The Force as described by a physicist?

I agree Khaos, as it is now people and technology have brought about climate change. Was climate change before us cyclical? Yes. After us, no. It is proven to be not. It is proven to be brought about because of us. Does the ebb and flow of the earth's temperature happen naturally? Of course. But we are without a doubt causing it to happen in the here and now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To which, I still would not blame science, and technology.

Keep in mind that such advances have happened in a relatively short time.

My father for example, remembers when there was no T.V.

Thats not that many generations ago.

So, to see the effects of any technology takes time. We see it, and we can do something about it if we apply ourselves.

Its still not quite accurate to say we are causing climate change, merely directing it, and not well.

Still, we only have so much control over certain forces to begin with.

Free oxygen at one time caused a holocaust itself.

Khaos wrote: Its still not quite accurate to say we are causing climate change, merely directing it, and not well.

On this I can agree. But to say that not enough time has passed for us to measure the effects of our technology is inaccurate, as it has been proven. We can and have measured the direct result of our use of fossil fuels and its effects with the global temperature.

You agree with our changing of the global climate, "if not well", do you not? The increase of CO2 as brought about by man has indeed effected the global climate, do you not agree with this?

If so, why is science and technology not to blame? How do you explain the sudden increase in CO2 if our technology's effects can't be measurable? If it's not our technology, then what? The methane of cows?

Our use of technology (cars and fossil fuels) have brought about the sudden increase in CO2 and thus today's climate change.

humans are responsible for the phenomenon we are referring to as "global climate change"

https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

im busy and i will have to respond to the rest later

Can we all just agree that we don't know for sure what life is in the sense of a meta-physical state of being? I mean we barely understand human consciousness much less if we posses a "soul". There are those who believe that we can manipulate the world around us through mental concentration. Can we? I've tried but with no real results, perhaps a few "coincidental" events, but does that mean it's not possible? Not really. It is my firm belief (and that's all it is, my belief, not fact, not false) that everything is possible, just not probable.

Until science or some divine entity explains if we actually posses any sense of an existence outside of our mortal vessels, we just don't know.

I can agree with you to a certain extent. You speak of faith, do you not?

Neither science nor a divine being can tell me whether or not the Force exists, yet I know that it does. Faith being a part of that. One doesn't need science or a divine being to tell us whether or not something exists.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, surprise or not, I can not agree, as it were.
There is nothing about the unknown that warrants making stuff up and call it fact - which is what one side of the debate pretty much always does while the other only seldom. I would also note that the actual extent of this "unknown" is far smaller than what the former side would have us believe for their purposes. Yes, there is a lot we don't know, but there is also a lot we do, and much of that is strictly inconsistent with quite a few concepts typically promoted on the alleged limits of our knowledge. This is not a clash of faiths, you see.
What I mean is this: People who believe don't typically "just" believe. Setting aside the consequences of any belief on the holder's actions, these people almost always claim to "know" it, too. For instance, BPM just did with the Force. He admits that no potential source of knowledge has or could have informed him about the Force, yet he knows it exists anyway. Without wanting to put more words into his mouth, to an outsider it stands to conclude, that if no reason brought him to that "knowledge", no reason to the contrary would shake it either. Or, to put it less kindly: BPM is being - with all due respect - unreasonable on at least this one issue. Now he could be either a consistent person or an inconsistent one, in that this could be the only thing he is unreasonable about or it could be an element of a whole set of such things and whether there is a criterion to identify them is another question still.
I myself find that the best choices we make are the reasonable ones and the ones rooted in real matters that really affect people. Reasonableness of this kind is - at least in my view - paramount for both a productive and an ethical life and unreason is at least not contributing to it but more often than not actively hindering the effort.
Of course, at the root of my aspiration will be an effectively emotional motivation of some kind or another, that is not entirely rooted in a fact of reality. This motivation will be fundamentally incorrigible but it will not have the pretence to being a description of any reality outside of my own emotional state. It would be incorrigible both in the sense that there is no reasoning that could alter it predictably and in the sense that its truth value is a matter of definition rather than analysis or synthesis. But I digress...
So in effect, whatever leads me there, the point of arrival is skepticism 101 and to this end I shall employ a popular Hitchens quote: Positive claims require positive evidence; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; and what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. And yes, that does also go for claims of possibility. The claim that something is possible is only believable if there is reason to believe that the thing is indeed possible. Likewise, the belief that something is impossible is respectively acceptable only after the impossibility could be substantiated and no sooner. In other words, until such time that a foundation for a belief can be built, the belief is unfounded and must fall apart, much like any other house without a foundation would.

PS: I apologize to BionicPianoMan and to the rest of you all for employing him to my ends in this way. He served as a well timed convenient example of a part of my point, and thus I used him to help me illustrate it better. I hope this be understood as a means to an end, ugly though this sounds in its own right, and not so much as an attack on the person himself. Thank you.

BionicPianoMan wrote:

Khaos wrote: Its still not quite accurate to say we are causing climate change, merely directing it, and not well.

On this I can agree. But to say that not enough time has passed for us to measure the effects of our technology is inaccurate, as it has been proven. We can and have measured the direct result of our use of fossil fuels and its effects with the global temperature.

Yes, it as been proven, fairly recently as well. Certainly on the timeline of how technology and science moves.

You agree with our changing of the global climate, "if not well", do you not? The increase of CO2 as brought about by man has indeed effected the global climate, do you not agree with this?

If so, why is science and technology not to blame? How do you explain the sudden increase in CO2 if our technology's effects can't be measurable? If it's not our technology, then what? The methane of cows?

Our use of technology (cars and fossil fuels) have brought about the sudden increase in CO2 and thus today's climate change.

Yep, nothing I said disgreed with this. I simply sid that science and technology is not to blame.

We are.

Humans.

I will not blame a gun for shooting people.

As it happens we are also trying to rectify out mistake.

Which the same tool will help with.

Not unlike the same person who is responsible for half the current words food production also created Zyklon B gas.

Did Science and technology cause this? No, a person did.

This is also a pointless discussion for me, and has nothing remotely to do with what we were discussing.

As it stands, I would not want a physicist at my funeral.

Not a priest, rabbi, father, etc, either.

Just the people I love.

Neither science nor a divine being can tell me whether or not the Force exists, yet I know that it does. Faith being a part of that. One doesn't need science or a divine being to tell us whether or not something exists.

Nothing tells you it exists but you know that it does.

When someone asserts that it cannot be measured, you will defend with the fact that science would not be able to measure it, but in no other way outside of science can it be quantified either, but it does exist....

Ok, what then, or how then, does it exist past mere delusion?

Gisteron is correct in that I am inconsistent in which my belief in the Force is the one thing in my life which is based on feeling and feeling alone. I believe I have felt it. What I have felt I can not describe nor explain, thus my continuing search for more knowledge and understanding.
No offense has been taken and I have a great respect for you Mr. Gisteron.

Khaos- Do you believe in the Force?

EDIT:I've asked this before but it somehow slipped through the cracks. What is the scientific measurement of empathy? Of Love? How does science explain the difference between the love I feel for my brother and the love I feel for my girlfriend? What is the quantifiable scientific measurement of these different human emotions? How does science explain my empathy for my sister going through a separation and possible divorce and the empathy of those who lost loved ones in Paris? Simply put, science can not. I have felt these emotions however, so surely I must be delusional. Will science explain it, eventually? I'm sure it will, as science has proven to explain most things given time.