotely no interest in discussing that topic any farther.

Its not relevant to me.

As I said, if you need stories to back your moral and ethical dos and donts, fine.