OF course they are necessary.
It might appear self-evident to you, but given the number of people claiming otherwise just here on this board then, at the very least, it's not self-evident to everyone. You therefore need to explain WHY you think they are necessary, not just claim it as a given.
Mere mechanisms don't explain anything.
They are sufficient to explain the phenomena, generally. They are not definitively complete explanations, there might be something more - and in some of the cases of what's currently at the fringes of scientific understanding they are, of course, incomplete - but your incredulity does not invalidate those explanations nor mean that something more is required from them.
How and why these mechanisms and laws came about are very important questions.
How they emerged is an interesting, and arguably important, question, yes. Why, though - what makes you think there's a why?
Wishing away the questions is like wearing blinkers.
Begging the question is a logical fallacy. No-one is wishing away the question, people are asking you to justify the assumptions that would make the question relevant.
I agree that 'God did it' could be a simplistic answer. But spirituality does not just say that. It provides us an avenue to see for ourselves the possibilities of our inner consciousness. You can see it too.
Except that you've failed to justify the need to go looking for something that's unnecessary.
About happiness...happiness is of two kinds. First kind of happiness can be experienced through gratification of needs and desires. The second kind can be experienced through elimination of needs and desires.
Elimination of needs and desires is not happiness, I'd suggest, it's apathy. You're not unhappy, but happiness is not merely the absence of unhappiness.
The second is a more permanent and stable kind of happiness.
But it's forgoing so much of what makes being human so potentially wonderful.
Once we achieve this, our vision and view of the world automatically changes.
Post hoc ergo procter hoc? Surely the change in world view is what leads to accepting this state?
Spirituality is hardly anthropocentric.
I've not seen any foxes opining on spirituality.
It includes all life forms through the idea of spiritual evolution or consciousness evolution.
So people, once they've presumed something about humanity, then imprints that on other animals - that's pretty much the definition of anthropocentrism.
It views the huge cosmos as just an illusion. Like a Virtual Reality world.
We have the ability to interact with and interpret exactly one life, as things currently stand, and you advocate dismissing that and ignoring its potential in a wild goose chase for some unevidenced 'other'?
Real enough when we are experiencing it, but disappears as soon as we remove the headset and see reality.
When we 'remove the headset' - die - it does seem as though we no longer experience this world, but that doesn't automatically mean that something of us goes to some other place. You've neither demonstrated that 'soul' that might move on, nor demonstrated that there's anywhere to move on to.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/11/04/reality/
You fundamentally fail when you try to parallel 'subjective' and 'objective' realities as somehow separate and equally 'valid'. Our subjective reality is dependent upon the objective reality, it is a particular viewpoint. If objective reality is a multi-coloured sphere, every subjective view is going to have a different colour spread, but they're all going to be round.
We can miss things, we can misinterpret things, but given that we are part of the reality, our understanding is a part of objective reality as well.
We use these faculties to see and interact with the world at a certain level and scale. We don’t actually experience ‘reality’.
Yes, we do. We interpret it imperfectly, although we can improve that with rigorous methodology, but we do actually experience reality - we have no other option.
Instruments and photographs are merely extensions of our senses and are made in line with our sensory requirements. They are designed to see ‘reality’ the way we perceive it.
Initially this was the case - microscopes and telescopes simply changed the scale we could look at, microphones transferred sounds that we couldn't get close to. As we have progressed, though, we have developed instruments to expand into areas that we don't have direct sense of - gravitometry, radio telescopes, magnetometers and others.
Without our senses and without our brain, would the world look the same, sound the same, feel the same? This is something that is impossible to know.
Without our senses the world would be exactly the same, we just would have an even less clear understanding of it. Without our brains there wouldn't be us to even consider it.
Tons of Dark Matter could be sitting on your table right now, but we don’t see it or feel it or experience its presence in any way whatsoever!! This is because Dark Matter does not interact with normal matter. It cannot therefore be seen, heard, smelt, tasted or even felt.
Dark matter does interact with the rest of reality, that's why we need any hypothesis as to what it might be, because we have observed phenomena that require an explanation. In particular we see significant gravitational effects which require an explanation - if we had 'tons' of dark matter, that mass would still be having an effect on the world around us. Would we appreciate that it was there? Perhaps - we don't notice the tons of air that's on top of our table, but it would suddenly be a lot darker than usual.
We think that reality ends with small elementary particles on one side and with large galaxies on the other. Actually, there are no dead ends on either side.
So far as I can tell we don't claim to know the upper and lower limits of reality - we have a scale for which we have reasonable amounts of evidence or testable hypotheses; beyond that we have musings, but we don't have many firm reasons to think that there's an absolute limit that we've reached.
It is also true that according to Quantum Field Theory, what we perceive as discrete particles are actually just points or waves or excitations in various Fields that exist like fluids across the universe.
No. What we think of as quanta are just that, they are neither particles nor waves. In certain circumstances it can be easier for us to consider them as such as they exhibit common behaviours, but that's - to refer back - a facet of our limitations of understanding. We have no direct experience which approximates quantum behaviour, which means we can't easily frame it in its entirety in anything but detached mathematics.
There is probably a Biofield that connects all biological matter and constitutes a subtle part of our biology. Our Mind and Consciousness are also probably fields of some kind.
That just drops in out of nowhere. You have a citation chaser to go with that? That's a massive leap that not only have you completely failed to substantiate, but which conventional science - which you've otherwise been obliquely referencing - does not back up. You could suggest that it's a possibility that requires investigation, and I'd respond that there are probably more promising avenues of exploration but whatever floats your boat, but to suggest that it's settled fact is just plain wrong.
O.
