Hi.
I saw this thread:
http://ift.tt/1u7T7ef
where it was being discussed that a big problem with regards to any questions about "ghosts" is the lack of a good definition as to what that even means.
So this is where I'm having a little trouble. It seems that to get a definition of the caliber mentioned in these posts, one would need actual, solid evidence by which to answer the questions (e.g. "by what mechanism does it interact/is detectable..." and so forth). Yet if one had enough evidence to nail that down, then one would already have a strong case for the existence of ghosts, no? Yet to get the evidence, you need to have the definition so as to know what to look for!
This seems circular. What am I missing?
Also, one definition was floated and called a logical contradiction:
"something disembodied that has physical manifestations"
Because apparently if it interacts with the physical world, then it is physical, with all the properties of physical matter and energy. So this makes me wonder: what is the real and precise definition of "physical"? Because what I usually think of when I hear the "definitions" of "ghost" and "non-physical" is mentioned, what they mean is something like "is not made out of protons, neutrons, electrons, photons and other physical particles and is not based within the space-time continuum". Yet if "made of protons, ..." is "physical", then how is it that something interacting with those things must necessarily be made from them?
I saw this thread:
http://ift.tt/1u7T7ef
where it was being discussed that a big problem with regards to any questions about "ghosts" is the lack of a good definition as to what that even means.
So this is where I'm having a little trouble. It seems that to get a definition of the caliber mentioned in these posts, one would need actual, solid evidence by which to answer the questions (e.g. "by what mechanism does it interact/is detectable..." and so forth). Yet if one had enough evidence to nail that down, then one would already have a strong case for the existence of ghosts, no? Yet to get the evidence, you need to have the definition so as to know what to look for!
This seems circular. What am I missing?
Also, one definition was floated and called a logical contradiction:
"something disembodied that has physical manifestations"
Because apparently if it interacts with the physical world, then it is physical, with all the properties of physical matter and energy. So this makes me wonder: what is the real and precise definition of "physical"? Because what I usually think of when I hear the "definitions" of "ghost" and "non-physical" is mentioned, what they mean is something like "is not made out of protons, neutrons, electrons, photons and other physical particles and is not based within the space-time continuum". Yet if "made of protons, ..." is "physical", then how is it that something interacting with those things must necessarily be made from them?
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1u7TB3R
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire