Physicalists get in there...

[MischievousMonkey]

the rules are already established we observe how the physical reality is then acknowledge it.........the rules are not separate from the physical matter of reality*

If the rules are already established (I believe that) how can they not be separated from the physical matter of reality when physical matter has yet to go through all its potentialities? If you subscribe to the concept of time there must have been a first time to everything. Somebody in the universe created the first car, water appeared somewhere for the first time, etc. Let's say we were the first species in the universe to manifest electricity. If the rules dictating how electricity works were established before any electricity came to be in the physical world... How can the electricity rules be part of that physical world? It has no place to be if electricity wasn't invented yet.

The only way, to me, that rules can be a part of physical matter is if they were not pre-established and pop off randomly as things occur. Like a script or a code that would write itself but still make perfect sense

 

[TL15]

What is that rule made of then?

It describes a physical phenomenon, so that is a physical rule in that sense... But that's not what's discussed here breh. We are wondering if it is a physical object, as in pertaining to the physical world, the world of material, substantial, palpable, objects.

Breh... chemicals are material, substantial, palpable, objects

They are observable. They are physical. Combining them gives you a consistent result. I don't know what else you are looking for.

 

[MischievousMonkey]

Hold up... I think this is 2 different conversations here bro....
I get what ur saying now... like u cant touch the rule...
What that is, is called "Theory" most of science is theory ... the process of fire creating CO2 is theory.
U cant touch gravity... but it exist. That's theory..
U can test it and recreate it... just like u can with ur C02 example...

But the question u were seeming to ask originally... was things beyond the physical.
Telepathy, telekinesis, spirit, ghost, souls... certain forms of unexplained energy, life, yada yada yada.

My conclusion is still the same... known science, commercial science, institutional science will never exam these topics.... but I'm sure theres scientist somewhere that know alot about the matter

Well the bolded is usually what physicalists refer to when they say everything is physical. And I don't disagree with them on that, I think that all those things we tend to categorize as outworldly are explainable in physical terms but we just don't know enough.

But to say everything is physical is wrong to me though, because like I said, the physical world has a structure, a code, a frame, that isn't contained in that world

Reading this reply.... I understand what ur talkin about more.. and me bringing up Theory fits right in...
Real science... the type to really try to figure out what's going on... extensive, honest testing and experimentation... looking for actual results, not just trying to confirm what they already want to believe...
Should get to a point where they push our knowledge of theory (rules)...
Then we can see the beyond physical nature life (the code)...
And start to better understand the programmer (God/creator)
Again, This wont happen or already has happened but that knowledge will be kept from us

Yeah you got it. But I don't think as humans we're even able to understand the components or the origins of the framework of reality, because our essence is entirely bound to those rules... We can't think outside of them because we think through them... You get me?

 

[MischievousMonkey]

There is no such thing as physicality

That's according to science

Atoms are 99.9999997% "empty space". That empty space is an energy field.

The tiny part that isn't empty space is just a more condensed form of energy.

Reality appears "physical" because of how the brain deciphers it.

Can be argued that this energy is physical

 

[010101]

If the rules are already established (I believe that) how can they not be separated from the physical matter of reality when physical matter has yet to go through all its potentialities? If you subscribe to the concept of time there must have been a first time to everything. Somebody in the universe created the first car, water appeared somewhere for the first time, etc. Let's say we were the first species in the universe to manifest electricity. If the rules dictating how electricity works were established before any electricity came to be in the physical world... How can the electricity rules be part of that physical world? It has no place to be if electricity wasn't invented yet.

The only way, to me, that rules can be a part of physical matter is if they were not pre-established and pop off randomly as things occur. Like a script or a code that would write itself but still make perfect sense

the rules exist then you discover what is possible within that frame*

 

[MischievousMonkey]

Breh... chemicals are material, substantial, palpable, objects

They are observable. They are physical. Combining them gives you a consistent result. I don't know what else you are looking for.

Except we're not talking about chemicals fam. We're talking about the rules that make them work how they work. Combining them gives a consistent result - > meaning there is a rule that states that x + y = c. The fact that the physical world doesn't work randomly is a proof that it is structured by rules.

 

[King Khufu]

There's no actual "rules" we just try to categorize our best understanding of the consistent occurrence.

Everything physical is circuited to available observance through sense of sight,smell,touch, e.t.c.
Life is for most of us meant to be seen for our experiences to prove our physical existence.

 

[JQ Legend]

Can be argued that this energy is physical

No credible scientists would argue that

 

[King Khufu]

Apple and Bowling ball reportedly as a time tested may fall at a different rate but land in the same amount of time equally despite weight. That's an example of the rule you speak of because it's not a actual rule that a person sets out to be instructed it is a understanding how a particular observance or mechanic functions/works.

 

[MischievousMonkey]

the rules exist then you discover what is possible within that frame*

I fully agree with that breh. These rules are just not physical elements. You can discover new ones by playing and experimenting with physical things but that's pretty much it. The rules were there before us (us=the physical realm) or appeared at the same time

 

[MischievousMonkey]

No credible scientists would argue that

What's the difference between that energy and other forms of energy?

 

[MischievousMonkey]

There's no actual "rules" we just try to categorize our best understanding of the consistent occurrence.

Everything physical is circuited to available observance through sense of sight,smell,touch, e.t.c.
Life is for most of us meant to be seen for our experiences to prove our physical existence.

A consistent occurrence is a proof of an existing rule, whether we understand it fully or not

 

[King Khufu]

Physical reality exists as is but with humans living in it as we are part of this physical reality to experience or otherwise what would be the point in having senses? there would be no life!

What's the difference between that energy and other forms of energy?

"energy" doesn't have forms; As transference from one length/volume at density + pressure to another that transforms itself in combined elements to shift the energy particles.

A real world example is like this!

 

[King Khufu]

A consistent occurrence is a proof of an existing rule, whether we understand it fully or not

Word semantics, Nobody is outside on a computer programming the matrix bro. Because if there is, that's the first motherfukker I will kill.

 

[King Khufu]

Nobody is outside on a computer programming the matrix

you mfs let entertainment and Elon Musk David Icke ass nikkas get all into your noggin