My point is that the concept of God, or any other concept for that matter, never unbounds the material carrier. It could be the neurons in your brain, or letters in a book we learn to transform into the neural activity, or something else - but it is always material.
If all people die, all books rot, all hard drives lose surface charge, all material evidence of the concept gets destroyed, so does the concept itself. It doesn’t persist outside the material - we just learned to replicate it and taught others to restore materially bound knowledge to make it last ages.
This is, by the way, exactly why concepts remain in the “human domain”. We don’t have any kind of special affinity to the “immaterial”; we are simply the only animals that can convert letters and drawings (which are material) to respective neural activity (which is also material), and vice versa, thanks to the evolutionary development of respective brain parts. This allows us to be more efficient at communicating concepts, even without personal presence, as long as you both agree on what symbols mean.
As for time, it’s not moving anywhere. It is us moving through it, similarly as we move through space with Earth without ever doing anything, or to falling off a cliff, for example. As any concept, time is what we formulated to explain to ourselves why things happen the way they do, and to predict what happens next. What we objectively experience we then attribute to the flow of time, yet the Universe is more complicated, and time gets “warped” (or rather, it does what it always did, it just falls out of a simple human perception) all the time in all the places. Think of black holes, or near-light travel, or even GPS satellite clocks needing correction because they literally move through time differently. The concept of time is merely a reflection of the immensely interrelated processes happening in the Universe. Yet, they’re all material, and so is the man-made concept of time flowing through our neurons.
So if time is material please explain it, it is a consequence of materiality because it can be observe. It exists in the human domain and there is a special connection with the immaterial because we as people can convert thought into material perception.
You are misunderstanding me. I do agree that it is all material however it is also immaterial. The concept itself is not the material, it is why you can’t just move one to the other. Immaterial concepts like time which can be influenced by matter and gravity implies they are not intrinsically material - your own explanation even says we move through it. Yet you cannot explain what it is, it is only our perception of time that makes it material in understanding, but immaterial in existence.
You see everything through a human lens and not through that of nothingness.
If everything dies and it all rots away, immateriality still exists. If one is to exist, so is the other. The third is a medium state in which one can carry the other. I do not speak of humans being special yet your own grandiosity speaks as such.
The immaterial is just that, not material. The material is just that. When you shine a light, you cast a shadow. The immaterial is what can be interpreted and the material is what is.
To put it simply if the material is what you can see and feel, yes the immaterial can be stored in material but it is not as direct as you say. It’s about as encrypted and hashed as any password. It can’t be directly extracted, nor can it be moved and receive the same results.
So while material is intertwined at times with the immaterial, it is not always so. The immaterial exists regardless and we as people do have one ability that makes us special. Writing. This allows us to create immaterial realms like the past or fiction. Babylon that no longer is but once was material is translated into a different form, so the concept exists immaterial - agnostic of material form. Whether it is written or not, it happened and it is gone. Sheol or Kali depending on your want, but it’s a concept so true that it is perceived and made material.
Time is the way we perceive one of the defining characteristics of material world. Our perception is material, and so is the world.
Same with, say, energy. It’s not matter itself, but it belongs to the material, because it defines the interactions of matter and doesn’t exist outside of it.
The common understanding of immaterial implies that it is a thing in itself. But any definition, any concept gets born in matter (our brains), can be clearly defined through matter in any of its carriers, and can never exist outside of matter. It is simply, thereof, an arrangement of matter, of the material.
The lens of nothingness is, by definition, nothing. Where nothing exists, no concept exists, either. Think of the vacuum. It has no temperature - it’s not 0K, not 1000K, it’s nothing. It has no radiance, no density. In total, uninterrupted nothingness, concepts of time, God, gravity, energy make no sense; there are no symbols, no writing, nothing. Any meaningful concept is not present in the void. Immateriality, like nothingness, is null.
Writing is merely an act of transcribing concepts in our head to concepts on paper, only meaning anything because we agreed on what means what. We can transcribe our imagination, the electrical dance of neurons. We can transcribe our memories stored much the same way.
For what it’s worth, writing is a clever trick we have invented to transfer our knowledge from material brain to material paper by manipulating matter in our hands and pieces of matters that leave a trace on paper surface. By agreeing on what these traces mean and by teaching younger generation to understand them, we learned to preserve knowledge beyond the time our neurons die.
Writing, thereby, does not invoke anything immaterial; it is merely a way to make backups, same as word of mouth (transferring knowledge to neurons of others, so that your death doesn’t mean data is gone), but more reliable.
And while it is incredible that we learned to preserve knowledge much beyond our own lifespans, it is purely, and completely, material
Also, I’m interested in why do you say the “immaterial” cannot be moved? It’s as easy as making a copy - and in the age of computers, making a perfect copy is entirely possible.
The immaterial cannot be moved. If you move the neurons that currently have a ‘stored’ response to another, it doesn’t just simply work.
You can transcribe into writing/programing/etc and make a cheap copy that doesn’t completely encapsulate everything. Just as our text is tiny upon the scope of what we speak. Just as moving the bits that hold data corrupts wherever you move them, the structure around it is not made with that in mind. It’s why we usually tell the computer to do it for us via commands or gui.
Writing itself can transfer immaterial concepts that while definitely based on material perception, it is intangible without.
Imagine Jeff is going 80mph.
I do not know what your brain imagines but to me I imagine a >!train!< from that sentence, yet none was mentioned. While it was my material experience that gave me this concept, it was immaterially conveyed. However, we disagree on definitions so that is a difficulty. While I believe energy itself to be immaterial, it is materially bound due to needing a catalyst for perception and for which to act upon. My reasoning is that energy existed long before matter did. Matter being the death of energy in my interpretation.
God for example is the material truth that is immaterially incomprehensible until you face it. People are stripped of their material desire and when bare like this, man becomes homogeneous with each other while not needing to be inherently told. It is the experience that is so similarly frightening that it causes us to want to cease. Immaterial for it is not one thing but rather the concept, which becomes material once perceived. Hence, the immaterial is bound to material only by our observations.
Thank you, this conversation has let me further expand my theory of science and religion connection. As most scientific understanding inherently goes through christian lenses - since most foundations came from alchemy post Jesus as a philosopher stone. This lets me connect quantum mechanics into the relativity.
Contextual answers come from the shared experience that got interpreted in a similar manner.
In your Jeff example, I imagined a car. As such, it was not conveyed to me that it was the train, because we have different experiences in modes of transportation mentioned by default. Your neurons reconstructed one thing, mine did the other.
How does energy exist in a world without matter? Immediate questions arise: what does it relate to? Can it be measured? How does it show itself? How do we know it’s there if there’s no matter for it to act upon? How did it form?
And God - there’s no good reason to believe He exists in the first place. Being lost in the woods of the so-called “immaterial” doesn’t bring Him an inch closer to being material and real. What is material does not need you to believe in anything; it just is.
You may believe that the wall is there, or you may not, but if it’s there, you won’t be able to walk through it like it doesn’t exist. And for all we know, no one has managed to produce something objective solely out of their perception or beliefs.
As per the last paragraph - it made me wonder if I’m talking to an LLM. In which case - good job! but please, keep it somewhere else.
I was about to compliment you for indulging me in such rich conversation, whether we agree or not. However, I was a bit insulted by the LLM comment. The last statement is moreso that early scientific developments used Jesus as a philosopher stone. Essentially just a symbol to represent whatever is unknown but is the goal/process. A variable in your formulas for whatever you needed. Not transformative or active, more as a way to change perspective and allow something to temporarily take place. It was used by people of the classical near east to middle east, who were the main developers of olden alchemy. Which later subdivided into many facets of science.
The fact that you imagined a car further proves my point. My point was not to convey a train, but rather that your brain fills in the gap. No car was uttered or written, yet you created that thought out of thin air. Yes it needs past experiences to formulate anyrhing but that just speaks to the interconnectivity of all.
As per your question of how energy exists in a world without matter, that I cannot really explain. That’s just the assumed best working theory when talking about the big bang. As scientists are also just assuming, we have no verifying abilities beyond the cosmic background. Which is just radiation we can observe using tools.
The rest of the questions are answered by my last paragraph. Energy without matter is assumed to be the primordial state, in which a huge energy release happened. This being the big bang. It can be seen and measured with tools, though our observations are not of the beginning but somewhere 300k years later. (Which btw 0k is literally the acknowledgement of zero heat energy, a mistake in your earlier comment. As cold is merely the absence.) For how it formed I cannot really fathom, it becomes easier for me to explain the big bang as the death of something grander.
So as to how it formed? Well that’s up to scientists, but for me I assume a God-like entity died and in his wake that cataclysmic energy was released. However, you are so keen to not believe so it feels moot to even elaborate. Please do not confuse this hypothetically true form of god with my earlier distinction of god within. Which the internal god is moreso a translation error over the centuries, so forth and so forth.
This internal god is just good miscontrued. It is a truth of the soul, as you age you will shed certain aspects you will become disgusted by and maybe even mortified. He who is victim would wish not to make others as well. This self control is not a natural occurrence and comes from social structures. As innately good and evil do not exist, it is only when a second being is introduced that these limitations and jurisdictions form. This is why homogeny would be the end result, however with so many perspectives the definitive good is frustratingly difficult to ever even fathom trying to quantify.
I implore you, if you take anything from this conversation let it not be god for it is not my goal. God in traditional terms does exist, it is the material lord over your current domain. (Usually a ladder parents, landlord, alderman, mayor, and so forth) Let it be instead imagination and potential that you take from this - it is the only free thing we have. It is how we as people manifest something from nothing, AKA art.
Material focus is just hell, or the place you reside. Taken from Hellas(Greece). It is the same namesake for the Hellenistic period. Imagination let’s you exist in an immaterial sense that is definitely bound by material, but expressed internally outside of the observable material but can be extrapolated. This self expression is called the liberal arts because it frees you. Ironically art itself is not part of the original quadrivium or trivium for which we get the name of liberal arts.
Anyways, again thank you for letting me ramble on about my interests. Your points have been very valid and you have been very patient with me, a rarity amongst the internet. This was truly a delight to indulge. Have a wonderful day - make it creative
I’m sorry if my assumption was wrong - it was simply written in a way that reminds of how LLMs get to write the texts.
In any case, thank you for the discussion! It was interesting indeed, though it could be held eternally - and we still have limited time in here to make it special.
My point is that the concept of God, or any other concept for that matter, never unbounds the material carrier. It could be the neurons in your brain, or letters in a book we learn to transform into the neural activity, or something else - but it is always material.
If all people die, all books rot, all hard drives lose surface charge, all material evidence of the concept gets destroyed, so does the concept itself. It doesn’t persist outside the material - we just learned to replicate it and taught others to restore materially bound knowledge to make it last ages.
This is, by the way, exactly why concepts remain in the “human domain”. We don’t have any kind of special affinity to the “immaterial”; we are simply the only animals that can convert letters and drawings (which are material) to respective neural activity (which is also material), and vice versa, thanks to the evolutionary development of respective brain parts. This allows us to be more efficient at communicating concepts, even without personal presence, as long as you both agree on what symbols mean.
As for time, it’s not moving anywhere. It is us moving through it, similarly as we move through space with Earth without ever doing anything, or to falling off a cliff, for example. As any concept, time is what we formulated to explain to ourselves why things happen the way they do, and to predict what happens next. What we objectively experience we then attribute to the flow of time, yet the Universe is more complicated, and time gets “warped” (or rather, it does what it always did, it just falls out of a simple human perception) all the time in all the places. Think of black holes, or near-light travel, or even GPS satellite clocks needing correction because they literally move through time differently. The concept of time is merely a reflection of the immensely interrelated processes happening in the Universe. Yet, they’re all material, and so is the man-made concept of time flowing through our neurons.
So if time is material please explain it, it is a consequence of materiality because it can be observe. It exists in the human domain and there is a special connection with the immaterial because we as people can convert thought into material perception.
You are misunderstanding me. I do agree that it is all material however it is also immaterial. The concept itself is not the material, it is why you can’t just move one to the other. Immaterial concepts like time which can be influenced by matter and gravity implies they are not intrinsically material - your own explanation even says we move through it. Yet you cannot explain what it is, it is only our perception of time that makes it material in understanding, but immaterial in existence.
You see everything through a human lens and not through that of nothingness.
If everything dies and it all rots away, immateriality still exists. If one is to exist, so is the other. The third is a medium state in which one can carry the other. I do not speak of humans being special yet your own grandiosity speaks as such.
The immaterial is just that, not material. The material is just that. When you shine a light, you cast a shadow. The immaterial is what can be interpreted and the material is what is.
To put it simply if the material is what you can see and feel, yes the immaterial can be stored in material but it is not as direct as you say. It’s about as encrypted and hashed as any password. It can’t be directly extracted, nor can it be moved and receive the same results.
So while material is intertwined at times with the immaterial, it is not always so. The immaterial exists regardless and we as people do have one ability that makes us special. Writing. This allows us to create immaterial realms like the past or fiction. Babylon that no longer is but once was material is translated into a different form, so the concept exists immaterial - agnostic of material form. Whether it is written or not, it happened and it is gone. Sheol or Kali depending on your want, but it’s a concept so true that it is perceived and made material.
Time is the way we perceive one of the defining characteristics of material world. Our perception is material, and so is the world.
Same with, say, energy. It’s not matter itself, but it belongs to the material, because it defines the interactions of matter and doesn’t exist outside of it.
The common understanding of immaterial implies that it is a thing in itself. But any definition, any concept gets born in matter (our brains), can be clearly defined through matter in any of its carriers, and can never exist outside of matter. It is simply, thereof, an arrangement of matter, of the material.
The lens of nothingness is, by definition, nothing. Where nothing exists, no concept exists, either. Think of the vacuum. It has no temperature - it’s not 0K, not 1000K, it’s nothing. It has no radiance, no density. In total, uninterrupted nothingness, concepts of time, God, gravity, energy make no sense; there are no symbols, no writing, nothing. Any meaningful concept is not present in the void. Immateriality, like nothingness, is null.
Writing is merely an act of transcribing concepts in our head to concepts on paper, only meaning anything because we agreed on what means what. We can transcribe our imagination, the electrical dance of neurons. We can transcribe our memories stored much the same way.
For what it’s worth, writing is a clever trick we have invented to transfer our knowledge from material brain to material paper by manipulating matter in our hands and pieces of matters that leave a trace on paper surface. By agreeing on what these traces mean and by teaching younger generation to understand them, we learned to preserve knowledge beyond the time our neurons die.
Writing, thereby, does not invoke anything immaterial; it is merely a way to make backups, same as word of mouth (transferring knowledge to neurons of others, so that your death doesn’t mean data is gone), but more reliable.
And while it is incredible that we learned to preserve knowledge much beyond our own lifespans, it is purely, and completely, material
Also, I’m interested in why do you say the “immaterial” cannot be moved? It’s as easy as making a copy - and in the age of computers, making a perfect copy is entirely possible.
The immaterial cannot be moved. If you move the neurons that currently have a ‘stored’ response to another, it doesn’t just simply work.
You can transcribe into writing/programing/etc and make a cheap copy that doesn’t completely encapsulate everything. Just as our text is tiny upon the scope of what we speak. Just as moving the bits that hold data corrupts wherever you move them, the structure around it is not made with that in mind. It’s why we usually tell the computer to do it for us via commands or gui.
Writing itself can transfer immaterial concepts that while definitely based on material perception, it is intangible without.
Imagine Jeff is going 80mph.
I do not know what your brain imagines but to me I imagine a >!train!< from that sentence, yet none was mentioned. While it was my material experience that gave me this concept, it was immaterially conveyed. However, we disagree on definitions so that is a difficulty. While I believe energy itself to be immaterial, it is materially bound due to needing a catalyst for perception and for which to act upon. My reasoning is that energy existed long before matter did. Matter being the death of energy in my interpretation.
God for example is the material truth that is immaterially incomprehensible until you face it. People are stripped of their material desire and when bare like this, man becomes homogeneous with each other while not needing to be inherently told. It is the experience that is so similarly frightening that it causes us to want to cease. Immaterial for it is not one thing but rather the concept, which becomes material once perceived. Hence, the immaterial is bound to material only by our observations.
Thank you, this conversation has let me further expand my theory of science and religion connection. As most scientific understanding inherently goes through christian lenses - since most foundations came from alchemy post Jesus as a philosopher stone. This lets me connect quantum mechanics into the relativity.
Contextual answers come from the shared experience that got interpreted in a similar manner.
In your Jeff example, I imagined a car. As such, it was not conveyed to me that it was the train, because we have different experiences in modes of transportation mentioned by default. Your neurons reconstructed one thing, mine did the other.
How does energy exist in a world without matter? Immediate questions arise: what does it relate to? Can it be measured? How does it show itself? How do we know it’s there if there’s no matter for it to act upon? How did it form?
And God - there’s no good reason to believe He exists in the first place. Being lost in the woods of the so-called “immaterial” doesn’t bring Him an inch closer to being material and real. What is material does not need you to believe in anything; it just is.
You may believe that the wall is there, or you may not, but if it’s there, you won’t be able to walk through it like it doesn’t exist. And for all we know, no one has managed to produce something objective solely out of their perception or beliefs.
As per the last paragraph - it made me wonder if I’m talking to an LLM. In which case - good job! but please, keep it somewhere else.
I was about to compliment you for indulging me in such rich conversation, whether we agree or not. However, I was a bit insulted by the LLM comment. The last statement is moreso that early scientific developments used Jesus as a philosopher stone. Essentially just a symbol to represent whatever is unknown but is the goal/process. A variable in your formulas for whatever you needed. Not transformative or active, more as a way to change perspective and allow something to temporarily take place. It was used by people of the classical near east to middle east, who were the main developers of olden alchemy. Which later subdivided into many facets of science.
The fact that you imagined a car further proves my point. My point was not to convey a train, but rather that your brain fills in the gap. No car was uttered or written, yet you created that thought out of thin air. Yes it needs past experiences to formulate anyrhing but that just speaks to the interconnectivity of all.
As per your question of how energy exists in a world without matter, that I cannot really explain. That’s just the assumed best working theory when talking about the big bang. As scientists are also just assuming, we have no verifying abilities beyond the cosmic background. Which is just radiation we can observe using tools.
The rest of the questions are answered by my last paragraph. Energy without matter is assumed to be the primordial state, in which a huge energy release happened. This being the big bang. It can be seen and measured with tools, though our observations are not of the beginning but somewhere 300k years later. (Which btw 0k is literally the acknowledgement of zero heat energy, a mistake in your earlier comment. As cold is merely the absence.) For how it formed I cannot really fathom, it becomes easier for me to explain the big bang as the death of something grander.
So as to how it formed? Well that’s up to scientists, but for me I assume a God-like entity died and in his wake that cataclysmic energy was released. However, you are so keen to not believe so it feels moot to even elaborate. Please do not confuse this hypothetically true form of god with my earlier distinction of god within. Which the internal god is moreso a translation error over the centuries, so forth and so forth.
This internal god is just good miscontrued. It is a truth of the soul, as you age you will shed certain aspects you will become disgusted by and maybe even mortified. He who is victim would wish not to make others as well. This self control is not a natural occurrence and comes from social structures. As innately good and evil do not exist, it is only when a second being is introduced that these limitations and jurisdictions form. This is why homogeny would be the end result, however with so many perspectives the definitive good is frustratingly difficult to ever even fathom trying to quantify.
I implore you, if you take anything from this conversation let it not be god for it is not my goal. God in traditional terms does exist, it is the material lord over your current domain. (Usually a ladder parents, landlord, alderman, mayor, and so forth) Let it be instead imagination and potential that you take from this - it is the only free thing we have. It is how we as people manifest something from nothing, AKA art.
Material focus is just hell, or the place you reside. Taken from Hellas(Greece). It is the same namesake for the Hellenistic period. Imagination let’s you exist in an immaterial sense that is definitely bound by material, but expressed internally outside of the observable material but can be extrapolated. This self expression is called the liberal arts because it frees you. Ironically art itself is not part of the original quadrivium or trivium for which we get the name of liberal arts.
Anyways, again thank you for letting me ramble on about my interests. Your points have been very valid and you have been very patient with me, a rarity amongst the internet. This was truly a delight to indulge. Have a wonderful day - make it creative
I’m sorry if my assumption was wrong - it was simply written in a way that reminds of how LLMs get to write the texts.
In any case, thank you for the discussion! It was interesting indeed, though it could be held eternally - and we still have limited time in here to make it special.