petrushka.googol

 

What property of the photons would be entangled, the color? How does that entanglement happen?

I wish to define a particle as _MP^c where M = mass of the particle and c = color of particle. P -> particle = photon. Integration of a continuous spectrum of discrete colors on subscript (mass) yields zero and integration of superscript (color) over the same yields white color. This is perceived as a wave. (transverse waves).

If we imagine light as composed of 7 native colors, each with a discrete "colored" photon, could we then visualize white light as the product of entanglement of these native photons? (each of which exist at different energy levels.)

 

That is not a very interesting conclusion. Especially as "sacred" doesn't really mean anything.

 

 

A lot of religions consider blood, excreta, etc to be "unclean" and not holy. So this doesn't seem to be a widely held idea.

 

And, by analogy (as you are fond of them), maybe light is sacred but photons are unclean.

"Sacred" means something that enhances your value system. (in a broad sense).

"Blood" can definately be construed as sacred. Ever heard of eucharist ?

 

So some cultures have treated the Sun as a god. So what.

My contention is that if light is sacred what constitutes light is also sacred. By analogy, if a man is holy each cell in his body is also holy.

 

As ancient cultures did not know about photons, how could they be relevant?

They worshiped the source of photons (which is as near as the idea stated in the OP that they could get).

 

So nothing sacred, just biochemistry.

Since most of the photons we encounter come from the Sun. I guess it's deification was expected among ancient cultures....

More likely there is a specific electrochemical response that occurs that one could investigate. You know, science.

Light increases levels of melatonin (derivative of serotonin (decreased levels contribute to depression)). Melatonin is related to sleep rhythms. More light = more rest.

 

Indeed. But the OP is so incoherent, is is hard to know where to start.

 

Why does light have such important connotations? Because day drives away night and bad dreams? Because early agriculturalists realised that they needed the light and warmth of the summer sun to grow their crops. Or just because you can see what you are doing?

 

 

You would say that...

I think the power of light is evident in healing people with depression. Light is known to alleviate symptoms of depression. i guess this is because it gives us the freedom to appreciate nature in it's resplendent beauty.

 

That's great if you're writing a fantasy novel, and as such you can make up anything you want. But here in the real world, not so much.

To rephrase, I am referring to platonic relationships (where oral / visual communication dominates over touch).

 

You have an obligation to ascertain veracity if you are using it to support your argument, rather than merely document its existence.

 

But back to telepathy, as a hypothetical: how is that accessing someone's internal workings? All telepathy might be*, if it existed, would be transferring a conversation without using sound. One would still have to form the message, and the limitations of conversation still exist. Just like wireless technology still means using words, just without the wires.

 

*since it hasn't been established to exist, though, one could make up anything they wanted. That's the problem with poorly-defined fiction.

To use a cliche, I'm insinuating a kind of soul-soul bond as opposed to one defined by temporal limitations, as it were, if you get my drift.....

 

That website also has articles on "dolphin-humans", on people who claim to have given up food and live purely on light, and that crystals can be used as medicine. It doesn't seem to be the sort of thing that should be referenced on a science forum.

In my defence I state that it is impossible to ascertain the veracity of each article that occurs on a website. I was only citing a link which I neither endorse nor condemn. I was merely soliciting some opinions to gauge what people really think. I think penalizing me for this was a trifle indiscreet.

 

That would only affect genetic diversity if you could show there was some connection between genes and religion. As Christianity, for example, is practised on every continent around the world, that does not seem likely.

As a thumb rule religion and ethnicity are directly correlated. Hinduism is dominant among Indo-Aryans, Islam and Judaism among Semites, Christianity among Anglo-Saxons and Eurasians, Buddhism among the Mongoloid race. Though this is not always true, the general trend is reflected in this metric.

Pls refer the link : telepathic ability in dolphins

http://www.paulapeterson.com/ITP/InterspeciesTelepathicProject.html

 

So it seems that, in most parts of the world, these Asian religions have largely displaced older native religions. Is this good or bad? I don't know. Will it have any effect on evolution? Well, it has certainly affected cultural evolution in all these places. I'm not sure how (or if) it has affected biological evolution.

When we adhere to a religious denomination we subconsciously limit our preferred choices of kinship. Our potential mates usually (not always) follow the same or parallel faiths and this limits variation in the species. This is how I perceive cultural mores impacting genetic diversity.

 

Is this true? In my time in Asia, I found that the dominant religions in most countries are Christianity, Buddhism, Hindu or Islam. (Of course, these are all Asian religions; maybe that is what you mean?)

 

These had largely displaced older, native religions. Although aspects of those had been incorporated into the "new" religion. But this appears to be identical to the situation in Europe: older, pre-Christian religions have been replaced, but aspects of those pagan ideas have been incorporated into European Christianity. The same is true in South America. So I would guess it is also, largely, true in Africa.

 

 

Do you mean, does culture develop in a similar way to biological evolution? I think there are parallels: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociocultural_evolution

 

There are probably ways in which biological evolution is affected by culture, as well.

I imply both these assertions.

Why is it that most major religions in their original variants have persisted in Asia and Africa ?

Does this point to a socio-cultural pattern of evolution ?

Members;

 

Please consider:

 

 

Because this is a philosophy forum, and philosophy studies the unknown, this is a valid question in philosophy. Personally, I do not agree that telepathy is doable and can make some pretty good arguments against it, but that is no reason to inhibit a person's ability to question.

 

For the above reasons, I put a + on that post in an attempt to neutralize the negative admonishment for simply asking a question. Asking questions is how we learn and is at the heart of philosophy.

 

 

It is interesting that you brought up the concept of "ethical" ideas. Is it ethical to limit a person's ability to question? Wouldn't that be the same as limiting a person's ability to gain knowledge? Or are we just limiting questions to the 'right' questions, which would limit the answers to the 'right' answers.

 

It is a very short slide from limiting questions to burning books. imo

 

Gee

I found your post particularly palatable. In line with the OP our internal synergies meet more than meets the eye....

I don't endorse telepathy.... I was simply stating a what-if .....

What about telepathy ?

Why do people focus on external appurtenances rather than internal synergies ?

Should we not talk heart to heart rather than face to face ?

Is this a step in social evolution ?

Please opine.

As far as I can see, the only case of that being true is the the people of the world are from the world.

Because you can look at somewhere like England and point to communities" within it where the majority are (for example) black skinned people of Caribbean origin and have a culture that reflects that.

But that doesn't make that group a nation.

 

Where do you draw the lines round "nations"/

To answer your query, at the largest possible perimeter. (as permitted by geography and socio-political constructs.).

Also I consider a nation as a logical entity, not just a physical one.

How difficult is positive social engineering ? (the social network).

Humans usually agree to disagree. (wars occur as a result).

Try to create harmony among individuals through humor (as an illustration).

We all know how difficult it is to share a joke and be appreciated for the same.

(Good comedians are the soul of the party.).

Think of how difficult it is to create a positive social group (or network).

Why is it that humans essentially like to isolate themselves from the mainstream?

Is it an evolutionary adaption for our survival ?

When visualizing the factors in identifying / building a nation the key is identifying the main traits of any nation, much like a search engine does.

India is essentially a Hindu nation, but that does not mean that other communities do not exist therein. It is just that the central theme of the nation is Hinduism.

It is like saying that all people in Arab countries are Arabs. This is not true. But as we all know, films and media capitalize on an Arab theme when describing Arabs. It is as irrational as saying that no Arabs wear jeans. (look at the images in popular media), they seem to suggest otherwise.But then they reflect popular (and essentially) dominant culture.

 

The OP makes a much stronger claim that there must be homogeneity.

Close integration leads to homogeneity, does it not ?

 

Citation needed.

 

 

If they were unaware of photons then they were, by definition, ignorant of that. What does atomic theory have to do with the subject?

 

 

Some ancient Greek philosophers suggested that light consisted of a stream of particles.

 

"Greek scientists from the ancient Pythagorean discipline postulated that every visible object emits a steady stream of particles, while Aristotle concluded that light travels in a manner similar to waves in the ocean."

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/lightandcolor/particleorwave.html

 

 

I still don't see what any of this has to do with religion...

Early civilizations relied on observations made with the naked eye. Rainbows are described even in the Bible.

I agree that the word "atom" comes from Greek roots and that they even theorized that light comes from a stream of particles.

But then does that not substantiate my hypotheses ?