My argument against materialism

[Lowpro]

Theoretical and mathematical infinities are in reality only machinations of the human mind. Physical reality is something else.

Why use something as profound as this as a staging point to then go into other silly things? Why address machinations of the human mind, then proceed to bring up the chakras. I mean whether you think it's an argument against materialism or not, even a materialist realizes the stupidity of infinitely long rods, massless frictionless pulleys made of unobtanium. But we frame our conjectures on it merely to demonstrate as easily as possible between ourselves and all who are interested.

Everything you have said hasn't addressed anything against materialism, all it has been is pleading from a source you aren't willing to divulge and instead you feign victim to ignorance of our knowledge all the while feeling we are victim to the lack of knowledge you claim to be aware of. What crap is that punshhh?

 

[dlorde]

Energy is a "phase"/"condition"/"state" of matter.

No. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Thats nearly as good as my quote at the bottom of dlorde's post about the two ends of an infinitely long rod. The only difference is that I composed that sentence in order to point out the absurdity of the concept of such a rod.

Sadly, that doubly contradictory quote only shows you are unable to express yourself logically or rationally. I'm not sure you even try.

 

[dlorde]

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.

Yes, that's a better analogy. Thanks

 

[dafydd]

If all is energy waves, by what "force" are these waves arranged into the myriad "physical" forms that make up our world?

The answer is not also energy, I hope.

It certainly is not yin and yang.

 

[Dancing David]

My point was that an infinitely long three dimensional physical rod is impossible in a physical universe. Because the rod occupies space, (unless it is also infinitely thin) it would occupy all the space in an infinitely large universe, as such it is a nonsense.

No more than a great circle around the earth would cover the whole earth.

 

[yy2bggggs]

My point was that an infinitely long three dimensional physical rod is impossible in a physical universe. Because the rod occupies space, (unless it is also infinitely thin) it would occupy all the space in an infinitely large universe, as such it is a nonsense.

But you have no valid basis for making this point. There's nothing a priori about an infinitely long rod that requires it to occupy all of the space in an infinitely large universe.

That you think there is is only a flaw in your reasoning. You're trying to prescribe what reality is like. There is absolutely no reason for Nature to comply with your prescription.

Theoretical and mathematical infinities are in reality only machinations of the human mind. Physical reality is something else.

But this is not enough for you to make your claim.

 

[dlorde]

My point was that an infinitely long three dimensional physical rod is impossible in a physical universe. Because the rod occupies space, (unless it is also infinitely thin) it would occupy all the space in an infinitely large universe, as such it is a nonsense.

How can something occupy all the space in an infinitely large universe? There's always more room - you could insert infinitely many infinitely long rods... (and I can't help wishing you would )

 

[dafydd]

Perhaps you missed the point I was making, I have no difficulty with a theoretical infinite rod, for example one which could be described mathematically.

My point was that an infinitely long three dimensional physical rod is impossible in a physical universe. Because the rod occupies space, (unless it is also infinitely thin) it would occupy all the space in an infinitely large universe, as such it is a nonsense.

Can you see, I had been repeatedly stressing an infinity of physical existence, ie matter as an aspect of the existence of time and space.

Theoretical and mathematical infinities are in reality only machinations of the human mind. Physical reality is something else.

I'm beginning to suspect that you are pulling our legs. If you are trolling,well done,a brilliant example of the art.

 

[PixyMisa]

Perhaps you missed the point I was making, I have no difficulty with a theoretical infinite rod, for example one which could be described mathematically.

My point was that an infinitely long three dimensional physical rod is impossible in a physical universe. Because the rod occupies space, (unless it is also infinitely thin) it would occupy all the space in an infinitely large universe

No. You have no grasp of infinity. That's okay; it's not an easy concept to understand. But thinking you understand it when you clearly don't is a problem.

Can you see, I had been repeatedly stressing an infinity of physical existence, ie matter as an aspect of the existence of time and space.

Theoretical and mathematical infinities are in reality only machinations of the human mind. Physical reality is something else.

No.

 

[PixyMisa]

But you have no valid basis for making this point. There's nothing a priori about an infinitely long rod that requires it to occupy all of the space in an infinitely large universe.

Actually, he didn't even say what he thinks he said. His example was an infinitely long rod in a finite but unbounded universe. He's still confusing unbounded with infinite.

 

[dafydd]

I read in a book by Martin Gardner that a rod of infinite length can fit into a small n-dimensional cube,providing that n is high enough. Or do I misremember?

 

[laca]

I read in a book by Martin Gardner that a rod of infinite length can fit into a small n-dimensional cube,providing that n is high enough. Or do I misremember?

Only if it doesn't have a "width". And n can be as low as 3, I think.

 

[punshhh]

Only if it doesn't have a "width". And n can be as low as 3, I think.

You seem to be in agreement with me here, "only if it doesn't have a width".

A physical rod would have a width or it would not have a physical presence, so I stated it would have to be infinitely narrow(again an absurdity). If any imagined section or length of the rod had a width and occupied 3D space, by definition it would require an infinite number of these spaces being infinitely long. Hence it would occupy all the space in an infinite universe(or it would not be infinitely long).

With one caveat thanks to Dancing Davids point, only within the plain of 3D space which the rod is confined to.

Am I wrong in this analogy? (I do know the analogy is absurd)

 

[punshhh]

Um, what is the difference between phenomena and noumena?

Noumena are unknowable by defintion, insert Russel's Teapot or Undetectable Pink Unicorns or Thoth and Nu create the Hall, whatever floats your boat.

Thankyou,

"Noumena are unknowable by definition", energy is such a thing.

You and Robin are the only ones here who have stated this. Yourself as a physicist would be well aware that science can only document the activity of energy, not state "what" it is.
Robin as a philosopher is well aware that regarding existence, "it is what it is"
For myself as a mystic, there are some mysteries of existence of which this is one.

Now you other guys are you going to explain what energy is? or continue refering me to literature on the observed activity of energy.

Oh and pixy please don't try to blind me with the unfathomable maths of the standard model, this does not anywhere state what energy is only describes its activity.

 

[PixyMisa]

You seem to be in agreement with me here, "only if it doesn't have a width".

A physical rod would have a width or it would not have a physical presence, so I stated it would have to be infinitely narrow(again an absurdity). If any imagined section or length of the rod had a width and occupied 3D space, by definition it would require an infinite number of these spaces being infinitely long.

Yes.

Hence it would occupy all the space in an infinite universe(or it would not be infinitely long).

No, that doesn't follow. You can have an infinite number of such infinitely long rods in an infinite universe, and still have an infinite amount of space left over.

Am I wrong in this analogy? (I do know the analogy is absurd)

Yes, you're wrong.

See this for an explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel

 

[PixyMisa]

Thankyou,

"Noumena are unknowable by definition", energy is such a thing.

You and Robin are the only ones here who have stated this. Yourself as a physicist would be well aware that science can only document the activity of energy, not state "what" it is.

It is what it does.

Now you other guys are you going to explain what energy is? or continue refering me to literature on the observed activity of energy.

That is what energy is. Energy - like everything else - is defined by what it does.

Oh and pixy please don't try to blind me with the unfathomable maths of the standard model, this does not anywhere state what energy is only describes its activity.

Describing its activity states what it is.

 

[laca]

You seem to be in agreement with me here, "only if it doesn't have a width".

Not really, it just seems so to you. I was talking about a finite cube containing an infinite long rod. Obviously, this is only possible if the rod is one dimensional (or two, but I'm having a hard time imagining a rod in two dimensions). If the cube were infinite, the rod could be a real one.

A physical rod would have a width or it would not have a physical presence, so I stated it would have to be infinitely narrow(again an absurdity). If any imagined section or length of the rod had a width and occupied 3D space, by definition it would require an infinite number of these spaces being infinitely long. Hence it would occupy all the space in an infinite universe(or it would not be infinitely long).

No. You still don't understand infinities. The rod would have to be infinite in all dimensions to occupy all space. It woulds also have to be continuous according to the "granularity" of the space it occupies. Otherwise, it could be infinitely long in all dimensions but still leave an infinite amount of free space.

 

[punshhh]

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.

Thank you for offering an explanation, its a good analogy.

I agree that energy can be viewed as like money, unfortunately, there is a problem in this analogy.

As I see it, the currency or money is has a number or value say £1.50, this remains the same what ever form it comes in, paper, copper or alloy.

This is energy

The paper or metal which the money is made of is the equivalent of matter in my question, which comes in paper, copper, alloy etc.

This is matter.

The problem is physicists tell us that matter is energy, so the paper is made somehow made of £1.50 and the copper is somehow made of £1.50.

Energy cannot be a number, because a number cannot be a thing only a quantity.

Or we end up with a universe made up of £1.50s.

Are the £1.50s paper, copper or alloy?

 

[punshhh]

It is what it does.


That is what energy is. Energy - like everything else - is defined by what it does.


Describing its activity states what it is.

Is it paper,copper or alloy?

 

[PixyMisa]

Is it paper,copper or alloy?

The question is not meaningful.

What does it do?

Well, that's what it is.