Yes, but you show ignorance of what it is even posited to be.
No, you simply ASSUMED that all on your own. There is however a distinct EMPIRICAL difference between THEORY and REALITY in terms of actual measurements in controlled experimentation. The one part you all seem to avoid like the plague is the fact that "science" puts FAITH in "hypothetical" particles and fields all the time! The concept of a soul FIELD is therefore AT LEAST as "empirically" justified as any claim about an 'inflation field' or "dark energy" or any of the QM hypothetical particles. It's no giant "leap of faith" to believe in a "field" of "soul". That kind of FAITH happens all the time in science.
The question itself was silly even in the hypothetical domain, and sillier still in reality.
No, it's simply silly to you.
Better. Not great, but better. Inflation is a hypothesis, a hypothetical idea, with some predictions that have tested pretty much correct, and some thorny problems. What's your point exactly?
My point is if one man, namely Alan Guth can CREATE a new hypothetical "field" in the head one night, WITHOUT scientific precedent of any sort, you can hardly fault me for hypothesizing about a field called "soul" that is responsible for awareness after physical death.
The "properties" that Guth assigned to his now dead deity were purely ad hoc and contrived with the EXPRESS INTENT of "explaining" KNOWN features of the universe. How could you POSSIBLY then fault me for doing the same thing in relationship to "soul"?
What does this even mean? Fails to show up, like it was invited? Capitalisation just reinforces ignorance here. Do you even know why we have the idea of dark matter? It's because of observations of the universe...we didn't invent dark matter and then go looking for because it sounded, well, really cool.
No. We only have evidence for "missing mass", just as we have evidence for "UFO'S". There is no evidence that any of the missing mass is contained in 'exotic matter' anymore than there is evidence that any of those "UFO's" humans see from time to time is NECESSARILY from another planet.
Actually, an
fyi - we are getting pretty close to being sure we've seen dark matter directly. There may still be alternative explanations for the data, but the WIMP theory is going pretty strong right now. Here's the main paper...
[1109.0702] Results from 730 kg days of the CRESST-II Dark Matter Search
I find these kinds of studies to be "dark matter of the gaps" studies in the final analysis. They're essentially trying to "eliminate" all other possible contamination and options (neutrons, etc) from consideration (who knows how accurately) and then JUMPING to the conclusion that their method is correct, and the signal is NECESSARILY from 'dark matter'. I will read through the paper (I'm already committed to another 42 page paper that I'm only half way through at the moment), but you'll need to be a bit patient with me.
How exactly can you "observe" something that hasn't been shown to even be there?
Dark Matter Is Missing in Sun's Neighborhood?
It seems to me that you're simply "assuming" it's there, and going to extraordinary lengths to create experiments that may or may not be related to neutrons or "dark matter".
I have a BSc in Physics from Imperial, but I wouldn't claim expertise as I know a bit of how far the rabbit hole goes. String theory is beautiful - really beautiful when you know a bit of it - but the mathematics is eye-bleedingly complicated. Reasonably well read on quite a few other fields, including evolutionary biology. Was brought up Jewish although not in any orthodox sense, now entirely atheist.
Fascinating, simply fascinating.
I'm always fascinated when atheists promote/put faith in string theory.
I would think (from the outside looking in) that if you're willing to entertain the possibility of multiple extra dimensions, that you'd be more open to the possibility of an "intelligent creator". I mean in ALL those extra dimensions, aren't you opening up a lot of potential doors for pretty much ANYTHING?
I'm a self employed 52 year old computer programer by trade (and education). I've been interested and I've been studying astronomy since the late 60's when we first put men on the moon. That pretty much sparked a life long interest and fascination with space and all theories related to space.
I probably read a dozen papers a month on the topic even today. My "hobby" got a little expensive for awhile when I got into MHD theory because the books are REALLY pricey. I had some "explaining" to do when my wife saw that bill.
For the most part however it's a relatively inexpensive hobby, particularly with the advent of the internet.
Your disdain for some mathematical models and love of others, based purely on what you think sounds good.
The point I've been trying to make is that mathematical models and such are not 'reality'. They are simply models that may or may not be valid. There's really no valid connection between inflation and a flat universe for instance. It's mathematically MUCH more likely that the universe would be "flat" without inflation, 10 to the 100th power as I recall! How then can that "math" related to "flatness" then be considered evidence for inflation only because the universe happens to be flat? See the dilemma?
Your reliance on the notion of them having no mass is still purely mathematical and the fact they have no mass has not been confirmed in the lab either, so the point still stands. Good try at obfuscation though. You can't diss models at one point and then rely on them at another.
IMO you're missing the point. The idea of me proposing a field/particle called "soul" to explain the construct called "soul" isn't anything "unusual". It's also not "unusual" to look to the universe around you to connect that "hypothetical field" to something in the universe. Guth did it. Everyone does it. You can't fault me for considering the possibility, particularly if you intend to entertain string theory.
