What is the Force

Ever-present, that which permeates and binds us, the Force is all there is. No aspect of being is independent of the Force. There is not even an "I" independent of the Force, as each of us is indistinct in the Force. "I am One with the Force" is not a collection of empty words. How would I explain it? The set which contains all sets, including itself? That which transcends the sum of all its parts? That which binds together and upholds the relationship between opposites and in all things?
Or, rather, "The Force that can be told is not the eternal Force."

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Are you advocating that The Force is just a form of Yoga? The Buddhists believe that there is no corporeal, that everything is imagination dreamed up by us to pretend we are real. So by definition are you suggesting The Force is something that is just in our minds?

We have different views on Buddhism that is for sure

If everything is the Force then yes but is aside the point - the best meaning of the words is to have utility, and this is in how we as individuals connect to the Force...... rather then defining it as a separate whole, for as TheDude mentions, words cannot describe the Force. So instead we have to talk about relational attributes and the dynamics associated with them, most usefully and practically being our own experience of it!! And how to improve working with it. Yoga being one of many examples. But yea, one can go off and dissect scents into particles of chemicals of elements if they like, as Brenna shows, but its not the only way to experience smell and indeed is not really smelling at all. Though I note not without its own merit as its still expression of the Force and useful insight to be had in its own way.

ren wrote:

Muslim nations are infamous for marrying off girls (as in prepubescent children) to much older men, and if I must be tolerant, I have to accept that is OK because it is their culture and I have to respect that.

That's called bigotry. Your own country doesn't even have minimum legal age of marriage in many states, and those that do only adopted it as late as THIS YEAR 2019!

I know muslims and the only ones who were forced into marriage are blokes, who were quite happy being gay or a bachelor, and not so happy to have to marry the girl no-one wanted the normal way. It is prohibited in islam for people to consume the marriage (sexually and by living under the same roof) until they have reached maturity. Married in name only, while in the 'west' we have our record-braking yet-to-find-a-stable-partner 24 year-old grandmothers.

We actually had to work quite a bit in my country to draw awareness to the issue of child marriage. Only as recent as 2015 did our National Assembly raise the legal minimum age from 12 for girls and 14 for boys to 18 years for both.

But it all started with taking a “bigoted” stand.

Is this thread still about the question what the Force is?

I noticed there was some discussion about how - and if - it can be found through scientific methods. Here is one of the most successfull scientific approaches so far to do so, at least for the part of the Force that can be captured with scientific methods:



And here is a more or less simple explanation of what this means: Inside Einsteins Mind

Just thought that might be relevant or interesting to some.

So "the force" is Einsteins Field Equation? But that already has a name, Its Einsteins Field Equation. Why do you call it the force?

Einstein's field equations do not have a will, do not "hold together" anything, have nothing to do with life, and grant noone any power or insight that is at all beyond "mere" human. You can call them the Force if you want, but if you're left stuck having to explain what you mean by the term, because you mean nothing anyone else would think you mean by it, mayhaps it is worth considering that this usage is highly impractical for that reason. You'd be trying to communicate an idea - the field equations - and you'd be sure to fail at it by referring to them by this other name, at least insofar as still having to explain yourself afterwards, be it only in naming what you mean by its commonly used name. Why not skip a step and avoid looking silly in the process?

I can't keep up, who is replying to whom? Remember the quote works well to facilitate discussion flow! But I'm not sure he said it was the Force..... getting that conclusion seems like an argumentative presupposition? I mean his words were quite literally "at least for the part of the Force that can be captured with scientific methods", so.... 'what is the Force' via 'what it is not' is going to be a long and bumpy road. Are we there yet! I hate to sound like a broken record but someone keeps putting the same music on and it makes me go round in groovy circles.

Adder wrote: ... I'm not sure he said it was the Force..... getting that conclusion seems like an argumentative presupposition? I mean his words were quite literally "at least for the part of the Force that can be captured with scientific methods", so.... 'what is the Force' via 'what it is not' is going to be a long and bumpy road. Are we there yet!

A fair objection, but - in my opinion - not a strong one, and this is why:
It is trivially easy to modify both Kyrin's (if I may be so presumptuous) and my own response to address the claim specifically with that qualifier.
Kyrin's would then essentially look like
We already have a name for the field equations. Why call them "a part of the Force"?

Mine, though a bit more complicated, can also be adapted that way:
The field equations capture almost nothing anyone would colloquially think of as part of the Force. You can call them "a part of the Force" if you must, but you would be doing yourself and your interlocutor a disservice in so doing, as you would be sure to fail communicating that you mean the field equations, because shy of your explaining so, nobody would intuitively think of them under that reference. You would almost inevitably cause a misunderstanding, potentially conflict even, until that explanation, and possibly beyond.

Gisteron wrote:

Adder wrote: ... I'm not sure he said it was the Force..... getting that conclusion seems like an argumentative presupposition? I mean his words were quite literally "at least for the part of the Force that can be captured with scientific methods", so.... 'what is the Force' via 'what it is not' is going to be a long and bumpy road. Are we there yet!

A fair objection, but - in my opinion - not a strong one, and this is why:
It is trivially easy to modify both Kyrin's (if I may be so presumptuous) and my own response to address the claim specifically with that qualifier.
Kyrin's would then essentially look like
We already have a name for the field equations. Why call them "a part of the Force"?

Mine, though a bit more complicated, can also be adapted that way:
The field equations capture almost nothing anyone would colloquially think of as part of the Force. You can call them "a part of the Force" if you must, but you would be doing yourself and your interlocutor a disservice in so doing, as you would be sure to fail communicating that you mean the field equations, because shy of your explaining so, nobody would intuitively think of them under that reference. You would almost inevitably cause a misunderstanding, potentially conflict even, until that explanation, and possibly beyond.

Or one could ask instead :side:

Gisteron wrote: Einstein's field equations do not have a will, do not "hold together" anything, have nothing to do with life, and grant noone any power or insight that is at all beyond "mere" human. You can call them the Force if you want, but if you're left stuck having to explain what you mean by the term, because you mean nothing anyone else would think you mean by it, mayhaps it is worth considering that this usage is highly impractical for that reason. You'd be trying to communicate an idea - the field equations - and you'd be sure to fail at it by referring to them by this other name, at least insofar as still having to explain yourself afterwards, be it only in naming what you mean by its commonly used name. Why not skip a step and avoid looking silly in the process?

Einstein's field equations form part of General Relativity - they represent that which literally holds the universe together: gravity! Without gravity there is no life and such equations do grant us tremendous insight into the nature of the universe, and therefore us: we are part of the Universe! To understand the Universe is to understand ourselves in a fundamental way. Apologies for the double negative but - there is no reason not to include such equations in an understanding of The Force.

These are still field equations - but whatever they ultimately represent, is still part of The Force.

The same goes for all equations that seem to model reality accurately. If physicists ever discover, and agree on, a Grand Unified Theory - that too, will be an aspect of The Force.