IP
Thanks for allowing me to reference your essay.
"...the language in which physics speaks is quite different from that of humanity." I agree. But that is part of the problem. For example, the language of QM and Cosmology are quite different. But yet most agree the new model that corresponds to the two can be found. The definition of terms and language (math) must change, also. I suggest the new language may be defined with humanity in mind, also. But where humanity is concerned, the problem of description is much more profound. Science wants words and symbols that other scientists may understand. Humanity has resisted this impulse instead relying on vague terms on which each individual may put their own definition. For example, "good" and "bad" means different actions to different people. Few object to the idea they should do good. The actions of doing "good" differ considerably. I think this confusion is intentional so politicians can appeal to people without getting specific in their intended actions. That is, the vagueness of definition is a propaganda ploy. Look at the vagueness and lack of definition in most of these essays. So the application of science to humanity requires carefully defined words. The faith and belief part is secondary (if not tertiary) and is needed to keep the members in line so the predicted outcome may be measured and new axioms tried. Religions compete with other religions based on their morals like science models compete based on the success of their predictions.
Another science application I mentioned is the economic model used. The US government (politicians) economic model avoids the Friedman approach. The difference is that Friedman approach has made successful predictions (so there is no confusion - a prediction is a statement about the outcome of a event in the future that does happen. Some use the word to describe a postdiction.) Abuot these same events the competing model has not only failed but the outcomes were opposite to their forcast. So the politicians use the failed model. Humanity and science has knowledge to suggest a better approach but this is ignored in favor of a model more to their liking - a certain recipe for disaster.
I classify morals and dictates of actions as knowledge. This knowledge has been obtained at great cost. The individual is asked to have belief that the moral dictate will result in his or his progeny's benefit. This is prediction about the outcome of survival. Morals also say "act contrary to the morals (evil?), your DNA line will surely end". I understand your statement about religion is not rational. I think religion is rational. The difference is that religion acts on a time span of centuries to test a moral change. View religion as trying to solve the problem of survival where a prediction requires centuries to evaluate. I think I see rationality in the development of religious thought on this time scale. Knowledge (a term that needs definition in the popular environment) is (here it is) the ability to PREDICT outcomes of actions (it was in the paper called understanding). Wisdom is the ability to CAUSE events. Both science and religion are trying to develop models that allow prediction and causation of events.
Throughout an individual's life, the individual is continually give birth to new life -baby, child, adolescent, adult, old, dead. The idea of "spirit" is to link the thought to Liebniz thought of a type of force in the universe which could be treated with physics of relationism. For example, (I forget Liebniz's example) a student calls home and for minimum energy spend says "sent money". A bit later a large check arrive that symbolizes and much, much greater expenditure of money (energy). Physics requires that a change of energy require force. What force?
Of course there is not a "spirit" definition in today's physics. Liebniz tried. ?What is the matter-energy of the student - parent relationship? The energy is certainly way out of balance. Consciousness is part of spirit. But then there is consciousness in molecules and particles. I think this is new science. Liebniz started it with his relationism. If we are to include life (I think that is what Liebniz was really trying), we must understand spirit and conscious. I suggest the inclusion of life in science and the common definition of terms (started in the essay's section 2) is the beginning of a route.
I was impressed with your essay, also. I rated it a 10 some weeks ago.
Hodge
