Of course they do.The "natural philosophy" is physics
Physical laws have mathematical face
Of course they do.The "natural philosophy" is physics
Physical laws have mathematical face
Yes, it’s just a shorthand for something like “Observed and predictable regularities we expect to continue.”Obviously to anyone with any sense, there are no laws in science
No, that's theories. Mathematics can have unbreakable laws because it's an artificial construct. A scientific theory just rolls on, gathering weight, until an unexplained counterexample arises. Then it needs modification. My favorite is "For all practical purposes. . ."Yes, it’s just a shorthand for something like “Observed and predictable regularities we expect to continue.”
No, a theory is a well supported body of observations and analyses that serve to describe and explain a range of phenomena. A law is a summary statement of the conclusions of that.No, that's theories. Mathematics can have unbreakable laws because it's an artificial construct. A scientific theory just rolls on, gathering weight, until an unexplained counterexample arises. Then it needs modification. My favorite is "For all practical purposes. . ."
Unless there is a soul and we are spiritual beings that need to possess a life form in order to reproduce..All that means is that nothing goes away, it just changes form, but there won’t be anything identifiable as some part of the personality that survives the death of the body.
Geometrical(trigonometry)Its al geometrical.The "natural philosophy" is physics
Physical laws have mathematical face
Being very much aware of my own needs and feelings I’ve no doubt we’re spiritual beings in some meaning of the phrase, but there’s no good evidence any part of the personality survives the death of the body.Unless there is a soul and we are spiritual beings that need to possess a life form in order to reproduce.
We all find out eventually.Being very much aware of my own needs and feelings I’ve no doubt we’re spiritual beings in some meaning of the phrase, but there’s no good evidence any part of the personality survives the death of the body.
Life after death: Brian Cox says physics 'ruled out' the human soul at particle level:We all find out eventually.
Only if some part of our awareness survives death, otherwise we can’t know anything at all, we’re just gone.We all find out eventually.
What meaning would you assign that phrase? As a species, we have a notable propensity to make up stuff to explain what we can't understand. And a notable refusal to accept the idea that you live, and then you're gone.Being very much aware of my own needs and feelings I’ve no doubt we’re spiritual beings in some meaning of the phrase, but there’s no good evidence any part of the personality survives the death of the body.
Only if some part of our awareness survives death, otherwise we can’t know anything at all, we’re just gone.
Only that we have non-physical needs, we need to be happy (unfortunately many of us aren’t), we need to feel part of something larger than ourselves, we need to love and be loved, stuff like that. But the notion that there’s an incorporeal part of us that survives physical death isn’t sustained by the evidence.What meaning would you assign that phrase?
Of course it is, couldn’t very well be anyone else. I try to go where evidence and reason lead, not always successfully, I’m as prone to the same weaknesses in cognition and perception as all humans are, but I’ve carefully disciplined myself in critical thinking and find myself unable to buy the notion that anything like a soul exists.Maybe its you?
What sort of evidence do you have to the contrary without saying its because bad things happen to people who do pick up the frequency.Only that we have non-physical needs, we need to be happy (unfortunately many of us aren’t), we need to feel part of something larger than ourselves, we need to love and be loved, stuff like that. But the notion that there’s an incorporeal part of us that survives physical death isn’t sustained by the evidence.
Of course it is, couldn’t very well be anyone else. I try to go where evidence and reason lead, not always successfully, I’m as prone to the same weaknesses in cognition and perception as all humans are, but I’ve carefully disciplined myself in critical thinking and find myself unable to buy the notion that anything like a soul exists.
I concur. In order, I think "happiness" is an emotional response to the satisfaction of the other needs you mention.Only that we have non-physical needs, we need to be happy (unfortunately many of us aren’t), we need to feel part of something larger than ourselves, we need to love and be loved, stuff like that. But the notion that there’s an incorporeal part of us that survives physical death isn’t sustained by the evidence.
interestingConversation in the Womb – A Parable of Life After Delivery
---
/a parable from Your Sacred Self by Dr. Wayne Dyer/
![]()
Conversation in the Womb – A Parable of Life After Delivery
In a mother’s womb were two babies.One asked the other: “Do you believe in life after delivery?”The other replied, “Why, of course. There has to be somegrowforhumans.co.uk
There is only one pack on this planet that has mastered geometry and chemistry.The need to be a part of something larger could be just a sophisticated response to the fact that we are pack-hunting, predatory omnivores. Our awareness of "packs" that are not within sensory range could account for our ability to feel belonging in non-tangible groups.
It’s not the contrary evidence that counts the most, what matters is the evidence in favour of the proposition, and as far as I‘ve ever been able to discover, there isn’t any that can withstand even the most minimal sceptical scrutiny. But if you want contrary evidence, Socratus’ post about Brian Cox above is a good start. That argument is essentially that there’s no known way an intelligence or awareness can exist without a physical substrate and as far as we know physics does not allow the possibility.What sort of evidence do you have to the contrary…
If "no evidence to the contrary" is valid, then Martians, trolls, fairies, Atlantis, several thousand gods, and politicians' integrity exist.It’s not the contrary evidence that counts the most, what matters is the evidence in favour of the proposition, and as far as I‘ve ever been able to discover, there isn’t any that can withstand even the most minimal sceptical scrutiny. But if you want contrary evidence, Socratus’ post about Brian Cox above is a good start. That argument is essentially that there’s no known way an intelligence or awareness can exist without a physical substrate and as far as we know physics does not allow the possibility.