First principles

[Gestahl]

Some people in this forum seem to trip over such (seemingly) easy concepts... For example, some people (will not say who, you know) claim that science lacks definitions for some of it's base concepts. Particularly space, time, energy, and matter. I don't consider these such hard problems, nor ambiguous terms.

Then again, I am but a novice. Perhaps I have not been introduced to the subtle pratfalls inherent in the terms... but here is my attempt anyway:

Energy - This term is synonymous to "ability to change or affect/effect change" All change involves transfer of energy, and with no energy, no change can happen. This seems pretty obvious to me at least.

Matter - Synonymous with energy really. The problem people seem to have is that "energy" (ability to change) can be organized into stable patterns. The more stable, and the less likely to cause change in and of itself, the more like matter it is.

Space and Time - Here is where it gets tricky to avoid circular definitions. In order to change, we must have a framework to change in. Not only that, we have the case in modern physics that time and space are defined by energy, and vice-versa. My resolution to this perceived problem: space and time *are* energy.

Let that sink in for a minute. Now, can we equally say that if object one attracts object two, that it is object two being modified with reference to space time, or that space/time is modified with reference to the objects? The answer is both!

Let that sink in for a minute. Now the crux: energy both describes change and the framework in which the change occurs. Stated another way, energy is both objects and their relationship to each other. I.e. if I separate a proton and electron say, I have created energy in the sense of their relationship to each other (i.e. space will change when they get closer, eventually under some circumstances to form a neutron, and thus the objects are changed as well).

Thus have I concluded that change itself is the fundamental monism. I consider this true regardless of philosophical sugar you put on top of it: idealism, materialism, solipsism, even nihilism (how can one reject meaning if there were no meaning to begin with... implies change), and any other -ism.

Perhaps I am just way off-base here. I am sure people will let me know if I am...

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

What is change?

 

[Dancing David]

I agree Gestahl! Some people here are just pointing out that language and sceince are self referencing. And that therefore we can't say what th eonotology of the cosmos is, it could be thatw e a trapped in a GRETAT MIND, I don't think so myself.

But defining matter energy is a problem, all we can do is describe behavior and not the actual substance.

As to the question what is change?

Hmm, a shift in position in a theoretical space!

 

[Gestahl]

What is change?

Change is the monism, the fundamental axiom. You have to start somewhere ;-). Ask an idealist what Mind is, and you will get the same answer.

More in-depth answer: Change is the qualification for existance. If something cannot change itself or anything else, it cannot be said to exist (see discussions of the inherent self-contradiction if the term "supernatural"). Change is also the self-reason for existance, i.e. the only "reason" anything can be said to exist is to change something else. Change may also be recursively defined set-wise as: a change is when anything affects something else's ability to change.


Now you may ask me to define different, and the turtles will never stop on the way down. I am hoping that the meaning of different is clear enough.

All I have truly done here is make a shift in axioms/monism. However, I believe this shift is for the better and provides a better descriptive base.

 

[Gestahl]

I agree Gestahl! Some people here are just pointing out that language and sceince are self referencing.

Yes. Reality itself is self-referential, which is kinda the point. This is why Spinoza et. al. came up with their philosphical idea of God, since it provides a base on which to reference. I hold there is no such reference point for change other than change itself.

But defining matter energy is a problem, all we can do is describe behavior and not the actual substance.

Ah, but behavior is all we have! Nothing exists that has no behavior. Energy/matter are just behaviours. I reject the idea of a monistic "substance", because ultimately its irrelevant, only behaviour is important. Behavior is a nice synonym for change.

Edit for grammar.

 

[phildonnia]

Remember those cute space-time diagrams in which particles become static lines? Because nothing changes on them. Change is understood only in the context of the passage of time, which is understood in turn as a matter of perception.

Thus, your fundamental monism is an artifact of perception; an idea which will certainly appeal to a few posters in this forum. (It does not, however, appeal to me).

 

[Gestahl]

Remember those cute space-time diagrams in which particles become static lines? Because nothing changes on them. Change is understood only in the context of the passage of time, which is understood in turn as a matter of perception.

Thus, your fundamental monism is an artifact of perception; an idea which will certainly appeal to a few posters in this forum. (It does not, however, appeal to me).

I am not sure what you mean by those space-time diagrams. Elaboration?

The problem is that change necessarily must exist, or else existence is null, that is, non-existence (sounds a little woo, but I have thought through this a bit). The passage of time is not a matter of perception, though. The passage of time is defined by change, in the thermodynamic arrow sense.

 

[Dancing David]

I think we can also start by using a definition of change as a relative motion in space time.

IE change is defined by a shift of motion.

If there was no motion or no energy then we would all be one thing of BEC.

Philidonia, what would you suggest as a primary monism, I agree with the monism of change/behavior. What would another monism be?

 

[phildonnia]

I am not sure what you mean by those space-time diagrams. Elaboration?

The problem is that change necessarily must exist, or else existence is null, that is, non-existence (sounds a little woo, but I have thought through this a bit). The passage of time is not a matter of perception, though. The passage of time is defined by change, in the thermodynamic arrow sense.

Sorry,

Usually found in physics books, especially ones about relativity.

Like this representation of a ball bouncing off a wall:

<code><pre>
|
W ^
o A |
o L time|
oL
o | space -->
o |

</pre></code>

The diagram depicts motion and change, but nothing within it actually moves.

If I may get metaphorical; think of a can of motion picture film sitting on a table in front of you. The existence of the movie derives entirely from a certain perception of a completely static and unchanging object.

---

To answer DD's question, there are obviously relationships between events throughout time and space, and these relationships (IMO) exist the way they do only because they are consistent with some type of "law".

Going back to the can of film analogy, there is a "plot" that exists even when the film is not being played.

 

[Radrook]

It all boils down to belief.
People need to believe that science KNOWS.
If you tell them science knows nothing--then people panic and begin to pillory.

The reason they pillory is because of the need for psychological security that believing that science knows gives them.

The alternative is psychological insecurity which is totally unnacceptable.

Then you have some which gain comfort in feigning to know.
They begin by trying to convince others that they know when they themselves don't really know at all. But before they know it they even convince themselves that they really do know and even write a book about it in the full conviction that they know--which of course--they really don't.

 

[uruk]

It all boils down to belief.
People need to believe that science KNOWS.
If you tell them science knows nothing--then people panic and begin to pillory.

The reason they pillory is because of the need for psychological security that believing that science knows gives them.

The alternative is psychological insecurity which is totally unnacceptable.

Then you have some which gain comfort in feigning to know.
They begin by trying to convince others that they know when they themselves don't really know at all. But before they know it they even convince themselves that they really do know and even write a book about it in the full conviction that they know--which of course--they really don't.

.

Replace "science" with "religion" in your statement and you have the other side of this coin.

 

[Z]

And, actually, people have no such need. Science informs us of the nature of things, insofar as has been discovered.

What science discovers is reproducible, verifiable, and reasonably certain. If science proves wrong, it amends the information it provides accordingly. Ultimately, however, the practical test of science lies in verifiable, reproducible phenomenae. Science does pass this test, time and again. Religion does NOT.

Religion is non-verifiable. Religious events are non-reproducible. Religion relies primarily on allegory and metaphor, plus adherence to a strict authority of one form or another. Science, on the other hand, relies on observation and experimentation, plus adherence to strict standards of conduct and practice. When these standards are violated (i.e. Homeopathy), science is undermined; yet all it takes to get back on track is another set of practicers returning to the strict standards.

Religion often teaches its adherents to trust in one source, i.e. the Bible, the Qu'Ran, the Pope, etc. Science teaches its adherents to trust in no single source, but rather to trust in proven and trustworthy sources (plural). No one adhering to science would pick up a journal, read an isolated experiment or observation, and automatically believe it; rather, the science-minded seeks further studies done by more individuals and groups to VERIFY the results, and, lacking these, oft tries to verify the results themselves.

Why Rad continues to hold this false notion about the nature of science adherents is anyone's guess.

 

[uruk]

What science discovers is reproducible, verifiable, and reasonably certain. If science proves wrong, it amends the information it provides accordingly. Ultimately, however, the practical test of science lies in verifiable, reproducible phenomenae. Science does pass this test, time and again. Religion does NOT.

A recent example of this is Steven Hawking admitting to a mistake in his theories about black holes. He recanted his first theory that information or matter can not escape from a black hole. His new theory shows that information and matter is (at some point) expelled by the black hole in an extremely "mangled" state. Google it!

When science discovers it has made a mistake it tries to correct itself. Religion ,by nature, cannot admit to a mistake least the followers loose faith in that religion.

 

[Z]

Religion ,by nature, cannot admit to a mistake least the followers loose faith in that religion.

Which is precisely why there are 34,000 + Christian sects in the world today - with each correction comes a new religion.

On the other hand - exactly how many different schools of Science are there? (Not branches, that's like comparing Nuns to Monks.)

I'm guessing a LOT lower than 34,000.

 

[Iacchus]

And, actually, people have no such need. Science informs us of the nature of things, insofar as has been discovered.

Science does no such thing. Nature informs us of the "nature of things."

 

[uruk]

Science does no such thing. Nature informs us of the "nature of things."

So. Does a rock tell you what it is composed of or does studying it tell you what it is made of?
Tell me if you run into any talking rocks.

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

Science does no such thing. Nature informs us of the "nature of things."

Absolute rubish.

 

[Iacchus]

So, what are we supposed to wait for Science to come along to establish that something exists? Science may indeed be tool but, by no means is the nature of things contingent upon Science. Science is not the cat's meow in other words.

A case in point, Science's inability to establish the nature of God. Is that because God doesn't exist or, what? In fact, why won't it just come right out and say so?

By the way, there are two b's in "rubbish."

 

[Maledict]

So, what are we supposed to wait for Science to come along to establish that something exists?

You have a better idea?

Oh, I know! Let's just sit down on this rock and ponder whether or not I'm the only existing mind, and if everything else is an illusory creation of my mind. Hey, works better than empirical observation Instant Nirvana, just add water.

Science may indeed be tool

The best one we have, to add.

but, by no means is the nature of things contingent upon Science

Reading Comprehension: 0
Iacchus Strawmen Playhouse: 21451

A case in point, Science's inability to establish the nature of God. Is that because God doesn't exist or, what?

Yup, you hit the nail on the head - You can't positively verify the existance of something that doesn't exist, d'uh.

In fact, why won't it just come right out and say so?

Non sequitor - if something doesn't exist, it can't come out and say that it doesn't exist in the first place, d'uh.


Are you so mentally inept that a teenager has to spoon feed logic to you?

But as usual, you're probably going to reply with more nonsense.

 

[Z]

Nature does not tell us of the nature of things; our observations and experimentations of nature tell us. And this process is called (drum roll, please...) SCIENCE.

The nature of things is not contingent upon science, but our understanding of the nature of things IS.

EVERYTHING you've ever learned about the world has been through SCIENCE. Did you learn that fire burns? Science. Did you learn that water is wet? Science. We commit random acts of science every day. Science isn't all old men in lab coats trying to splice goat genes to spider genes; science is any time you use empirical observation and comparison to the experience of previous events. Any time you can say with certainty that the sun will come up tomorrow, that it 'looks like rain', that a piece of chocolate should make you feel better - that's all science, you idiot.

Science's inability to establish the nature of God is for the same reason it cannot establish the nature of unicorns, faeries, dragons, etc - THESE THINGS ARE UNREAL. Completely. It's not a failing of science that God does not exist, not in the 'real' sense. It's a failing of your own mind that you think God should show up under the microscope somehow.

Oh, and perhaps he was referring to 'Rubish' - that which relates to Rube Goldberg? lol