Materialism (championed by Darwinists) makes reason Impossible.

[lemurien]

[pixy] No. [/pixy]

The driving force of evolution is differential rates of reproduction.

True.
A replicator who does not care to stay alive long enough to have offspring fares pretty badly in this game.
Those with the drive to survive are selected for over those who give up.
That is the evolutionary reason why such a drive can be observed in all healthy animals.

 

[punshhh]

Energy isn't a type of thing--it's a capability.

Given two sorts of things, X which we know is energy, and Y which is some other thing that can be used to do work on a physical system, then Y is necessarily energy, even though it's a different sort of thing, because it has the capability; and if a certain amount of Y converts to a certain amount of X, then that amount of X will convert back to the corresponding amount of Y. The conversion conservation doesn't require X and Y to be "made of the same kind of stuff"; it works this way simply if the conversion process is time symmetric in this fashion.

This has been explained to you multiple times before; all I can do is explain it different ways until you get it. I ask for your cooperation in attempting to understand this point.

Lets put the glass of water analogy to one side for now, this may be easier.

I see no problem with this concept and I have understood the principle on previous occasions. Matter is energy in a certain form and energy which is not in the form of matter makes it capable for matter to do work on a physical system. Fine, I understand.

So are materialists regarding matter as "a kind of thing", when infact it isn't, its just another kind of capability?

 

[dafydd]

Lets put the glass of water analogy to one side for now, this may be easier.

I see no problem with this concept and I have understood the principle on previous occasions. Matter is energy in a certain form and energy which is not in the form of matter makes it capable for matter to do work on a physical system. Fine, I understand.

So are materialists regarding matter as "a kind of thing", when infact it isn't, its just another kind of capability?

'A kind of thing'? You must stop using these obscure technical terms. A kind of thing =mc2.

 

[tsig]

Life is a fish leaping for pleasure.

The mystery of the jumping fish. Fish leap to escape being eaten.

 

[tsig]

I am referring to a thought construct I use(along with many others) when contemplating the nature of existence, reality, self etc.

You see there is something curious about existence, when you examine it, it appears not to be what it at first appears to be. What it appears to be when examined turns out to be one thing* acting out the appearance of many things.
This begs various questions.

Science is great at learning about (and applying that learning) the tangible world of matter and energy.

However if one is interested in the questions begged above you must look elswhere.

*energy whatever that is.

Energy is the ability to do work.


Mystics don't understand this.

 

[tsig]

Lets put the glass of water analogy to one side for now, this may be easier.

I see no problem with this concept and I have understood the principle on previous occasions. Matter is energy in a certain form and energy which is not in the form of matter makes it capable for matter to do work on a physical system. Fine, I understand.

So are materialists regarding matter as "a kind of thing", when infact it isn't, its just another kind of capability?

Let's do the semantic shuffle again.

 

[PixyMisa]

So are materialists regarding matter as "a kind of thing"

No.

 

[dafydd]

Energy is the ability to do work.


Mystics don't understand this.

Mystics don't work,they sponge off other people. Blavatsky,Gurdijeff,Sai Baba,Rev Moon,Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh,Maharishi Yogi all conned the gullible.

 

[dafydd]

Conversations with mystics would go a lot better if said mystics knew the meanings of the words they use.

 

[yy2bggggs]

I think there are two issues here. First, when I say "kind of thing", I mean this in an ordinary sense, as if "things" include pennies, tables, chairs, bricks, and so on. But I think you're interpreting this as if I'm talking about some form of ontological primitive.

Second, you are trying to apply this to materialism per se, but I'm talking about the term "energy" as it applies to science.

Let's go back to an older example, and put ontology to the side, and materialism as well. Pretend that regardless of what the "ultimate nature" of the universe is, I get to call something a thing if I can touch it.

Now then. Energy is not a type of thing.

A concrete block is a thing, though. I can touch it. A concrete block is also energy; Einstein shocked us with that one. So this thing is energy.

But if I put the block on a shelf, there is energy stored by the fact that the block is on the shelf. That energy is not something I can touch; it is not a thing. It is, instead, a combination of mass and height in a gravitational well.

There is no microscope I can use to see the gravitational potential energy of that concrete block on that shelf. I cannot touch that energy. But that energy is still necessarily energy, because I can use the fact that the block is on that shelf to perform work.

All sorts of abstract quantities that are not "things" I can touch or see in microscopes are "energy"; basically, any capability to do physical work, be it a concrete block or the height of an object on a shelf, is energy, and that includes a lot of "non-things".

When I say energy is not a kind of thing, this is all I mean. Energy is an abstraction.

 

[Dancing David]

Energy is the ability to do work.


Mystics don't understand this.

Energy is what matter is as well, or waveforms more acurately.

 

[dafydd]

I think there are two issues here. First, when I say "kind of thing", I mean this in an ordinary sense, as if "things" include pennies, tables, chairs, bricks, and so on. But I think you're interpreting this as if I'm talking about some form of ontological primitive.

Second, you are trying to apply this to materialism per se, but I'm talking about the term "energy" as it applies to science.

Let's go back to an older example, and put ontology to the side, and materialism as well. Pretend that regardless of what the "ultimate nature" of the universe is, I get to call something a thing if I can touch it.

Now then. Energy is not a type of thing.

A concrete block is a thing, though. I can touch it. A concrete block is also energy; Einstein shocked us with that one. So this thing is energy.

But if I put the block on a shelf, there is energy stored by the fact that the block is on the shelf. That energy is not something I can touch; it is not a thing. It is, instead, a combination of mass and height in a gravitational well.

There is no microscope I can use to see the gravitational potential energy of that concrete block on that shelf. I cannot touch that energy. But that energy is still necessarily energy, because I can use the fact that the block is on that shelf to perform work.

All sorts of abstract quantities that are not "things" I can touch or see in microscopes are "energy"; basically, any capability to do physical work, be it a concrete block or the height of an object on a shelf, is energy, and that includes a lot of "non-things".

When I say energy is not a kind of thing, this is all I mean. Energy is an abstraction.

Well put. Surely even a child could understand that.

 

[tsig]

Energy is what matter is as well, or waveforms more acurately.

No, matter doesn't become energy till it does something. The idea that there's something called energy apart from matter is woo.

 

[punshhh]

No.

A unit/coordinate with a value, its energy value?

 

[punshhh]

No, matter doesn't become energy till it does something. The idea that there's something called energy apart from matter is woo.

So all energy is rolled up into balls/particles.

It all just sits there as particles until some gravity or magnetism is exerted and then all the particles begin to dance around. Bouncing of each others energy fields.

 

[punshhh]

Conversations with mystics would go a lot better if said mystics knew the meanings of the words they use.

Perhaps you can tell me what a "thing" is Dafydd?

 

[punshhh]

I think there are two issues here. First, when I say "kind of thing", I mean this in an ordinary sense, as if "things" include pennies, tables, chairs, bricks, and so on. But I think you're interpreting this as if I'm talking about some form of ontological primitive.

Second, you are trying to apply this to materialism per se, but I'm talking about the term "energy" as it applies to science.

Let's go back to an older example, and put ontology to the side, and materialism as well. Pretend that regardless of what the "ultimate nature" of the universe is, I get to call something a thing if I can touch it.

Now then. Energy is not a type of thing.

A concrete block is a thing, though. I can touch it. A concrete block is also energy; Einstein shocked us with that one. So this thing is energy.

But if I put the block on a shelf, there is energy stored by the fact that the block is on the shelf. That energy is not something I can touch; it is not a thing. It is, instead, a combination of mass and height in a gravitational well.

There is no microscope I can use to see the gravitational potential energy of that concrete block on that shelf. I cannot touch that energy. But that energy is still necessarily energy, because I can use the fact that the block is on that shelf to perform work.

All sorts of abstract quantities that are not "things" I can touch or see in microscopes are "energy"; basically, any capability to do physical work, be it a concrete block or the height of an object on a shelf, is energy, and that includes a lot of "non-things".

When I say energy is not a kind of thing, this is all I mean. Energy is an abstraction.

Energy is a potential to do work?

I like the block on a shelf analogy, the potential energy in the block is a function of its relation to the gravity of all the other "blocks" in the vicinity.

Or all the blocks on shelves on the planet have an energy value due to the influence of the gravity of the planet. If the planet where removed the potential energy in the block would not be there and yet the block has not changed in any way.


Is this what relativity is on about?

 

[punshhh]

Mystics don't work,they sponge off other people. Blavatsky,Gurdijeff,Sai Baba,Rev Moon,Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh,Maharishi Yogi all conned the gullible.

No, I don't read any of these authors, try again.

 

[punshhh]

And that is why you need to read, there are four kinds of energy at the temperatures we see mostly around us.

Electromagnetic, weak , strong and gravity are the forces

bosons, leptons, fermions and quarks seem to be the way they manifest.

At what it all is in the end is *unknown* at this time, there are some great theories, some many be demonstrated some may not. We do not know what GUT will show.

Yes, I know this, I can't wait to find out what GUT comes up with.

I was only referring to what the it is in energy. I am surprised that no one has pointed out that matter and therefore space are a relativistic precipitation of the high energy symmetry breaking during the BBE, or is it so obvious no one has bothered to mention it?

 

[punshhh]

Really, interesting assignation of intent.

Out of the river into the frying pan.

I'm not here to discuss frying pans(and there are plenty of frying pans these days), there's plenty doing that already.

Remember I don't see any relation between the amount of frying going on and thoughts about the purpose of any notional gods or their relative degrees benevolence.