Dualism and the conservation of energy
It is often thought, by those who haven't done much of it, that dualism conflicts with the principle of the conservation of energy. It doesn't, as I will now explain.
A dualist is someone who believes that though there is a material world made of extended substances, there are also immaterial entities - our minds - that are not extended in space. And a plausible dualist view would include the view that there is causal interaction between our minds and some of the extended substances, namely those we call our bodies. After all, our minds clearly do causally interact with the material world. Events in the material world seem to be causally responsible for my mental events, but my mental events in turn seem to be causally responsible for some material events.
So, if dualism is true, then we have material event A causing immaterial event B, which causes material event C.
By the very nature of the matter, scientific instruments will only ever be able to register events A and C, for event B is, by hypothesis, not a material event and is thus not sensibly detectable. And so whenever one has a material event of type A, this will be followed by an empirically detectable material event of type C. The mental intermediary will not be detected. In this way note that nothing in the dualist thesis will ever conflict with any empirical data.
The supposed evidence that dualism is false is that there would be a violation of the principle of the conservation of energy if the A-B-C picture was correct.
But how? First, note that the evidence that the principle of the conservation of energy is true is empirical evidence and no empirical evidence will ever conflict with dualism.
Second, in order for the principle of the conservation of energy to be violated, some energy would need either to disappear or be introduced into the picture by the addition of event B. But event B does not do this. We have no more or less energy in the system than if one supposed A caused C directly. Thus, there is no violation of the principle.
Perhaps the thought instead is that in order for A to have caused B, then some energy would need to be transferred - for all causal transactions, it is now being supposed, involve a transfer of energy. But that is not part of the principle of the conservation of energy. That's a new and distinct claim about the nature of causation.
If dualism is true, then there are causal transactions that do not involve a transfer of energy. The energy is transferred from A to C 'by' B. But the causation of B by A did not involve any transfer of energy. So to insist that all causation involves a transfer of energy is just to have stipulated that dualism is false, not provided us with any evidence of its falsity. It is just to have begged the question against the dualist.
So it seems there is no non-question begging argument that shows dualism to violate the principle of the conservation of energy.
A dualist is someone who believes that though there is a material world made of extended substances, there are also immaterial entities - our minds - that are not extended in space. And a plausible dualist view would include the view that there is causal interaction between our minds and some of the extended substances, namely those we call our bodies. After all, our minds clearly do causally interact with the material world. Events in the material world seem to be causally responsible for my mental events, but my mental events in turn seem to be causally responsible for some material events.
So, if dualism is true, then we have material event A causing immaterial event B, which causes material event C.
By the very nature of the matter, scientific instruments will only ever be able to register events A and C, for event B is, by hypothesis, not a material event and is thus not sensibly detectable. And so whenever one has a material event of type A, this will be followed by an empirically detectable material event of type C. The mental intermediary will not be detected. In this way note that nothing in the dualist thesis will ever conflict with any empirical data.
The supposed evidence that dualism is false is that there would be a violation of the principle of the conservation of energy if the A-B-C picture was correct.
But how? First, note that the evidence that the principle of the conservation of energy is true is empirical evidence and no empirical evidence will ever conflict with dualism.
Second, in order for the principle of the conservation of energy to be violated, some energy would need either to disappear or be introduced into the picture by the addition of event B. But event B does not do this. We have no more or less energy in the system than if one supposed A caused C directly. Thus, there is no violation of the principle.
Perhaps the thought instead is that in order for A to have caused B, then some energy would need to be transferred - for all causal transactions, it is now being supposed, involve a transfer of energy. But that is not part of the principle of the conservation of energy. That's a new and distinct claim about the nature of causation.
If dualism is true, then there are causal transactions that do not involve a transfer of energy. The energy is transferred from A to C 'by' B. But the causation of B by A did not involve any transfer of energy. So to insist that all causation involves a transfer of energy is just to have stipulated that dualism is false, not provided us with any evidence of its falsity. It is just to have begged the question against the dualist.
So it seems there is no non-question begging argument that shows dualism to violate the principle of the conservation of energy.
Comments (395)
I believe the situation is sort of like this. A has a specific quantity of kinetic energy, as a property of its activity. Relative to C, that kinetic energy is potential energy. But after causation occurs, the kinetic energy is now a property of C. So when the activity of A causes the activity of C, it does this through the medium of potential energy. Therefore potential energy is B, the medium between the activity of A and the activity of C. This is the immaterial aspect of the world.
Isn't any talk of a transfer of energy a matter of reifying energy? That's the problem. When energy is reified we have to disclose the means by which the same energy might cease being a property of A and start being a property of B. We don't have to assume a mental event as the medium, we could invoke "force" or something like that. But force is just as much immaterial as "mental event" is. So in any case, mental event or not, we still need dualism to account for energy transfer.
What warrants your assumption that nonphysical substance shares the property of "causality" with physical substance?
And if this assumption is warranted, then what warrants assuming that they are two, different "substances"?
I am assuming substance dualism. And then I am addressing a certain criticism that it has been exposed to and explaining why it is rubbish.
But you seem to be asking why I am assuming substance dualism. Focus.
You asked a question to which the answer was clear as a bell in the OP: substance dualism.
Now you're asking why I am assuming substance dualism. As any trained philosopher would know, that's an inept thing to do: :halo: :fear: :worry: :monkey: :shade: :starstruck: :naughty: :smile: :pray:
"Bitofshit, when you described the problem you were addressing did you mean token-type-type token tippy type tippy token dualism, or type-token-tippy-tip-truck-token-type dualism?" Ontological or gynecological?
Substance dualism.
"But why are you writing in English? What warrants the ontology of a pajama party? Do only the English eat figs? :zip: :rage: .
I am not sure about that, as I literally do not know what 'energy' means. If it is a curious stuff that is not empirically detectable, then yes, it too would constitute an immaterial substance. But then they could still insist upon the truth of the principle of the conservation of energy, it's just that now the principle would concern the behaviour of some immaterial stuff. That is, I do not think the concession that energy is immaterial would, in and of itself, serve to undermine the 'conservation of energy' criticism of substance dualism about the mind.
The truth is, 'conservation of energy' is not true. In reality all transactions of energy lose some energy and this is why 'perpetual motion' is unobtainable. This loss of energy is understood under the concept of efficiency. In a mechanical system energy is lost to friction for example. You might think that we could measure the heat from the friction, and this would account for the lost energy, but it wouldn't, because some would still be lost to the system of measurement.
So 'conservation of energy' is not true, and the second law of thermodynamics has been proposed as an amendment, a way to account for lost energy. And since the second law of thermodynamics is a proposal meant to amend the falsity of another law, it is actually false itself.
Is A/C is external environment as you said and B is an observer, I would imagine that of course energy is transferred to B from A.
Is that not what an observers (B) senses pick up on: light energy (vision), sound energy (hearing), thermal energy (temperature), kinetic energy (touch) etc.
This is the transfer of energy from A to B. This energy is used to store information (encoded) in the perceivers memories. The energy doesn't just disappear. Energy can then be transferred by one's body (the observer) back into A or as you put it "C" in the causal timeline, based on that which it received (A).
An observer B - is not energetically removed from the system. We eat and we crap, we transform chemical energy into body heat (thermal) or leave as is to run our consciousness (ability to perceive A/C.
There still is no violation of dualism in this case.
E=mc2 simply means that energy and matter are fundamentally the same, and time is the difference.
That's incorrect.
Transactions of energy from A to B lose energy from the |AB| system as heat, light and sound energy (usually due to unavoidable friction).
That doesn't mean energy conservation isn't true. It just means not all energy in A can be transformed perfectly into B (perpetual motion) without loss to C - the external environment (unless that environment is a frictionless/gravitiless environment - of which outerspace is a close but not perfect fit for those conditions).
Not only that but the transaction of energy from A to B doesn't even have to be a loss. It can be a gain - from C.
If a cold cup of water is put in a hot room, the hot room heats up (gives energy) to the cold cup system (A - the container and B the water) until the heat in the cup and the heat in the room are equal and balanced, and energy is exchanged equally in both directions, constantly.
The sum of energy in any system |AB| plus C (the environment/ system encapsulating |AB| is conserved.
If you don't believe that you would have to challenge all of physics based on the laws of thermodynamics (which is a lot) which I doubt will get you very far in proving without undoing all the useful technology (like fridges and AC) that work because of those principles.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
On the contrary special relativity actually resolves the first 2 laws of thermodynamics. So they are not both false but both true as well as all the technology we have made based on them.
Energy can be conserved but unmeasurable (speed of light). In this case it is "potential" energy like that held in a spring before its let go. It is potential energy due to how distance and time change on approach to the speed of light.
Therefore system C is finite, cannot be created nor destroyed (conserved) = 1). Newtonian physics.
System C is limited (conserved) by the cosmic speed limit "c" of light = 2). Special relativity (some energy is matter and some is action on that matter E =mc2)
AND
System C cannot be fully measured at once. 3). Quantum physics: Even though energy is conserved it cannot all be measured from within time itself (Heisenbergs uncertainty principle).
That is just a completely unproven assumption. In fact, it has been proven to be false. You assume that the lost energy actually exists somewhere else, and is measurable in that form, somewhere, however it exists. But it has really been proven that this is false. Despite all sorts of attempts to find it, all of the lost energy has never ever been located. Therefore your assumption that it exists somewhere as energy, is simply false, having been proven to be false by many, many, experiments. Numerous experiments have demonstrated that all of the energy cannot ever be recuperated therefore we must conclude that it does not exist as energy.
Quoting Benj96
I don't see how this is relevant. There is still energy lost to this system. You could say that some of the heat from the room is lost to the outside, but if you go outside and make measurements, you will not find it all. And it makes no difference if the outside is warmer, so that heat from the outside enters the room, you still will not be able to account for all the energy.
Quoting Benj96
That's exactly the assumption which has been proven to be false, as explained above. Measurements of C, "the environment", cannot account for the loss of energy to the system. And many attempts to do this have proven that the lost energy cannot ever be completely accounted for, therefore your statement is false.
Quoting Benj96
As I said, the laws of thermodynamics include the second law, which accounts for the loss of energy with entropy. But the second law is just as false as the law of conservation, because it assumes that the lost energy still exists as energy, when it does not. That's where the fundamental deficiency in the laws of thermodynamics lies, in the idea that the energy which is lost (rendering the law of conservation as false), still somehow exists as energy. That assumption, that the lost energy still exists as energy, is necessary to maintain the law of conservation, which has been proven to be false by the fact that all the energy cannot ever be accounted for.
Can you send me a reference to that proof then? I'm intrigued to hear all about this proof that satisfies Newtonian, relativistic and quantum physics.
How come we haven't already heard of such a momentous proof that unifies physics and makes it complete?
How could it be, you woukd have to travel faster than the speed of light to collect it all.
Of course you can. Set up an infrared camera outside the room and you'll see the heat energy lost from the room.
Don't be silly now.
Otherwise how would we know what insulations are best to insulate our houses with?
The only proof you've provided is personal opinion. I'm not sure I agree with that as definitive proof hence my request for you to give me the proof you have found elsewhere that is apparently the worlds "best kept secret" - an ultimate theory of physics
Entropy is the tendency for energy to disperse further afield. Down a gradiant from high energy to a more widespread low energy state. The energy can't disappear it just keeps spreading out until it becomes matter (still energy).
For energy to disappear how is it magically created out of nothing? Unless it's not actually nothing but potential energy (immeasurable) or at most indirectly measurable.
We can just agree to disagree if you'd like? But so far you haven't convinced me of your explanation and I cited several examples to the contrary.
I already told you, it's been proven by many, many scientific experiments. Never has all the energy been accounted for, in any experiment. So the conclusion is inductive, some energy is always lost. All you have to do is look up any experiment where there was an attempt to account for all the energy involved in an event, and you will find that all the energy has never been accounted for. Therefore we can make the inductive conclusion that contrary to the law of conservation, all the energy is never conserved.
Quoting Benj96
Sure, you can put up an infrared camera, but as I said, you will not find all the energy, only some of it, even if your sensing device encircles the entire building. You are the one being silly, suggesting that a mere infrared camera could capture all the energy lost from a room.
Quoting Benj96
It's an inductive conclusion, as are many of the proofs of scientific hypotheses.
Quoting Benj96
That is your baseless assertion. The following is a statement of the second law:
[quote=https://www.livescience.com/50941-second-law-thermodynamics.html]The second law of thermodynamics states that as energy is transferred or transformed, more and more of it is wasted.[/quote]
Unless you can demonstrate where that "wasted" energy is, then to claim that it is actually conserved is a baseless assertion. Where is your proof that all of this "wasted" energy is actually conserved? I think it is actually you who is in the position of needing to prove what you are asserting. If all of the wasted energy is actually conserved, you ought to be able to show exactly where it is.
Quoting Benj96
You have cited exactly zero examples of an experiment in which all of the energy available prior to an event has been accounted for after the event. Your example of an infrared camera is simply ridiculous. Until you provide something more realistic,, your claim to have cited examples is simply bullshit.
We can agree to disagree, if that's what you like, but you need to take a serious look at what you are asserting.
How is that the only inductive reasoning possible? It could be this case. But it could also be that not all the energy can be measured.
Does something not exist because it can't be measured?
Does my internal state of mind not exist to you because it cannot all be measured at once? Except by me - considering only I hold my memories, beliefs and emotions (my personal consciousness).
I didn't say it could capture all the energy lost from the room did I? You interpreted such for some reason. It can measure that energy is being lost at an average rate from a small area and be inferred that given the insulation is the same around the room that all parts are roughly losing the same amount of energy per square meter.
In that way you can calculate with reasonable accuracy to account for the remaining heat energy you haven't picked up on the camera. And you can prove it by reference to the dropping temperature within the room. You can say okay at this rate the room will drop by 1 degree celcius every 30 minutes until it reaches ambient (outside) temperature.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
It's called a calorimeter. Put a piece of food or something in a box (chemical energy), weigh its initial mass.
Burn it fully, measure the temperature rise + the change in weight of the ashes/gases now contained in the box.
Sum the heat released (energy) with the remaining masjids (energy) and it should equal the sum of the mass and chemical energy of the original food.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Please re-read what I actually said and not jump to conclusions I never made. I've already explained about the infrared camera measuring a local defined area of a homogenous wall. Then calculating out (because the wall is homogenous - the same material, its logical to assume the same material will lose heat at the same rate).
In that way you can establish the rate of heat loss for the whole surface area of the room. And you can verify that by predicting the temperature drop inside the room/unit time.
If the temperature in the room drops as your calculation predicted. Then you have correctly accounted for the rate of energy loss for the whole room.
It's really quite basic maths. Please try not to misinterpret me so readily when I'm happy to offer a more descriptive and long winded explanation
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Why do physicists believe it is then? When given the choice to throw out the conservation of energy or cartesian dualism, they tend to throw out the latter.
From a physics professor on Quora, Jess H Brewer, when responding to the question:
Does the law of conservation of energy always hold true?
His response was:
[b]Locally and in the long run, yes. However,
1. Thanks to Heisenbergs uncertainty principle (?E?t??/2), we can violate energy conservation over a very short time; thats how fundamental forces can be mediated by the exchange of virtual particles in QFT.
2. In come circumstances (like near a black hole) the concept of a universal now doesnt work time passes at different rates at different distances from the black hole. So it becomes tricky to decide when to do the energy accounting for processes that bridge that gap.[/b]
For me, having read a lot of responses from physicists on places like Quora and the physics stack exchange on this question. If you consider the entire universe as a single system, including such structures as 'black holes' etc. There is nowhere for anything from this universe to go.
Everything since the beginning is based on combination of some number of fundamentals that science cannot fully confirm yet. Combination of these fundamentals create all that they can create over time. Entropy will disassemble systems back to the fundamentals over time. If this is true then conservation laws hold at the scale of the universe. For that not to be true, there would have to be something 'outside' of this universe and 'outside' of this universe seems absolute conjecture for now.
Actually, energy is not something measured. Measurements are made, and the energy level is determined through the application of mathematics. So energy is synthetic. I think this might be where the problem lies, in the tendency to reify energy, as if it is something which is measured.
Quoting Benj96
We\re talking about all the energy. That's what the law of conservation of energy implies, all the energy is conserved. If you are not talking about calculating all the energy then your example is useless.
Quoting Benj96
As I said, any properly carried out experiments have demonstrated that all the energy cannot be accounted for in this way, hence the second law of thermodynamics. That law is necessary to account for the fact that it is always impossible to account for all the energy.
Quoting Benj96
You say, "it should equal...", and that is according to the law of conservation. The fact is, that it never does. That is the "waste" which was referred to in the statement of the second law which I provided.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
People believe in it because it's a law of convenience, which is extremely useful. The amount of wastage is generally so slight, and consistent, that it can easily be corrected for. As I said before, it's a matter of the efficiency of a given system. The efficiency (degree of wastage) can be determined and corrected for. We do not ever expect a hundred percent efficiency in practise, so the law serves us fine. But the fact that the ideal, being the theoretical law, is different from what we get in practise implies something significant about the nature of reality, i.e that reality is different what we think it is, if we believe the law to be true. Therefore it is a mistake to believe that law to be true.
Yes you're right the energy is released elsewhere than where the measurement tool is being used. Just like we argued about the room releasing heat to the environment.
What I'm saying is "wasted" because it wasn't measured is the wrong word.
It's gone elsewhere. Just because I can't measure every molecule of water that goes over niagara falls per second doesn't mean what I couldn't measure is "wasted"... "lost" "disappeared".
Heat disperses outwards and as it does it heats up the environment its spreading into, the further it spreads out the less amount it heats up each part. But it still heats them up by ever more minute amounts.
Absolute zero when reached is a timeless state of no change (no heat/kinetic motion) where all energy is only "potential" again. The exact same conditions as at the big bang. Alpha state = omega state
It definitely is. If I punch a punchbag at a fairground, the force of the impact (the momentum of my arm) is measured digitally in a number scale. Which can be compared to others - maybe a professional boxer.
The measurement must use some of the energy in its measurement. Otherwise how exactly can it function as a measuring device? Are measuring devices somehow magically outside of all cause and effect relationships/energy transfer and the information those hold?
I don't think so.
The device converts kinetic force into a voltage and the measurement of that voltage is a measurement of the energy that generated (converted) into it.
Noether's theorem
and
symmetries in fundamental physics
and ...
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
:fire: :up:
Also, philosophically since Spinoza's refutation of Cartesian dualism.
:roll:
Such a cool name as well, considering the implications of her theorem.
Even cooler, if her middle name was thereis. Emmy Thereis Noether. :grin:
Award:
In the OP I argued that dualism does not violate the principle of the conservation of energy.
So, to assess the claim, for those who don't know, you need to assume the principle of conservation of energy is true, and then see if what I have said is correct.
The issue, then, is not whether the principle of the conservation of energy is true.
The issue is whether the conservation principle is consistent with dualism.
Again: the issue is not whether the conservation principle is true. Assume it is.
Is it compatible with dualism?
I have argued that it is.
If you disagree, then you need to address the argument I gave.
Here's the rule: when someone argues that A is compatible with B, what you do is assess whether that's true - so, if A is true, can B be as well? What you don't do is say "A isn't true" or 'B isn't true". That's to ignore entirely the claim that is being defended. See?
The argument is unsound because [1A] one of your major (implicit) premises is incoherent (re: category error ~ attributing physical properties to nonphysical substance). [1B] Your other unstated premise is that physical substance is not bound by causal closure, again compounding the unsoundness of what what you "argue". [2] If, however, "nonphysical" substance shares physical properties (e.g. causation, kinetics, inertia, etc) with physical substance, then there is one substance and not two, different substances (à la neutral monism). Either way, Bratshitz, your OP (as usual) doesn't coherently say, or "argue", anything.
Yeah, and if A is conceptually incoherent, then nothing follows.
If the "claim" is false (or in this case not even false), then, on the contrary, to say so, Bratshitz, is to address the "claim" directly. You're the one ignoring elementary logic and any warrant for making such a "claim".
What is the point of assuming to be true, a principle which is demonstrably false? Anything which follows from this discussion will be irrelevant to the reality of the situation, as is the case when we assume a false premise to be true. The conclusions which follow are unsound and do not have any useful meaning.
Quoting Benj96
This is a statement drawn from your false assumption, that all the missing energy still exists as energy. You say "the energy is released elsewhere". The problem is that energy is a feature of the measurement not of the thing measured. As I explained, we measure the motion and proceed to calculate the thing's energy. So if the missing motion cannot be located and measured, and the energy calculated, it is a faulty assumption to say that the energy is elsewhere.
Quoting Benj96
The issue is that all attempts to locate all the missing motion and energy have failed. And, we conclude that it is impossible to locate all the missing energy, as indicated by the second law. Therefore the assumption that this motion exists, and could be located, measured, and assigned a value as energy is simply false. We know that this is not the case, as expressed by the second law.
So this is not comparable to water over the Niagra falls. In this case we assume that we could set up a collection basin, and measure all the water coming over the falls, without a drop being missed by that measurement process. In the case of energy, we assume the exact opposite, that it is impossible to detect al the motion, measure it all, and assign a value as energy, because we assume that some will always be lost, as per the second law. Therefore we have no good reason to believe that this motion exists at all, and no good reason to believe that the law of conservation is stating something true. It is a simple falsity, which we can clearly see as a falsity, and know it as a falsity, but we use it because it is useful.
Quoting Benj96
These two statements directly contradict each other, as incompatible, inconsistent. In the first, you say that heat spreads out, and heats less and less, but continues to heat, implying an infinite regress in this continuity of heating less and less. In the second, you suggest an end to the infinite regress, "absolute zero". But clearly, what you describe in the first denies the possibility of the absolute zero which you speak of in the second.
Quoting Benj96
No, the force is calculated from some measurements, as I described, through the application of some principles, such as f=ma. The exact principles employed in each instance is irrelevant, and whether the calculations are carried out by a human being with pen and paper, or by a computer using algorithms, is irrelevant.
Quoting Benj96
Sorry, I cannot grasp what you are saying here. There are different ways of measuring motion, in some cases the measuring instrument absorbs the motion, such as your punching bag example. Some measuring techniques simply observe and make comparisons from numerous observations. Which is more accurate is irrelevant, because no matter which one you use, you will still have to make adjustments for inefficiencies, therefore energy which is lost during the activity being measured.
Quoting Benj96
You're still wrong Benj96. Voltage is a measurement of electric potential, and some principles of conversion must be applied to state an energy equivalent to the voltage measured, joules or something like that.
So, physics defintion of Electric potential: the amount of "work needed to move a unit charge from a reference point to a specific point against an electric field.
Physics definition of" work": In physics, work is the "energy" transferred to or from an object via the application of force along a displacement.
Oh gosh look what we have arrived at? So it seems electric potential is, hmm, energy. Who knew? Physics did.
Which retrospectively confirms my reasoning about measurement devices requiring not only energy to run them, and energy to be them (matter, bonds, forces that hold its molecules together), and what do they measure? Energy.
It seems like you don't really want to attempt to consider any alternative explanation as you had your own answer (assumption) from the beginning.
Out of curiosity, if energy is "wasted" or "disappears" or somehow "ceases to exist" as you say, then where did it come from in the first place? Are you proposing that energy just spontaneously comes into existence also?
If not it would mean that time is finite as is the existence of the universe, and it will simply wind down to a heat death.
What happens then? An eternity of non existence/no universe. I think if that's the case it seems exceedingly improbable that we even exist now in the one "blip" of finite and ending universe that will ever occur.
To me it makes more sense that the universe is a cycle of expansion and contraction with heat death/the end being =to the beginning at the big bang.
But hey let's just agree to disagree. You haven't convinced me and I haven't convinced you so why endlessly argue about it eh?
Best of luck with it.
Quoting Bartricks
For clarity, what's an example of material event A causing immaterial event B? Is immaterial event B ever not caused by a material event?
Oh, I'm sure to you, kid, my comments go way over your head. Worse for you being so incorrigibly dogmatic too.
Can immaterial events occur without material events as their causes - yes, I do not see why not.
It is not about whether the conservation principle is true.
It is about whether it is compatible with dualism.
I constantly tell my students that compatibilism about free will is not the thesis that determinism is true. Nor is it the thesis that we have free will. It is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. And yet every year about 90% don't get this and proceed to tell me how either determinism is false or that we do not have free will, totally oblivious to the fact they're doing nothing whatever in terms of assessing the credibility of compatibilism.
So, once more: the claim I have defended is not that the principle of c is true, or that dualism is true. The claim I have defended is that they are compatible. That is the claim that needs assessing.
It's a good test of basic philosophical competence. When someone says thesis x is compatible with thesis y, the person with good philosophical instincts will wonder whether the claim is true; whereas the c-grader will wonder whether x is true or whether y is true.
God is compatible with evil. Philosophically promising student - is that true? If God exists, could evil exist too? Philosophically hopeless student "but God doesn't exist!" Or "what is evil? There is no evil. Who's to say what's right and wrong".
Now again: the claim I have defended is that the c principle is compatible with dualism.
So do not question whether the c principle is true or whether dualism is true. Ask 'are they compatible?'
:rofl:
Quoting Bartricks
In this case, does it not take energy for the mind to be activated? Where does this energy come from?
Also, mental energy turns into physical energy - adding to the energy within the physical world?
No. Why would it?
The conservation of energy principle concerns the behaviour of the material world.
The point I have made is that dualism - interactionist dualism - does not violate it.
I can't believe that you cannot grasp what I am telling you, and you just instinctively want to dispute everything I say. Energy is the capacity to do work, and energy is said to be "transferred" from one thing to another, in the instance of doing work. Now look at your definition of electric potential, it is the amount of work needed to move a unit charge. This amount of work could be supplied in numerous different ways. That is why a conversion formula is always required when determining energy, it is not a simple property, it is what is transferred from one object to another, and the same amount of work might be provided in numerous different ways. So it is not the work (energy) which is measured, only the before, or after are measured, and the work is calculated, as a universal.
Quoting Benj96
As I said, your claim is false. One cannot directly measure the energy of something, and I don't see why you can't understand this. A calculation is required, to relate the motion of that object to other objects, to determine the object's capacity for work. Consider the simple formula for momentum, mass times velocity. You can measure an object's mass, and measure it's velocity, but you need a further principle to calculate it's momentum. it's not measured. Furthermore, to predict how the momentum will affect another object another formula. This is the transferal, mentioned above. So we have a formula for force, force equals mass times acceleration. Now, the important thing for you to notice in the context of our discussion here, is that force is not directly measured. Force is inferred, through the difference in the measurements of velocity (giving acceleration), and the measurement of mass. Therefore the "force" which is a description of the transferal, the energy involved, is calculated from that formula, it is not directly measured.
Look at your definition of electric potential now, for example. It is the amount of work needed to move the unit charge in a specified way. So, when the unit charge is observed to have been moved in that way, it is inferred that this amount of work has been applied, according to that definition. The amount of work is not measured, what was measured was the movement of the charge. The amount of work, is inferred through the application of the definition.
Quoting Benj96
You have not given me anything to consider, except a clear indication that you do not understand the principles involved. If you gave me something reasonable to consider, rather than off the wall assertions which amount to nothing more than misunderstanding, then I would consider what you say.
Quoting Benj96
Look Benj96, energy is something calculated. We say that a specified moving object has a certain capacity to move other objects (do work), because we can make measurements and calculate this capacity. What sense is there in asking me where this capacity to do work came from, or where it goes after it is spent. Am I coming across as so extremely intelligent that I appear to be God or something like that?
Quoting Bartricks
I think that compatibilism involves necessarily a misunderstanding of either free will, determinism, or both. And assessing the credibility of compatibilism necessarily involves determining the truth concerning free will and determinism. I mean, one could easily define "free will", and "determinism" such that these are compatible, but there is absolutely no point to this. So your example does nothing for me.
Quoting Bartricks
To understand the meaning of the c principle, and the meaning of dualism, requires necessarily that one understands how these names relate to reality, and that requires an assessment of their truth. Whether or not the two are compatible can only be judged after this assessment. Otherwise, one will conform the meaning of the terms (create definitions) so that they are either compatible, or not, depending on what one prefers. What's the point to this exercise you propose, of defining terms so as to support one's belief, rather than looking at the truth and falsity of the matter?
Now get off your pedestal and engage with the OP or, you know, do to yourself what you'd have me do to me.
Yes, I would have predicted that. Needless to say, you'd get a C in an essay on compatibilism for having singularly failed to understand the issue.
If someone says A is compatible with B, then you should focus on whether that's true - that is, you should focus on the compatibility claim - not on whether A or B is actually true.
No Bartricks, before focusing on whether A is compatible with B, we need to determine what A and B mean. And this is a matter of truth, otherwise one will define A and B so that they either are, or are not compatible with each other, according to one's preference. In other words, one will make fictitious definitions of A and B to make them either compatible or not. And that is a pointless exercise. So we ought to proceed with determining the truth about A and B.
No, right - for no philosopher would ever say what you just said.
I am and you're completely wrong. You assess the compatibility claim.
It's how we can tell if someone is good at philosophy or not. Do they assess the compatibility claim or are they instantly distracted by whether A or B is true.
Anyway, black is white and up is down.
You have a very strange definition of "philosopher". It looks like a definition which you manufactured for your purpose.
Have you never heard of Platonic dialectics? It's all about finding the true meaning of the words we use, the true idea behind the word. Obviously this is necessary before we can make any meaningful judgement concerning compatibility.
Now, again, when someone argues that A is compatible with B, a philosopher considers whether that is true. Are they compatible?
Is evil compatible with God? You're philosophically inept if you reply "God doesn't exist!" or "evil doesn't exist". You are not addressing the question. You'd get a bad mark.
Is free will compatible with determinism? Again, you haven't really understood the question if you reply "determinsim isn't true!!!" or "free will doesn't exist!!!!"
Now, is the principle of the conservation of energy compatible with dualism? My answer, which i have defended, is 'yes'. But what the rest of you are doing is not even addressing the question but questioning whether A or B is true. It's just inept.
Focus on the actual question: is A compatible with B? That's the question. Not, note, 'is A true' or 'is B true'. Are they compatible?
Ok, so you admit, you are just defining the term to suit your purpose.
Quoting Bartricks
Before we can proceed with this inquiry, we must determine the truths and falsities concerning what "conservation of energy", and "dualism" mean. Otherwise, as I said, people will just be defining the terms to suit their preference. And that's a pointless exercise.
No, how did I admit that? I am using the term to refer to someone who is extremely good at philosophy. If you're using it more loosely to refer to anyone who tries to do philosophy, regardless of how well or badly, then 'being a philosopher' wouldn't carry any status.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Do you mean that we need to understand what A and B are?
You think that's not clear in the OP? The conservation of energy principle says that the level of energy in the material world will remain constant. Resist the temptation to say that you think the principle is false- that's philosophically inept.
Dualism, as explained in the OP, is the view that our minds are immaterial things that are causally interacting with the material world (the latter is interactionism - strictly speaking one could be a dualist and deny it - but by hypothesis that is not the case with the kind of dualism under consideration).
There: now you know - and quite why you didn't already, given if was abundantly clear in the OP - what A and B are.
Are they compatible? I have argued that they are. Entirely pointlessly, it would seem
Believe it lol. As I said "agree to disagree" here seems to be the best way to leave it for the time being.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
So if I put my hand up towards a fire I cannot measure that it gives off energy (thermal energy)? I must make a calculation? Hardly. Yes I can't calculate the exact joules my hand absorbs per second just with my hand, but I can definitely measure the energy of the fire inaccurately with the general term "warm". (warmer than the surroundings/exothermic).
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Your principles yes. I don't understand them as we already highlighted at the beginning that our two approaches to the laws of thermodynamics are fundamentally opposed. So why would we agree?
You said they're false. I disagreed. Then you used their falsity as the premise for your argument while I used their veracity as the premise for mine. And now you "can't believe that we are still arguing?" shocker.
Odd question. But yes you seem to be so certain of your belief and determined to rationalise it that anyone like myself - who thinks the laws of thermodynamics that underpin a large portion of physics are true, is by default absurdly uncomprehending/ irrational/worthy of argueing down until they either agree or give up. Are you that knowledgeable that you do indeed know everything or is there perhaps the chance that I too may know what I'm talking about. Whether you ever even considered it or otherwise.
The belief that those thermodynamic principles are true are the foundation from which we have standardised and built virtually all newtonian physical laws and formulas.
So if they are false to ordinary lifes physical parameters how did we do that?
How did we gain such predictive power, knowledge and technology based off something fundamentally incorrect? It doesn't seem to be coherent. Falsities/delusions do not lend themselves to progress/advancement of understandings when accepted as a premise for further research. Right?
I think rather than the the thermodynamic laws being absolutely and definitively true or absolutely and definitively false as we argued, they may be a subset of a larger Duality. Relativism.
And thus relativity stands to reason because newtonian physical formulas begin to break down in special relativity and all of its implications - black holes etc. But only then.
If you want to deny the existence of newtonian physics and its achievements or relativity and its one's in order to prove that thermodynamics is not binary but absolutely and discretely false, be my guest.
What you have argued for based on the falsity of thermodynamics laws is rationally consistent throughout your argument and well composed. But it is confined to Materialism - We can only infer the existence of energy from measurement/ calculation of other physical things.
However what I argued, that you don't need to measure energy to know it's there - and I gave a first person account to prove that - I don't touch fire coz it's hot as. I don't need a maths degree or calculations or formulas or standardisation to know that a fire is releasing thermal energy that I can feel (personally measure/estimate).
So again.. Let's agree to disagree. Because you have validity. And I have validity. From fundamentally different perspectives which I doubt can ever be proven to one another whilst holding opposing assumptions. They're just the dualistic nature of energy.
Quoting Bartricks
Even if it doesn't require energy itself, if something immaterial like a ghost or a mind acts on the material world, wouldn't this create physical energy?
You used a definition of "philosopher" which is not consistent with anything printed that I've ever seen.
Quoting Bartricks
But that's not consistent with the definition you produced, you did not say anything about being extremely good.. You said someone who teaches philosophy at a university, and who has articles published in peer reviewed journals. This excludes all the extremely good philosophers who are not teaching at a university, and allows for all the extremely bad philosophers who teach and have published bad philosophy.
Quoting Bartricks
It's definitely not clear in the op. There is no indication as to what "energy" refers to, and how any quantity of energy is determined. These are very important issues otherwise people might just assert that there is the same quantity of energy now, as there was before, therefore energy is conserved. Or, people might produce a mathematical formula which will necessarily, whenever applied, always result in the same amount of energy being determined, regardless of what exists in reality. This is why it is important toward your discussion, to determine what "energy" refers to, and how any specific quantity of energy is determined. Otherwise we have no indication as to how the law of conservation relates to anything, it might just be something that people assert while it has no real relation to anything whatsoever. Then your question is pointless.
Quoting Bartricks
OK, since you want me to focus on the op, here is the part which is problematic:
Quoting Bartricks
As is very evident, and what I've been explaining to Benj, the law of conservation of energy is not true, and, in transactions, some energy does disappear so the addition of event B would cause a disappearance of energy. You assert "But event B does not do this". You are wrong, every event causes some energy to disappear and that's what the second law of thermodynamics accounts for, the energy which disappears when an event occurs.
The issue is that the law of conservation is a useful principle which is not true, and the second law accounts for the untruth of it. But in your comparison with dualism, you are assuming that it is true. Furthermore, as indicated by the passage quoted, the assumption that it is true constitutes a significant part of your comparison with dualism. Since this assumption is incorrect, as I've been arguing, the comparison in the op is completely wrong. And the op, as stated, is completely pointless.
So, you need to reformulate your comparison with an accurate representation of the laws of thermodynamics. You need to allow that the law of conservation is false, and bring in also its relation to the second law which accounts for this falsity, and perhaps even the third law, which describes the consequence of that falsity, in order to make a proper comparison between the laws of thermodynamics and dualism. Your proposal is nothing more than a misleading oversimplification of these laws, which clearly misrepresents the first law in a way which is completely inaccurate. Your op therefore, is not worth considering, as is.
:clap: Otherwise we have:
A = Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds matter to be the fundamental substance in nature, and all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist. This concept directly contrasts with idealism, where mind and consciousness are first-order realities to which matter is dependent while material interactions are secondary.
B= Immaterialism is the philosophical position that there is no material world, and all that exists does so only in the mind and is for the mind. It is also the position that the supernatural has existence, i.e., ghosts, spirits.
Is A compatible with B? Imo, NO!
A and B = false
This is completely untrue. First, Newtonian laws are prior to, in time, and therefore not derived from thermodynamic principles. Furthermore, Newtonian laws of physics are distinct from, and in a completely different class, from the laws of thermodynamics. Newtons laws relate to the activities of individual things with one centre of mass, and the interactions between these things. The laws of thermodynamics relate to the energy of a system with multiple centres of mass. The issue is that a system is not a thing, it's a conceptual structure which is be applied toward a group of things. So Newtonian laws apply to the interactions of things, which may be assumed to be a part of a system, whereas the laws of thermodynamics apply to the system as a whole, but this whole does not have a centre of mass, as a Newtonian object does.
Now, the important aspect which are not grasping is that Newtonian laws, taken individually are believed to be true, each being supported by empirical evidence. But the laws of thermodynamics are not. The law of conservation is not supported by empirical evidence, it requires an amendment, the second law, to account for the empirical evidence. So the law of conservation, on its own is not believed to be true, because it is known to be false, and that's why we all scoff at the idea of perpetual motion. Nor does the truth of this law provide the foundation for any other laws of physics, because we know it to be untrue, and we know that the second law is required to amend its untruth. So the two laws must be taken in unity.
Quoting Benj96
Predictive power does not require truth, it is provided for very well with statistical mathematics. But I think what you are really missing is the necessity of the second law to provide the amendment which accounts for the falsity of the first. If we simply had the first law, we would always be looking for that little bit of missing motion, never being able to find it, and we would have to conclude that the first law is not supported by the empirical evidence. Empirical evidence would always show some missing motion. So we simply initiate a second law, which accounts for that little untruth.
Now, with the unity of the first and second together, we have the appearance of truth, energy is conserved, but some of it just ends up being unaccountable for. But this appearance of truth is really just an illusion of deception, because it relies on the assumption that energy is something real, in the world, which can exist independently from our measurements and calculations. But as I've explained to you, energy is really just a product of our calculations, not something existing independently.
Quoting Benj96
That's because this is what energy is, by definition, and this is an important point. We use formulas to produce a conclusion concerning the "energy" of an object, or a system. It is something which we assign to the thing as an attribute or property, which is non-empirical, never directly sensed. It is abstract, and since it is never sensed, it cannot be verified, as it is simply a creation of the mind. So, if we want to get to the point of reifying energy, saying that it is something real in the world, we need to get beyond materialism, because energy is not a material thing. If we adhere to materialism, then energy is simply a product of calculations, it has no real existence other than as an idea of the mind, and the lost energy which is described by the unity of the first and second laws is necessarily due to faulty principles of the mind. But if we allow for the real existence of the non-material, we might allow that there is real "energy" existing in the world, as an immaterial existence, and the lost energy referred to by these laws, is actually out in the world somewhere, where we cannot locate it (energy escaping sense detection). Then, these united laws are actually correct, and there is a real immaterial existence of energy which we will never be able to find. That's what these laws imply, if taken as the truth, that there is energy existing in the universe which will never be revealed to us. This energy must be truly immaterial, therefore forcing dualism on us.
Quoting Benj96
This is not an argument at all. You don't touch the fire because it's hot. This in no way implies that there is energy there. You need a premise which relates being hot to being energy, in order to conclude that being hot implies energy. This is because energy is really not the thing you feel, and you only know that there is energy where you feel heat, because there are logical principles which relate the two. That's why energy is an abstraction, it is not something sensed. We sense things, we measure them and we determine the energy. Because we have the logical principles which relate these, you can say that if I see motion, I know that there is energy there. And, I don't need to measure the motion to know this, but the knowing is based in a logical implication, dependent on certain principles, it is not directly derived from sensing motion.
:up: Thank you!
My premise is "Ouch that f*@king hurt.
Physicist why did it hurt?"
Physicist :" because it contains a lot of kinetic energy (heat)"
Me: Ah okay so hot (subjective/my experience of heat) =energy, and that energy is being transferred to my hand by "kinesis" (movement)?"
Physicist:" yes that's right, movement from molecule to molecule. Which you can measure with your hand or an instrument.
Enter Metaphysician: "you can't imply that reasoning. You need a premise.
I just gave you one. I suffered a burn. Someone told me don't do that again. I asked why and they said because of the heat (energy moving).
My premise for energy being hot is an ethical one.
If you don't believe it go put your hand in the fire and measure it yourself. Tell me what you feel.
Or don't, and we can just assume that energy is hot as a decent conclusion. And things with more energy in them are hotter (furnaces, nuclear bombs, sun, supernovae etc).
I'm quite tired now of arguing with you. So I'm gunna go. I don't agree with all of what you said. At most i can concede that if you're entirely a materialist puritan then that would stand. But leaves little room for ethical basis for truth about energy.
Am I correct in assuming that at this stage in the argument your only motivation is to prove me wrong? That's fine if you want to. But we would literally be here argueing forever so Ima stop now. Endless unresolved argument is not in much of anyone's interest. I value your time and mine.
Best of luck with it.
Agreed. However could A + B (summed total) =true? What remainder would that leave behind? Have we considered all when we united A and B ? Consciousness, the material and the interaction between the two?
I a cough out the word dualism/relativism again here. Because I think dualism trumps two opposimg monism.
Are you stating this as a scientific fact? and if you are, can you give me references from experts in the field who have stated this as fact or are you just offering the statement above as a valid/convenient way to 'envisage or personally perceive' what energy is. Calculation/measurement can provide information about an instantaneous energy state, but it does not give much information as to what materialistically IS.
Perhaps we really would have to be able to 'see' a photon to better know what energy IS.
'Provides the ability to do work' falls short for most people.
If we really knew what energy IS, would we not have a better description of what a singularity actually is?
Science does not know what energy materialistically IS.
Any energy 'packet' or 'wave' or 'particle' or 'field excitation,' labelled photon or massless etc, are just convenient labels for observed or implied behaviour but none of these labels tells us what energy IS.
Would you agree that energy is material as opposed to immaterial?
Do you think that supernatural and immaterial are synonymous?
For you, if you think that the energy conservation laws are fundamentally incorrect then are you forced to also suggest that something must exist 'outside' of this universe or do you envisage some other way for energy to become 'non-existent' rather than 'changed form.'
Hmm I think Einstein begs to differ. Energy is equivalent to matter. "E=M" (x c^2) The only difference is a function of light speed.
If a few grams of hydrogen are converted to energy the energy release is massive. Because (c^2) is a massive exponent.
Atomic explosion massive. However matter can never be 100% converted to energy this way as always has byproducts (helium) in the case of nuclear fusion (nuclear bombs).
I can't say for the case of a blackhole/singularity if matter is completely covered back into pure potential energy as we do not know exactly what happens within a blackhole because of space, time and gravity and the event horizon they create in interaction with one another.
A+B and A and B. One is a calculation and the other is a propositional logic question.
I don't see the value is equating + with 'and.'
Monism and dualism are opposites, so I am not sure what you mean byQuoting Benj96
In coin tosses, two heads can't make a tail, two wrongs don't make a right, or am I totally missing your point here?
That's an equivalence, a balance. Like a ton of feathers and a ton of gold. I can see what makes feathers and gold different. Similarly in E=MC squared; I can see that it takes a great deal of energy to produce a little mass. Just like the bundle of feathers is physically much bigger than the bundle of gold but in E=MC squared, we don't know what E or M physically IS. We can't see the feathers or the gold.
We do know what M physically is because it's matter (it quite literally by definition "physically is".
So by that fact we ought to know what energy really IS.
The only thing standing in the way is (C2). So should our focus not be on that?
Not neccesarily.
One and two equals three. Two pieces of eight of pie and six pieces of the same eight equals a whole pie.
Maths can be written linguistically. It's slower, less efficient but nay say impossible.
So if the reverse is true we should be able to make the immaterial and the material into summable concepts
I suspect that's what e=mc2 was doing. I just don't think many people understand it
No, it's MASS, defined as:
Mass is the quantity of matter in a physical body. It is also a measure of the body's inertia, the resistance to acceleration (change of velocity) when a net force is applied. An object's mass also determines the strength of its gravitational attraction to other bodies.
Mass is a property of its physicality. We can see the consequences of mass. We can see the manifestations of mass but we can't see mass. We can detect its affects such as gravity but we cant 'see' gravity either or know if its consequential or exists and is quantisable. The Higgs field may even identify the source of mass, but we still don't know exactly what it is. We can see an atom but not electrons or quarks. You might like this
Scientific American Article.
What is mass made of? The Higgs boson from the Higgs field? what does that look like?
Try:
The Higgs. Mexican hat shaped field! and:
[b]The Higgs field is pivotal in generating the masses of quarks and charged leptons (through Yukawa coupling) and the W and Z gauge bosons (through the Higgs mechanism).
It is worth noting that the Higgs field does not "create" mass out of nothing (which would violate the law of conservation of energy), nor is the Higgs field responsible for the mass of all particles. For example, approximately 99% of the mass of baryons (composite particles such as the proton and neutron), is due instead to quantum chromodynamic binding energy, which is the sum of the kinetic energies of quarks and the energies of the massless gluons mediating the strong interaction inside the baryons. In Higgs-based theories, the property of "mass" is a manifestation of potential energy transferred to fundamental particles when they interact ("couple") with the Higgs field, which had contained that mass in the form of energy.[/b]
The underlined part above puts me into deadlock. To know what mass is, I have to know what energy is and to know what energy is I have to know what mass is, so I currently dont know what mass fundamentally is or energy. I can lsit the properties of the gold or the feather or the quark or the Mexican hat shape, but I still don't know what they ARE.
I recommend factoring in space (distance) and time.
Oh look that relationship appears to be speed. The speed of light - energy. (C) :P
And we are right back at Einstein equation.
Energy and matter both have mass. Energy's mass is potential mass and matters mass is actualised mass (matter).
1+2 = 3, 1 and 2 is 12. If you want to apply the concept of 'and' arithmetically then to me that mean to place them contiguously. Words are created by 'anding' letters. I know that + and 'and' are conflated together in many ways. Some of them may even be useful and convenient but to me + means to add together. I come from a computing background and if 1,2 are inputs and the operator is + then the output will be 3 and YOU CANNOT get the original inputs back again. You cannot reassemble the cake once it is smashed on the floor. If you use 1 and 2 then you do maintain the original inputs in the result (output).
They're not conflated per se just dynamic in utility. Conflation denotes erroneous association. It's just that "and" can = "+" but doesn't have to. As you pointed out.
One and two equals three.
One and two equals twelve.
Bob and elsa go..
And another thing...
And what?
And so forth.
All uses of "and" above mean something different.
At a very general, basic and definitive meaning "and" means "combined" or "put together". How or what it puts together is open to interpretation.
Maths is great for discrete logic but not for explaining more abstract (non discrete) concepts. That's where Ands flexibility of use comes in.
What I was saying is that the whole set of the material can be considered as discrete (it's a whole set of things). The whole set of immaterial can also be made discrete as it is a (whole set of things). And thus my Duality proposal is set on that basis.
That if we want to know the truth about the material, immaterial and the interaction between them then we must do some addition and sum to the "universal". Like a Venn diagram.
Venn diagrams can be applied to sets of numbers: primes, powers, multiplications etc. But they can equally be used for abstract concepts to generate relationships between them that are informative of their definitions relative to one another.
Car Sagan has always been a very important influence in my life. He used the phrase 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' It's one of the very very few statements he has ever uttered that I don't fully agree with. I would agree that 'absence of evidence is not proof of absence.'
There is zero evidence of the existence of the immaterial (especially when used as a synonym of supernatural) there is no evidence of such a set. Concepts such as dark energy or dark matter are materials/energies we can't yet detect but they are not immaterial.
What's that got to do with anything? Get out more.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes it is, it is just that, like most, you don't read the OP carefully - you just see 'conservation of energy principle' and think 'I can say something about that' and then you say it, regardless of whether it is relevant to the argument.
Once more, the issue here is not whether the conservation principle is true. I know you think it is and you're now unable to accept that you're wrong and it's all feeling a little disorientating. But there it is. .
The issue is whether the principle of the conservation of energy is COMPATIBLE with dualism.
"But, but, but..."
No.
The issue, lil D-K troll, is whether the principle of the conservation of energy is COMPATIBLE with 'five-sided triangles' or 'conscious atoms' or "angels dancing on pinheads' like yours. :roll:
OK, so you gave me the premise right here, the physicist told you so. I never said that you couldn't infer the conclusion with a premise, I said you couldn't infer it without the premise. Now you gave me the premise, and your conclusion, that energy burns your hand, is valid, but only if we do not consider your appeal to authority to be a fallacy, and we exclude your premise on that basis.
But saying ""Ouch that f*@king hurt." does not qualify as making a measurement, by any stretch of the imagination. To touch something is to measure it? Come on Benj96, your reaching for straws. And how would you know that it is energy you are measuring, except that someone told you? So, you know that you measured energy, because someone told you that this is what tyou did when you touched the fire. And how much energy did you measure?
Quoting Benj96
Sorry, Benj, I will not oblige you and stick my hand in a fire. I will tell you quite honestly though, that doing such is not an act of measuring the energy which is there. If it were, you'd be able to tell me how many calories were transferred from the fire to your hand when you touched it.
Quoting Benj96
That's not a decent conclusion at all. Things are loaded with potential energy, which are not hot at all. Remember tht famous equation, E=mc2? Anything with mass has a heck of a lot of energy within it. Remember the atom bomb? The mass does not need not be hot to contain a lot of energy.
I really must tell you, you have some very strange notions about energy, Benj.
Quoting Benj96
The idea behind this type of discussion is that we both learn. The problem which has developed is that you don't seem to have much which you can teach me in this subject. So at this stage it's pretty much me teaching you. However, you seem to be a very reluctant student, very skeptical so the process has become very slow, and maybe we've gone beyond the point of making any progress at all.
Quoting universeness
All you have to do is take a look at what energy is, and you'll see that it is not something directly measured. The quantity of energy which is said to be attributed to any object or any specific location, is always the product of a calculation. Look at the famous equation E=mc2. In this case, the amount of energy is derived from a measurement of mass. And when kinetic energy is assigned to a moving object, the equation is 1/2mv2. So kinetic energy is derived from applying that formula to measurements of mass and velocity. It's just a simple fact, that the quantity of energy is always derived from applying a formula to measurements. Energy is not something directly measured, it is calculated. Contrary to Benj96's claim, that he sticks his hand into a fire, and feels the energy in the fire, energy has no empirical existence. It is in no way sensed.
Quoting universeness
This is the point, we do not sense energy at all. Notice that we see rainbows, and other instances of refraction, and interference patterns, being the wave property of light, but we do not see the photon, which is supposed to be a unit of energy. The photon is a calculated unit of energy, not a sensed unit of light.
Quoting universeness
No, I would obviously not agree to that. Since energy is never sensed, it is only the product of a calculation, it must be immaterial, as a conception only.
Quoting universeness
Yes, I think there is necessarily a beyond the universe. This is because "the universe" is a materialist conception, based on all that is material, and sensible. But we can understand, through the concept of energy, that there is necessarily an immateril aspect of reality.
Quoting Bartricks
Did you not read the part of my post, where I described explicitly the problem with your op? You said "note that the evidence that the principle of the conservation of energy is true is empirical evidence". This is incorrect, as I explained. All empirical evidence indicates that the law of conservation is false.
Therefore you need to correct this.
But correcting that would create an even bigger problem for your op, because you then go on to say: "in order for the principle of the conservation of energy to be violated, some energy would need either to disappear or be introduced into the picture by the addition of event B. But event B does not do this. "
Now, you need to just face the facts. The law of conservation is always violated, all the time, and so, in the event of B, energy must disappear, according to the second law of thermodynamics. Therefore, if you maintain your assertion, that no energy disappears in the instance of B, then B is not a real empirical event, and your claim of compatibility fails.
Is this sufficient as a reply to your issue of compatibility?
No, because you're just finding different ways of saying 'but the law of conservation isn't true".
Assume it is true. Is it compatible with dualism?
If the goal of the thread is to just make assumptions with no respect for whether or not they are true, then why don't we just assume that the law of contradiction is compatible with dualism, and get the thread done with.
We don't know what energy IS. A photon has associated quantum numbers which are attributes of a photon but are not enough to reveal the 'material' of a photon. A photoelectric sensor can 'detect' a photon, which to me, is evidence that it is not immaterial.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
in what way are you using 'immaterial' here? as a synonym with supernatural? If not, then do you have other synonyms you would accept for 'immaterial' as you use it here?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Do you have any 'descriptions' or even 'attributes' of that which you perceive exists 'outside' of this universe. Does it have special dimensions? Is any of its 'substances' quantisable? Any structure?
Can 'stuff' from here go there and vice versa? Is every 'planck length' here connected to the 'outside' you envisage. Can you refer to 'outside' this universe without suggesting an existent which we would currently label 'supernatural'?
The question posted was:
Do you agree with this statement: "Matter can be created and destroyed but energy cannot"?
Victor's response was:
[b]The concept of matter is surprisingly ill-defined. Different branches of physics would consider different things matter. To a cosmologist, for instance, or a relativist, everything that is not gravity is matter. A particle theorist might consider, e.g., fermions matter and bosons as particles that mediate forces. Others may have different views. In any case, matter is not a quantitative concept, so creating or destroying matter is also ill-defined.
So whether you view the annihilation of a particle-antiparticle pair into a pair of photons the destruction of matter or just a conversion from one form of matter into another is, to a large extent, a matter of taste.
Energy is a constant of the motion in systems that are described by equations that are invariant under time translation. To the best of our knowledge, all finite closed physical systems (systems that do not communicate with their environment) have this invariance, but we do not know if this property can be extended, e.g., to the universe as a whole.[/b]
An accurate response imo.
I would say that there is no such thing as what energy is, and trying to make such a determination would be a mistaken venture.
Quoting universeness
This is the mistaken interpretation which I referred to above. The sensor registers a physical change, and through the principles employed, it is calculated that this change is equivalent to a quantity of energy represent by "a photon". The photoelectric sensor does not actually detect a photon, it just undergoes a change, an effect which we calculate as the effect of a photon's worth of force. That the sensor detects a photon is a common misinterpretation.
Quoting universeness
I really can't understand what you are asking. I am using "immaterial" in the common way, as non-material, such as we would say that concepts have immaterial existence. Energy is nothing more than a concept. There is absolutely nothing in the world of matter which "energy" represents. It is very similar to "time" in that respect. We use the concept freely, but there is nothing material in the world which is represented by it. So if we try to reify it, to say that there is something real which is represented by it, we end up being forced to say that there is something real which is immaterial. That's what happens when we try to reify concepts.
Quoting universeness
No, I have no such description. It's simply the case that the way that we conceptualize "the universe" produces from logical necessity, the conclusion that there is something outside the universe. In other words, that there is something outside the universe is a logical conclusion produced from our current conception of "the universe". To determine some logical principles concerning the nature of what it is which is outside the universe would require that we analyze closely the premises which lead to this conclusion, such as the premises involved in the concept of energy.
It is possible that we might conceptualize "the universe" in a different way, but such a conceptualization might not be as useful to us. A supposed "true conceptualization" of the universe might be able to represent all of reality as "the universe", but this conceptualization would be very different from the useful conceptualization which we currently employ.
Quoting universeness
Do you label concepts, being artificial instead of natural, as supernatural?
Quoting universeness
I guess the nature of matter is a feature of which flavour of quark you prefer.
I think what he meant was that there is information out there that we haven't yet obtained. Bigger truths that contextualised our differences of opinion.
Quoting universeness
And in what way does one "prove" something? I think it's with evidence no? The empirical.
So proof of absence is what in this case but lacking evidence to do so.
Quoting universeness
There isnt? Are you sure?
When i invent/construct in my mind a fantasy. There is no evidence for that fantasy existing except for me (the beholder of the fantasy contained in my mind - the immaterial, inaccessible to anyone else unless I speak. My. Mind).
The minute I write it down as a novel. It becomes real. Something physical that people can read and interpret/read/appreciate. I have shared my creativity and imagination with the world in that case. Something that was once private and inaccesible to anyone else.
Read that again bud.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
How then (if it is a concept) is it equivalent to matter. If it was truly equivalent to matter then matter is also, by proxy, a concept. Are you denying Einsteins discoveries. Thats a bold attempt. Admirable maybe but no less bold in conviction.
How would you go about explaining that Einsteins theory is totally false?
It would be different. But science is about shifting paradigms to those that have better explanatory power for what is actual about the universe. What is truly real.
Just because one demi-concept is partially useful doesn't mean it cannot be replaced with something even more useful, more explanatory. As has been done many times in the past.
I disagree as what is detected satisfies the human label 'photon' and is considered 'material.'
I accept that a photon is probably not geometrically shaped like the traditional snooker ball that it is sometimes depicted as or the geometric waveform is it also sometimes shown as. This is because we now think it is a field excitation but we cannot current show its actual shape. As you suggest, that might be because it does not have one that we will ever be able to physically see or even imply via detection but there is zero evidence for your suggestion that it is immaterial. It's utter conjecture to play the bar tricks game and suggest that the immaterial can create the material. That's just a god of the gaps inference.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I think you do understand what I am asking. But I can be more direct if you wish. I am asking if your dalliance with the term immaterial leaves room in your psyche for god posits?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Well, I accept that's your conclusion and you are certainly not alone in that. The many worlds/multiverse/oscillating universe proposals and many many more, all have credence levels that individuals assign to them, from the novice to the expert. These are backed up by various logical, fairly coherent proposals but none of them have sufficient evidence to be as overwhelmingly convincing as theories/facts such as the evolution of species or the rules of arithmetic.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Artificial is material artificial intelligence for example is emulation and emulation is real. Artificial simply means made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural. The terms supernatural and immaterial, belongs in god posits imo.
Perhaps.
Carl actually used the term to confirm that atheism was not attempting to disprove god posits and used the phrase to support his point but I think the 'proof' substitution I suggested makes the phrase clearer, as the absence of any evidence to support a claim, does add significant credence to the idea that the claim has no existent, especially when the evidence remains zero as time goes forward.
Quoting Benj96
You need to edit your last sentence above as it makes no sense. I agree with your text in the quote, before the last sentence.
Quoting Benj96
Yes, I am currently convinced, the immaterial has no existent.
Quoting Benj96
A human fantasy, constructed within a human mind is not immaterial, its real, you are really experiencing it, either in sleep or awake mode. Exactly what is immaterial in your fantasies? They are made of thoughts and thoughts are not immaterial, they are the results of combinatorial brain actions.
I think dualism is nonsense (as I have typed to you before, I do raise an eybrow to the idea of an emerging panpsychism and I agree that all of the 'ingredients' of human consciousness, must exist outwith humans, but still within this universe) and human consciousness exists ONLY in the brain. I think YOU are fundamentally, a brain, in that your brain is the most significant part of YOU.
I can remove most of the rest of you and you will still be able to act as a thinking human, if not a fully functioning one.
But how do you empirically prove I'm experiencing it unless I tell you I am experiencing it? My internal thoughts are private to me are they not? Inaccesible by any study, objective measurement etc until I elucidate them verbally.
How then are they not immaterial? You cite so because they are the product of the brain. But the hard problem of consciousness exists. To assume it doesn't means you have proof as to how my brains function gives rise to my sensations/emotions and feelings. And the imagination.
If you had such a proof you'd be able to predict not only what I'm thinking now but whatever I could possibly think of in the future.
Do you know who I am in my entirety? All my memories, experiences, beliefs and opinions, feelings? Does anyone?
Or are they strictly immaterial (non physical/not expressed/not written down) to everyone if I choose not to divulge them?
How would you, with a materialist explanation, account for the information in my mind that you cannot access?
I doubt you can remove anything from me that isn't vital to my interpretation/sense of the world without impacting my consciousness. If you remove my vital organs I die. If you remove my limbs then I cannot be conscious of all the sensation that limbs provide or the ways they interact with the world to give me information in my consciousness.
If the immaterial doesn't exist then I suppose the material cannot do anything. It cannot be acted on, move etc. Because what would exist to do those things to the material? What fills in the gap between material things and allows them to move towards or away from eachother for example.
How do we make sense of "material" without, oh I don't know, the opposite? Are opposites not required to exist for eachother to be separable/distinct?
Can light exist without darkness? Can poverty exist in isolation from wealth? Can sound exist without silence!? Can up exist without down?
Can the material exist without the immaterial?
Can natural systems created artificial things? Can the natural/organic (humans) create non-natural things? Or is everything a natural thing does/make and extension of nature ?
I think "artificial" means "unlike that which came before it" which can be applied to humans verses our ape/primate ancestors. Or multicellular organisms verses unicellular organisms. None of which are "unnatural".
"artificial" is a fancy and misleading word for the things and operations that humans carry out that supposedly are not permitted by natural processes despite the fact that everything artificial is a). composed of and B). Obeys the laws of - natural things, metals, silicon, electricity etc.
Look, you just don't know how to argue or what the op is on. If you have nothing to say about the compatibility of the principle of c and dualism, no thoughts on the carefully laid out argument in the op, then go away. Stop blathering on about how it is false. Start a thread on that, even though it isn't remotely philosophical. Then I can join that one and say things irrelevant to your op.
Well, I could scan your brain and use the science we have, to see if the bits of the brain that should 'light up' or activate during dreaming or 'imagining,' do in fact 'light up' or 'activate'. I am not a neuroscientist, but I have watched various documentaries on what we currently understand is going on in the brain, and how brain activity maps to human activity/thought. We also have your confirmatory verbal input, to assist the process. I am not suggesting that such mapping of brain activity, can map perfectly on to a comment you might make such as 'I just thought of a unicorn with the feet of a lion,'
but we are progressing in neuroscience in very impressive ways.
Quoting Benj96
I did not suggest that science has solved the hard problem of consciousness. I am suggesting that I dont know why you jump to woo woo words such as 'immaterial.' There is no evidence that the immaterial has an existing example. You are suggesting we can use the term credibly and confidently, in regard to phenomena such as human consciousness. I do not see where that confidence or credence comes from, but I do see where the confidence and credence come from when a word like 'material' is used in regard to human thought, as we have what is considered to be many detectable attributes of energy particles or energy field excitations.
Quoting Benj96
I don't claim to have telepathic ability, no, but again, nueroscience does know a respectable amount about the workings of the brain and what we don't yet know is a gap that does not require an immaterial plug.
Quoting Benj96
There is no gap. The universe consists of different forms of material, nothing immaterial needs to be involved. Force/energy is material and energy does work so that material with mass can do stuff.
Quoting Benj96
How about a hair or a skin cell or a fingernail? How about a skin graft?
Quoting Benj96
Artificial heart? Modified pig organs? heart, liver, kidney transplants?
Quoting Benj96
These are not alternative existents they are states of a quantity range. A dimmer switch demostrates that light and dark is part of the same range of states. As is poverty/wealth and up/down (same single dimension)
Quoting Benj96
No but humans can. Plastic is not natural it is a human combinatorial but it's still real!
Artificial does not literally mean, 'not real.'
But I outlined a situation in which I don't volunteer the information verballyx but rather keep it to myself. You can scan my brain but with no input from me you cannot make any associations between what you see on the screen to what I'm actually thinking.
I'm saying that my mind is exactly such an example. If you have no access to the entirety of my minds content then it is by default immaterial to you. Unprovable with what's available to materialism. Without my input.
But all brains are different no? Structured differently. Otherwise we would all have the same memories and think the same things simultaneously.
You cannot standardise a brains function. As we are individuals therefore unique, therefore our brains hold different information in a different arrangement.
Sure, one day science might be able to produce a toy which allows you to concentrate on a number and my brain scanner can tell you what the number is. It might not work every time but even once or twice would be impressive, yes? On what basis is you keeping your thought secret from another evidence that the immaterial exists. All that would be evidence for is the fact that you have the ability to not tell me what you are currently thinking!
If force/energy is material Should we not be able to see it just like we can see matter - a cup of coffee on the table.
Quoting universeness
If you remove a hair I can't feel any fly/mosquito brushing against it. If you remove a fingernail I can't feel what it's like to get my nail clipped/pared back.
Granted if you remove a skin cell I wouldn't notice.
Not at all! In what way is my inability to read your mind, evidence of the immaterial? I cant see the inside of a black hole, does that make its contents immaterial? is a black hole immaterial?
The fact that I can keep information private from everyone else is by definition something that is not physical - something that it is impossible for others to ascertain with objective methods.
And if they tried I could cite invasion of privacy. An ethical Implication which would likely stand up in court even if you could scientifically extract the information from my mind by scanning.
Therefore it is immaterial to others. Inaccesible information that yes exists. But only for me and no one else. And you cannot prove it empirically without my cooperation.
What définition of immaterial can you offer that doesn't satisfy what I just explained.
We would if we experienced every life event since birth in exactly the same way.
Every electronic memory chip is identical in physical structure and functionality but they don't all hold the same software or data.
How are the blind still able to experience a 'reality'?
You can 'feel the force/the gravity/the heat' is that not as good as seeing it?
Have you felf anything immaterial recently or ever?
The question is whether dualism is compatible with the conservation of energy principle. So that is what you should be discussing . Not - note - any thought that enters your mind while reading the op regardless of its relevance to it.
Why the fuck even bother with an op? Focus! or start your own thread on whatever you think passes for a philosophical point worth discussing ("Are philosophy is progress free will consciousness bananas oo money the poor oppression" - some thought vomit like that). Don't derail this one with your inane thoughts.
Again: if you have nothing to say about the compatibility (look it up) of dualism with the conservation principle, then go away. Your thoughts are not being sought.
Even that is not true if the hair I removed had not yest broken through your skin!
You remove waste products for YOU all the time dont you? Do you still feel like YOU afterwards?
But we can't can we? Because in order to exist we must be separate objects occupying individual space that creates opposing perspectives. In order to be exactly the same we have to occupy the same space simultaneously. Otherwise I'm 2 meters away from something whilst you're 1 meter away. And the two perspectives and sensations are fundamentally different. You think it's too hot 1m away from the fire but I 2m away think it's fine.
They experience reality differently to those that can see. Obviously. If their other senses are in tact then they can perceive them just as anyone else can, if not better because the part of their brain that normally perceives vision is idle and can likely be included into other processing making it more astute.
No it's not! It only involves a physical ability to decide to not speak and not tell me your current thoughts. Nothing immaterial is needed.
I don't think we want to get so far off topic that we start to discuss the legal situation as regarding a future neurological ability to mind read.
Just like science has many ways to detect what's going on in the universe without having to surrender to concepts like the immaterial.
You are not discussing the op.
Bartricks we are having our own discussion born out of the op but not related to it. Back off.
We can follow the op or the line of reasoning that emerged out of it. You're not an authority to dictate what ought be discussed as it emerges. What right do you have to command other peoples thoughts? Sure we can created a new thread and maybe we will. In either case it has little to do with you. Either participate or respond to what you feel is relevant..
Do not enforce your beliefs on others please. Have a little respect.
Still no evidence for the existence of the immaterial!
You discuss the op in a thread,not anything that occurs to you.
Start a new thread on whatever you are discussing. Thos is massive derailment from you.
I took time to write an op. You owe it to discuss that op or go away.
Oh no. Poor you. I'll play my tiny violin for your sorrows.
Nice. :) super "philosophical" of you.
Now, address the op or go away.
Is it not relevant? If my mind is currently unreadable. No one esle can deduce what I'm thinking except me. Is it material? Is it physical? Because as far as I know the materialist view is everything is knowable from objective measurement. So if you cannot objectively measure my mind. What is my mind? Is it material? I doubt it
I have plenty of philosophical ability. You may disagree. That's fine. Believe whatever soothes you. But kindly don't dictate my ongoing debates with other contributors if they want or engage also.
The guidelines confirm that the TPF moderators require posters to stay in line with the OP.
I would argue that we are, as we are discussing the validity of the concept of the immaterial which is part of what bar tricks wants us to measure as a compatible in his bizarre conflation with dualism.
His points have already evaporated as nonsense based on what members have posted so far on this thread. So, imo, he should be happy that a material/immaterial chat is still on going as his thread died on the first page. If a mod thinks we are too far off the OP, then they only have to say so. @Bartricks can PM a request to them.
Agreed univerness. :P
You are not addressing the op. You are derailing. Go away
So, are you declaring yourself a dualist?
Yes. From the beginning. Literally lol.
Are you having a breakdown?
Omg dead lmao
Every time I ask you if you are a panpsychist you seem to pause in your rate of response and then your eventual response ignores the question. :chin:
Just a dualist. Between the material and immaterial. Pan psychism is its own whole rabbit hole. I just think the mimd and the material exist not in opposition but Duality with one another. And can be explained only from a dualist (non monism) perspective. As the very nature of being monist is the negation/denial of the existence of an opposite.
So, is your acceptance of the existence of the immaterial, similar to that of @Metaphysician Undercovers, in that you think the immaterial has existence 'outside' of this universe or do you think what you call 'immaterial' exists within this universe but is forever indetectable to us.
If this were true then the Greeks were wrong with 'Cosmos' as the universe, would therefore, not be fully knowable.
The uncertainty principle is more about knowing multiple attributes of a system in the same instance of time, as you suggest. I don't think it says anything about existents that can NEVER be detected by human science.
I didn't say that. I said they can't be detected simultaneously. It can be detected by science but at the detriment to other certainties, which themeselves can also be detected in isolation.
But not all information can be accounted for simultaneously without somehow stopping information from existing (change).
Unless I get banned in between times of course :halo:
If you don't mind, please explain why you are, if I understand correctly, a "material-immaterial dualist".
:razz:
Like Sean Carroll I prefer the label physicalist rather than materialist. I'm not sure there is any real difference.
I prefer naturalist which covers them both.
(I also prefer atomist to materialist.)
Yes, fair point :up:
Unless the evidence forces us there, believing in a spirit realm feels like giving up on science.
Quoting Bartricks
If not then there is nothing here of note as we are effectively talking about something that cannot be measured or experienced. Experience requires change and change requires energy to be transferred.
A non-thing exists as an idea of absence not as some other-thing. There is no thingness to that which we cannot grapple with because we cannot grapple with it because it is not an it.
Cries of a wet toddler because the adults can't decipher her babytalk. :yawn:
The immaterial event is not empirically detectable. If it was, it wouldn't be immaterial. Yet the existeence of such events is as clear as can be, indeed clearer than the occurrence of any material events.
But anyway, the issue here is not whether dualism is true. The issue is whether it is compatible with the principle of the conservaton of energy.
As for the mind body dualism I have to reason to believe there is or is not such a thing. When it comes to that matter I am heavily in favour of the Husserlian approach where such questioning is of no real interest to me.
There is far more that we do not know that gives a window of opportunity to question the mainstream ideas with less popular ones. Long may such interactions continue! :)
But if something becomes detectable, such as dark energy say, or some other exotic particle, let's even suggest the unlikely tachyon. If we detected a dark energy field excitation, then it would not be immaterial.
If it's detectable then how can it be labelled immaterial?
I consider those terms synonymous, and I am a Sean Carroll fan.
Yeah, I might switch to that label! It is clearer. Your command and depth of knowledge of terminology and philosophy continues to impress. You should offer your contact details as a rehab for bar tricks students.
I kinda feel the same way about the word 'immaterial.'
Can your baker friends not answer your OP for you better than any TPF member can?
I showed how consciousness is made of states of pastry and that I am a croissant.
-Bartricks
Nonsense. It what sense is a 'mental event' immaterial? Mental events are detectable in brain scans and I can confirm my own mental events to you verbally! How is that immaterial?
Quoting Bartricks
No! the concept of duality and conservation of energy are about as compatible as science and belief in the supernatural.
Quoting universeness
Yes, the immaterial is the spirit realm.
According to @Bartricks immaterial things don't need energy to function. However, ghosts and minds would still create physical energy when they move things in the physical world, contrary to the conservation of energy principle.
How do you know what ghosts and immaterial minds would/could do?
What are you labelling a ghost? Some remainder of dead humans?
Do you think such entities exist, based on evidence you have studied, in depth enough to believe it would stand up to scientific scrutiny?
Surely claims that the immaterial exists must first convince the scientific community before people such as bar tricks asks us all to comment on its relationship with dualism or its compatibility with conservation laws.
You will be far more informed if you do!
Yes, a ghost like Casper. If Casper started moving things in the physical world, but required no energy himself, he would be adding energy from nowhere?
If you think it is about whether the principle of conservation is true, or whether dualism is true, then you're really bad at philosophy. Trust me: I assess how good people are at philosophy for a living. And you're shit at it if you think the issue here is whether A or B is true. It's whether they're compatible. If you can't understand the difference, then you belong on a production line or a frontline. Thinking isn't for you.
What on earth are you on about? Read the OP and address something in it. Don't just state things.
Good summation. Ghosts are fine provided they don't do any work (W=Fs).
Another one of 's joke threads.
Link or reference? Or was it in Mad Magazine?
JOSÉ GUSMÃO RODRIGUES
Philosophy
Vol. 89, No. 348 (April 2014), pp. 199-222
That well known joke journal, 'Philosophy', the oldest of the lot and published by the Royal Institute of Philosophy. It's such a laugh.
This? Section 6?
Seems to me on a quick read there are sufficient differences between that article and your OP for you not to be guilty of plagiarism. :wink:
Further, my comment concerning work shows the problem with the argument in the Rodrigues article, too. It's not just that spirit does not conserve energy, but that it cannot do work - make any changes.
I might be wrong. Address the physics.
As for the article I referenced, the point made in the op is made by him in that article. That you can't see this is to be expected, given you can't tell a good argument from a joke and given you still don't understand the op.
But where? Your argument in the OP relies on transitivity between three events, A, B, C. There's no similar argument in section 6, where the Gomez article addresses conservation. I don't think you did plagiarise his argument.
You also do not understand what plagiarism involves, clearly. For regardless of whether the argument in the OP is original to me or is the one in that article, it would not be plagiarism.
Quoting José Gusmão Rodrigues
Rodrigues addresses each in turn, showing that the argument as presented is quite weak.
What I'm puzzling over, for those of you with a decent background in physics, is if we can word (3) and (4) in terms of work done rather than the loose "interact"; Something like
(3') If souls do work, they change the amount of
energy available for work (entropy?).
(4') Souls do work.
But that does not quite what I think we can get to. It's more that if a spirit has some impact of a physical system, then it does work (exerts a force over some distance), and it is part of the physical system.
Hence reinforcing the intuition that any spirit or other supposed non-physical entity, if it is detectable, is physical.
And the converse, that a spirit that is not part of this universe does not work and is irrelevant, dropping out of consideration faster than a beetle in a box.
others might be able to harden such an argument up.
The argument is not sound because, unlike the universe & bodies, there is not any public evidence of "souls".
I enjoyed nBSG as a more adult, grittier, semi-harder tech "reimagining" of the cartoony oBSG which was an excremental, faux-Mormon Star Wars-clone. Okay, yeah, the premise doesn't make sense but ...
:roll: My muscular buttocks you have "peer reviewed.".
Oh, obviously, but there remains a problem with the physics of things that are supposedly not physical that we might be able to articulate. If they are not physical, they cannot do stuff.
If we are allowed part-series, the first series of Earth: Final Conflict had more to it than nBSG, and the first few episodes of Lexx were grittier.
Do you really want Bart peering at your buttocks? I mean, it's up to you, but...
Who employs you? Donald Trump? Trust YOU :rofl:
No need to. You have again killed bar tricks already dead OP, as I typed earlier. The OP died on page 1 with posts such as:
Quoting 180 Proof
I got carried away with a (Jayne Cobb) partial quote from the movie Serenity. :snicker:
Because they are neccesary/symbiotic/complimentary to one another. Materialism would be meaningless without Immaterialism and vice versa. They contextualise one another.
Both gather empirical evidence, but differ in the quality of that empirical evidence. One is based on observation of its physical qualities that can be precisely measured using instruments or experiments. Observations that are fixed, constant and ought not to change if true.
The other is based on its symbolic (metaphysical) qualities, invented for purpose which can be arbitrarily changed and through its purpose it is true.
If I give a 20 dollar note to a puritan materialist and ask it to find its inherent value/ability to do work. They will burn it and say that it has an inherent value of 100 joules (or whatever) of chemical energy when fully combusted.
Give the same note to a puritan Immaterialist and they will say well it has a 20 written on it so I can symbolically exchange that with someone else who also believes it's worth 20 of something and buy two products worth 10 of that something each. It can be transacted and that is its value/ability to do work - procure goods and services.
The materialist will be like where did you find the 20? Where is its physical basis? What part of its structure, mass, density etc gives rise to this 20 value?
The Immaterialist will say its physical basis comes from collective belief and agreement in the imagined worth of a piece of paper. Only then can it be assumed real and functional in reality.
Similarly if I and a friend show someone an object and say that it is called a "smoogflump" the materialist will say Where's the physical evidence for that? Prove it. Of course the Immaterialist cannot prove it by any standard accepted as proof by the materialist. It is only called so because they agree with another person to refer to it as such. The basis for linguistics.
In essence consciousness has the capacity to interpret the world materially by controlling/standardising parts of the environment that are not neccesarily standardisable in all cases - time, space etc to elucidate physics/chemistry etc.
or imaginatively/creatively/with artistic licence (metaphor, figurative speech, abstraction, word-play, mythology, emotion, feeling) - all things that in the mind of an individual have no materialist counterpart in reality that can be physically proven, lest them make it so through agreement.
This is why I am a dualist. I believe materialism provides us with some of the picture. And Immaterialism fills in the rest.
Time is not physical in the "material" sense. You can't point to it, pick it up, say what colour it is etc, yet it allows for "stuff to be done".
We reduce it to the assumption of physicality in the sense that we objectify it/standardise it/make it finite and discrete - with seconds minutes and hours.
Because we "measure" it's passage consistently we can say its "physical" - real and exists. But our measurements are arbitrary. A second is a human invention. Nature doesn't deal in seconds it deals in cycles and oscillations and frequencies, all of which run at different rates.
There needs to be the distinction between being "physical" as something that is "material" - has matter, is an object that occupies space, or something that is "measurable"- which includes far more things than just that that is material.
They are not the same thing.
But your exemplifications of what you are labelling 'immaterial' are completely notional.
Just because the term 'material' exists does not demand it must have an opposite.
Consider actual material examples! Does a human or a car have an opposite?
What's the opposite of a human? Everything that's not human?
What's the opposite of this universe?
Up and down are only opposites, in the sense of which linear directions they might exist at.
I agree that something like particle, anti-particle pairs/opposites, have a different aspect to them, compared to most objects that might be labelled 'opposites,' as they annihilate each other when they meet but even that situation remains 'material,' as resultants such as photons are produced from the annihilation. What is the opposite of time?
I see nothing in your description of your dualism that I can even consider as a valid example which warrants the label 'immaterial.'
I don't think the 'non-physical' mentioned in the description below from wiki to mean non-natural or non-material. I just assumed it to mean non-physical as it is 'invisible energy,' but not immaterial or non-detectable! Are the more important words in the description below for dualism, not, 'distinct and separable?'
In the philosophy of mind, mindbody dualism denotes either the view that mental phenomena are non-physical, or that the mind and body are distinct and separable. Thus, it encompasses a set of views about the relationship between mind and matter, as well as between subject and object, and is contrasted with other positions, such as physicalism and enactivism, in the mindbody problem.
Quoting Banno
Thank God someone understood what I was saying.
@Bartricks saying that it does not take energy for the spirits to be activated made my argument about energy coming from nowhere when they move things in the physical world easier.
However, if it is asserted that the spirits (whether minds or ghosts) use energy, it is not so easy. The stock argument is that even if the spirit takes energy from the physical systems and then adds the same amount of energy back, the amount of energy within the system would be fluctuating. The total amount of energy within the system is not supposed to be fluctuating, it is supposed to remain constant per the conservation of energy principle.
Yup. "absence of said human/ car". The opposite is the lack thereof in the material world. The only other possibility of its existence then being within the minds eye/imagination. Although if oddly specific, it's unlikely to spontaneously arise unless someone describes it to you.
Potentiality of this universe. Possibility to be.
Witches similarly are fine provided they don't do any work. However such a belief lead as we know well to a lot of burning women (work done).
A belief can be brought into reality. If it is acted upon. If not then it remains in the mind only. That is not to say the belief is coherent, sensible or with good explanatory power but that doesn't stop it from being cited as a reason to carry out physical acts which can be observed. In that way there is a link between the material and immaterial.
Some beliefs are good ones, predictive, useful, and other are more on the delusional/irrational side. But all can be manifested through action of their beholders.
But this means your 'immaterial' has as much significance to any content of this universe as 'no car, no human and no universe,' No significance at all. There is no evidence that 'something from nothing' happens as 'nothing' is impossible to quantify or even qualify. You can't even reference 'nothing' as your reference is 'something.'
Let me remind you though, your argument is based in the premise that the law of conservation is true.
Quoting Bartricks
Since the law of conservation is not true, your argument is unsound. Therefore I've requested that you produce a better argument, one which represents the law of conservation as a useful principle, but not true unless employed in conjunction with other principles, like the second law of thermodynamics. Representing the law of conservation as true by itself, is the false premise of your argument Bartricks. You strawman the law of conservation as a stand-alone truth.
I didn't reference "nothingness" I referenced "absence and potential/possibility to be".
Nothing doesn't exist without something - its opposite.
So before the simultaneous emergence of material stuff (something) and nothing (the seeming lack/the void/space) around that what ought there have been?
Potential. Which is not the same as nothing. Potential has characteristics "to be" - both something and its opposite.
"Nothing" does not have that same characteristics "to be". It is a by-product of somethingness.
I don't know if that will make sense but I did my best to explain my views. I'm haply to try and elaborate. But the meaning of my words and yours are critical here in not misinterpreting one another.
Well, at least I can reaffirm my rejection of duality.
The credence you are giving to a notion such as 'a potential universe,' has no credence at all for me.
Similar to the idea of a 'potential car, human, unicorn or god.' Such notions just seem meaningless to me.
And yet they exist. Here on this page. And in both our minds. How is that so? They don't have to be valued to exist. If you don't value another's beliefs, reject them at will. Does that mean they cease to exist? I believe not. They are just not agreed upon as real.
I don't think "a potential universe" is all that far off from the "singularity" concept of physics. A pointless, spatially dimensionless, timeless, entity in which all energy is condensed, all possible information and interactions that could and/or ever will exist.
Pure potential. Potential everywhereness (Omnipresence), potential every energy stateness (omnipotence) and potential every interactioness/measurable occurrence (omniscience).
Not nothing. Not something. But the in-between, a state that can remain as potential, or become mass energy time and space - as required for one another to exist relativistically.
To give dimension to the dimensionless.
Yes it sounds fantastical and bizarre and almost inconceivable and mainly will dismiss it as purely absurd thus, but it's just as strange as much of the other possible rationales for the origin of existence.
:roll: We're still waiting for the disproof of Noether's theorem (e.g. a "perpetual motion machine").
Quoting Benj96
Aka "woo-of-the gaps" (via false dichotomy due to reification fallacy of binary-opposition semantics). Okay. I appreciate your honesty, Ben.
:up:
How is it a false dichotomy and a reification fallacy simultaneously? That's a contradiction.
Reification fallacy is the inappropriate concretising of abstractions. Right? Saying the imaginary is real.
And you say this leads to false dichotomy - meaning a separation between two supposed opposites that doesn't actually exist.
If they don't actually exist as opposites, and there's only really one thing, where does the reification fallacy apply then? It can't apply to monism. Which in turn makes the premise to refer to it, a fallacy.
It's like the liar paradox in disguise. The following statement is true (reification fallacy). The previous statement is false (false dichotomy).
You're basically saying: they're not two they're one, due to the fact of misplaced concreteness. So is the one thing concrete or is it abstract?
If its concrete, how do we the word abstract meaningfully. And if its abstract how do we use the term concrete meaningfully.
Opposites have to exist for reification fallacy to be applied. And monism has to exist for false dichotomy to be applied. Its self proving that it's a dualistic state for either of those to ever be applied.
I think its absurd to think that only concrete things can exist and abstraction doesn't. Because if it doesn't what say you of creativity, imagination, invention, new words etc. They would have had to already exist if abstraction doesn't exist.
Can you explain to me a universe where only light exists and no darkness. Or where only sound exists and no silence?
Or perhaps it takes two to tango?
Ah yes the heavy burden of definitions is upon us once again. So easy to assume I'm explaining how I define something comprehensively verses what one interprets that is (based on their own definition readily at hand). Leading to all sorts of mismeanings and twistings of communication.
If only language was a bit less ambiguous.
Well for me substance is similar to material. Substance is that which "substantiates" physical things. Properties on the other hand are that which substances can do, behave like, impart.
As in color is a property imparted by substances to a perceiver.
So I guess my dualism doesn't argue for the immaterial having "substance". In fact its the very opposite. It doesn't have a tangible, physical presence except through symbols/symbolically.
The dualism i suppose is that substance and property are two sides of the same coin - existence. For something to exist it must have a property and/or a substance.
My properties (as a sentient being with substance) is to have an imagination of immaterial things. I can impart that immateriality using a substance - by that I mean communicating it through a medium (a substance) to another sentient being.
If I write a novel idea (something previously immaterial - within only my private mind, inaccesible) onto paper with ink (both substances), the representation/symbols (words and sentences) of my immaterial idea can be communicated (perhaps Imprecisely) to another mind.
In that way the immaterial and material piggyback on one another.
If I were to write "i think that force is equal to pressure multiplied by area" this can be taken as a concept (immaterial idea) suggesting a possible material existent outside of personal bias. It can be tested and is found consistent and so is taken to be material (independent/actual) when once it was just an idea, a concept (immaterial).
This two and fro between immaterial (imagination/ideas/concepts) and the material world (what we use to interact with one another) is what I mean by my Duality. Both exist. To say the mind doesn't exist without the body and the rest of physical things (pure materialism) would be logically incoherent based on empiricism.
And likewise to say only the mind exists (without the consistent properties and substance of the material world) woukd be equally incoherent.
So we must then conclude that immaterial and material things exist and they can interact with one another. The immaterial can describe the material world accurately (science) and the material is approaching a stage where it can ever more accurately describe the immaterial (the mind - neuroscience).
Property dualism
Substance dualism
Pro-tio: Making up your own, idosyncratic terms / definitions almost always confuses more than it clarifies the issue.
It may confuse, yes indeed, but I guess that is simply a failure of mine to impart what I mean clearly and concisely.
All I can do is reconsider, and try to narrow down exactly what it is I wish to describe and try to formalise it in an approachable manner.
If I have not done so, if I have failed, then I suppose I owe an apology. Such is the difficulty of outlining one's terms exactly as meant.
If you wish to continue establishing what we both think in respect to one another we can try. It may fail or succeed but that is no less one of the challenges faced by the philosopher.
Elsewhere I've pointed to the anachronistic (it's the key word for this thread) use of 'materialism'; it leads to muddles. Materialism was shown to be wrong by Newton.
While the length of a second is arbitrary, time is not.
Best approach is just to say that what is physical is what is dealt with by physics, which includes time.
There are plenty of psychoceramic approaches to time. If yours is one, I'll not be trying to repair your pot.
While @Bartricks topics are occasionally interesting, he has no capacity to accept and respond appropriately to critique and does not have a strong grasp of logic nor of philosophy. Don't be concerned about how he replies to your posts.
The argument remains that if spirit has an impact on the physical world, then it does work and hence uses energy. That is, if spirit has an impact on the physical world then it is part of physics. Any posited dualism collapses.
Basically, if spirit does anything, what it does would be measurable.
Benj, that coins work does not imply a new form of physics but a need for a different description. It's group intentionality that makes money work. See Institutional Facts: John R. Searle
Quoting Banno
:up:
Quoting Banno
Just had a read of the article. It's completely different to what @Bartricks is saying but close to what @Metaphysician Undercover is saying (@Metaphysician Undercover is saying the conservation of energy principle is incorrect, and Rodrigues is saying it could be).
I think the best approach for those that believe in spirits would be to say that when doing work, the spirits are just returning the energy they are using. But you make a good point:
Quoting Banno
@Metaphysician Undercover doesn't believe in instantaneous velocity. Hence it is not wise to spend time considering his views on matters involving physics.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Yep.
Just like in the other (ineffable) thread, what spirit does, is what is taken for granted. Newton's first law of motion for example. That a body will continue moving in the same way that it has in the past, onward into the future, is something taken for granted. But the universe doesn't necessarily have to be this way, there could be randomness in the movement of bodies. So Newton said his first law is dependent on the will of God.
That's an instance of Spirit causing what is taken for granted. But since Newton's first law is taken for granted we do not apprehend this activity described by it as requiring a cause, that activity is taken for granted. Newton saw it as requiring a cause though, and he attributed that cause to God.
Quoting Banno
There is no such problem. That the two are incommensurable does not mean that they cannot interact. It just means that the interactions cannot be properly measured, because the activity of the one cannot be measured with the same form of measurement as the activity of the other.
The difference between potential energy and kinetic energy may actually demonstrate the interaction of incommensurables. The two, potential and kinetic energy, affect each other. But that they are most likely incommensurable is evident from the fact that when one is said to convert to the other, there is always some energy missing, as per the second law of thermodynamics. This makes the claimed conversion a fiction, and demonstrates that the two must be in some way incommensurable. That's why the law of conservation is not true, it tries to establish commensurability between two incommensurables, potential energy and kinetic energy, and this just can't be done.
:up: :up:
What is physical is not just dealt with by physics though is it? What is physical - the reality we live in and its true nature whatever that may be, is reckoned with by every living person through several disciplines.
To say things that exist are only those that physics deals with means no other human discipline reveals anything physically true about reality. And has no merit. Which I think is overly physics biased.
If we are to explain how the universe works we can't ignore everything that occurs within it that has not or can not be addressed by physics.
We have to understand the perception of time (a product of consciousness) as well as physical time. For example. And reconcile how those both exist empirically to an observer
We have those different descriptions. Relativity and quantum physics. They work on premises not the same as materialist/mechanistic physics. (newtonian).
I'm not arguing that why money works requires a new form of physics, I'm using it to highlight the importance of what the other two domains of physics represent - that those things newtonian physics standardises as constant -time and space for example, Are not always the case, they change as observers are brought into the picture.
So, the immaterial (the mind/observation) does influence the external physical environments behaviour and vice versa.
Dualistic behaviour.
But that is not what I said. Your bank balance exists, yet is not physical.
Quoting Benj96
So give an account of your bank balance using relativity and quantum physics...
Quoting Banno
Midgley would also do nicely. You've entirely missed the point. The description of how your bank balance works is intentional, not physical. There is no dualism.
Ha, ha. It's very obvious that Instantaneous velocity is really an oxymoron. No time passes at an instant, and velocity requires a period of time, so velocity at an instant is impossible.. I've spoken to more than one physicist about this, and they clearly recognize this fact, but accept "instantaneous velocity" as a useful principle provided by mathematics. In philosophy some call this a useful fiction. However, some inept philosophers like you Banno, don't seem to recognize these useful fictions as fictions, and can't get beyond the idea that if physicists use the principle it must be a truth. But that's simply the influence of mathematics on physics, mathematics has no respect for truth or falsity.
So the problem is how do minds exist, right? If you define minds as physical matter ( brains ) that have the capability to contain immaterial objects you explain how minds can physically exist and why we can deal in the immaterial.
Bartricks isn't out of line suggesting these immaterials can be affected by and affect physical matter.
If you understand the problem from a brain, mental content perspective, all the physical states should work out. But if you separate the mind from the physical brain you will have endless problems.
Left speechless, as usual.
Self censoring. When you see your physicists again, explain to them how energy disappears and how [math]0.\dot9 \neq 1[/math]. They will be so grateful.
So are you claiming that this:
Since a photon is a particle of light, this means that it does not need to accelerate to light speed, as it is already travelling at the speed of light when it is created. A photon does not rest and then reach the speed of light at a certain length of time, or even instantly. A photon is always travelling at the speed of light, from the moment of creation.
From a website called Ask an Astronomer, is wrong? In electron, positron annihilation, when two photons are created, there is no acceleration to light speed.
Also, from the physics stack exchange:
[b]How does light re-accelerate after slowing down?
When light travels through a physical medium the photons don't actually slow down. They still travel at the speed of light. What makes it look like it slows down is the interactions between the photons and the physical medium.
For example the electrons in atoms can absorb photons and go to a higher energy state and then re-emit the photons when they move back to their normal energy state.
How long it takes between the absorption and emission of the photons determines how fast the light moves through a medium.[/b]
Very well.
QM: If I don't observe my bank balance for years meanwhile spending and earning at largely variable rates each. (ie if I add a huge amount of uncertainty into the system.)
I can justify any belief between having next to no money or even being in negative equity, or possibly having a huge lump sum. As I cannot recall/calculate in my mind the original sum or all the debits and credits. And can't rely on my own subjective sense of penny-wisdom at a given time.
This is the waveform of potential states of my bank balance.
I collapse the waveform when I observe the bank balance again.
I now have a certain/particular/discrete number. Whether I'm jumping with glee or panicking that I just bought a $4 dollar coffee is dependent on that waveform collapsing. If I don't look, then I'm neither happy nor said assuming thr sun stays someone in the mid range.
It's schrodingers cat/heisenbergs uncertainty principle and waveform-particle Duality in the context of my bank balance.
Shall I go on with a relativistic account also?
Or can we agree that the three domains of physics can be applied to any interaction between an observer and their environment, the limititations of which being which of the three domains of physics you apply.
Wave function collapse due to measurement or/and observation remains highly controversial.
The following addresses this pretty well:
[b]The idea of the wave function in quantum mechanics and its indeterministic collapse during a measurement is without doubt the most controversial problem in physics today. Of the several interpretations of quantum mechanics, more than half deny the collapse of the wave function. Some of these deny quantum jumps and even the existence of particles!
So, it is very important to understand the importance of what Dirac called the projection postulate in quantum mechanics. The collapse of the wave function is also known as the reduction of the wave packet. This describes the change from a system that can be seen as having many possible quantum states (Diracs principle of superposition) to its randomly being found in only one of those possible states.
Although the collapse is historically thought to be caused by a measurement, and thus dependent on the role of the observer in preparing the experiment, collapses can occur whenever quantum systems interact (e.g., collisions between particles) or even spontaneously (radioactive decay).
The claim that an observer is needed to collapse the wave function has injected a severely anthropomorphic element into quantum theory, suggesting that nothing happens in the universe except when physicists are making measurements. [/b]
If the measurement is done only by machines, with no humans involved, the same results occur, So the presence of a human is not needed to 'collapse the waveform.'
Um... How do we know it occurs when machines do it?Who read (observed) the machine result. Haha.
If no humans are involved how on earth can you make that conclusion.
Machines, like all measuring tools don't act as the observer in isolation, they are only an extension of the observers ability to observe. If the machine was sentient, consciously aware, then the story would be different. But for that they would require their own agency/choice to tell or not tell what they measured.
Machines/devices/tools can measure things we cannot measure with say, the naked eye, but a machine is only useful if it can make those observations that our senses are not sensitive enough to detect, detectable to those senses.
So having a machine do the hard graft work of measuring doesn't exclude need for the observer.
It's simple. If an observer "knows" of a single state through observing it. And uncertainty (a waveform of possibility) is the case when the observer doesn't "know"/hasn't observed it.
Collapse of the uncertainty into one point of certainty stands as the logical process that occurs between the two.
Whether they observe with their eye, or through a machines screen, or through a machines measurement of another machines measurement of another's etc the length of travel of the information from object to subject makes no difference, the collapse is the same outcome.
Unlike you, reasonable people recognize these useful mathematical fictions as fictions, so these explanations are not even needed. Some of the mathematicians on this forum, who being quite reasonable themselves, recognize that such propositions are not true, like to deny the true/false dichotomy which is commonly applied to propositions, claiming mathematical axioms are neither. In that case we might conclude that the axioms prove to be useful, but neither fact nor fiction. You, I've noticed, seem to like the utility of bivalence, so you don't have the same recourse unless you release that conviction. Maintaining bivalence, and not wanting to admit that falsity enters into physics by way of mathematical axioms, you deny the obvious.
Quoting universeness
I can't say I agree with that because i do not really believe there is such a thing (meaning a real object) as a photon. So it really makes no sense to talk about a fictional particle (photon) speeding up and slowing down. However, if there is such a thing as a photon, then I would agree, that it must always be travelling at the speed of light, by definition.
If you see what I wrote earlier, I believe that there is no such object as a photon. The photon, being a unit of energy, is like all instances of energy, the product of measurement. We measure certain spatial-temporal aspects (motions), apply calculations using various principles, and conclude a quantity of energy. So "the energy" which is said to constitute a photon, is a product of those measurements with the required calculations. In simple terms, we do not ever measure energy directly, we apply a formula to calculate "energy", so energy is calculated, not a property of the movement itself. And since a photon is nothing more than a quantity of energy associated with a specific type of activity, the photon has no real existence, it is the product of a calculation. This is what I wrote earlier in this thread:
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Jess H. Brewer (Physics professor since 1977.)
What's the proof that consciousness doesn't collapse the wave function?
Thats like asking whats the proof that prayer doesnt heal illness.
You can heal illness without prayer, and you can collapse a wave function without consciousness. Any sufficiently energetic interaction will do the trick.
This doesnt address the question of whether consciousness (whatever that is) can collapse a wavefunction without any physical interaction, but I wouldnt bet on it. How can consciousness be aware of the wavefunction without bouncing photons off it or the equivalent physical interaction?
Jonathan Hardis (Ph. D. Physicist)
Does human consciousness cause the collapse of the quantum wave function when measured?
No. There is no role for human consciousness in quantum mechanics.
In the double slit experiment, you will get an interference pattern regardless of the presence of a human conscience.
If an automated system performed the double slit experiment and no human EVER looked at the results, would that mean the wave function never collapsed? Or if humans look at the results a week or an hour after the auto system shut everything down. Would it still be the moment that a human read the results on a printout, that the wave collapses?
It's like you are suggesting, if a tree falls and makes sounds then if no conscious observer is present, then no sound/event occurred!
Do you ascribe to QFT then? If you accept a photon as a field disturbance/excitation/vibration, you still have the result that the excitation travels at a constant speed with no initial acceleration.
This is backed up by the fact that the property of mass prevents light speed motion.
Electrons don't travel at light speed as they have some mass.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
If you consider something like maxwells demon, when it opens the massless door between the two chambers based on the speed of each particle it observes, would you still insist it would be applying a formula, to make its measurements? Is it not just basing it on 'fast,' 'slow.' How about when you touch something to decide on its temperature? are you applying a formula or taking a sensor reading?
Is sensing the presence of a property of something like relative position, the application of a formula?
Ignoring a measure of actual distance for a moment, simply observing the position of an object as north, south, east, west etc, is the gathering of such information formula based?
I would suggest that base sensory information is not based on formula. I see, touch, taste, hear, smell and even think before I apply any formulae to measure scalar (magnitude) quantity or vector (magnitude and direction). Is information such as 'I see there is a car there' not just based on me comparing stored images with what I see? I would not call such 'shape/pattern recognition,' a formula application, would you?
Science suggests there are 38 'particles/excitations/vibrations' (perhaps of strings), that we are unable to currently detect. Dark energy/matter being 2. I think we need new sensors, not necessarily, new formula. I would say we use formulae to measure scale, based on units, but we can 'sense' hot, cold, close, far, fast, slow, magnetic, electric, etc.
To perhaps make my point a little clearer, I am not so sure about your claim of:
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I think we can observe a property of a motion as relatively fast or slow, enough to be able to know when to jump out of the way for example, and there is no formula-based calculation, involved, just a use of instinct and sensors.
I'll leave you to continue shooting your foot.
Seems you wanted me to include the specific particularities like quarks, spins, the etc and not the main principles/ideas behind quantum physics.
Schrodinger used a cat and it was quite fine.
I used a bank balance. And yet mine is according to you totally irrelevant.
So I do wonder how well versed you might be in QM to not see the exact equivalence between the two. Would you prefer I throw mathematic jargon at you instead so convoluted that it "may" be describing qm
Good luck with it, we can leave it there.
No, I want you to realise that quantum mechanics does not apply to banking.
Tellers do not rely on schrödinger's equations.
Not something I should have to find myself pointing out. Physics does not explain everything.
Not yet. You do know quantum computing is currently on the rise.
https://www.idquantique.com/quantum-safe-security/quantum-key-distribution/?utm_source=google_ads_search&utm_medium=cpc&gclid=Cj0KCQiAveebBhD_ARIsAFaAvrH4S4NL5r2RrIPrsFgJV0aIutpAseVuUfx3UFhYPAWDzzRUtioNapkaAuoLEALw_wcB
It will be used by banks soon due to security properties (entanglement and proof of non interference). It has great promis for physics based encryption.
I think QFT has obvious problems. And, as I said to Banno, I believe that potential energy and kinetic energy, are fundamentally incommensurable, hence your problem with "initial acceleration". It is a problem inherent within our conception of mass.
Quoting universeness
I went through this already. "Energy" has a very specific definition, the capacity to do work. In no way is touching something and feeling its heat, a case of measuring its capacity to do work. Even if you determine, with your senses that a particular object is moving, and you construe this as taking a measurement of its motion, you do not produce a determination of a quantity of energy without applying a formula to your measurements. This would convert your measurements of motion, to a quantity of energy. Then there's potential energy, which is not even motion itself, but the potential for motion. This is what I mean when I say that any determination of a quantity of energy is dependent on a formula. It's not simply measurements, it's measurements plus an application of a formula. This is because the concept of energy relates the thing measured to other things, and therefore requires a formula for the comparison.
Quoting universeness
I agree, sensing cannot be described as applying a formula. But in no way is such activity (simple sensing) a case of measuring the energy of something. I don't see how you think this is relevant to "energy".
Quoting universeness
Again, how is this relevant? "Energy" has a very specific definition. In no way is looking at the motion of something, and making the judgement to jump out of the way, a case of measuring the energy of the thing.
Furthermore, look at your use of "relatively fast or slow". Such a judgement would require a comparison, fast or slow compared to what? And this would require that we posit a standard for comparison. Therefore such a judgement actually would be formula based. But this is just the result of your faulty description. We do not need to make such a comparison when deciding to jump out of the way of a moving object, there need not be any formula based judgement at all.
Its relevant only in that I am able to distinguish between a big force/explosion and a small one.
I can also use sensory info to be able to perceive quite a range between big and small, without having to employ actual measured, unitised, accuracy via formulae. I can therefore perceive and detect 'material' aspects of 'energy' or force using something as simplistic as my own sensory input and without application of formulae.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Why would I choose to give any credence to the use of the terms 'immaterial' or 'dualism,' when considering what energy is?
You are simply typing that during energy transfer, we cannot account for the totality of the energy as it disperses. The second law of thermodynamics confirms that concentrated energy will disperse over time, (no stored energy in batteries lasts forever even if unused).
Energy transfer from hot to cold until thermal equilibrium. So, if we can't detect every Planck sized unit of energy, to confirm that the original hot/cold area has the exact same amount of energy as the area now in thermal balance, then this does not mean we have to start to employ words like immaterial or dualism. It just means that science will always have more work to do, to confirm how correct the conservation of energy laws are. To me, it's akin to the accuracy of pi or the speed of light in a Vaccuum. We will never get 100% accuracy, will we? That doesn't make pi or the speed of light or the conservation of energy laws, wrong in any way. It just means they are not perfect, but nothing is or ever will be perfect.
I don't think we are going to completely agree on the usefulness/uselessness of the words 'immaterial' or 'dualism,' but it's interesting to consider how others choose to employ such words.
So, I appreciate the exchange.
This is in no way a case of measuring energy.
Quoting universeness
We can never detect all the energy. We never have and we know we never will, you seem to agree with this. And this effective disproves the law of conservation, as a falsity. If energy was actually conserved we'd be able to, at least in principle, detect it all. We cannot, and we know we cannot, so it is not even detectable in principle, therefore not even conserved in principle. We need dualism if we want to assume that the conservation law is true, to account for the energy which we know can never be detected by us.
Quoting universeness
Right, it does not make these laws wrong, it makes them false. They can still be correct, as long as we invoke some sort of dualism or something like that, to account for the incommensurability between our principles for measuring the world, and the reality of the world.
Quoting 180 Proof
... or Newton's laws of motion. You claim there have been many experiments that falsify these "laws", so cite one. :chin:
You do not need a standard for comparison that is universal with regard to speed and time. Everyone going at whatever velocity will have their own experience of time which differs from people going slower or faster then them. Just as there is no universal standard of size, there is none for time. An elephant is bigger than a mouse because of the environment it's in; if there was no space, but only an elephant next to a mouse, they would have the same size. As for moving in an instant, the instant represents the point that is covered which is yes zero. But these sum to a positive. This is something Aristotle never understood. Motion has a forward momentum. Air doesn't move an arrow as he thought. Motion is dynamic
My claim is not that any particular experiment has falsified the law of conservation. My claim is that all experiments, each and every one of them has demonstrated that not all the energy conserved. There is always some lost. So the reasoning is inductive. Each and every experiment demonstrates that some energy is lost, and we believe that this will always be the case. Therefore the law which states that all the energy is conserved has been proven, through inductive reasoning, to be false. You might want to dispute the value of inductive logic, but then what would be the point to experimentation?
Quoting Gregory
How is this relevant to determining a quantity of energy?
Okay, then cite some of those "experiments" (or the relevant literature) to which you're referring.
I generally run through question sets to see if this or that is a good position to take...or post things here to see what the response is. Often you get criticism from others you wouldn't think of yourself.
"Mind" is what sufficiently complex brains (i.e. central nervous systems) do how they phenomenally-semiotically interact with their environments. "Mind" is actuaally mind-ing a predicate rather than a thing like digesting or dancing. That's only a simplistic conceptual description of "mind"(ing) that's all philosophy (whether via a materialist/physicalist or immaterialist/non-physicalist paradigm) can provide; and it's early days yet for any testable, scientific "explanation".
If you added a definition of information being brain state and brain state only it might be alright.
Any philosophy dealing with abstract concepts would be a red flag.
I think this is the main difference between us. I choose not to try to fill in gaps in our knowledge, with unnecessary terms like god(I am not suggesting YOU have employed this term), immaterial or dualism. The 'perfect' measure of the speed of light in unattainable. So is achieving human omniscience. To me, if we ever achieve the omnis, then our existence would become as ridiculous and pointless as any conception of god.
Let's continue to debate and confirm what we know and where we can go from here. Let's resist any temptation to plug gaps or incompletions in our scientific knowledge, with useless (imo) concepts, such as immaterialism, dualism or god. The conservation of energy is not false it is just imperfect.
In his book 'The Biggest Ideas In The Universe (space, time and motion,)' Sean Carroll writes about the conservation of energy.
"Both momentum and energy are conserved in classical mechanics, but kinetic energy by itself is not, since it can be converted into (or created from) other kinds of energy."
"Noether's theorem states that every smooth, continuous symmetry transformation of a system is associated with the conservation of some quantity."
"Our universe is expanding; faraway galaxies are gradually moving away from one another as time passes. Consequently, there is a sense in which energy is not conserved in an expanding universe."
I think Sean demonstrates some of the imperfection present in the conservation laws.
What do you call that type of art hung in galleries like the tate modern, you know, the paintings and sculptures with blobs and strange weird and obscure shapes and such?
Abstract things exist outside of any one individuals brain. Hence why they are interpretative. If art wasn't abstract it would be photography, and even photography can be abstract. So maybe even more extreme, it woukd be mathematics or binary code.
Just because something isn't consistent, universal, replicated, repeating, doesn't mean it's not important.
The PBS spacetime YouTube show also says in a couple episodes that conservation of energy doesn't always apply in physics
Why are you so helpless 180?
https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Energy_loss#:~:text=When%20energy%20is%20transformed%20from,form%20of%20energy%2C%20like%20heat.
Notice, there is always energy loss, and "Energy losses are what prevent processes from ever being 100% efficient." Hence the inductive conclusion I made, the law of conservation has been proven to be false.
Quoting universeness
I can't agree to this framework you've proposed here, because we cannot designate the law of conservation as "imperfect". The problem is that it is exactly opposite to this. The law is an ideal, a statement of perfection in the conservation of energy. In reality, in practise, there is no perfect or ideal conservation of energy. Yet we keep talking about this law, of a perfect or ideal conservation, as if it is a true representation, and we are led to believe that the reason why there is no perfect conservation in our practise is because we are no able to perfect our practise apparatus.
So here is the problem. Instead of recognizing that the principle itself is false (an ideal representation of an imperfect world), and recognizing that the world is simply not a type of world where "energy" as we conceive of it, is conserved, we delude ourselves into thinking that in the world energy actually is conserved, and our practises are just not capable of detecting what happens to all the energy. Therefore we are engaged in self-deception. We have a conception of "energy" whereby it is stipulated that in the world, energy is conserved, when we know that it is not conserved in the imperfect world. We then attribute this latter fact, that energy is actually not conserved, to our observational capacities and practises, as being "imperfect", rather than attributing the imperfection to the whole world itself.
So I suggest to you, that the imperfection here involves the way that our concept of "energy" corresponds with the reality of the world. And this type of imperfection (misrepresentation) is most properly called a falsity. We disguise this falsity, this fact that our conception of energy is false, with the self-deception described above, by saying that this ideal, perfect, conception really is a true representation, and only our practises are less than perfect. But in reality the conception is a perfect, ideal, and the whole world itself is less than perfect. There is no ideal conservation in the world. So the energy loss which is evidenced by the fact that we cannot obtain perfect efficiency is a real feature of the world, there is not one hundred percent conservation anywhere, and our conception of energy is simply a misunderstanding. But we delude ourselves by saying that the concept is true and only our practises are imperfect, while the rest of the universe behaves in that perfect ideal way.
Here's an example by analogy. In ancient philosophy, idealists like the Pythagoreans held on to the idea of a perfect circular motion. An object moving in a perfect circle retraces the same path over and over again without any wavering and therefore has no beginning or end, and this constitutes an eternal motion. This idea came to Aristotle through Plato, and it was used to justify the idea of an eternal immortal soul. Only a soul, or mind, could be said to be the cause of the eternal circular orbits of the planets, and so this soul was therefore itself eternal and immortal.
So Aristotle exposed the problem with this idea in his book "On the Heavens". Yes, he said that eternal circular motion is possible, and, it is true that if there is perfect circular motion it would be eternal. But, he said that the orbits of the planets are not like this, and the planets are not eternal in their motions. The planets are material and as such have a beginning and ending, therefore it is impossible that the orbits are eternal circular motions.
Please take note now, of the lesson to be learned here. It was only by determining the falsity of the principle, the ideal, eternal circular motion, that astronomers could move forward, and model the orbits as other than circular, which led to the modern understanding of the solar system. It was imperative for them to recognize the falsity of the principle, that the perfection of the ideal did not exist in the real universe, for them to be able to move toward a true understanding of these motions. Now we have a very similar situation with the concept of energy. We have a similar false principle, an ideal, eternal energy conservation. Only by recognizing that this perfect ideal is false, that energy is not actually conserved in reality, in the true motions of things, that we will be able to move forward with a true understanding of time, motion, and all the real things involved in the concept of energy.
Quoting universeness
This is good example, as a starting place. But notice the mentioned "symmetry transformation". "Symmetry" is such a perfect ideal which is actually false. So we have a whole class of these ideals, which are actually false, which have emerged out of this false ideal of energy conservation, which are simply misunderstandings, but can be very misleading to undisciplined metaphysicians.
I have no skin in this discussion, but am just pointing out that you have misinterpreted this article. Per your link:
Energy undergoes many conversions and takes on many different forms as it moves. Every conversion that it undergoes has some associated "loss" of energy. Although this energy doesn't actually disappear, some amount of the initial energy turns into forms that are not usable or we do not want to use.
In the context of your link, the term Energy Loss refers to the energy that "is converted to a different form".
I am not making any claim about the truth or falsehood of the Law of Conservation here. I am simply pointing out that your example does not lead to your conclusion.
Carry on.
Yes we can, especially if we accept that 'perfect has no existent.'
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No measurement of a quantity is ever 100% correct. distance, time, density, none are 100% correct.
Is the distance actually 1cm or 0.999999999999999999999999912.......... cm.
You are over burdening the word LAW.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, that's why science uses error bars! It is not a falsity, it just does not claim 100% accuracy.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
We are OF the universe and FROM the universe. The fact that we are not perfect, to me, is probably because the universe is unable to produce perfection. I think our understanding of energy is spectacular, considering, we have achieved that understanding within a few seconds, on the cosmic calendar scale.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
The principle was not false, it was just that some of the assumptions and projections were wrong. Many planets do orbit on a path which is 'almost' circular. The motion is not eternal, or perpetual and there was no supernatural, immaterial, duality involved. They were correct about a circle, it has no beginning/end, unless you impose one.
So, correcting the flaws in the thinking of the ancients was not as hard, as trying to understand quantum mechanics, for example.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, physicists are fully aware, that the language used to describe the structure and workings of the universe is not IDEAL, not perfect. You seem to be bogged down with tiny 'error bar' imperfections made by formulae calculations, from a scenario such as:
A system has an energy equivalence of 50 joules. It then goes though energy transformations, and the resultant system has an energy equivalence of 50 joules, when IN REALITY its 49.999999999999921356 Joules and we can't yet account for the missing fraction.
We can still move forward to new discoveries in science, quite comfortably.
We can always keep an eye out or a detector running, in our search for that tiny missing energy fraction as we continue with our large hadron collider experiments.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
If physicists tried to use language and many, many exemplars, to explain every circumstance in which a particular law of physics might produce a solution which varies a little from that which the law exactly predicted, then a typical physics book would be as big as the entire encyclopaedia Britannica collection. I think the likes of Sean Carroll does the best he can. He can't afford to be overly concerned with the musings of undisciplined metaphysicians or even disciplined ones.
Physicists are burdened to explain the nuances/error margins, of incredibly complicated system, to lay people. A very difficult task indeed.
We shouldn't let Bartricks claim immaterial events in our minds consume no energy. They do use some fraction of our calorie intake.
By definition a closed system is one in which energy is conserved. If a system has a net increase or decrease in total energy, it is not closed.
Or alternately, a closed system is one that is symmetrical. Hence Noether's theorem. Such symmetrical systems elicit conservation laws.
Bookkeeping being mistaken for metaphysics.
Look at the first sentence in the article: "When energy is transformed from one form to another, or moved from one place to another, or from one system to another there is energy loss." So, any time there is an interaction of things (energy is moved from one place to another) there is a loss of energy. In other words there is a continual loss of energy.
Quoting EricH
I think it states exactly my conclusion, contrary to the law of conservation, there is always energy loss.
Quoting universeness
This is not a matter of .0000000000000000000001 per cent, or something miniscule like that. The energy loss in any transaction is significant. If you can show me a system with an efficiency which is considerably higher than ninety nine percent, I will take your point. I'm very confident you will not though. Efficiency rates are much lower.
The problem is that we tend to think a certain percentage is lost to friction, some to heat, some to this, some to that, but is we try to measure all the losses we can never measure it all. That would imply that we had a system which captured all the energy, one hundred percent efficiency. But we know this is impossible. So we just write off the losses as inefficiencies.
Quoting universeness
Error bars are irrelevant. We are not talking about error in the measurements, we are talking about error in the law itself. The law of conservation is an ideal principle which does not correspond with reality. Therefore it is a false principle, just like my example, the ancient ideal that the planetary orbits are eternal circular motions. These are both equally false principles.
Quoting universeness
It is very obviously false. The planetary orbits are not perfect circles. Therefore they are not eternal. That ideal was false. Likewise, the ideal that energy is conserved as time passes is also false. And all that follows from this false premise is also unsound.
Quoting universeness
The law of conservation of energy is very clearly IDEAL. It states that energy cannot be destroyed, it only converts from one form to another. Therefore "energy", by this law exists in an eternal and unchanging quantity. That is a perfect, unchanging quantity. If this is not IDEAL, then what is IDEAL?
Quoting universeness
Show me this system which has 50 joules, and maintains 50 joules after energy transformations. That's 100 percent efficiency. No system has 100 percent efficiency, according to the article I linked, so I think you are just making things up, to support what you believe.
Quoting Banno
Yes, this is the Ideal, the closed system. In reality there is no such thing as a closed system, by this definition, there is no existing system in which energy is conserved.
We can look at the consequences, or conclusion, of this reality (that there is no such thing as a closed system) in two different ways. We can conclude that it is physically possible to have a closed system, therefore the definition actually describes something real, a situation in which energy would be conserved, accepting this as a real possibility, and this seems to be the way that everyone here, other than me looks at the law of conservation. They think that a system in which energy is conserved is a real possibility.
Or, we can conclude as I do, that it is physically impossible to have a closed system, a system in which energy is conserved, and look at this as a feature of the universe, that there is no such thing as a closed system, and there cannot be such a thing as a closed system, and energy is not ever conserved. With this comes the conclusion that the law of conservation is a falsity. This is just like my example of the ancients who believed in the Ideal, that the planetary orbits were eternal circular motions. It wasn't until Aristotle demonstrated that an eternal circular motion is physically impossible, due to the role of matter in any circular motion, that this ideal (eternal circular motion of the planets) was finally rejected. Likewise, we need to reject this idea of a closed system, to understand the true nature of the universe.
I think it's more important to challenge the proposal that a 'mind event' is an 'immaterial event.'
It might be better for you to start a new thread on a physics forum, which employs the detailed results, from an actual conservation of energy experiment. You can challenge physicists, based on your interpretation of the results from the experiment. There are some straight forward examples available online, such as:
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/physics/experiment-study-conservation-energy-8335.php
Results and Conclusion:
[b]For task 1: we have found that total energy remains constant during the motion of the glider until the collision occurs. Thus law of conservation is verified and its limitation (inelastic collision) is found.
For task 2: By comparing the total energy before collision with the total energy after collision, we conclude that the collision is inelastic. Also, we showed that by using the arbitrariness of the value of PE we can set the total energy of a sliding object to be zero.
By varying two continuous parameters mass of the glider and initial height of the glider, we found that increasing any one of them leads to a decrease in the value of coefficient of restitution. Since smaller value of coefficient of restitution means greater loss of energy, we conclude that: by increasing height or by increasing mass, more energy is lost during the collision. The physical reasoning behind this conclusion can be understood. In both the cases, increasing height or increasing mass, the maximum PE (mgh) increases. This entire maximum PE becomes maximum KE just before the collision. Thus more energy is lost during the collision.[/b]
Quoting universeness
My understanding was that dark energy, which expands the universe, gains proportionally from other forms of energy within the universe, and the total energy within it will always be zero. In what sense is Sean saying energy is not conserved in an expanding universe?
But as they exist they are part of brain state and can experience events.
I'm not a physicist, and do not pretend to be one. However, anyone can read the reported experiment, and attempt to understand what was carried out. I have read it from the point of view of a philosopher, and I will report my findings here, in a philosophy forum.
The experiment verifies very clearly what I have written. First, even with simple downward motion where the potential energy is simply converted to kinetic energy, through the acceleration caused by gravity, there is a loss of energy, as stated in the introduction: " For first task, we found that kinetic energy increases as potential energy decreases during downward motion of the glider but the total energy remains almost constant". Notice the experimenters state "almost constant", in the introduction and "remains constant" in the conclusion which you've quoted, It appears like they contradict themselves. So what happened here?
The first task is an indication of the theory of gravity. Potential energy is calculated through the measured mass of the glider and the theoretical force of gravity which has the capacity to accelerate the glider as it falls from a height. We know that as things fall, acceleration rapidly decreases due to things like air resistance, so there is a substantial loss of energy occurring with a falling object. There is no indication that the experiment was carried out in a vacuum, or any means were employed to measure all the different losses of energy which might occur. How did the experimenters account for all this loss of energy, which actually occurs in practise?
Of course, they applied a "coefficient of restitution", and this coefficient varies according to the measured parameters, height and mass. That is demonstrated in task two. There is an arbitrariness to the setting of this coefficient, and this is what allows them to make the total energy equal zero, by adjusting this coefficient. In other words, that there is a perfect balance between potential energy and kinetic energy, and this is reported as remaining constant, is simply a product of the coefficient of restitution, which is a manifestation of "the arbitrariness of the value of PE": as stated. Notice that the coefficient of restitution which was required varied according to mass and height, but in this experiment it was very significant, between .63, and .77. In other words, the theoretical potential energy, which would be directly produced from the theory of gravity, needed to be reduced by about a quarter or a third, to match the determined kinetic energy in the falling glider. That's a significant loss of energy.
Furthermore, in task 2, where the energy is actually transferred from one object to another, through collision, there is a further loss of energy, which needs to be accounted for by something other than the coefficient of restitution. The coefficient of restitution just accounts for the loss of energy within the falling object by arbitrarily adjusting the potential energy of gravity, but now there is a further loss when there is a collision of the object. Here, the bumper is said to be "inelastic". This means that the movement of the bumper, and the rebound of the glider, cannot account for all the kinetic energy of the falling glider. There is much energy that is lost. They account for this loss through the "inelasticity". We might assume that the bumper absorbs some as heat or something like that. Nevertheless, energy is lost, which cannot be accounted for, and this is written off as "inelasticity".
Notice the use of terms, elastic, and inelastic. An elastic object would demonstrate one hundred percent transferal of energy in its movement. But again, this is an ideal, like Banno's closed system. There is no such thing as an absolutely perfectly elastic body, just like there is no such thing as an absolutely closed system, and no such thing as a perfect eternal circular motion. The field of physics is rife with such fictitious ideals. We could consider also the use of the "blackbody", and the "symmetry". And so the experiment showed a loss of energy which they attribute to inelasticity, the bumper could not demonstrate an ideal conservation of energy.
In conclusion, the experiment showed significant loss of energy in the falling glider which was accounted for with the coefficient of restitution, and it also showed significant loss of energy in the collision which was accounted for by inelasticity. Do you agree that the experiment completely supports what I've been arguing?
Well he clarifies his position a little more, with:
"The configuration of our universe isn't invariant under time shifts; things used to be closer together, and in the future, they'll be further apart. If we simply take the energy contained in all the different forms of matter that we know about (radiation, ordinary matter, dark matter, dark energy, what have you) and add it all together, we get a number that is not constant over time."
I understand what you are typing but I don't hold the same view.
We can invent labels, for that which we have zero evidence for. Our brains however fail completely, whenever one tries to perceive infinity, or nothing, or perfect, or god, or immaterial. We mainly anthropomorphise or try to imagine or conjure some random pattern or effect. I hold that the structure and workings of the universe, are knowable. If any aspect of the 'immaterial' is knowable then it seems to me, that such never was immaterial, and if the immaterial truly does exist, then it has no relevance to this universe, unless it can be irrefutably demonstrated (or at least, very close to irrefutably), that the immaterial can affect this universe.
I think the immaterial does exist and is intangible to scientific means of exploration. Science cannot prove an individuals mind objectively. Not only because of the hard problem but because it would pervert ethics - the Right to privacy namely (the unknowability of one's mind and inner sphere.of experience).
As individuals are unique, irreplaceable and singular in occurrence. And science depends on reproducible results, repetition, constancy.
Also you simply cannot have material without immaterial. They are neccesary opposites. If you destroy the immaterial you do so by extending materialism beyond its purview.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
The underlined section in your above quote appears in the section titled 'Abstract,' not Introduction.
In the introduction, the words are "For the first task, we simply observed that during the first downward motion of the glider the total energy remained constant throughout the motion." In the Results and conclusions section the words "For task 1: we have found that total energy remains constant during the motion of the glider until the collision occurs". are used.
One name is offered for the authors, Osamah Nuwisser. I assume English was not his first language, as he uses terms such as 'For first task' in the section titled 'abstract,' and then the more correct 'For the first task,' in the introduction section. Maybe his shortfalls in his command of English, caused his mistaken use of 'almost' or perhaps, it was due to the words in the 'abstract' section; We accomplish two tasks: first we verified the conservation of total energy during single step of the movement of the glider over the ramp and then we compared total energy of several consecutive up and down motions to check whether the collision of glider with the bumper at the lower end of the ramp was elastic or inelastic.
Perhaps the results they/he got from the several consecutive up and down motions showed some small error bar style variations which caused him to use the word 'almost,' in the way he did.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Small ramp, so I assume the issues you mention are negligible for the experiment performed.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
[b]The coefficient of restitution (COR, also denoted by e), is the ratio of the final to initial relative speed between two objects after they collide. It normally ranges from 0 to 1 where 1 would be a perfectly elastic collision. A perfectly inelastic collision has a coefficient of 0, but a 0 value does not have to be perfectly inelastic. It is measured in the Leeb rebound hardness test, expressed as 1000 times the COR, but it is only a valid COR for the test, not as a universal COR for the material being tested.
The value is almost always less than 1 due to initial translational kinetic energy being lost to rotational kinetic energy, plastic deformation, and heat. It can be more than 1 if there is an energy gain during the collision from a chemical reaction, a reduction in rotational energy, or another internal energy decrease that contributes to the post-collision velocity.[/b]
So, it seems to me, the COR is only relevant to the issue of the collisions being elastic or inelastic.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, it suggests to me, that you need to consult a physicist, as to the academic details of the experiment my link provided. After you have done so, you can return here and report, whether or not the physicist agreed with the points you make about the experiment and the opinion you hold and present to others, that the conservation of energy laws are false.
I accept your viewpoint, but I find it unconvincing and akin to god of the gaps proposals.
You have provided no compelling example of an existent immaterial, other than your attempt to label some currently, poorly understood, aspects of human consciousness as 'immaterial.'
The main point though, is that the conservation of energy in the conversion of PE to KE in the downward motion, is simply manufactured by designating the original PE as equal to the maximum KE. The experimenters even admit this by referring to the arbitrariness in the value of PE. So there is no proof made, just a begging of the question. The original PE is stipulated as equal to the KE when the glider reaches the bottom, and low and behold, all the PE is converted to KE when the glider reaches the bottom, according to what the stipulation necessitates.
Quoting universeness
All I can say, is reread the article. The value of PE is simply stipulated to match the kinetic energy at the bottom of the drop. This sets the balance between potential energy and kinetic energy at zero. There is no experiment to prove that there is no energy loss in the drop, the value of PE is simply stipulated to match the value of KE (so there is no energy loss by the stipulated value of PE) Here's what's stated in the conclusion. "Also, we showed that by using the arbitrariness of the value of PE we can set the total energy of a sliding object to be zero". And here's what's stated in the section called Data and Analysis: "PE was defined to be zero on ground level."
In the section titled 'Experimental Description,' it states: "The glider was kept at the top of ramp at rest."
In the section titled 'Data and Analysis:' it states: "PE was defined to be zero on ground level. " and "In start, PE is the maximum and KE is zero. "
The article further establishes:
"To read total energy as zero at certain point, we can construct the following simplest case. Consider the glider to be at rest at a height from the ground on the ramp (say 80cm). Obviously, KE is zero. We define the origin at this point. So its height w.r.t. origin becomes zero. Now we measure PE with reference to the same point (because of arbitrariness of PE) which becomes mgh = mg(0) =0. Thus the total energy at this point is zero. As far as the conservation of energy is concerned, that is satisfied because we have defined origin at the highest point. As the glider moves down the ramp, value of h becomes negative. This negative value of PE annihilates the positive value of KE that is produced due to increasing velocity. Thus the total energy remains zero. Another way of doing the same is to define PE to be zero at the highest point, measure height as positive and add a minus sign with the formula for the PE in the equation of the total energy."
So, the PE is the same at a height of 80cm as it would be if it were at height = 0, so, mgh is 0 at the start and becomes negative as the glider travels down the slope.
KE = 0 at the start, as the glider is at rest at the top of the ramp. This start position is then taken as position (0,0), the origin point on a graph.
Based on this and the data in table 1, I think this calculation for 'point 0,' is valid:
E=1/2mv(squared) - mgh
As the total energy is 0, we have:
0=1/2mv(squared) - mgh
mgh=1/2mv(squared)
substituting gives:
0.6677(9.8)1.2=1/2(0.6677)vsquared
7.852152=0.33385vsquared
23.52=vsquared
v=4.849742261
So, if the velocity of the glider at point 0 (height at 1.2 and mass at 0.6677) is measured in the experiment at point 0 to be, 4.849742261, then conservation of energy is confirmed. I don't know what error bar would be applied to this calculation, as I am not a physicist.
The article also states:
"But we see that PE is not zero at its minimum. This non-zero minimum value is the value of the PE at the small height when it collides with the bumper."
So, this is simply suggesting that at the moment before the glider strikes the bumper, all of the PE has not been transformed into KE as the glider is still on an incline (the back of the glider more so, than the front).
You might find the references section of the article helpful as well, especially:
2. Energy Conservation on an Incline. Available from: [Online]
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/energy/ie.cfm
For example, the link contains:
[b]In the case of the cart rolling down the incline, there are three external forces (the normal force, the force of friction and air resistance) and one internal force (the force of gravity). The normal force does not do work upon the cart because it acts in a direction perpendicular to the direction of motion. In such instances, the angle between F and d is 90 degrees and the work done by the force is 0 Joules. The force of friction does not do work upon the cart because it acts upon the wheels of the cart and actually does not serve to displace either the cart nor the wheels. The friction force only serves to help the wheels turn as the cart rolls down the hill. Friction only does work upon a skidding wheel. Finally, the force of air resistance does do work upon the cart; air resistance does negative work upon the cart since it acts in a direction opposite the direction of the cart's motion. Sometimes referred to as a dissipative force, air resistance contributes to a loss in the total amount of mechanical energy possessed by the cart. Subsequently, it would be expected that there would be a small amount of energy loss as the cart rolls down the hill from an elevated position to a position just above the ground.
Due to the difficulty in measuring air resistance forces and due to the small amount of existing Fair in situations in which a streamlined object moves at relatively low speeds, the affect of air resistance is often neglected. If air resistance is neglected, then it would be expected that the total mechanical energy of the cart would be conserved. The animation below depicts this phenomenon (in the absence of air resistance).[/b]
Which clarifies an earlier concern you had.
This is where the begging of the question occurs, in how the mgh (mass x gravitational constant x height) is set to zero. It is done by defining total energy (E) as KE-PE, and stipulating that E must be 0 at any height. This necessitates logically, that there is always a perfect conversion between PE and KE according to the law of conservation.
That makes the true value for PE ("true" meaning produced from the formula mgh) completely irrelevant, as PE can be set to zero for any height, simply by making it the inverse of the KE. Then, through the process you described, PE is made to be a function of the KE, as the negation of it in the statement of total energy, E=1/2mv(squared)-mgh. Therefore it is simply assumed that the PE is the direct inverse, (negation), of the KE, and vice versa, as per the law of conservation, regardless of any "true" determination of the PE according to the formula mgh. So the PE is calculated as a direct function of the KE, its inverse, in the formula used instead of mgh, and this is simply begging the question. The energy is necessarily conserved in the conversion of PE to KE, because the PE is calculated as the direct inverse of the KE.
Furthermore, this renders the entire experiment invalid because there is no way to separate, distinguish, energy loss during the conversion of PE to KE in the fall (and KE to PE in the rebound) from energy loss due to the inelasticity of the objects.
Quoting universeness
You do not produce high quality references universes. The experiment is completely invalid, and this one is even worse. Notice that they say this : They completely neglect the fact that there is considerable friction within the wheel or axle bearing, no matter how well built or lubricated it may be.
Furthermore, they dismiss energy loss due to air resistance as "a small amount of energy loss". Have you ever seen the physical damage that a 100kmh wind can cause? You can assure yourself that air resistance is not "a small amount of energy loss".
So we have two significant sources of energy loss in the cart example, friction and air resistance. These two can be reduced to one, in a free fall. We can say that air resistance is a type of friction. Further, we can say that this friction is a type of collision, the object collides with air molecules. Now, we might move on to more professional experiments, where the collision with air molecules is controlled for with vacuum.
Experimentation has been done within a vacuum for a long time now, and there is much discussion as to energy loss when a collision occurs in a vacuum. But, as in the simple experiment with the glider and the bumper, it is difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish energy loss in the simple motion of the object in its conversion of PE to KE, from energy loss due to the inelasticity of the colliding objects. The tendency is to assume that one is ideal, and attribute the energy loss to the other, as in the experiment, the conversion of PE to KE in the movement of the glider is assumed to be ideal, and energy loss is attributed to inelasticity. So the experiment can teach us something, that assuming the ideal can often produce misleading conclusions.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I think we are still waiting for you to provide high quality references to support your claims. You certainly have not done so, so far.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No the concerns you raise are again, exaggerated. There were no 100 km/h winds during the experiment and friction from (within the wheel??) and/or the axle will be negligible.
Perhaps you can, one day, perform a detailed, controlled conservation of energy experiment, yourself, inside a vacuum chamber and report/publish your findings.
What do you mean exactly by "compelling example" and "existent immaterial ?"
Is a "compelling example" for you in this sense "material evidence" of the immaterial? As that would by logical neccesity be a contradiction of terms.
And is your use of existence in "existent immaterial" pertaining to something material or something measurable? If existence means something material then again it is a conflict of terms. If it on the other hand means measurable, appreciable on an individual empirical basis (personal belief over communal fact) then the immaterial can indeed exist.
Immaterial things - like energy and time and space, can only be measured indirectly from the bias of material existence. By subtraction. By deductive reasoning.
But cannot be made material and objectively discrete by material things. For if everything is an object, where does time, energy and space go? The negative fields that contrast the nature of the material.
So, they cannot be proven directly, only relatively - in relativistic relationship to the material. As Einstein proposed.
They must exist as the means by which material is acted on (cause being immaterial) and effect (material outcome being well... material).
Secondly, if some things are the most common things in existence, others are less so, a bit rarer, then it stands to reason that one thing is the rarest existent in the universe.
If it is so rare and singular that it cannot be replicated in measurement by different people, can we say it exists?
Most people would say no. It doesn't exist. If its measurement is not consistent then we cannot make it objective and constant between observers.
But herein lies a problem. If the rarest end of the scale of existents doesn't exist, the removing of that end of the scale of existents merely makes the next thing the most rare in its place, and if you remove that the next thing now assumes the rarest quality. An infinite régression of skeptcisim until all you have left to reckon with is yourself. Whether you exist. As descartes did.
This seems extremely reductive, therefore its likely that the rarest thing that cannot be made discrete, objective, constant, consistent, repeatable and material, does indeed exist despite that fact. And that simply put science is not a be all and end all tool for proof of it. Philosophy may be that which can argue for its existence where science cannot.
So, for me, that doesn't mean the rarest thing doesn't exist. It just means that science is not sufficient to prove it as science bases validity (existence) on repeatability/consistency.
But the rarest thing is not repeatable. Because its the rarest. Rarity being truly singular in nature. So I would say rare things are immaterial in nature from a material or scientific perspective whilst on the other hand common things are material as they are consistently measurable. Defined. Discrete. Objects.
It is a spectrum between the object (common), all the way through to the immaterial (uncommon), both of which exist by neccesity for one another.
An example, that would be very difficult to label anything other than immaterial.
An example whose existence would be very difficult to deny and can demonstrate immaterial/supernatural ability.
Quoting Benj96
Well, you could suggest something like quantum tunnelling, where a material object (eg an electron) can simply appear on one side of a barrier and then another.
Quantum tunnelling limits the minimum size of devices used in microelectronics because electrons tunnel readily through insulating layers and transistors that are thinner than about 1 nm.
You might also suggest 'superposition,' where the same object can be in two places at once.
You might suggest you had a dream about slipping three times on the ice and then the next day you slipped three times on the ice.
I would not find any of my examples above, compelling suggestions that deserve the label 'immaterial' existents or events.
Quoting Benj96
Energy, time and space are not immaterial. This is reducing, as these kinds of discissions often do, to definitions. To me, immaterial is synonymous with supernatural and I think everything in the universe is natural.
'Cause,' is not immaterial. I lift a cup, which causes the cup to exist in a different position and act as a container that I can drink from. This is material purposing material, nothing immaterial is involved.
Your typings about rarity etc, just seem to me like attempts to plug gaps in knowledge with unconfirmed, speculative opinion based on personal musings. Interesting to read but no more so than reading a novel.
I engage in such musings myself, often, and I think humans should always do so, as sometimes it inspires the odd genius to do detailed research, and on rare occasions, discover some previously unknown nugget of new knowledge.
I remain of the opinion, that there is no existent that warrants the label 'immaterial.'
The best use of that word is to indicate that which has no value, no importance, no significance.
This is analogous to a waveform no? Potential to be in more than one place simultaneously.
Quoting universeness
If everything in the universe is natural where does the term "supernatural" come from? I think it's merely a term required to approach that which we do not understand.. "we" being existents in the universe. The term "supernatural" and whatever it pertains to is a product of thr universe.
Then point to them. As they are apparently material objects. Show me the object that is time, is space?
Well then my internal mind has no importance, value or significance to you. As the privacy of my inner thoughts must either not exist, or have no importance. But it certainly cannot be materially demonstrated as it is the sum of my entire internal experience - inaccesible and un-measurable by objective means.
So what say you of the mentalscapes of all people. Most of which have no physical existent to prove their private equivalent. Its not like all of my possible thoughts are automatically written and therefore empirically evident to others.
So in the case of ideas I haven't yet explained of mine, do they exist in the material, or are they immaterial - not accessible to others lest I explain them.
Based on wave/particle duality (my favourite flavour of dualism), yes. Then of course there is QFT.
[b]From Quora:
Rodney Brooks (Ph.D. in Physics, Harvard University (Graduated 1963))
This question is right up my alley, as I wrote my book to show how QFT explains almost everything.
Superposition is a term in Quantum Mechanics that refers to the simultaneous existence of two different states of a physical system. For example, an electron (seen as a particle) is said to be in a superposition of being both here and there. In QFT there are no superpositions. An electron is a spread-out field, not a particle, so it is indeed both here and there. QFT offers a picture of reality at every instant: fields (or to be more precise, quanta of fields) that are spread-out. This may be a complex picture, but it is a picture, not a superposition.
Entanglement generally refers to a pair of quanta (say two photons) that are created together so that their properties are correlated. If a physical property of one of ther pair changes, the other one does also, and at the same time. The QFT explanation of this is quantum collapse. When a quantum transfers energy into another object, it collapses and disappears from all of space. Even if only part of the energy is transferred, it still collapses and reappears at the point of transfer. In the case of entangled quanta, if one collapses, the other one must do the same, and at the same moment. Experiments with photons have shown that if the spin of one entangled photon changes, the spin of the other also changes, no matter how far apart the photons are. (This is an example of internal collapse, as opposed to the spatial collapse described earlier.) Einstein called this spooky action at a distance, but collapse of two entangled quanta is no harder to accept (or spookier) than the collapse of one. If we can accept that a single quantum, spread over miles of space, can instantaneously collapse, it is not much of a stretch to accept that two entangled quanta can do the same.[/b]
Quoting Benj96
The same place as the term 'nothing,' and other meaningless words such as 'meaningless' or 'perfect' or 'god' or 'immaterial.' or 'square circle,' or 'moral capitalist.'
What are you defining, physically/materially, as your 'internal mind?
Your 'random imaginings,' would imo, be in the main, unimportant, yes. But we are able to, 'collapse the waveform' of our random imaginings, into a useful thought, on occasion.
One of my fingers is currently pointing into space and I do so as time passes. I can therefore indicate/represent pointing at space and time by raising a finger and I can confirm verbally and by thought and by typing these words on TPF, that that is what I am doing.
I see it is pointless discussing this with you. You are in complete denial, and refuse to even attempt to understand some simple physics.
However, I will ask you just to take a quick look at one thing in the article. Look at the graph where they plot potential energy, kinetic energy, and total energy altogether on one graph. Now look at the plotted total energy over the first 1.5 seconds of time. This time period represents the first drop of the glider, prior to any collisions. You'll see that the total energy drops from approximately .9 joules to approximately .75 joules, over this time period. This is a loss of total energy of more than 15 percent, over a time period of 1.5 seconds, and that was prior to any collision.
Quoting universeness
Do you consider a total energy loss of 15 percent, in a 1.5 second time period to be negligible? That's ten percent per second of time! I really can't see how you would say that this is negligible.
I think I understand physics far better than you do!
You type an insult like:
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
and then you ask me to consider another of your 'interpretations,' of what the experiment shows. :lol:
We have reached impasse!
Look at the graph, and tell me how you would interpret that first 1.5 seconds in any other way than a total energy loss of approximately .15 joules, prior to any collision.
No, you have killed our exchange.
The so-called "insult" was warranted in response to this:
Quoting universeness
Come on universeness, if you think that air resistance and friction are negligible to a moving cart, you do not even have the most basic education in physics to even start discussing the law of conservation of energy.
Yeah, neither do physicists who do physics experiments, according to you. :rofl:
The problem with your referenced experiment remains. There is an initial energy loss of fifteen percent, which the experimenters refer to at one point as almost no energy loss, and at another point, no energy loss. You can call these experimenters "physicists" if it pleases you.
Quoting universeness
You have killed the exchange through denial of reality. I'll let you go off and build your car now, which requires virtually no energy input because friction and air resistance are negligible. Come back when you're ready to share the profit.
Your musings seem to jump around in very bizarre ways, from small gliders on small ramps to carts and now big cars travelling on big roads against 100km/h winds.
Come back when you can better control your mad jumps towards extreme exaggerations and then perhaps you will begin to understand when variables such as air resistance and friction can become negligible when they are tiny, compared to the other variables involved in the experiment.
Now how do you explain others passage of time? Their perception of it? A person in a coma for example who neither can point to space or time, and waking up many years from now has no recollection of the time that elapsed between their most recent memory and their waking state.
Can you say that your experience and their experience are both objective and unanimous? Or would there be conflict between your opinions of what has transpired?
Space and time are relative to who is aware of them. And the state of their awareness.
Yes indeed. The waveform represents the possibilities between what you think/believe/have concepts for and what I do similarly, however all the while being unknown to one another. A sphere of potential argument, potential act. Potential consideration.
We only collapse the waveform when we communicate - that is to say when you observe me - hear my thoughts, observe/measure my articulations as discrete/finite représentations of my internal experience. In that way we are entangled by the transfer of information. When we withold information from one another we are not entangled and left to our own devices (our separate waveforms of possible thoughts/potential/imagination).
I would be unwilling to consider your imagination (waveform) as invalid, as non material and irrelavent, for that exact sphere of possibility is precisely where you take fresh ideas from to articulate to me in hopes to change/alter my perspective.
If I were to discard your imagination, I am discarding anything you can propose that is not already known. So no enlightenment, no change, no fresh air, is available for me to consider.
The waveform is creativity/ potential to be/ re-arrangement of previously known ideas to construct novelty.
The particle/particulate is that which you choose to explain your waveform - the words, discrete in meaning for each beholder. Your meaning and my meaning may be different so, it stands to reason that philosophy is very much about defining exactly what one means and minimising what another may infer through vaguery/difference in held meaning towards any given word/definition.
However, they are all existents in the universe because you used them, as many other do, and we all exist in the universe, as products of its possible state's of being.
They (these words and their meanings) are not outside of it (the universe) . Unless conscious beings that can hold such concepts have access to something extrinsic to the universe they inhabit.
"nothing" only has meaning "within" the universe as within the universe there is "something" - its opposite. True nothingness (without somethingness) is as impossible as light without darkness. True nothingness is incoherent from the bias of being something. As "nothingness" in the context of being "something" - is everything that it is not. Meaningless in respect to a biased assumption by an existent.
"meaningless" has meaning. Otherwise we could not use it as a word that holds any value/informativeness/meaning/comprehensibility. And all functional words have comprehension otherwise they would not be useful as words (a unit of communication).
Again "perfect" only has meaning in respect to the imperfect. If imperfection didn't exist then perfection would not exist. "God" is a heavily loaded term, meaning anything really depending on who you ask, but fundamentally it is that which one worships. And everyone worships something as of the utmost importance, everyone has something core that is more important than anything else - be it money, fame, power, beauty, knowledge, recognition, morality etc.
"immaterial" is that part of the universe that the material cannot define, cannot make discrete and apprehensible.
All these things no less exist. You can argue they don't, but that is just a singular opinion pretending to be a universal/ultimate one that no one can contest/apply logic to and argue.
Yet here I am, arguing it - Opposition to your current ultimate paradigm (most recent set of assumptions) as to what the reality of things are.
If you knew the ultimate reality, I would be happy to allow you to assume the role of the single most important, significant and revelationary person on earth, totally and unequivocally famous for your unanimous and comprehensive description of "all things". But seeing as I disagree with you and posit my own logic in direct contention with yours, you must either explain sufficiently why I am wrong or contend with the idea that your own beliefs are innacurate/incomplete/imperfect/biased/prejudiced.
So which is it? Are you prepared to declare yourself as all knowing or do you consider yourself as open to debate/further learning from others on the forum/further afield?
The point is that energy loss is very real, whether you are looking at the Planck scale or at a scale of the entire universe. It is never "negligible" unless you are denying reality in support of a false principle
I don't see what observational reference frames or relative experiences of space and time have to do with the material existence of space and time. I exist in space and time. Someone in a long term coma does not experience space and time whilst they are in a coma, that is not evidence that space and time are not real. When I die and you die and the Earth dies, space and time will still exist.
Quoting Benj96
Random happenstance has been an aspect of the universe since the big bang. Everything that exists, is the result of random combinations of fundamentals. It is no surprise to me that this is part of the workings of the brain. Random thought can be collapsed into a focused thought. There is no need to communicate such a thought to anyone else, you can if you choose to but you don't have to, for the thought to have value.
Quoting Benj96
I did not suggest imaginings had NO value, what I typed was:
Quoting universeness Unimportant does not mean no value. I might randomly imagine different animal variations but that's not particularly important thinking, unless I decide to focus and collapse such random musings into a pink panther and then create a cartoon series based on it.
Quoting Benj96
No, only the word and the concept exists, not the physical reality. I can use the word god or ghost but based on the lack of any compelling evidence, I can and do claim that neither exists. The existence of the word and the concept is completely trivial.
Quoting Benj96
I have already stated that no omnis exist. So what we have, in reality is over 8 billion humans who have varied opinions on what reality is and what does and does not exist. We await further evidence. As for you and your posits based on your own logic. You, like me, simply add to the choices available for support from others like you and me. As the French say, vive la différence!
Energy loss is energy changing form. The total energy in the universe remains unchanged.
There is no evidence of an 'outside' of the universe for any energy form to leak into or act as a new source of energy that this universe can tap into. But just like I can't prove god/ the immaterial/ the supernatural does not exist, I cannot prove the total energy in the universe remains constant.
I think the majority view in science, currently supports the first law of thermodynamics.
The burden of proof that it is a false law, remains with those, like you, who claim it is false.
You have so far, provided no compelling evidence whatsoever. You have only offered your own musings and interpretations based on having no (same as me,) high level qualifications in physics.
The point is that this is just an assertion, which is contrary to experimental evidence. The evidence shows that all the energy can never be accounted for, even when all known energy loss is added up. So it is just an unsupported claim, that all the energy loss is energy changing form, along with the claim that the amount of energy in the universe actually stays the same.
Quoting universeness
The issue is that the entropy of the universe increases. Universal entropy is said to be energy which is not accessible to us human beings. However, as I explained already, "energy" refers to what is calculated by us human beings, from our formulas. Therefore, to say that there is energy which is not accessible to us, having been transformed to entropy, is oxymoronic, self-contradicting.
It is only by insisting that the law of conservation must be true, that people get forced into strange conclusions, like your suggestion that there is energy which has escaped the universe.
Quoting universeness
The problem is that if the total energy actually did remain constant, it could be proven. It could be shown exactly what happens to all the energy, in experimental transactions. But this cannot be done. The reason why it cannot be proven is because it is false.
Quoting universeness
I don't think so universeness. If you make an assertion such as "the total energy in the universe remains unchanged", then the burden of proof is on you. Furthermore, since every experiment which has ever been carried out indicates that energy is always lost, this is very strong evidence that the assertion is false.
Quoting universeness
You have provided two experiments. Each has shown energy loss. My claim is that every experiment shows energy loss, and I am not about to give reference to every experiment. But your task is easy, if what you say (that total energy is conserved) is true, just show me one experiment which demonstrates this. Doing this will disprove my claim. That's why I suggested we move along to look at experiments carried out in a vacuum condition.
You are also making a complete assertion. Where is your exemplar experimental evidence from an experiment that proves any energy loss cannot be attributed to energy which has changed form?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
We cannot currently detect dark energy, yet something must be making the expansion rate of the universe accelerate. Dark energy, the mysterious force that causes the universe to accelerate, may have been responsible for unexpected results from the XENON1T experiment, deep below Italys Apennine Mountains.
Which noted physicist, claims undetectable energy causes entropy? I think you are just making stuff up in your own head.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yeah, because physicists are dishonest people who label falsities as 'laws of physics,' just to fool all undercover metaphysicians? :rofl: Is that what you are trying to peddle here.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
You assert that the experiments performed by physicists to demonstrate conservation of energy and confirm that conclusion in their published results are false. So, prove it, using compelling counter evidence that any tiny energy loss is NOT converted to another form, that's your burden, just like it's the burden of theists to prove their god fantasies actually have real existents (or at least 1).
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
You don't get to sit back in your armchair, pretending to be a warrior. Your task should be the easy one.
Reference just one experiment that shows that any energy loss CANNOT be attributed to a change of energy form. Surely any fully qualified undercover meta has access to many such proofs!
It feels as though adequacy is critical to solving this ancient mystery of mind-matter. What sayest thou?
As I said, the quantity of energy is the product of a calculation derived from measurement and the application of formulae. In all experiments there is energy loss which cannot be accounted for with measurements and application of the formulae. Therefore we cannot conclude that this energy loss is the result of energy changing forms. That is an invalid conclusion. If the experimenters cannot show all the forms that all the energy exists in, they cannot conclude that it still exists in some form. The observations made simply do not support that conclusion.
Quoting universeness
The experiment you referenced clearly shows energy loss which is not accounted for. If the experimenters claim that there was not any energy loss, when their data shows that there was, then they are lying and are not honest scientists.
There is no burden on me to show that there is energy loss which is not existing in another form, that is nonsensical. If I showed you where the energy loss existed, then it would be representable as a form of energy. I am not arguing that I can show you energy which does not exist as a form of energy. I am arguing that there is energy loss which the experimenters cannot account for as existing in another form. And, I am arguing that since "energy" is a product of human measurement and calculation, we have no premise whereby it can be concluded that the lost energy still exists as energy.
Quoting universeness
The proof has been presented to you, you just haven't taken the time required to assess it. Go back to that graph in your referenced experiment. There is an energy loss of .15 joules in the first 1.5 seconds of the experiment which CANNOT be attributed to a change of energy form. To assign some other form to this energy would be purely conjecture, completely unsupported by the experiment. Therefore it CANNOT be validly attributed to a change of energy form.
Of course you can insist that you CAN attribute this to a change in form, but that's simply an unsupported claim by someone who knows nothing about energy. And I will ignore such nonsensical claims.
Feel free to ignore science all you want and remain delusional about what you think you know about energy conservation. I will continue to listen to those who actually do know what they are talking about, namely, physicists and not metaphysicians.
You've done mighty yeoman's work talking physical science to an incorrigible pseudo-scientist. :clap: :up:
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Pathetic dodge.
"Inductive conclusion?" :eyes: :roll:
How can you be so obtuse, MU, confusing the "lack of 100% efficiency" in thermodynamic processes with occult "energy loss"?
Oh, I know how your dogmatic idealist (anti-physical) misreading (disregard) of all of the extant observational and experimental warrants in favor of 'conservation laws' and 'the principle of causal closure' in modern physical science, and without a shred of experimental evidence to corroborate the single article, which others have shown you've misread, that you obstinantly hang your tin-foil hat upon. No doubt, sir, the Nobel Committee has you on its short list for the 2023 Physics Prize. :sweat:
Thanks for your support, I appreciate it and I agree with your assessment of the situation.
You have inspired me to make one further attempt to get through his foggy thinking!
There are 3 graphs in the experiment that I provided the link to. I assume your 0.15 joules drop in energy within the first 1.5 sec of one run of the experiment is something you have garnished from the third graph in figure ii. Are you basing this on something like 0.9 (the initial total energy shown on the graph at t=0) minus 0.75 (your guestimate of the total energy read from graph 3 at t = 1.5 sec) to arrive at your 0.15 joules drop? If that's your basis for the 0.15 joules drop, then it is probably quite inaccurate.
If you are going to employ numbers, then you really should include all your working, so that others can more easily assist you. Graph 3, clearly shows the results of 5 collisions with the buffer. Potential, kinetic and total energy are shown.
The shapes created by each of the 5 graph sections are pretty close to identical. They just reduce in height each time, due to the collisions. The symmetry is obvious. Energy is conserved.
Any small range of total energies, between collisions, is indicated by the 'curved shape' of the tops of the total energy line (the small broken lines that overall, look like slightly rounded castle turrets.) The tiny energy amounts lost, will be a combination of a tiny air resistance and some tiny sound and heat exchanges. All just different energy type conversions, which are negligible for this macro experiment.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
@universeness, a valiant effort indeed, but sometimes the best thing on can do is to laugh and walk away.
:smirk: :up:
Old habits die hard guys. 30+ years as a secondary school teacher.
My remit was to cause learning. I never gave up on a pupil.
I mean no insult to Mr MU by typing that. I am no longer in a classroom, teaching teenagers, and I certainly don't consider Mr MU akin to a secondary school pupil.
He is stubborn in his attempts to use minor points to make major claims, and I can be equally stubborn in my wish to combat such sophistry.
I hope you can forgive my laborious persistence, especially as you seem to think it is a pointless effort, and you are probably correct, as far as Mr MU is concerned, but his are not the only eyes in the readership of TPF. Bad ideas can be prevented from doing any significant damage, if enough voices of dissent and reason are raised against them.
What then remains, is who becomes convinced by what is stated or written by whom and what results come from that. I may indeed be having no positive effects at all with anyone who reads any of my posts on TPF but like most members here, I will continue to try.
I do however appreciate your point that it's wise to choose not to overstay or overburden the welcome of the audience of a particular thread.
I spent a few years interacting with MU, eventually to decide that, while he is not a troll, it is not worth responding.
Firstly even given quite astute and accurate explanations, he does not reconsider his position. Secondly drawing attention to his comments leads some folk into considering his arguments seriously, which is corrosive. This became clear in discussions of limits and instantaneous velocity, where clear arguments refuting his position had him doubling down, as he did here, while attracting more support than was healthy - mostly from those who, while not agreeing with him, wanted to support his right to be wrong.
Your concerns are well founded and are noted. Based on your profile, you have much more experience on TPF than I. Getting the balance correct is not easy. If we don't offer a platform to even those who are good at fooling many people, again and again, then I think they remain a clear and present danger.
My turn of phrase here is probably way overblown, when it comes to the importance of the massaging of the facts used by MU. I think however, as a general rule, it's better to try to combat bad ideas than ignore them and let them fester and grow in the shadows.
You have to risk it to win the biscuit. BUT, sometimes, things can turn out exactly as you suggest with:
Quoting Banno
I never said anything about occult energy loss and I haven't the fainted idea what you are talking about. I've never before heard of "occult energy loss". Let;s stick to the facts. There is energy loss, as all experiments demonstrate. Do you or do you not agree with this conclusion derived from observation?
Quoting universeness
Call it a "guesstimate" if you want, it's taken straight from the numbers on the graph. There is a drop of energy of approximately .15 joules prior to any collision, which is roughly 15 percent of the total energy of .9 joules. That the graph is unclear is the fault of the experimenters, not me. Whether the actual drop calculated by the experimenters was .13 joules, or .17 joules (hard to read on the graph) is irrelevant to the fact that the loss of energy prior to any collision was significant.
Quoting universeness
The symmetry in the shape of the total energy after the collisions is produced from their way of figuring potential energy from that point onward. As we discussed already, this, what they call "arbitrary" way of figuring potential energy replaces the formula mgh with an inversion of the calculated kinetic energy. Because of this way of figuring the potential energy, it is impossible to distinguish energy loss due to inelasticity in the collision, and energy loss during movement of the glider. And, as is evident from the first 1.5 seconds, there is actually significant energy loss, just in the movement of the glider.
Quoting Banno
This is false, I am always adapting and changing my position, depending on what is brought to my attention. It is the case though, that many people, such as universeness is this thread, never bring anything worthwhile to my attention and so I have nothing new to base a reconsideration on.
I never said you said that (note where I put the quotation marks) and, of course, you "haven't the fainted idea what" I'm (or e.g. @universeness, @Banno, et al are) "talking about".
Right, you're talking about some sort of "occult" energy loss, universeness is trying to claim that scientific experiments have proven that all energy is conserved, and Banno is rambling some nonsense about instantaneous velocity. It's no wonder I haven't the faintest idea what you guys are talking about.
Maybe one of you could step forward and at least try to say something reasonable for a change?
Isn't this argument circular?
:rofl:
As gentle as a lion can be, eh?
A valid image. A lion is not very good at physics either.
Quoting 180 Proof
I think this is a reasonable comparison.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Only based on your inaccurate, bias guestimates. Here are some of my guestimates based on graph 3:
Between t= 1.6 and t= 3.9 seconds. The curved broken line has a min at approx 0.52 joules and a max of approx 0.58 joules. A difference of 0.06 joules. Quite a difference from your 15% claim.
Between t = 4sec and 5.9 sec. The total energy line has a min at approx 0.39 (on the left min and perhaps 0.38 on the right min) and a max of 0.4 joules. A difference of 0.01 or 0.02 joules.
You have already been told that such tiny energy losses are negligible and are due to tiny energy conversions from mechanical energy to other forms such as heat, sound etc. You choose to ignore this and suggest that these tiny energy losses go 'elsewhere.' I can therefore understand why @180proof suggests you are trying to plug in some woo woo idea that the energy loss could be labelled 'occult energy.' Occult in this sense just means 'hidden.' But it is also a traditional reference to the supernatural, which I think is part of your MO. I think your agenda is to keep the possibility of a supernatural existent alive. That's how you come across to me, but I admit I could be wrong in that impression.
I think you are losing more and more credibility, the more you type. Your arguments are almost becoming incoherent.
If you don't think these tiny losses in energy are converted to 'other' energy types, (perhaps some even becomes dark energy. See, just like you, I can offer total conjecture as well.) What occult (hidden) substance do you think it becomes? Surely your 'Meta' approach can come up with some alternative suggestions. Dark matter? It heads straight for the nearest supermassive black hole? It becomes small living creatures in another existence. It is exchanged with the multiverse? God sucks it up? anything you would like to offer us?
As I said, after the first collision, at approximately 1.5 seconds, they started with the "arbitrary" figure for potential energy. Please reread the experiment, so that you might understand what they did. This replaces the gravitational formula for potential energy (mgh) with an inversion of the measured kinetic energy, i.e begging the question by assuming that all the energy is conserved.. You still haven't grasped this, after days of discussion. Or have you, and you're playing dumb? But why?
Look at the first 1.5 seconds please, where a true value for "h", height was provided, and the potential energy was figured from mgh, rather than from the assumption of a total energy of zero, and potential energy figured as the inverse of kinetic energy.
The rest of your post, concerning "tiny losses" is irrelevant, because it is based in your misunderstanding of how they used the "arbitrary" method to figure potential energy in the rebounds. This gave them no real indication of the amount of total energy actually lost during the up and down motion of the glider
Quoting Banno
Do you think that explaining to me some conventional principles of mathematics, which I obviously already have an understanding of, as I am arguing against them, gives me reason to accept them? I am sorry if it disappoints you, but you'll have to do better than this. Try giving me reasons to accept these principles, rather than just assertions that these are the accepted principles, and implying that because they are the accepted principles they must be true.
My bad, science is always trying to disprove itself and still its detractors are having such a tough time. How sad is that? You (antiscience brigade) can't even kill a guy (science) who's trying to perform hara kiri :lol:
I think it's you, who continues to clearly demonstrate your lack of understanding of the experiment presented. The use of the word 'arbitrary,' as presented in the experiment relates to potential energy as described in texts such as:
https://www.britannica.com/science/potential-energy
A snippet from this text is:
The value of potential energy is arbitrary and relative to the choice of reference point. In the case given above, the system would have twice as much potential energy if the initial position were the bottom of a 10-foot-deep hole. (I tried to explain this to you in an earlier posting.)
In the experiment PE is calculated as mgh alone, h reduces as the glider goes down the slope, which is why the experimenters clearly state:
As the glider moves down the ramp, value of h becomes negative. This negative value of PE annihilates the positive value of KE that is produced due to increasing velocity. Thus the total energy remains zero.
I don't think you are playing dumb, I think you really don't understand the physics involved in the experiment AT ALL. Do you have any qualifications in physics from school? I stopped studying physics after 1st year uni, as I focused on maths and computing in year 2 and full computing in years 3 and 4 of my honour's degree course. How about you?
Your last post shows that you are reaching a state of 'babble,' due to your lack of understanding of how potential energy is calculated. Do you understand why, "the system would have twice as much potential energy if the initial position were the bottom of a 10-foot-deep hole." is true?
Here are another two snippets from the link above that may help lift your fog;
Potential energy is a property of a system and not of an individual body or particle.
and
Potential energy also includes other forms. The energy stored between the plates of a charged capacitor is electrical potential energy. What is commonly known as chemical energy, the capacity of a substance to do work or to evolve heat by undergoing a change of composition, may be regarded as potential energy resulting from the mutual forces among its molecules and atoms. Nuclear energy is also a form of potential energy.
Another useful understanding to gain is:
[b]The first law of thermodynamics
Within an isolated system, the total energy of the system is constant, even if energy has been converted from one form to another. (This is another way of stating the law of conservation of energy.) If the system is not isolated, the change in a systems internal energy ?U is equal to the difference between the heat Q added to the system from its surroundings and the work W done by the system on its surroundings; that is, ?U = Q ? W.[/b]
Here is a good offering from Victor Toth(quora), describing conservation occurring during pair production.
Might help you appreciate the concepts involved:
[b]Mass cannot be converted into energy for the same reason (more or less) water cannot be converted into a liquid: it already is energy.
Einsteins 1905 paper, mentioned in the video, makes it very clear: The inertia (i.e., what we call mass) of an object is its energy content. All forms of energy, combined. This may include rest mass, but for most elementary particles, there is no true rest mass (e.g., the rest mass of the electron is really a result of how it interacts with the Higgs fields vacuum expectation value, not an inherent rest mass.) In any case, energy can be converted from one form into another (e.g., potential energy may be converted into kinetic energy) but mass plays no special role in this respect.
To stress this point, let me offer a thought experiment in the spirit of the video. Suppose we have a box lined with perfect mirrors, and inside that box, an electron and a positron. We weigh the box on a perfect scale, and find that its mass is the mass of the box plus the masses of the electron and the positron.
But now we let the electron and the positron inside the box collide, and let their combined mass convert into energy, namely the kinetic energy of the two photons that are produced in their annihilation. So we converted mass into energy, right?
Not quite. Those two photons, still inside the box, now keep bouncing back and forth between those perfect mirrors, forming an electromagnetic field that carries the same amount of energy that was the combined mass-energy of the electron and the positron. If we weigh the box on our perfect scale, the boxs mass remains unchanged: It is still the mass of the box proper, plus the mass of an electron and the mass of a positron. That is because the total energy content of the box has not changed, despite the dramatic conversion of the electron-positron pair therein into a pair of photons.[/b]
Get real universeness! Face the fact of the first 1.5 seconds of the experiment for me please. As recorded by the experimenters, and indicated on the graph, there is significant energy loss as the glider moves down the ramp. It's right there, in that first one and a half seconds, where potential energy figured from mgh, using a true representation of the height differences of the actual system, was compared with kinetic energy observed at the point of collision.
That the negative value of PE annihilates the positive value of KE, so that the total energy remains zero, is an absolute fabrication (a complete falsity), produced by the "arbitrary" way that they figured the potential energy of the system, from the point of the first collision onward. They replaced mgh with an inversion of KE, assuming total energy conservation. They made no more actual measurements of height to determine mgh, and a true PE at the apex of each rebound, they made all their calculations based on PE being an inverse of KE hence the designation that PE annihilates KE as an exact equality, and the total energy remaining at zero, as dictated by the law of conservation.
Furthermore, there is inconsistency in your reference to the Britannica article which demonstrates exactly what I've been telling you. The point which you repeatedly ignore. You imply that the same system could have different quantities of gravitational potential energy, depending on how the PE is figured, yet you also state "potential energy is a property of a system". If the quantity of PE within a system at any particular time, can vary, depending on the method used to calculate it, then we cannot say that it is a property of the system. It is, as I've been repeating to you, something determined by calculation. This is a fundamental principle which I keep repeating to you, which you continually ignore, and refuse to acknowledge.
The reality of this inconsistency can be demonstrated with your quoted statement:
"the system would have twice as much potential energy if the initial position were the bottom of a 10-foot-deep hole." Tha fact is, that this would not be the same system because having different initial positions means being a different system. Having the initial position at the top of a ten-foot-deep hole, or having the initial position at the bottom of a ten-foot-deep hole makes two very distinct systems in reality. These two representations cannot be said to be representations of "the same system".
So, if it is true that you can figure the gravitational PE for the very same physical system, in two very distinct "arbitrary" ways (as if they are two very distinct systems with two distinct initial positions), coming up with completely different values for the gravitational PE, and each of these distinct values may be considered a correct representation of that one system, then it is clearly false that "potential energy is a property of a system". The PE is a product of the calculation, and the fact that the very same system can have completely different 'correct' values for PE, demonstrates this very clearly.
Until you recognize, and accept this point, that energy is not the property of a system, but something calculated from measurements and the application of formulae, then it is pointless for you and I to continue this discussion. That this is true, that energy is something calculated, and not a property of the system itself, is very evident from the way that PE may be calculated in this "arbitrary" way.
I don't see how a totally hypothetical "thought experiment" is supposed to demonstrate any facts. Yes, it explains in a way, the hypothesis of energy conservation, but as the first 1.5 seconds in the glider experiment shows, what happens in reality (significant energy loss) is not consistent with the hypothesis of energy conservation.
I agree, you will never lift your fog until you understand that potential energy IS a property of a system.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Taking a measurement is an 'instantaneous' snapshot of the system properties at that moment.
We do not exist in a static universe, there is no such thing as empty space or nothing. Everything is dynamic, even at the Planck size. Everything jiggles/vibrates/moves.
Your 0.15 joule drop in the first 1.5 seconds for that particular experiment is just based on your own bad and bias guesstimation. It seems much closer to 0.09 or 0.1 joules to me. BUT what you don't seem to get is that this is down to the complexity of the overall system involved. The fact that potential energy is a measure of many other energies present, not just gravitational, but electrical, chemical and nuclear as well, so depending on the instantaneous state of the system when measured, there is some error bar involved. There is in fact no energy loss involved, it is just difficult to achieve 100% accuracy when accounting for all the energy conversions involved due to tiny air resistance, heat generated due to the fact the system is dynamic, tiny (most inaudible to the human ear) sounds created etc. This accounts for the 0.1 joules your whole claim so depends upon. A very unstable peg indeed to hang your personal credence on. You also offer no counter evidence at all of what you think happens to what you are trying to peddle as missing or 'hidden' or as @180 Proof correctly labelled 'occult,' energy.
The KE at 1.5 sec is 0.6 joules, at the first collision this becomes 0, due to the collision and then the direction is reversed, and the KE becomes positive, after the collision and then becomes 0 again before changing direction again. The PE similarly becomes positive and negative based on the direction of motion. The PE at 1.5 sec is not zero as the glider remains on an incline, just before the first collision.
The back wheels of the glider will be higher than the front wheels. The PE of the system at that point is complicated, as it is during its full motion, as on an incline, the length of the glider, means that the back of the glider has a little more PE than the front, due to the small difference in height.
PE would be better calculated as an average of mgh calculations along the length of the glider, during the motion on the inclines, which would reduce the error bar involved. I don't know if the heights were taken at the centre point of the glider as it moved down the incline.
This experiment clearly demonstrates that energy is conserved in this system.
Your 'silly' massaging of the error bars involved in the measurements is just an attempt to sensationalise those who love 'conspiracy' based conjectures. You are making a pathetic attempt at suggesting all physicists who support and agree with the conservation of energy law are in some way misleading the public and you, mr undercover, are one of those who are trying to expose those lying physicists! :rofl:
You delude yourself sir! I think the vast majority of TPF members will see that.
Victor is trying to explain that e=mcsquared is a consequence of conservation law.
If energy was not conserved during pair production, then e=mcsquared would not be an equivalence, it would be an imbalance, such as e
This is false. Despite what Banno claims, velocity is always the product of an average from at least two measurements of position and calculated over the time difference. Velocity cannot be derived from a snapshot of the system at a moment. And, since energy is a function of the movement of the system, it is as I've been telling you, the product of a calculation from the application of formulae. It is never directly measured.
Quoting universeness
OK, let's take your guesstimate then that's still at least ten percent of the total energy, a very significant energy loss. in the first 1.5 seconds of time. Do you see that this energy loss, of the system, prior to any collision, is at least ten percent? How can you insist on conservation when you know this is true?
Quoting universeness
This is completely irrelevant. The formula they used is clearly stated as mgh (mass time gravitational constant times height), which is the formula for gravitational potential energy. All that energy lost in the first second and a half of time must be lost in the conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy, in the falling of the glider.
Then, after the first collision, this significant energy loss (at least ten percent in the first 1.5 seconds of the experiment) which has been demonstrated to be occurring in the free movement of the glider is completely dismissed, and ignored in the later part of the experiment. The use of mgh as the formula to figure the potential gravity is replaced with a formula which matches potential energy to kinetic energy, as an equal conversion without ant energy loss. Therefore all this energy loss is completely ignored.
Quoting universeness
Well, all this means is that there is more unaccounted for energy loss which we haven't addressed yet. The initial potential energy (and total energy because that's all the system has at the beginning) is .9 joules. If the kinetic energy only reaches .6 joules, and the potential energy can be seen to be at .1 at this time, this indicates a total energy loss, prior to any collision, of .2 joules, more than twenty percent.
I suggest that the graph is very poorly drawn, not clearly showing total energy. But, we can see clearly that at 1.5 seconds there is .6 joules of kinetic energy and .1 joules of potential energy, for a total of .7 joules. This means that prior to any collision, there was a total energy loss to the system of over twenty percent.
Quoting universeness
Now, you've exposed the fact that the true energy loss of the system, prior to any collision was actually more than twenty percent. Let's look at the facts. Initial energy, as potential energy (mgh) was .9 joules. Kinetic energy at the time just prior to the first collision was .6 joules. Potential energy at this time was .1 joules. Do we agree with this reading of the graph? Do you see that this means an initial loss of total energy of .2 joules, prior to any collision?
Quoting universeness
That's a very strange conclusion. The experiment shows an energy loss to the system of more than twenty percent in the conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy in the initial dropping of the glider. And you conclude "This experiment clearly demonstrates that energy is conserved in this system."!!!???
No because the 0.1 joules of energy was not lost, it was converted to other energy types.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, the total energy of the system after the first collision is shown and the error bar in measurement is shown in the small curved broken line. Again, no energy is lost, a tiny amount is converted to other forms. Total energy is conserved.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, 0.9 and 1 are your guesstimates and are not confirmed. There is some error present in the measurements due to the nature of the universe and the measuring tools we have but the overwhelming evidence from the experiment is that the TOTAL energy of the system is conserved.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
It's called science! There is no woo woo here, despite your refusal to reveal what becomes of this non-existent occult(hidden) energy you insist this experiment exemplifies.
We are talking about "the system". The energy is lost to the system. That all the energy could be accounted for by measurements of things other than the system is pure speculation. And this has never been proven because to measure it is to bring it into "the system", and all systems have been observed to lose energy. So in reality, this hypothesis that all the energy could be accounted for with other measurements, has actually been disproven. That's the point I am arguing, 100% of the energy has never been accounted for, ever, in any experiment, and that's why the law of conservation has been proven to be false.
Quoting universeness
You are not addressing the issue universeness. The graph shows .9 joules of potential energy, and .9 joules of total energy at the initial position. Kinetic energy is zero. This means all the energy at that point is potential energy. Then the glider moves, and reaches a maximum kinetic energy of .6 joules. Since this is the maximum kinetic energy, it is prior to the first collision. The glider has not slowed down yet. At this time, the potential energy is .1 joules. So, the total energy at this time, just prior to the first collision, is .7 joules. Therefore we can conclude that a total energy loss of .2 joules occurred prior to any collisions. That is a very significant energy loss to the system.
Your point then is merely about the definition of 'a closed system.'
From Wiki:
A closed system is a natural physical system that does not allow transfer of matter in or out of the system, although in contexts such as physics, chemistry or engineering the transfer of energy (e.g. as work or heat) is allowed.
Pay careful attention to the 'although' part. The 0.1 joules convertion to other forms of energy IS therefore considered part of 'the system.'
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Not confirmed but I agree it looks pretty close to 0.9 joules on the poorly detailed graph offered in the experiment.
As I drilled down a little further into the data provided in the experiment I tried to consider where a 0.9 value for total energy could come from based on the formula used and the data offered.
I could not get to a total energy of 0.9 joules using the height (position) graph and the velocity graph.
At v=0 the glider is at rest so KE=0.
If the height of the glider is 1m as suggested at the start of the first graph then mg(1) = total energy.
or mg=0.9 joules. this means the mass of the glider would have to be 0.0918 and no such tiny glider mass is given in the table containing three glider masses.
So, I am obviously misunderstanding the data presented. I don't see the m, and h (v is 0) (g is 9.8) data that produces the guesstimated 0.9 joules value at the beginning of a run of the experiment. Can you?
I would need to find experimental results offering a clearer data set.
There is no point continuing to debate with you about a guesstimated quantity of energy loss in the first 1.5 second that I can't confirm or deny using the data provided in the experiment I linked to.
My position on conservation of energy remains solid but if I have time, I will look for a better data set.
Perhaps you should do the same, as I don't see why I should do all the search work.
I have old physics textbooks from uni, perhaps I will look in those.
You may find this discussion on the physics stack exchange, exemplifies the argument between folks on the conservation of energy issue:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/98066/experimental-proof-for-conservation-of-total-energy
I hope you read that well, and understand some simple principles. First, what they stated at the beginning, the issue with an "isolated system". This is what Banno stated earlier, that energy is conserved in a "closed system". However like those at the stack exchange, I argued that in reality there is no such thing as a "closed" or "isolated" system. So this idea is a fiction, an imaginary scenario, created by human minds, as the scenario in which the law of conservation would be true. But since there is no such scenario in reality, the law of conservation is not true.
The next principle I'd like you to try and understand is a bit more subtle, and more difficult to grasp. This is the variability in the method employed by physicists to figure the value of "energy" in any particular system. Remember in the experiment you linked, how they explained the "arbitrary" method of figuring potential energy. They said that there was freedom to choose the value for either height, or mass, for the purpose of facilitating their calculations.
So when the stack exchange discussion proceeds into a discussion of the symmetries produced by The Standard Model of particle physics we must be very wary of this fact. And if you make a closer analysis of the procedures in particle physics I suggest that you will find that physicists "arbitrarily" assign, and adjust the designated mass of a particle, in a way which maintains consistency with the law of conservation. In other words, they have no real way to measure the mass of a fundamental particle, they simply assign a mass to it according to what the law of conservation dictates it ought to be. As demonstrated by how the experimenters assigned a value for height in the linked experiment. And so the designated "mass" of fundamental particles is always being altered and adjusted depending on the outcomes of various experiments.
You should notice therefore, that when the participants in the stack exchange discussion turn to particle physics as proof of the validity of the law of conservation, there is no real proof here at all. What happens in particle physics, is that instead of measuring things like the height and the weight of the object, like in your simple experiment, the amount of energy is determined by other means. Then, from this determination of the amount of energy, and the application of the law of conservation (as demonstrated in the "arbitrary" method of determining PE), the mass of the particle is determined. And, of course it will appear like particle physics validates the law of conservation, because the designated mass of a particle is produced by applying that conservation law. That's the begging of the question which I told you about.
To understand this better, look into the difference between "rest mass" (invariant mass), and "relativistic mass" (calculated from the energy of the system). You'll find out for instance, that a photon must have zero "rest mass" but at the same time it is impossible that a photon has zero "relativistic mass". This is due to the falsity of the conservation law, and the need to adjust the "mass" of the particle to be consistent with the calculated energy of the system, when the energy level is determined by a means other than mass and velocity.
www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity
Yes, you did, and this is due to your own misunderstanding of the complexities of the physics involved.
I found the points made by those who fully accept the conservation laws in the physics stack exchange much more compelling than those, like you, who dissented.
Energy being conserved means it does not spawn out of nothing nor disappear into nothing. If it is going out due to wasteful/resistive forces, then while we may not know where it went, we know it still exists in the same quantity. Thus 100% conservation
If you are $100 dollars short of being a millionaire because you just can't find the missing $100, it's not that you don't own the $100, it's just 'hidden' for now then I think that's a very poor reason for no longer calling yourself a millionaire. You're reasoning for calling the conservation of energy law false or untrue is ridiculous in my opinion. I think you should perhaps start using terms like 'imperfect' or even 'incomplete' as opposed to 'false' or 'untrue,' when offering your interpretation of conservation of energy. You might be taken more seriously by doing so.
I find that very easy to believe, because you've demonstrated over and over again that you are extremely biased in your approach, and you either willing deny, or completely misunderstand what is written by the experimenters you yourself referenced.
Quoting universeness
You told me this much earlier in the thread, and I explained to you exactly why "false" is a better word. Countless scientific experiments have demonstrated that energy loss is very real, and not one has ever demonstrated conservation. And so conservation does not correspond with fact. It is a very useful principle, but it is simply wrong because it is not consistent with what scientific experiments have demonstrated as the truth about this matter.
And it is not a matter of the principle of conservation being "imperfect", or "incomplete" because as I told you last time, it is the exact opposite of this. The law of conservation states something perfect and complete, conservation, when experiments show that in reality things are not perfect and complete, in the way that this principle states. So it is an ideal which does not take into account the reality of the imperfections which actually exist in the world. Therefore it's simply false, like any other Utopian ideal.
Right back at you. You should stare into a mirror and repeat the words above to yourself again and again. Perhaps your fog will then lift.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Well, you tried to, but you failed miserably, as your logic is badly flawed and you just repeat your flawed logic without tackling any counter points made or offering any evidence to support your position.
You repeat silly, extreme words such as 'false' and 'untrue' for conservation of energy and I think that's the rock your viewpoint dies on.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
This exemplifies your 'silly' viewpoint imo. I have never heard a physicist expound the law of conservation of energy as a 'perfect law.' If they did then I would argue against them.
Most or all physicists would reject the word perfect. Most would probably call the conservation of energy law 'complete,' yes, as most are convinced by the proposition that any 'missing' energy is simply changed into other forms. Like that millionaire I mentioned, still looking for his missing $100.
...
I thought you might consider this quite balanced viewpoint (imo), from Victor Tosh, helpful.
Question posed: The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed - only transferred. Could this immutable scientific law be applied to the Big Bang with formless energy crossing a space-time event horizon to create our cosmos?
Victor's response:
[i]Laws are meant to be broken. Scientific laws are not immutable pronouncements by some deity, but descriptions of Nature that are found to be valid under a wide range of circumstances but are subjects to testing and modification, if necessary.
The first law of thermodynamics, one of the axioms in the axiomatic formulation of thermodynamics, is no exception. It is not some sacred commandment. It is part of the description of the thermodynamic behavior of matter that we see within this universe.
But we have since done better than simply postulating ad hoc axioms. We have a beautiful theorem, Noethers theorem, that basically amounts to the statement that if a physical theory is invariant under certain mathematical transformations, the result is a conserved quantity. Very specifically, if a physical theory remains the same under time translation (that is, if the laws of physics are the same today as they were yesterday and will remain the same tomorrow) the result is energy conservation. This, combined with the statistical behavior of large numbers of particles, together let us derive the laws of thermodynamics, as they apply to physical systems within this universe.
I emphasized the expression, within this universe. None of this tells us anything about the beginning of the universe. (It certainly wasnt formless energy whatever that means and no space-time event horizon was involved either, and least none that we know about. It may have involved a so-called initial singularity at least thats what general relativity tells us but dont take that for granted either, since we have no reason to believe that general relativity paints a valid picture of the extreme early universe, when unknown quantum effects of gravitation may have played an oversize role.)[/i]
I think the opinion that the conservation laws are not prefect is a rational sound landing zone, but typing that they are false or untrue, leaves you skidding all over the place or leaves you like that millionaire, who rejects the label, as they can only absolutely account for $999,900.
Check out Lee Smolin's "Time Reborn". He is a PHD physicist and he provides a good explanation as to why we ought not think of the laws of physics as timelessly invariant.
Quoting universeness
The fault which makes me say "false" is not that the law is an approximation, or imperfect. The fault which leads to the accusation of "false" is in the way that the law is represented, and applied, as timelessly invariant.
So, the issue is that we as human beings occupy an extremely limited spatial perspective, and also an extremely limited temporal perspective. Our range of possible observations (possible to us) is very small in relation to the broad temporal spatial extent of the universe. We do experimentation in this narrow range of observational capacity and produce our laws from this.
Now, the observations do not match the laws perfectly, as you say, and there is some slight variance, even within our small range of observational capacity. Yet we extrapolate from these laws to the wider universe applying the laws as if they are perfect representations. in this mode of extrapolation. In this mode of extrapolation, we cannot adjust for the imperfections, the variances, because we do not know the causes of them.
Here's a simplified example. Suppose some experimentation is carried out over ten years, and it proves to have a relatively insignificant margin of error of .01 percent, and we produce a law based on this. If we extrapolate from ten years to a million years, then the margin of error might be multiplied 100,000 times. The law becomes useless. But since we have nothing to apply in making that extrapolation, except that law, we'd proceed and produce conclusions about that time period of a million years, which would be completely wrong. And we'd have no way to make adjustments for that margin of error within the law, because if we could do that we would know the cause of the error, and we'd simply write the law in a way to eliminate the error.
The margin of error is a percentage. If it is correct, it will still be 0.01% after a million years.
Material event A is the light from my computer screen with this page open, hitting my retinas, and going through visual processing. The immaterial event B is my mental processing on what I just read. The material event C is me moving my fingers to type a response.
Now let's break down event C more. In order to hit the L button (the first in my comment) my ring finger needs to move a specific way. Let's call the movement of my ring finger to type L, event C1 (material). Now let's take event C2 to be whatever caused my finger to move that specific way. Let C3 be whatever caused C2 and so on, where event Cn is caused by event Cn+1.
Your hypothesis is that B will be in this chain of events, that it will cause Cm for some m, where Cm is a material event.
Now let's take this Cm, we know it causes Cm-1, and that Cm-1 causes Cm-2, etc, until C1 which results in typing the letter L. We also know this entire chain is material events which obey conservation of energy, no problem there.
However the step from B to Cm is the problematic one. A physical event has to envolve some sort of change of energy correct? For example, a few atoms existing in vacuum in complete stillness is clearly not a physical event, a movement (kinetic) or heating up (thermal) would be though.
So to say B caused Cm means that B must have caused some sort of energy change, and THAT is the part that contradicts conservation of energy. For a mental event to cause a change of energy is nothing short of telekinesis.
An analogy would be: Cm is the first in a line of dominos, C1 is the last domino, and B is what topples Cm. If B is non physical, that means that energy was added to Cm without any physical source. That contradicts conservation of energy.
Quoting Bartricks
How would this work exactly? The way I understand it is for a system that has 10 joules of energy, A happens, and now it has 7, then B happens and it still has 7, then C happens and it has 10 again. So unless B takes 0s of time, then there are two different times where conservation of energy is violated here, the start of B, and the start of C. And we know mental events take more than 0s of time.
The relevant issue is the applicability of the law. Application demonstrates a degree of error, the cause of which is not accounted for. Since it's not accounted for, we do not understand it. If the activity described by the law, which the law is applied to changes over time ,then the margin of error, and the applicability of the law would also change over time. That is what Smolin deals with in "Time Reborn". He calls it "the evolution of laws", and he uses the concept to support his theory of "cosmological natural selection". Other relevant concepts include quantum gravity, anthropic principle, variability in the mass of fundamental particles, and of course expansion with dark energy.
The significant feature here, which is very relevant to the discussion on conservation of energy is expansion, and the need to posit dark energy. The need to assume "dark energy" in cosmology demonstrates that the traditional concept of "energy" (its quantity dictated by human calculations) along with the proposed conservation of this energy, cannot account for all the 'real' energy in the universe.
https://physicsworld.com/a/dark-energy-emerges-when-energy-conservation-is-violated/
If, as the article claims, the concept of dark energy is the product of the violation of conservation, then we can see that at earlier times in the universe, when expansion appears to be faster, what is really the case is that conservation is less applicable. The crux here is the real degree of invariance of mass of the electron. It is assumed that the electron has a constant rest mass. But an electron is not at rest, and can be induced to a high speed. And the electron is the common means by which we relate the massless (immaterial) photons to the massive (material) particles.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1112.0225
No. The relevant issue is that again you have shown that you do not grasp the maths. 1% of ten is not a smaller fraction than 1% of a million.
But you are aware of this, as evidenced by your introducing quantum rhetoric - a sure sign of an attempt to escape by bullshiting.
You seem to have difficulty understanding that what I have provided is good reasons to reject the mathematics of invariance. I have no doubt that the mathematics of invariance produces the invariant conclusion you claim. The issue is whether this mathematics produces a good representation of reality.
The existence of error, no matter how it is expressed in percentage, or whatever, indicates that invariance is a false representation. Your conclusion relies on the mathematics of invariance, and what I explained is why we ought to reject such mathematics of invariance because it provides a false representation as demonstrated by the existence of error. This is what is explained by Dr. Smolin in the referenced book. So you have not given anything relevant in your appeal to invariant mathematics, only the assertion that the application of invariant mathematics provides a conclusion based in invariant principles. That's useless toward the topic of discussion, which is whether invariance is a true representation of reality.
You need to address the issue, and explain why you believe that invariance provides us with a realistic representation. I have explained why we ought to reject such invariance as unrealistic. Now if you do not accept this, show why, or show how, invariance is a better representation. But simply stating the principles of invariant mathematics does nothing for you.
Let me see if I can help you two to understand the principle. It's quite simple really. The idea is that the laws of physics which we use are only accurate when applied to what is immediately present to us, the here and now. That is all that is observable to us, and all that these laws are tested on. The principle is that the further we project away from the immediate here and now, the less applicable the laws are, due to a changing, or evolving universe.. That this evolving universe idea describes the true nature of reality is supported by the concept of expansion of space, and the need to posit dark energy.
So in the example I gave, if in ten years time, we lose .01 percent accuracy in a specific law (the particular number used is just an arbitrary example), then over a million years that error is multiplied by 100,000 times. The error of .01 percent over ten years, represents the rate of change that the universe is undergoing, away from the applicability of that law.
That's just wrong. Quantum Electrodynamics is not about everyday stuff, but measures the fine-structure constant to ten decimal places.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
As if accuracy were cumulative; as if, when I measure a piece of paper as being 22±0.1cm, somehow the error will grow such that after a week it's 22±0.7cm This is just wrong-headed.
This is the sort of stuff that leads one to ignore your posts.
This only demonstrates that you misunderstand Quantum Electrodynamics. The principles are established through observation, and the measurements you refer to, are simply an act of applying the principles. I went through this already, a number of times in this thread, because it seems really difficult for some people here to understand.
Energy is not ever directly measured. Measurements are made, and then the quantity of energy is calculated through the application of formulae to the measurements. So any supposed measurement, which is made in terms of energy (like what you suggest), is a theory laden calculation, and not a direct measurement at all. The amount of energy is calculated through application of the formulae, and the supposed measurement is a conclusion from the calculation.
Quoting Banno
You still don't understand. The error is in the formula through which the extrapolation is made, not in the initial measurement. That extrapolation is based in the assumption of invariance. And the assumption of invariance is the error. So for example, if your paper is measured at 22 cm, the error is in the assumption that it will continue to be 22 cm through an indefinite period of time, if it is not acted upon by a force which would change it. That's basically Newton's first law, the law of inertia, and that law is an expression of this error, the error of assuming that invariance is the natural condition of passing time.
The reality is that the simple passing of time will cause change, as if the passing of time were itself a force. And this we know from the concepts of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics, as well as spatial expansion. Invariance is a myth, a falsity. Though it is a useful principle, it is a falsity if presented as a representation of reality.
So, are you suggesting that the expansion of space over time, directly affects the local measurement of 22 cm of paper?
Galaxy structures are not expanding they are locally gravitationally bound, so, from that standpoint, their 'size' is invariant over time and will remain so unless they are acted upon by an external force such as a collision with another galaxy.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
A 22cm measurement would have been the same 10 billion years ago and it will be the same 10 billion years from now. The measurement is invariant and is not affected by the expansion of the universe.
No, it doesn't affect the measurement, that's done here and now. I am saying that the feature of reality which we know as expansion, will affect the paper if it exists for a long period of time.
Quoting universeness
This is what I am saying is false, this sort of invariance. Banno says:
Quoting Banno
But if you knew a little more about these concepts, like spatial expansion, and dark energy, you'd see that this type of thinking is not wrong headed at all, it is well justified. Take a look at the article I linked to above, concerning dark energy. Though it is stated that the proposed solution is most likely incorrect, the stated problem, that expansion is accelerating, is very real. Issues such as this demonstrate that invariance is what is really "wrong-headed".
Right back at you, if you knew a little more about such concepts, you would agree that your thinking here is 'wrong headed.'
I repeat:
Quoting universeness
You totally ignore the issue of the arbitrariness of "mass" which I already explained to you. The value for mass is assigned to objects in a way to maintain consistency with theories of energy, just like the value for height was assigned in the glider experiment, in a way to maintain consistency with the conservation law, therefore it was a matter of begging the question. The idea that galaxies are "gravitationally bound", and expansion only occurs in intergalactic space, is just a convention meant to facilitate calculation. A massive object is assigned a centre of gravity, and the space within an object is not understood to be expanding, because that would make traditional concepts for representing the interactions of objects (like Newton's first law, inertial mass, etc.) inapplicable, wrong.
But the problems which arise from this conventional way of figuring mass and gravitation, demonstrated by the need for things like dark energy and dark matter, indicate that this conventional way of determining mass and gravitation is fundamentally incorrect. The incorrectness is very intuitive, because we know that objects consist of parts which are separated by space, so it would be very inaccurate to assign a centre of gravity to a large object, simply ignoring all the distinct parts, and therefore not assigning a separate centre of gravity to each part. This is why your statement, and reference to things which are "gravitationally bound", demonstrates you have little understanding of the issue. Take a look at quantum gravity:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/could-gravitys-quantum-origins-explain-dark-energy/
https://www.space.com/loop-quantum-gravity-space-time-quantized.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
If this is where you are in your musings then we are just too far apart to be able to establish effective communications.
I knew this way back when we first engaged. You simply refused to accept and discuss the reality of the situation, opting instead to insist on the truth of some ideal.
We need to address the issue of how the ideals which are employed diverge from the reality which they are supposed to be modeling, if we want to progress in any true understanding of reality. Simply insisting that the model is a true representation, when the observations clearly demonstrate otherwise, is a pointless venture.
I did not appreciate how fogged your thinking was at the beginning of our exchange, even after the kind 'heads up' I received from both @Banno and @180 Proof. You seemed to be open to reason but as our exchange continued, you clearly demonstrated that you choose to refuse the label 'Wall,' because a couple of bricks are missing. This is particularly silly when very valid statements of what may have happened to the missing couple of bricks, are available.
I am a big fan of sceptics, of many levels of intensity, but not extremists like you. Anyone who calls the conservation of energy law 'false' or 'untrue' is not an intellect to be respected. It's a pity you choose to role play sensationalism, using Jordan Peterson style sophistry.
Science via scientists will always strive to improve any shortfalls or imperfections apparent in the very dependable current laws of physics which continue to demonstrate robust predictive power.
I predict your viewpoints on the conservation laws will remain mostly ignored and ridiculed.
Meantime, I will continue to listen to the real physicists regarding the laws of physics and continue to read posts from sensationalists like yourself, as a form of curio and entertainment.
Cheers guys. I should have heeded your advice a little more. Perhaps some of those missing bricks are caused by me bashing my head against the wall pointlessly sometimes!
Actually, contrary to your personal prediction, there is a growing movement in this direction already. It's sometimes referred to as the quest for a "Theory of Everything", and it is required because of the inconsistency between the laws of quantum mechanics and the laws of general relativity. So your prediction has actually been proven wrong already.
That's why I gave the reference to physicist Lee Smolin, and further information on quantum gravity. But even with "real" physicists disputing your views, all you can say is that quantum gravity is "hotly debated", and "we are just too far apart to be able to establish effective communications". Yes, we are far apart, because you would not even consider the enormous problem of modeling a conglomeration of massive objects like a galaxy, as having a centre of gravity. You will never move on toward discussing possible solutions when you deny the problem. And it is your insistent denial of the problem which leaves us "too far apart" for effective discourse.
Of course, the reasons for these new theories, which I've pointed you toward, are the shortfalls of the current laws, which lead to occult concepts like dark energy and dark matter. These are the shortfalls in the predictive power, due to the falsity which you deny and refuse to acknowledge. Your claim of "robust predictive power" is what is ridiculous. As reflected by your personal prediction made above, which has already been proven wrong, your idea of successful prediction is sorely deficient. Ignore and deny any evidence which is inconsistent with the prediction, and deem the predictive power as robust.
Utter nonsense! Humans have been craving a T.O.E since they realised they could think. Science and scientists simply reflect that human compulsion.
Lee Smolin is a great contributer to the physics and the human community. I will leave it to him to dispute your sophisticated, skewed interpretations of his work.
Good, summon him up, I would appreciate that greatly.
You are one lazy meta!
Try lsmolin@perimeterinstitute.ca
Do you mean he did not think your attempt to communicate with him was worth responding to?
I really don't know, and I'm not inclined to make any judgement on that. Why don't you ask him?
I don't know why I seem to have represented you in the plural rather than the singular in the message shown below.
If he did not answer you, he probably will not answer me.
Busy people I'm sure but its always worth a try.
If he responds, I will post it here.
[i]Hello Sir,
I am currently having online discussions with some folks who posit that the conservation of energy law is untrue or false due to their claim, that experiments show some energy is lost and that loss is not satisfactorily accounted for. I would really appreciate your opinion on any such shortfall you think exists in the conservation of energy law.
My position is that it is sensationalist to suggest that the conservation laws are untrue or false due to any inference of missing energy made by those I am debating with. To me, its like they are refusing to accept the label wall because two bricks are missing from it. Could you give a brief response, if you can find the time to?[/i]
By the way, the wall analogy is not accurate because a "wall" missing a few bricks is still a "wall", but missing a few from "conservation" is not "conservation". And since there is not conservation, the law is false. And it's not a matter of seeking the missing energy, the ideal is not reality. So the thing which appears to you like it is a wall, is actually not a wall at all, because we can walk right through it. You can't stop thinking that it's a wall, and you don't believe in ghosts, so your recourse is to deny the obvious. Keep calling it a "wall", or "conservation", when it is not.
Ok, thanks for your permission. :lol:
Here's why your wall analogy fails badly. A wall is a physical object, while the law of conservation is an abstract principle, a concept. Various physical objects will be called by the same name, ("wall" in this case), despite all sorts of deprivations. A concept must be exactly as defined, or else it's something other.
I am not too concerned about your metaphorical preferences. You can go with the millionaire who refuses the label due to the $100 he/she/hesh can't (in your opinion,) satisfactorily account for, if you prefer. I don't think using that metaphor would have encouraged Mr Smolin to answer my email any faster, if at all, and if, he actually received it.
You might enjoy this:
https://www.quora.com/Where-do-the-electrons-come-from-when-using-magnets-for-electricity-generation
Have a look at the response by William Beaty and his use of 'electricity cannot be created or destroyed' and 'electricity generators don't generate electricity,' and also have a look at the 42 comments.
'Electricity is not energy it is a flow of electrons.'
Its the movement of air that causes wind. The 'energy' is the movement. Energy is transferred, due to movement of individual components. Like humans doing a Mexican wave. Each human does not move laterally they only undulate up and down but there up and down undulations cause a cumulative lateral energy waveform. The up and down undulations are conserved/transformed into a cumulative lateral, observable waveform.
If it's a temporal issue, like energy is, that missing $100 becomes a huge problem when we extrapolate. If, the rate of loss is that in every second of passing time there is a 100 missing, then the entire million is gone after 10,000 seconds of time. Banno would say, just figure the loss as a fixed, invariable percentage of the total sum, then the amount missing per second becomes less as the total sum becomes less, and we have an infinite amount of time before its all gone. But there is no justification for the application of Banno's principle. It might well be that the overall quantity per time stays relatively fixed, therefore percentage increases as time passes. The cause of loss is unknown therefore how the rate of loss is fixed or unfixed in relation to the passing of time, is also unknown.
This is what you and the other two in the peanut gallery are not getting. The missing quantity occurs as time passes, all the time, therefore the loss is cumulative over time. If, in extrapolation over very large or very tiny time frames, and large or tiny space frames (according to the relationship between these two established by applicable theories), the cumulated missing or gained amount is not accounted for, these long range and short range projections become useless. And, it is impossible to account for the missing amount because it is necessarily an unknown, due to the nature of "energy" being the product of theory laden calculation.
Banno is correct, you are wrong!
I've seen it explained by Dr. Feynman (a good explainer). We ought not think of the energy as electrons moving through the copper wire, but think of the energy as moving through the field around the wire.
Quoting universeness
This is the mistake you incessantly demonstrate. You simply assert completely unjustified statements, then go into complete denial when evidence against your assertions is presented. You'd be much better off to keep an open mind toward things which you do not understand, rather than adhere to a prejudice which is derived from who knows where, and prevents you from furthering your understanding.
The fact that this formulation would require an infinite amount of time, ought to indicate to you that it is actually the "wrong-headed" approach.
I take it you are looking in a mirror when you manifest such words. Heal yourself, before you try to recognise shortfalls or ailments in others. You have not exactly inspired many members of TPF, to feel so supportive of your position, that they are all rushing to post compelling evidence and arguments, which support your viewpoints on this thread.
No, see the difference between your attitude and mine? I don't profess to know the right way, I only criticize what is obviously the wrong way, thereby keeping my mind open toward alternatives to the conventional, when the conventional has proven itself to be deficient. You seem to think that since it's the conventional way it's the right way. Then you try to argue that the obvious deficiency is acceptable, and that the ideal can still be held to be ideal despite the obvious deficiency.
He certainly is! Have you read his cosmological natural selection proposal (from e.g. Life of the Cosmos iirc)?
Oh I know the game fairly well. It's not about my exchange with Meta. The significance of that ended many posts ago. It's was more about any current or future readers of this thread, as small as the number may be.
It's not about 'post last wins,' but about covering all the side alleys Meta tried to run down for cover.
I have listened to many online debaters, discuss when they decide to disengage with an interlocuter, when the exchange has become pointless, for you personally, but may still exemplify certain tactics used by 'sensationalists,' for example that you wish to expose. I appreciate your further 'heads up' however and I am now finished on this thread, unless I get response from Mr Smolin, which is highly unlikely.
No, but I have watched many of his youtube appearencess alongside other theoretical physicists.
I am attracted to his suggestion that the two primary approaches to quantum gravity, loop quantum gravity and string theory, can be reconciled as different aspects of the same underlying theory.
I remember he was on PBS Space Time's ToE livestream (one of them at any rate) along with Sabine Hossenfelder (who is also awesome). Really enjoyed that. Excellent communicator and sharp physicist with some really interesting proposals and ideas. His cosmological natural selection proposal is super interesting but also highly speculative; he proposes that black hole formation leads to a new "big bang" expansion into a separate spacetime, and reasons out some testable predictions to evaluate this proposal. Just the sort of creative thinker physics needs right now.
I also enjoy watching and listening to Sabine. The branes in Mtheory are also suggested as a possible source for a multiverse. When two branes interact, a new universe starts. I also like CCC from Roger Penrose.
All more interesting and likely than god posits imo.
Yeah I find CCC fascinating (and Penrose is just a treasure). I don't have the math/physics background to evaluate Penrose's claim of positive corroboration in the Planck/WMAP data, but its an awesome idea even purely as a speculative proposal. I hope he lives for another 50 years, the guy is just a monster.
Roger continues to say that the cosmology community have yet to affectively respond to his evidence of the 6 'hawking points,' he has identified in the CMB. I think the Planck and WMAP data back up the existence of these 'hawking points.'
From https://www.maths.ox.ac.uk/node/36137:
Recent analysis of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) by Roger, Daniel An, Krzysztof Meissner and Pawel Nurowski has revealed, both in the Planck and WMAP satellite data (at 99.98% confidence), a powerful signal that had never been noticed previously, namely numerous circular spots ?8 times the diameter of the full moon. The brightest six (Figure 1) are ?30 times the average CMB temperature variations seen at precisely the same locations in the Planck and WMAP data. These spots were overlooked previously owing to a belief that the very early exponentially expanding inflationary phase of standard cosmology should have obliterated any such features.
:up:
Yeah that is interesting. I suppose he can plausibly say that CCC should be preferred to inflationary models since inflationary models have never had predictions corroborated observationally. And doesn't the existence of dark matter sort of naturally follow in CCC as well?
Well Roger's candidate for dark matter is the erebon.
You might enjoy Sabine's opinion of CCC given in the clip below. She mentions the erebon. It's only around 15 mins long.
I think I've seen this one, but I'm not sure. Worth a rewatch in any case. You ever read any of Sabine's books?
I don't know of any leading edge work that Sabine is or has been directly involved with.
I would certainly read book's by Sabine but I would need to add her to my long list.
I tend to go back to books and read them again to try to maintain and deepen my knowledge of their contents. I am currently trying to re-read Brain Green's 'Elegant Universe' and Carl Sagan's 'Demon Haunted World.' Too many great books, not enough time!