The physicists want to describe how everything works, not explain it. Explanation implies a why, all physics wants to do is simple say 'well, this happens like this and here's a way to predict it'. Add to that we want to be able to say 'this does happen, this doesn't'. Physics has come up with various, very effective systems, for looking at behaviour, analysing it, and describing a predictive system. The problem is every time someone tries to do this for something like chi they find that there is no actual behaviour to describe, so the believers cry foul and claim that it can't be observed. Often quantum physics gets dragged in after this. Yep. It implies absolutely nothing. Quantum physics applies on a quantum scale. If you shut the cat in the box it is either alive or dead, not some strange half-state. The half-state only applies on the atomic or smaller scale, and even then its debatable whether that's what it is. There is some very odd behaviour, but it has very little to do with everyday life. Depends what you mean by everyday thinking. If you just apply scientific examination to the everyday, that's probably the closest thing to a theory for everyday thinking.
'The Physic of the Tao' by Fritjof Capra is just one book which gives an example of how the philosohical implications drawn from the physics of the 20th century ends up leaving the physists talking in very similar language to that of the eastern mystics. 'The Dancing Wu'Ling Masters' is another, but i can't for the life of me remember the authours name...Gary Zukav i think.
Come on MAN! you can do better than that. If you don't spill your guts we are going to have to resort to even wilder asumptions AND start hitting you over the head with Chi balls! :woo: Don'tmakemedoitMartialartsnobout!
you're dead right LBR, physics is not concerned with why...it answers the questions how...philosophy is the discipline of discerning meaning, of asking the why?'s of life. Thus physics tells us how the phenomena operates, philosophy takes that explanation and applies, in concert with other factors and attempts to explain the function of the phenomena in the wider context of human experience. So if we're discussing things philosophically, we may well be outside the limited tenents of physics!
We're not discussing the philosophical implications of chi though, we're discussing the actuality (or lack) of chi. You can philosophise all you want, but whether it has an actual physical effect or not is the domain of science. Without specific questions I can't really give a specific answer.
details.. I still assert that it will at some point be measured, in a way that keeps you guys happy, but has in actual fact been having a direct effect (impact even) on the real world for millenia.. ..and if you'd ever been on the recieving end of it armchair discussions about physics equations would have already faded into less significance than here. I personally also struggle with the "it can exist outside of our universe" and that's ok, ..that's viable, but because as yet something hasnt been measured in our universe, it can't possibly exist? Still, religion & science are generally & traditionally so diametrically opposed to each other in every respect, I suppose it would have to be a fairly radical solution to be able to unite them in one theory. personally i'm looking forward to the day mankind do crack some of the other more difficult to understand theories, string-theory, antigravity, dark matter etc.. ...things we currently theorise about, but cannot as yet see, measure or prove.. all I'm saying is in comparison to these things, Chi is both very apparent, and very easy to appreciate. I have one more question ...these pictures of people with their "Auras" or energy fields around them..? ..is that not a "measurement" of sorts? could it not be related to some as yet undiscovered energy phenomena in the human body?
If it was that apparent then one of the respectable labs would have picked it up fairly easily. What exact effects do you believe chi can have? You're talking about kirlian photography: http://www.skepdic.com/kirlian.html
Fields. There is even a whole approach to physics that assumes almost everything is composed of superposition of fields. Probability waves is another thing (although I'm not sure I'd really call it a "thing"). This is the basis for the mathematics behind Quantum Mechanics. Note: these are just physical entities. It doesn't include things such as personality, mind, soul, will, desire, love, etc., all of which are 'real', but do not consist of mattter or energy. I've been on a lot of threads covering similar topics, and I've never seen him write anything like this. It's more that, 1.) if you make claims about previously unknown phenomena, then the burden of proof is on you to show that your statements are true, and 2.) you claim that these phenomena have real-world effects, yet they cannot be measured in the 'real-world'. You should give yourself more credit, MAS. I've read quite a few of your posts, and you've got a good head on your shoulders . I think the problem with trying to use physics to reach philosophical conclusions is that, in actual practice, most people come to a philosophical conclusion, then try to use their understanding of physics to prop it up. This results in a lot of s-t-r-e-t-c-h in what the actual physics involved means/implies. My one (and only) philosophical suggestion, would be to try to build a way of thinking and looking at the world that is internally consistent. If you even try, kudos to you....you're a leg up on most people who give up on trying. I feel completely unworthy and inadequate to this challenge (but that won't keep me from trying, because I'm getting closer to my 1000th post ) My take on all of science is that 1.) it (along with mathematics) provides an excellent tool and a framework for evaluating the validity of statements. If someone makes a claim, I have been trained to ask certain questions: a.) does this contradict something already known? b.) Can I frame the statement into a yes/no question that can be evaluated by a test/experiment? c.) Can I perform the experiment, and if so, what are the results? d.) If I prove or assume the statement to be true, what other conclusions can I draw, and are those logically consistent, testable, etc.? 2.) It provides a mathematical model for predicting the outcomes of different events. That's all, just a model. The model is only as good as the initial assumptions that went into it (in other words, the model will not work outside those limits). It does not provide (IMHO) any philosophical implications.....just a set of equations for predicting, physically, what will happen next. Think of the models used to predict the weather.....they work pretty well, until some freak snowstorm hits the coast, and nobody predicted it. The models are then adjusted, so they give a better picture of the real world. Here's a more mathematical example: the statement "p=mv is conserved" is a useful model of the real world, and can predict what will happen in collisions......up to the point where things start to move close to the speed of light. That doesn't mean that the equation is 'useless', or that physics is 'wrong', it means you are outside the range where this equation is a good picture of the real world. A small change in the equation fixes this, and when v is much smaller than the speed of light, it looks just like the equation that worked so well before (p = mv is conserved). Now some would say, "See, you can't trust physics, because it's changing, and maybe your model is wrong so that it doesn't account for chi/ki". But just like the example above, if chi/ki exists, then the equations for it should look just like the equations we already have (under the right conditions), that have already been shown to work. A good understanding of science/physics can help greatly in the discussion of chi/ki because the physicist should know what the initial assumptions for building the scientific equation/model are, and whether or not you're in a range where those models apply. When someone describes their chi/ki as having physical effects on their martial arts performance, I know that standard Newtonian mechanics are the appropriate tools for evaluating the claims (not wave mechanics, bioelectric field theory, etc. etc.). If someone says that chi/ki affects their mental health and emotional well-being, then I know that you are now discussing matters outside the realm of physics. So..... I guess I can summarize by saying that, IMHO, 1. Physics has no philosophical implications at all, 2. You might have to trust a physicist if they tell you which equations to use to evaluate a claim, 3. Some questions are outside the realm of science, and it would be a mistake to try to force science to back up any claims in these areas, and 4. Regardless of the question, basic logic still applies....the conclusions must be self-consistent or they must be false. Hey....here's a side-note that has nothing to do with chi/ki, or martial arts, but I thought it was really cool, and it might come in handy if you ever make it to the final round of 'Jeopardy': Is it possible, in the real-world, for something to travel faster than the speed of light? (Hint: check out something called 'Cerenkov Radiation').
Yep, I believe the current record is something like 32c, although that was using a light pulse and specially treated ceasium gas. I'll try and find the experiment. Interestingly enough though, they have also discovered a maximum 'speed of information'.
the maximum speed for information is the speed of light (or the speed of an EM wave to be precise) it is possible for some phenomena to travel faster than the speed of light...as i remember it, an EM wave propogates through space with two characterisitc speeds, phase velocity and group velocity. The phase velocity is the speed of the wavefronts of a continuous, single frequency wave. The phase velocity is also used to define refractive index. If instead of a single frequency wave, you transmit a pulse, then you transmit a range of frequencies. If this pulse is then transmitted through a material which has dispersive effect upon the pulse (namely it becomes smeared in the time domain as the differing frequencies move through the material at different rates) we find that the phase velocity becomes a function of frequency due to the material properties of the dispersive medium. This has the effect that the pulse of energy is travelling at a different velocity to the that of the wavefronts of the EM wave. This can be seen if you drop a pebble in a lake, the peaks of the waves travel at a different speed than the ripples themselves. the speed of the ripples (pulse of radio energy) is known as the group velocity. it gets complicated now, the pulse occurs where all frequency components of the pulse add up in phase. Thus the pulse travels at such speed that the phase of each component is not a function of frequency. This then leads into a nice bit of maths which proves the unusual result that if the propogating pulse is travelling close to the speed of light, some of the frequency components could be travelling faster than the phase velocity, thus the group velocity may exceed the speed of light. However, before you all get excited and start ordering your time-machines and teleporters, the information is synonymous with phase velocity, and this cannot exceed the speed of light. So, in essence, the speed of light has not been broken in any real sense of the word. This is a bit difficult to put accross without digging out my undergrad notes on radio propogation, but suffice to say, information can, for all practical purposes, be considered as bound by the laws governing the behaviour of EM waves and that a derivable parameter from an EM wave can, mathematically, be shown to break the speed of light, but it is useless to you, because you can't use that parameter for anything tangible. *xenmaster takes a deep breath and logs off for a while....*
Thanks, I'm sure that you have some really nice um...parts too..... Seriously though, I was listening to a lecture the other day on time dilation. He said the phenomena only happens to any measurable degree when the subject of the experiment is moving close to the speed of light, this made it inapplicable to our everyday lives. My first though when I heard that was "doesn’t our (most of us) thoughts travel at those speeds? Time seems to drag or go by quickly depending on what is happening with us. Is this another "wild assumption"? MyheadisbeginningtofloatoffintospaceMartialartsnobout!
I don't know about "wild", but probably an example of applying a phyiscal theory where it doesn't fit. Your thoughts have no mass, so the time dilation thing wouldn't apply. The individual electrons firing in your neurons have mass, so they could experience a time dilatiomn, but only in relation to something else not moving near the speed of light. I'll have to give this one a little more thought, but I have to run some errands now.
speed of light respectable labs? has much research been done on Chi then? do you have links? ...you usually do i'd like to see if you do? I believe that with the understanding and the ability to use it, route it's flow into your strike (blimey, a mention of Martial Arts!! : ) to coincide with the exact instant of impact, it can considerably "pep" up your punch shall we say? ..Now I know you think this is purely a biomechanical function, but I don't think I do. I accept that is a possibility, but am not as ready to state as fact what is and isnt the absolute truth given our only partial understanding of our universe. I am not a Chi master, and neither am I a physicist, but I refuse to rule out all that ancient Chinese wisdom and understanding when we still don't actually understand so much about the world we live in. Chinese medicine cured a friend of mine of a condition called Cluster headaches (incredibly painful, if any of you have knowledge of this, you'll understand) in a matter of weeks, but only after he'd run the full gammut of western medicine, who had basically said, after 4 years and every possible scan, technique and drug known to man, "we give up, we can't help you" they'd even given him Lithium at one point. thanks. I was aware of Kirlian photography but thought there were other examples of auras appearing on a more regular basis. but maybe not. Quote: Is it possible, in the real-world, for something to travel faster than the speed of light? yea, my fists..
Our thoughts, using the term to mean the biochemical electrical impulses that travel around our body, actually move at about running pace at most. The electricity that travels through our bodies is not the same as that which travels through, say, a copper wire. Instead its in the form of ionic chemicals which carry a charge as they travel. I'm afraid not on this one, though I could probably google some up. I tend not to actually keep links on hand, simply look for them when needed. I'll see what I can find tomorrow. I'm quite happy to throw out roman wisdom and understanding, greek, medieval, and so on where its wrong. I don't see why Chinese wisdom is particularly special. You sound like someone I used to chat with on here. He learned everything he knew from 'some ancient chinese guy in a park', and could apparently punch faster than his own shadow. Substantially faster that is.
O.K. so the Snob scratches that theory. But here is another thought! I have been told that this ionic chemical signal is in the form of a succession of changes in the charge of the chemical "gates". I was told that "in other words this is a wave of electro-negitivity down the nerve axion". I was also told that if I want to lift my finger I must first sent this signal from my brain to the finger. So what happens if I have the intention to move it but I consciously override that signal and don't? I know that in pushing hands I can feel someone’s intention to push even when they abort the idea! I am sure that you know what I am talking about here. So my question is this: Am I at liberty here to make the wildass assumption that I can by just using my mind send a "wave of electro-negitivity" down my arm? And now to jump from the silly into the completely insane! I heard that a lie detector uses (among other things) a test of "galvanic skin response", apparently a test of the permeability of the skin to electricity, and it is affected by stress. This sounds an awful lot like "For the Chi to flow the body must be relaxed" and "The Yi leads the Chi and the Chi leads the Li". GonnagettothebottomofthisifitsthelastthingIdoMartialartsnobout!
'fraid so. Its the same with speaking, there's a couple of phases to it. Subvocalisation is the pre-vocal phase, where you'll start to speak the words, and then you'll cut it short. Its simply not providing the full signal. You can feel their intention because muscles tense and alter in preperation. Yep, it measures the conductivity of the skin to electricity, a factor that's altered by sweat. If you can train yourself to lie without getting nervous then you can beat one easily. Actually that sounds more to me like the standard idea that tension slows you down and draws away power and speed. Biomechanical stuff I'm afraid.
This is the problem- you think of an explanation and shoehorn the evidence around it. What you're meant to do is look at the evidence and then come up with an explanation.
Well...thanks for telling me what I was meant to do......I've been wondering what what I was meant to do my whole life! And to think that all this time I thought I was just exercising my creativity. So glad you jumped in and set me straight, thanks KE!
