The Beginning

[spol8910]

When I was about 12, and raised in a Catholic family, I asked my grandfather at dinner one day what existed before God. Who or what created him? He recited the common religious answer that God had always existed. This did'nt satisfy me because I couldn't see how something or someone could have just always been without an origin.

As I grew older, and more educated in the sciences, I learned the details of the big bang, and it seemed a pretty reasonable answer of how we came into existence. But again I'm faced with the question of who or what created the bang, what caused it to bang, and what was before that. Some pretty respectable scientist (i.e. Steven Hawking) have said it's a mute point because we don't know. Again this unsettles me because I can't see something coming from nothing. I've read about multi-verses ect.. and think that they present a reasonable alternative to our "one big bang just finaly tuned special universe". However I'm still left wondering, in the big picture, where did existence come from? Forget the origin of life, big bang, multi-verses ect... where did it all come from?

I'm left with the conclusion that if existence "came, or was caused by, something" then that something also had to have a beginning. So is existence eternal or did it have a begining and if so, what caused it to begin?

[kwdelre]

That's the same tough question I asked a Mormon missionary when I was 12. What created god if created everything else? He had no answer obviously and I was turned away at that very point. From there I searched for answers by logical means. Still a compelling question that you pose. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

[Barry Bonds]

You're turned away by everything in life that you can't find an answer to.


Must be a fulfilling, rewarding existence.

[kwdelre]

Originally Posted by Barry Bonds

You're turned away by everything in life that you can't find an answer to.


Must be a fulfilling, rewarding existence.

Are you talking to me?

That's pretty big leap in logic.

[spol8910]

Originally Posted by Barry Bonds

You're turned away by everything in life that you can't find an answer to.


Must be a fulfilling, rewarding existence.

Where did you get that I'm turned away by everything I can't find an answer too. The question I posed isn't preventing me from living my life everyday to the fullest. I'm simply trying to reach a deeper debate than just my religion is better than yours and see what people think about the true beginning of existence.

[Queequeg]

Originally Posted by spol8910

When I was about 12, and raised in a Catholic family, I asked my grandfather at dinner one day what existed before God. Who or what created him? He recited the common religious answer that God had always existed. This did'nt satisfy me because I couldn't see how something or someone could have just always been without an origin.

As I grew older, and more educated in the sciences, I learned the details of the big bang, and it seemed a pretty reasonable answer of how we came into existence. But again I'm faced with the question of who or what created the bang, what caused it to bang, and what was before that. Some pretty respectable scientist (i.e. Steven Hawking) have said it's a mute point because we don't know. Again this unsettles me because I can't see something coming from nothing. I've read about multi-verses ect.. and think that they present a reasonable alternative to our "one big bang just finaly tuned special universe". However I'm still left wondering, in the big picture, where did existence come from? Forget the origin of life, big bang, multi-verses ect... where did it all come from?

I'm left with the conclusion that if existence "came, or was caused by, something" then that something also had to have a beginning. So is existence eternal or did it have a begining and if so, what caused it to begin?

Your problem is you make several false assumptions.

The first being that there must be a beginning. Even if we look a time in a simplified linear fashion most people can easily conceptualize it continuing indefinitely into the future but not into the past. If its is possible to conceptualise existence without end then how come not without beginning.

Next you assume something can not come from nothing. You are not alone on this but I do not believe this to be a rational statement. The reason being is you basis for this is your experience of the world we currently live in that is a causal one where energy is preserved and not created. However prior the big bang a different set of rules could well have applied and all we understanding regarding the current laws of physics need not apply. As such it is perfectly logical that something could come from nothing and totally illogical to say you have a basis for this not being possible. Also for the record both theory regarding quantum flux and virtual particles includes temporary breaks in the laws on conservation.

Lastly you assume that the states existence and non-existence are actually mutually exclusive when in fact they can very well be 2 states derived from a third or not actually genuinely separate.

I would like to expound on this topic further but I am busy to the moment. I check back later.

[shadowwalker021]

Originally Posted by spol8910

When I was about 12, and raised in a Catholic family, I asked my grandfather at dinner one day what existed before God. Who or what created him? He recited the common religious answer that God had always existed. This did'nt satisfy me because I couldn't see how something or someone could have just always been without an origin.

As I grew older, and more educated in the sciences, I learned the details of the big bang, and it seemed a pretty reasonable answer of how we came into existence. But again I'm faced with the question of who or what created the bang, what caused it to bang, and what was before that. Some pretty respectable scientist (i.e. Steven Hawking) have said it's a mute point because we don't know. Again this unsettles me because I can't see something coming from nothing. I've read about multi-verses ect.. and think that they present a reasonable alternative to our "one big bang just finaly tuned special universe". However I'm still left wondering, in the big picture, where did existence come from? Forget the origin of life, big bang, multi-verses ect... where did it all come from?

I'm left with the conclusion that if existence "came, or was caused by, something" then that something also had to have a beginning. So is existence eternal or did it have a begining and if so, what caused it to begin?

physics as we know it in our specific universe at this time requires that actions need causes, and i know this is hard to wrap our heads around but maybe before the bigbang occurred there was no need for a cause.

physicists say that as they approach the singularity at time zero, physics as they know it fades and everything becomes very unpredictable, because physics as we know it was sprung into existence as a result of the way matter formed in the universe, and also because that is when time began, physics as we know it would not have been able to have existed prior to that.

so when you ask the question "what caused the bigbang", the question might not even be valid, kind of like dividing by zero or asking "why is there life". the big bang preceded time and matter, so it didn't or couldn't have a cause as we know it.

[spol8910]

Originally Posted by Queequeg

Your problem is you make several false assumptions.

The first being that there must be a beginning. Even if we look a time in a simplified linear fashion most people can easily conceptualize it continuing indefinitely into the future but not into the past. If its is possible to conceptualise existence without end then how come not without beginning.

Next you assume something can not come from nothing. You are not alone on this but I do not believe this to be a rational statement. The reason being is you basis for this is your experience of the world we currently live in that is a causal one where energy is preserved and not created. However prior the big bang a different set of rules could well have applied and all we understanding regarding the current laws of physics need not apply. As such it is perfectly logical that something could come from nothing and totally illogical to say you have a basis for this not being possible. Also for the record both theory regarding quantum flux and virtual particles includes temporary breaks in the laws on conservation.

Lastly you assume that the states existence and non-existence are actually mutually exclusive when in fact they can very well be 2 states derived from a third or not actually genuinely separate.

I would like to expound on this topic further but I am busy to the moment. I check back later.

Excellent post, however I don't assume that there was a beginning. That was the very reason for my post. I want to see if people think that there had to be a beginging (ie. creation and big bang theories) or if time could extend forever into the past.

You are right, I can see time continuing forever into the future, however it is hard to imagine (even though that doesn't mean it's not true) that time has continued forever into the past. If time is eternal in both directions, does that mean that living thinking beings (i.e. humans) can't continue their civilizations forever since we see no evidence of other intelligent beings.

[GrokTheCube]

It's well beyond human comprehension, IMHO. I think about it sometimes, but trying to reach a plausible conclusion makes my head hurt.

Infinity is a possibility, and it is simply well beyond the ability of a human to comprehend, based upon how our brain works, and how we are trained to think at a basic level. Cause: Effect, categorization, and the need to have a clear beginning and end.

I think the only way a human could approach understanding this is via a fundamental change in thought process, such as ego death, experienced through intense meditation of psychedelic drugs. Both will cause an incomprehensible alteration in basic though process and the way information is handled, probably even more profound in psychedelic drugs given they allow parts of the brain to actively communicate that normally do not. (no drug user)

[Large_Emu]

If they find the God particle in hydran colider thing then it would prove that something can be created form nothing.

But that raises other questions. I don't even know where to begin with it i can't eve comprehend it. The one thing i'm almost certain of is that we were not created by the visious tyrant we call "God".

[GrokTheCube]

Originally Posted by Large_Emu

If they find the God particle in hydran colider thing then it would prove that something can be created form nothing.

Tis true.

[Saleenmuscle]

I never understood why some have the need to know all of the answers, can't we just be honest to ourselves and others and say "i don't know", instead of placing a deity in that gap senselessly with absolutely no evidence

[Large_Emu]

Originally Posted by Saleenmuscle

I never understood why some have the need to know all of the answers, can't we just be honest to ourselves and others and say "i don't know", instead of placing a deity in that gap senselessly with absolutely no evidence

If you ask a scientist this question they will simply say "we don't know".

they will give you a theory but they will not insist that it is true.

[SYRIANKID]

What does it mean for God to be pre-eternal:

Originally Posted by SYRIANKID

God is pre-eternal and pre-existent. He does not resemble anything nor does anything resemble Him. He has no direction nor place. He is not subject to time nor duration. Neither "where" nor "at" applies to Him. He shall be seen, but not as part of an encounter, nor in the sense of an encounter. He was when there was no place, He created place and time, and He is now as He ever was.

http://www.sunnah.org/aqida/haddad/ever_was.htm

[Queequeg]

Originally Posted by spol8910

Excellent post, however I don't assume that there was a beginning. That was the very reason for my post. I want to see if people think that there had to be a beginging (ie. creation and big bang theories) or if time could extend forever into the past.

You are right, I can see time continuing forever into the future, however it is hard to imagine (even though that doesn't mean it's not true) that time has continued forever into the past. If time is eternal in both directions, does that mean that living thinking beings (i.e. humans) can't continue their civilizations forever since we see no evidence of other intelligent beings.

You can see my ideas regarding time and the big bang in this thread.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=118579881

Time and change are not the same thing and that change can be facilitated independantly from time.

Also its important that many of the obsticles you face in undertsanding etymology is how you currently percieve the world. The biggest issue is objectification, once you comparmentilise the world and place it long a linear axis of time you create philosophical obsticles such as the ones you presented in your OP.

This objectifictaion is evident in the our very basic assumptions about the world that we accept as axions that may not acutally be true. One of these is causation and the other is the objectification/dualism of being and nonbeing.

I have made various posts since I have been a member hinting at my opinions regarding being and non being only to be laughed at on most occasions. My most recent post that will help you understand a little of this approach is regarding to causation was in a thread started by TranceNRG

Originally Posted by Queequeg

In my opinion effects and causes can not be separated although I suspect this not a surprise to you given some of our previous conversations.

However I would like to expound on this a little by proposing that not only are cause and effect interdependent in their relationship but mutual in their relationship also. By this I mean cause and effect don't not exist in the classic sense that one event with proceed another the first being labelled cause and the second effect. Instead they exist mutually in that the effect can not be as it is without the cause being as it is therefore in this sense the effect can be mutually responsible for the cause and vice-versa. The traditional relationship of cause and effect is only so because the perception of a linear flow of time. If we disregard this flow of time we can see than what you have is a mutual interdependent relationship between two events with neither the cause or effect.

[spol8910]

Originally Posted by Queequeg

You can see my ideas regarding time and the big bang in this thread.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=118579881

Time and change are not the same thing and that change can be facilitated independantly from time.

Also its important that many of the obsticles you face in undertsanding etymology is how you currently percieve the world. The biggest issue is objectification, once you comparmentilise the world and place it long a linear axis of time you create philosophical obsticles such as the ones you presented in your OP.

This objectifictaion is evident in the our very basic assumptions about the world that we accept as axions that may not acutally be true. One of these is causation and the other is the objectification/dualism of being and nonbeing.

I have made various posts since I have been a member hinting at my opinions regarding being and non being only to be laughed at on most occasions. My most recent post that will help you understand a little of this approach is regarding to causation was in a thread started by TranceNRG

I'm sorry, what is objectification/dualism? Do you not believe that event x must spawn from event x-1? How could something happen if nothing happened before it. It may be out of the understanding of current human understanding, but does that mean we won't ever be able to understand it? And does that mean we shouldn't even try?

[Will.i_am]

Originally Posted by kwdelre

Still a compelling question that you pose. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

The egg clearly came first.

Anyways, humans fundamentally can't know the first thing that ever existed. We will almost certainly never know. M-theory tells us what created the big bang but what created the branes that created the big bang. Then, if science tells us that, what created the thing that created the branes and you can go on forever.

We don't know what the ultimate creator of everything was and we probably never well.

[Queequeg]

Originally Posted by spol8910

I'm sorry, what is objectification/dualism? Do you not believe that event x must spawn from event x-1? How could something happen if nothing happened before it. It may be out of the understanding of current human understanding, but does that mean we won't ever be able to understand it? And does that mean we shouldn't even try?

Objectification refers to treating an abstract concept as if it was an object. So here I I'm implying that reality doesn't exist as a bunch of objects and the reality is in truth not necessarily so. Essentially the point I am trying to explain this that when you talk about being and non being or cause and effect these are concepts. When we objectify them you are making them concrete and really when we have no basis to do so. The same can be said for breaking the world down into smaller parts and dividing these parts into neatly labelled objects. Where does one object begin and another start? Such labelling is purely subjective.

With my cause and effect example I am not stating that a event isn't a part of what we would commonly refer to as a casual chain but instead cause and effect int his chain are simply concepts. Instead I propose there is just a whole bunch of events and traditional effects can exist without there causes but causes can not exist with out their effects. One does not cause the other they are mutual.

Sorry if it is difficult to get what I'm trying to convey but this type of discussion approaches the limit of conventual language very quickly.

[shadowwalker021]

Originally Posted by Will.i_am

The egg clearly came first.

Anyways, humans fundamentally can't know the first thing that ever existed. We will almost certainly never know. M-theory tells us what created the big bang but what created the branes that created the big bang. Then, if science tells us that, what created the thing that created the branes and you can go on forever.

We don't know what the ultimate creator of everything was and we probably never well.

if you go about it like that then it is logically impossible to ever stop.. so maybe going about it like that is the incorrect way?

[Queequeg]

Originally Posted by Will.i_am

The egg clearly came first.

Anyways, humans fundamentally can't know the first thing that ever existed. We will almost certainly never know. M-theory tells us what created the big bang but what created the branes that created the big bang. Then, if science tells us that, what created the thing that created the branes and you can go on forever.

We don't know what the ultimate creator of everything was and we probably never well.

But this is a problem because we are forced to think in before and after, remove these concepts and progression is possible. If not there will always be a before.

Originally Posted by shadowwalker021

if you go about it like that then it is logically impossible to ever stop.. so maybe going about it like that is the incorrect way?

Bingo!

[kwdelre]

Originally Posted by Will.i_am

Anyways, humans fundamentally can't know the first thing that ever existed. We will almost certainly never know. M-theory tells us what created the big bang but what created the branes that created the big bang. Then, if science tells us that, what created the thing that created the branes and you can go on forever.

We don't know what the ultimate creator of everything was and we probably never well.

I agree.

[Civicz]

Originally Posted by spol8910

As I grew older, and more educated in the sciences, I learned the details of the big bang, and it seemed a pretty reasonable answer of how we came into existence. But again I'm faced with the question of who or what created the bang, what caused it to bang, and what was before that. Some pretty respectable scientist (i.e. Steven Hawking) have said it's a mute point because we don't know. Again this unsettles me because I can't see something coming from nothing. I've read about multi-verses ect.. and think that they present a reasonable alternative to our "one big bang just finaly tuned special universe". However I'm still left wondering, in the big picture, where did existence come from? Forget the origin of life, big bang, multi-verses ect... where did it all come from?

I'm left with the conclusion that if existence "came, or was caused by, something" then that something also had to have a beginning. So is existence eternal or did it have a begining and if so, what caused it to begin?

Thats exactly what i think.
Thats why i believe all religions are wrong, as humans cant possibly know the answer.
Although i do believe God created everything and can intervene with people.

[Melkor]

Originally Posted by kwdelre

That's the same tough question I asked a Mormon missionary when I was 12. What created god if created everything else? He had no answer obviously and I was turned away at that very point. From there I searched for answers by logical means. Still a compelling question that you pose. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Just because that guy didn't know the answer doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

[kwdelre]

Originally Posted by Melkor

Just because that guy didn't know the answer doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that and I'm not saying, nor did I imply that I don't believe god doesn't exist because some kid couldn't answer one question. But I see what you are saying. I was just using an example from my life that spurred my interest in finding the truth in other ways than money hungry religions. Mormon missionaries are 19- 21 years old and all they know are what they are taught at the training center in Utah. (Half of my family is Mormon and my brother served in Argentina for two years.) The thing I didn't like about religion early on was the fact that they send recruiters out to convert people to a rigid way of thinking.

[Bahai.Lifter]

Originally Posted by spol8910

When I was about 12, and raised in a Catholic family, I asked my grandfather at dinner one day what existed before God. Who or what created him? He recited the common religious answer that God had always existed. This did'nt satisfy me because I couldn't see how something or someone could have just always been without an origin.

If God needed to be "created," then He wouldn't be All-Powerful. He would have lacked Power, making Him...well, not God.

God was never created; He is the Uncreated. He is the Supreme Creator; all else is but His creation. Sure, this is above our comprehension. After all, can the chair comprehend the carpenter that created it? Can man comprehend his Almighty Creator?

[GrokTheCube]

Originally Posted by Bahai.Lifter

If God needed to be "created," then He wouldn't be All-Powerful. He would have lacked Power, making Him...well, not God.

God was never created; He is the Uncreated. He is the Supreme Creator; all else is but His creation. Sure, this is above our comprehension. After all, can the chair comprehend the carpenter that created it? Can man comprehend his Almighty Creator?

The only issue I have with this logic is that it is equally applicable to the creation of the universe via means that are not supernatural.

If God does not need a creator, why should the universe?

[Bahai.Lifter]

Originally Posted by GrokTheCube

If God does not need a creator, why should the universe?

Because the universe is material.

[spol8910]

Originally Posted by Bahai.Lifter

If God needed to be "created," then He wouldn't be All-Powerful. He would have lacked Power, making Him...well, not God.

God was never created; He is the Uncreated. He is the Supreme Creator; all else is but His creation. Sure, this is above our comprehension. After all, can the chair comprehend the carpenter that created it? Can man comprehend his Almighty Creator?

Ok, I see what you are saying. But if the chair could think logically, could it never comprehend what created it? Are you saying that it's impossible to comprehend God?

[Bahai.Lifter]

Originally Posted by spol8910

Ok, I see what you are saying. But if the chair could think logically, could it never comprehend what created it? Are you saying that it's impossible to comprehend God?

It's impossible to comprehend the Essence of God, or, put another way, to comprehend Him fully. Think about it, we are like a speck of dust in the universe, created by an All-Powerful Being Who is responsible for all creation; how can we ever hope to fully comprehend such a mysterious Being, unlike anything we can imagine or have experience with?: "He is the Creator of the heavens and the earth and whatever lieth between them and He truly is a witness over all things."

As the Baha'i Writings put it:

"How bewildering to me, insignificant as I am, is the attempt to fathom the sacred depths of Thy knowledge! How futile my efforts to visualize the magnitude of the power inherent in Thine handiwork -- the revelation of Thy creative power! How can mine eye, which hath no faculty to perceive itself, claim to have discerned Thine Essence, and how can mine heart, already powerless to apprehend the significance of its own potentialities, pretend to have comprehended Thy nature? How can I claim to have known Thee, when the entire creation is bewildered by Thy mystery, and how can I confess not to have known Thee, when, lo, the whole universe proclaimeth Thy Presence and testifieth to Thy truth? The portals of Thy grace have throughout eternity been open, and the means of access unto Thy Presence made available, unto all created things, and the revelations of Thy matchless Beauty have at all times been imprinted upon the realities of all beings, visible and invisible. Yet, notwithstanding this most gracious favor, this perfect and consummate bestowal, I am moved to testify that Thy court of holiness and glory is immeasurably exalted above the knowledge of all else besides Thee, and the mystery of Thy Presence is inscrutable to every mind except Thine own. No one except Thyself can unravel the secret of Thy nature, and naught else but Thy transcendental Essence can grasp the reality of Thy unsearchable being. How vast the number of those heavenly and all-glorious beings who, in the wilderness of their separation from Thee, have wandered all the days of their lives, and failed in the end to find Thee! How great the multitude of the sanctified and immortal souls who were lost and bewildered while seeking in the desert of search to behold Thy face! Myriad are Thine ardent lovers whom the consuming flame of remoteness from Thee hath caused to sink and perish, and numberless are the faithful souls who have willingly laid down their lives in the hope of gazing on the light of Thy countenance. The sighs and moans of these longing hearts that pant after Thee can never reach Thy holy court, neither can the lamentations of the wayfarers that thirst to appear before Thy face attain Thy seat of glory." (http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-26.html)


Though we can't fully comprehend His Essence, we can still have communion with Him and be close to Him that way, e.g., through prayer and meditation (especially prayer which is revealed by the Manifestation -- Baha'is have prayer books). We can know about Him, and be closer to Him, by following His current Manifestation. For example, 2,000 years ago we would have had to follow His Manifestation Jesus Christ; later on, Muhammad; and for this day and age, Baha'u'llah.

[wildphucker]

The 'something from nothing' argument is arguably, the most pointless argument in the history of arguments. Why? Because we are dealing with something outside of the sense perceptions and rational thought processes of every human being. Any inductive inference, thought or idea taken from within the universe applied outside is simply doomed to failure.


The first problem with 'something from nothing' is that so many have a mistaken concept of 'nothing' prior to something. Space and time came into being with the universe. Theres obviously a problem with picturing an empty void existing for some infinite time, at which point the universe suddenly pops up and expands into that void. Postulating this empty void is equally as problematic because it solves nothing. It just leads to this infinite regress of contingent objects. Why a void? Why a void without content? That needs an explanation too. Time is an intrinsic part of space-no space, no time(because we getour time from photon/electron interactions). Its meaningless to even suggest time with no passage of events within 'nothing', what would it even be? Intervals between nothing? If you go back far enough and delve into the quantum implications of this, at planck scales the Heisenburg uncertainty principle tells us time/space blur into one another, time begins to progress forward at a point, and there is no single 'point' where it all popped into being. Instead of picturing a cone with the 'bang' at the base, think more of a rounded off tip of the cone(akin to a bell shaped structure). This way, there is no 'time' where the universe did not exist, and we can avoid this paradox of the ages.


At some point no matter how far back, we can at least know that somewhere, something must get a free pass from causality-otherwise there is just an infinite regress of contingent objects requiring causes, and this is not a satisfying explanation at all, because then nothing could exist if everything needs a cause. But something does exist, so causality itself can't bind everything otherwise nothing would even exist.


Causality itself is an observation we make within the universe, so you cant make that inference to whatever might be outside. Same with space, and time. In fact, when it comes to whatever might precede/lay outside the universe, all bets are off. Whatever may be outside is completely outside the domain of human rational thought. Plus we must account for the fact physical matter might not be all there is to reality.

Its a human tendency to 'seek explanations' for things, and we dont feel content until everything has a convenient explanation. But when it comes to this topic, we must face the possibility that it doesnt have an 'explanation' in the usual sense of the word-it most likely lies well outside the cognitive and rational abilities of humans. The explanation might be there, but sadly outside our domain of thought altogether, and rightly so.



There are still other questions we may consider, which are very important:

1)Why is there something rather than nothing? This is still a valid point. Even if the universe is entirely self contained and explained, its mere existence can still be discussed-there could just have easily have been nothing at all.

2)Why does it appear the way it does? Why do we have 3 spatial dimensions and time, with atoms, electrons, matter, consciousness etc? It could have just as easily been such a chaotic mess that nothing would make sense and we wouldnt be here to talk about it. Or it could have appeared and then vanished periodically for no reason whatsoever. It could be something utterly incomprehensible with no 'laws' at all, or it could transcend matter completely.

3)What about the laws themselves? When the universe was born, were the laws born with it? Or are the laws of physics 'eternal truths' waiting to impose themselves on matter whether its there or not? Could we ever 'get behind the scenes' of the activity of matter to even find this out since the lawlike activity only manifests itself in the matter itself? What is the status of 'laws'? They need an explanation too-it isnt enough to just accept lawlike behaviour as brute fact and continue on.



Its obviously an incredibly difficult concept, but I personally can't accept a pointless, purposeless universe as it is irrational(I'm certainly not taking the easy way out here with 'god', I base all my beliefs on objective evidence and logic) and for me, there is definitely something governing the mere possibility of existence. I wont objectively state there is, because it isnt something you can exactly 'prove' with empirical evidence.






Finally I would like to say the many universes theory is completely unfalsfiable and somewhat meaningless. What does it mean to say there are infinite universes that can't be observed? Thats carrying excess baggage to the extreme, and postulating infinite numbers of something because you need them to explain the appearance of this universe rather than accept there might be a point to it all. I dont like reductionism for this-it seems to become a leitmotif of scientism that anything non-physical or reductionist is 'unscientific' and therefore not to be considered.