13 Comments
User's avatar
DavesNotHere's avatar

Why geometry? Don’t we need time? Geometry does not capture time. Is time part of geometry? If not, does the post make sense?

What about information? Is that material or not?

Radiation? Gravitation? Physical, but are they geometric?

I have no problem with the conclusion that immaterial things exist. I don’t understand the geometric approach taken in the post.

Expand full comment
Matthew Thompson's avatar

Wouldn’t time simply be another dimension of geometry? x,y,z + t?

Expand full comment
DavesNotHere's avatar

Good point. But then time should be mentioned in the post. “let’s say that the essential property of physical stuff is geometric—that is, spatial. Everything in the physical world happens within space or is a state of space.” And “ pure geometry only gives us a static description.”

And does that cover energy and information? Those are states of space?

When I think of geometry, I think of Euclid. His geometry didn’t mention time. Modern physics uses space-time and non-Euclidean geometry. Maybe that’s inclusive enough.

As Steve’s footnote notes, I am not arguing against his point that there are immaterial things that are real. So is this just a quibble? I guess that depends on where he wants to take this idea. I am fine with saying that there are things that exist that aren’t matter. I am less certain that there are things that aren’t physical. But I have a sort of tautological conception of what is physical. If it can interact with the physical world, then it’s physical. If it can’t interact with the physical world, how would we even know about it?

So the question is, what does he want to do with this immaterialism? What does it get us?

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Jul 30
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
DavesNotHere's avatar

> this article […] asserts that there exists a concept called metaphysics which is distinct from physical matter.

That is trivial. Energy is distinct from matter. Okay, Einstein says one can be converted into the other, but they are still distinct. And information isn't matter. The article seeks to say more than that, but I am not sure what. The terminology is a bit confusing.

> all descriptors fail when it comes to explaining why the forces that govern the interaction between individual items of physical matter exist and have power - leading to the ultimate acceptance of metaphysicality.

This seems like a non sequitur. How can ignorance of one thing lead to acceptance of another?

Expand full comment
Zippy's avatar

Is energy really distinct from matter?

See the Miracle of Matter, and Light as the Energy of Consciousness too via this reference

http://www.integralworld.net/reynolds16.html

Related references:

http://www.dabase.org/up-1-7.htm Three Principles of Truth

http://www.dabase.org/Reality_Itself_Is_Not_In_The_Middle.htm

Expand full comment
DavesNotHere's avatar

Relativity says one can be converted into the other, but it's not easy. I don’t think it is hard to tell them apart.

Expand full comment
Zippy's avatar

Four more references

http://www.consciousnessitself.org

The Illusion of Weather & Absolute Rain

http://www.dabase.org/illusion-weather.htm

Space-Time IS Love-Bliss

http://www.dabase.org/spacetime.htm

Hardware Software & Transcendence The Transmission of Doubt

http://www.dabase.org/hardware.htm

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Jul 31
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
DavesNotHere's avatar

I don’t understand at all. Why are we talking about the descriptors? How Do they fail? Why would we expect a descriptor to explain why anything does anything, rather than just describing what it does?

Expand full comment
MT's avatar

Platonic - not platonist.

Expand full comment
Suresh Shamrao Bhale's avatar

A very good article thought provoking for me.

Expand full comment
Brett Chitty's avatar

Reality itself is made of the immaterial. Reality is not matter. Therefore, everything in our realities is made of the immaterial even though it appears otherwise. Indeed, there needs to be a reality in order to recognize the existence of the material. There is nothing in the material that has the ability to create reality.

Therefore where does reality take place? As you said, "only exist within our minds." Reality doesn't exist outside of Mind. Once one realizes this, another dimension opens up that we had no idea existed.

Expand full comment
DavesNotHere's avatar

This comment states a conclusion without argument or evidence. Why are those claims more plausible than their negations? Should this be obvious?

Expand full comment