My argument against materialism

[dafydd]

Do we have another Mystic Who Does Not Answer Questions?

 

[PixyMisa]

There is also evidence that repeated questioning does not measure intellect.

We're not measuring intellect here; we're trying to elicit answers.

Admittedly, questions don't always work for that either, but they're all we've got. That and justifiable mockery. And kitten recipes.

 

[Nonpareil]

And kitten recipes.

Oh, yeah. I forgot to ask you: that recipe you gave me for the American shorthair came out as a ragdoll. Did I use too much vanilla?

 

[kenkoskinen]

I don't agree that the emergence from the singularity is necessarily nonsense, as it may only have the appearance of being infinite from our perspective.
If it is infinite, we do have a problem.

Singularities are predicted by Einstein's theory of General Relativity. They were predicted to appear in black holes. In the 1970s Stephen Hawking showed there should have been a troubling one at the Big Bang. By definition the laws of physics breakdown at singularities and yes infinities are implied, therefore the "nonsense comment.

 

[kenkoskinen]

Can I have back those five minutes I spent at that site?

I tried to boot up my time machine but it's in bad need of repair. I found out it came off the line on a Monday. I guess I bought me a lemon. Sorry I can't help you with your lost minutes. Maybe try meditating?

 

[kenkoskinen]

Based on 'Vibe Theory'?

Incidentally, you should be aware that quantum entanglement doesn't involve superluminal information transfer. Your web site suggests it 'appears' to.

Yes, it will be based on vibe theory but I'm not sharing the details right now. I agree Quantum entanglement doesn't involve superluminal information transfer. However it is still unexplained and one way to express the mystery is to say what I did i.e. it appears to ...

 

[kenkoskinen]

£1.50 is not a number. 1.50 is a number. If you ask me how much money I have, and I tell you I have one point five, I have not given you an answer. I have to say one point five pound sterling.

But if I had that much money, I could also say I have 4 reais (let's say that's the exchange rate, since in the analogy there's a constant exchange rate). What I'm telling you isn't a number, but it's a quantity. It tells you how much I can buy.

Matter would be only one form, or set of forms, of currency.

But when physicists tell you that matter is energy, they are only telling you that you can buy things with it. You're still imagining that they are telling you what matter is made of.
Energy is a quantity. But it's not a number. It's more specific. It tells you exactly how much you can buy. 1.50 isn't an amount of energy. 1.50 pounds is (pun intended).
Yes. It doesn't matter what it is, as long as you can use it to buy things--say, a particular number of photons at a particular frequency. Energy isn't a kind of thing, it's an amount of currency.

YY2bggggs in post #1606 you're missing something vital to your argument. It isn't just that matter is energy. It is that mass and energy are equivalent via Einstein's equation E = Mc2. If you have the same amount of mass but two different substances e.g. metal and wood they are both equivalent to the same amount of energy. However in the everyday world some substances transfer to energy easier than others due to chemical properties e.g. dynamite vs copper.

 

[kenkoskinen]

You have no idea

I suggest you follow the thread a while before getting involved, or you might experience a bumpy landing

I have no idea how this post got on this thread. "benjayk" is not even a member of this forum. It is a mystery. Maybe dafydd took my advice and tried meditating to retrieve his lost minutes and screwed up the space/time continuum. Oh well at least he didn't kill his grandfather.

 

[yy2bggggs]

You see at the moment we have just energy somehow doing something in space, which results in our known existence.

We don't know what energy is other than it is not a thing.

You're not quite in sync yet. Now you just think that I'm telling you that energy is a kind of thing that does not have "thingness" requisite to call it a thing. But that's not at all what I mean.

I think you need to step back a bit. Hopefully I can explain this to you by continuing to abuse my own analogy and run it into the ground.

We established that energy is not a number--if I have some energy, and you ask me how much, I can't just tell you I have 1.5 energy. I have to tell you I have £1.50. I think you have this.

But let's continue. Let's say I have £1.50 in my pocket. That means I have something in my pocket, but it does not describe the type of thing that I have in my pocket. It only describes how much I can buy. I might have 3 50p pieces. Or I might have 4 real notes, or an IOU that you gave me the other day saying "I owe you a dozen eggs" (and let's suppose a dozen eggs goes for £1.50).

But one thing for sure that I do not have a pocket is something called "a £1.50". It doesn't make sense to say that I have a £1.50 in my pocket, because £1.50 is not a type of thing that I can have in my pocket. 3 50p pieces I can have in my pocket. 4 reais I can have. An IOU for a dozen eggs I can have. 3 50p pieces can buy a dozen eggs; 4 reais can buy a dozen eggs; and an IOU for a dozen eggs can buy a dozen eggs. All of these things are £1.50 of money. £1.50 simply describes how much of something I have, in terms of its ability to buy a dozen eggs. "A £1.50" is not a thing, though.

So when you say that I don't know what £1.50 is other than it is not a thing, I can't even make sense out of that. I will tell you that £1.50 is not a thing in itself, because I can't have a £1.50 in my pocket. But I can have an IOU for a dozen eggs in my pocket, and said IOU is worth £1.50.

Energy can "become" a thing by changing state into an atom.

Insofar as this statement has meaning, it means that if I have £1.50 worth of stuff in my pocket, then I can buy a dozen eggs with it. Period. That's all it means. It doesn't mean that "a £1.50 can change into a dozen eggs", because there's no such thing as "a £1.50". £1.50 in itself is not a thing, it is the amount of purchasing power a collection of things has.

This looks like a chicken and egg scenario, which came first energy or atoms.

No, it's not chicken and egg. Chickens aren't eggs and eggs aren't chickens--you have a chicken and egg scenario if chickens lay eggs that hatch into chickens.

But £1.50's don't make 3 50p coins that turn into £1.50's, because there's no such thing as a £1.50. There are only things that are worth £1.50.

Nevertheless, it was several hundreds of thousands of years before the universe was cool enough for atoms to form.

ETA: Wakalixes came first.

 

[yy2bggggs]

YY2bggggs in post #1606 you're missing something vital to your argument. It isn't just that matter is energy. It is that mass and energy are equivalent via Einstein's equation E = Mc2. If you have the same amount of mass but two different substances e.g. metal and wood they are both equivalent to the same amount of energy.

The equivalency is already implied. I cannot say that mass is energy unless an equivalent mass is the same amount.

For example, I'm mistaken if I say that the height of an object in a gravitational field is energy; I must qualify it by saying that the height of an object along with its mass is a form of energy. For the same reason, if a pound-mass of copper had less energy than a pound-mass of wood, then I wouldn't be able to say that mass is energy in the first place.

I think the fact that you think this clarification is required indicates that you're using the term "energy" in a looser sense--in which case, I suppose you would say that the height of an object in a gravitational field is energy? It's an interesting usage, but I don't think it's standard.

Thanks for the post.

 

[kenkoskinen]

punshhh:

You have a misunderstanding as to what energy is. This leads you to ask questions that fundamentally don't make sense. Other posters and I have been trying to correct this. Once you understand what energy is, you will understand why your question doesn't make sense.

Wrong.

Energy isn't a phase of matter. It's not a condition of matter. It's not a state of matter. It is a mistake to think of a "kind of thing" called energy. It's a popular mistake, but it is a mistake nonetheless.

This is the way you're thinking about energy, and it's wrong. There are paper airplanes. There is printer paper. There are rolls of parchment paper. All of these things are forms of paper. If we ask what an airplane is made of, it's paper. So, what is paper made of?

This is more how energy works. There are paper dollar bills. There are silver quarters. There are copper pennies. All of these things are forms of money. The dollar bill is made of paper. The quarter is made of a silver alloy. The penny is made of a copper alloy. Money is made of various things.

It's not a chain, as you can see--whereby we say "this dollar bill is made of money--what then is the money made of?" The dollar bill is made of paper, and money can be made of anything.

No, money doesn't exist by paying itself.

What energy is has nothing to do with being a materialist, but you're traveling down a dead end "road" that has already ended--you're currently lost in weeds. Energy is a kind of currency. Energy conservation is a cosmic exchange rate of this currency. There are various forms of coinage, bills, bank accounts, etc; and they all have their own respective constitutions. Perhaps many of them share the same sort. But energy is not a type of constitution for coinage.

To say that something is composed of energy, though, simply means that the thing comes in quantities that you can use to perform work. That is, it means that it's money. It does not tell you what the thing is made of.

Strong, electromagnetic, gravitational, and weak. Electromagnetic is responsible for all chemical properties, strong holds atoms and its constituents together, weak plays a role in radioactive elements, and gravity both spawned all of this stuff up and keeps large objects like planets held together.

Well, no. Force isn't energy. But hopefully you don't need the lecture on this until you start getting involved in ZPE or something.

yy2bggggs in post #1552 you claim the strong force holds the atom and its constituents together. Not so ... it holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons and mesons. A secondary nuclear force (sometimes called the residual nuclear force) holds protons and neutrons together to form atomic nuclei. It also over powers the electromagnetic repulsion between positively charged nuclear protons and keeps them within nuclei. The secondary force also over powers the electromagnetic attraction between nuclear protons and orbiting electrons.

You also claim that gravity keeps large objects like planets held together. Not so ... the electromagnetic force primarily does that. Gravity causes things to fall and keeps planets in orbit around stars & moons in orbit around planets etc.

You also said a force isn't energy. Not so ... it, like matter is energy and a force's bosons are also subject to E = Mc2.

In post #1689 you claim energy in quantum mechanics is a wave form. In QM fermions and bosons can be particles or waves as detected in experiments. However they cannot be both at the same time.

I hope this helps.

 

[kenkoskinen]

The equivalency is already implied. I cannot say that mass is energy unless an equivalent mass is the same amount.

For example, I'm mistaken if I say that the height of an object in a gravitational field is energy; I must qualify it by saying that the height of an object along with its mass is a form of energy. For the same reason, if a pound-mass of copper had less energy than a pound-mass of wood, then I wouldn't be able to say that mass is energy in the first place.

I think the fact that you think this clarification is required indicates that you're using the term "energy" in a looser sense--in which case, I suppose you would say that the height of an object in a gravitational field is energy? It's an interesting usage, but I don't think it's standard.

Thanks for the post.

yy2bggggs You clearly missed the point. I wasn't addressing potential energy in a gravitational field. I merely clarified you connecting matter and energy. You can't get any more standard than E = Mc2.

I hope this clarifies and helps.

 

[yy2bggggs]

yy2bggggs in post #1552 you claim the strong force holds the atom and its constituents together. Not so ... it holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons and mesons. A secondary nuclear force (sometimes called the residual nuclear force) holds protons and neutrons together to form atomic nuclei.

It's my understanding that the residual nuclear force is the strong force. See strong interaction^WP.

You also claim that gravity keeps large objects like planets held together. Not so ... the electromagnetic force primarily does that. Gravity causes things to fall and keeps planets in orbit around stars & moons in orbit around planets etc.

I'm not sure about this one. Keep in mind the earth is quite massive and spinning, so it's not to be compared to, say, a comet.

You also said a force isn't energy. Not so ... it, like matter is energy and a force's bosons are also subject to E = Mc2.

I remain unconvinced here. The fact that force carrying particles have energy does not mean that force is energy. The mouse pad sitting on my desk is applying a constant force to the earth, and the earth is applying a constant force back. But I can't use this constant force to do an indefinite amount of work, so it's not energy.

In post #1689 you claim energy in quantum mechanics is a wave form. In QM fermions and bosons can be particles or waves as detected in experiments. However they cannot be both at the same time.

Thanks, yes. This was wrong. I meant to say wave function, not waveform.

I hope this helps.

Sure!

 

[yy2bggggs]

yy2bggggs You clearly missed the point. I wasn't addressing potential energy in a gravitational field.

No, you missed my point. You're saying that if I say X is energy, I must also make the point that two things of equal X have the same energy. I'm saying I don't need to. Gravitational potential energy is what I'm using to illustrate my point.

I can't say X is energy unless two things that have the same X have the same energy. X being height is merely an example; since an anvil on the third shelf has a lot more energy than a book on the third shelf, I can't say that height is energy.

If X is mass, and if 1 mass-pound of wood had more energy than 1 mass-pound of copper, I cannot say that mass is energy, for the same reason I can't say that height is energy.

I merely clarified you connecting matter and energy. You can't get any more standard than E = Mc2.

If I say mass is energy, I already said that equivalent mass is equivalent energy for the same reason that if I say height is energy, I'm wrong.

 

[punshhh]

You're not quite in sync yet. Now you just think that I'm telling you that energy is a kind of thing that does not have "thingness" requisite to call it a thing. But that's not at all what I mean.

I think you need to step back a bit. Hopefully I can explain this to you by continuing to abuse my own analogy and run it into the ground.

We established that energy is not a number--if I have some energy, and you ask me how much, I can't just tell you I have 1.5 energy. I have to tell you I have £1.50. I think you have this.

But let's continue. Let's say I have £1.50 in my pocket. That means I have something in my pocket, but it does not describe the type of thing that I have in my pocket. It only describes how much I can buy. I might have 3 50p pieces. Or I might have 4 real notes, or an IOU that you gave me the other day saying "I owe you a dozen eggs" (and let's suppose a dozen eggs goes for £1.50).

But one thing for sure that I do not have a pocket is something called "a £1.50". It doesn't make sense to say that I have a £1.50 in my pocket, because £1.50 is not a type of thing that I can have in my pocket. 3 50p pieces I can have in my pocket. 4 reais I can have. An IOU for a dozen eggs I can have. 3 50p pieces can buy a dozen eggs; 4 reais can buy a dozen eggs; and an IOU for a dozen eggs can buy a dozen eggs. All of these things are £1.50 of money. £1.50 simply describes how much of something I have, in terms of its ability to buy a dozen eggs. "A £1.50" is not a thing, though.

So when you say that I don't know what £1.50 is other than it is not a thing, I can't even make sense out of that. I will tell you that £1.50 is not a thing in itself, because I can't have a £1.50 in my pocket. But I can have an IOU for a dozen eggs in my pocket, and said IOU is worth £1.50.

Insofar as this statement has meaning, it means that if I have £1.50 worth of stuff in my pocket, then I can buy a dozen eggs with it. Period. That's all it means. It doesn't mean that "a £1.50 can change into a dozen eggs", because there's no such thing as "a £1.50". £1.50 in itself is not a thing, it is the amount of purchasing power a collection of things has.

No, it's not chicken and egg. Chickens aren't eggs and eggs aren't chickens--you have a chicken and egg scenario if chickens lay eggs that hatch into chickens.

But £1.50's don't make 3 50p coins that turn into £1.50's, because there's no such thing as a £1.50. There are only things that are worth £1.50.

Nevertheless, it was several hundreds of thousands of years before the universe was cool enough for atoms to form.

ETA: Wakalixes came first.

So energy is a value, this can be described as a number, but we have to know what that number represents, lets say joules.

Energy is the ability or potential to do 1.5 joules of work.

Now this energy cannot work in a vacuum, it works on particles. These particles or atoms are some how made of energy. They have mass and volume.
How is this mass and volume formed out of energy?

 

[punshhh]

It may have escaped your notice that this is a discussion forum. We ask questions. In this thread they do not get answered,but we keep trying.

I seem to remember various other folk not answering questions, I asked a simple question about energy, what was your answer again?

What is energy? (not what does it do)

 

[yy2bggggs]

So energy is a value, this can be described as a number, but we have to know what that number represents, lets say joules.

Energy is the ability or potential to do 1.5 joules of work.

Well, sure--that would be 1.5 joules of energy. Energy's the concept of a certain amount of ability to do work.

Now this energy cannot work in a vacuum, it works on particles.

The energy doesn't have to be doing work; just as money doesn't have to be buying something. It could just be there. My book on the third shelf has a certain amount of gravitational potential energy, even if it sits there for years.

These particles or atoms are some how made of energy.

No, they aren't some how "made of" energy any more than a dozen eggs is some how made of £1.50. They are energy, in the same sense that a dozen eggs is £1.50.

They have mass and volume.
How is this mass and volume formed out of energy?

The question still doesn't make sense--you're asking how a dozen eggs is formed out of £1.50. But it's not made up of £1.50. It's not even made up of pences or half pences. A dozen eggs is made of eggs.

But the mystery of mass is at the forefront of physics... LHC is looking into possibilities such as the Higgs boson. It's a big mystery.

Volume's a bit easier--Pauli exclusion principle^WP

 

[punshhh]

Okay then. What is a singularity, and why do you think that is a meaningful question?

Now the physicists came up with this, I'm just asking for clarification;

"Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past"

It begs the question did or could the QGP arise from this implied singularity?

Is this another question your not going to answer?

 

[PixyMisa]

I'm not sure about this one. Keep in mind the earth is quite massive and spinning, so it's not to be compared to, say, a comet.

Yep. If it's big enough to be a sphere, it's held together by gravity. Cf. Roche limit.

 

[PixyMisa]

Now the physicists came up with this, I'm just asking for clarification;

"Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past"

Yes.

It begs the question did or could the QMP arise from this implied singularity?

No.

Is this another question your not going to answer?

What is a singularity, and why do you think that is a meaningful question?