My argument against materialism

[Robin]

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

You mean by what principle are they arranged into the myriad forms that make up the world?

Ultimatelh- necessity and chance.

 

[laca]

Thankyou for confirming my point.

You have no point.

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

Matter is a form of energy

matter is a form of phase/state/condition/ of itself.

energy is that force exercised on itself.

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.

An infinitely long rod doesn't have two ends, at most one. That's why it's infinite. There is no absurdity in the concept of an infinite rod. You don't know what you're talking about, you just think you do. See the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[laca]

My point fell through the gaps of what materialism does and doesn't concern itself with.

How can there be gaps between what materialism does and doesn't concern itself with? I think those pretty much cover everything, don't you?

So now I'm just curious if any materialist can tell me what energy is?
Its kind of important because this entire edifice of existence is composed entirely of energy.

You've been told several times. Read the articles. Stop asking the same question over and over again.

Oh and another question come to think of it;

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.

Look up fundamental forces. For Pete's sake, do your homework for once!

Your ignorance doesn't mean anything besides that you're ignorant. Not all questions have answers, especially nonsensical ones. Most people (yes, that includes you too) are incapable of understanding the answers to the hard questions. There is a lot of groundwork needed, higher mathematics, solid physics knowledge, etc. The fact that you don't understand something does not entitle you to jump to unwarranted conclusions.

 

[laca]

And suppose you had an answer - you would have "energy is X"

Then you only have a further question - "what is X?"

Suppose you have an answer "X is X_-1"

Again you have a further question "What is X_-1?"

Suppose you have an answer "X_-1 is X_-2"

Again you have a further question "What is X_-2?"

Are you proposing an infinite regress of is's?

Or at some point do you just have to say "it is what it is"?

They're going for "it is god"... They just don't realize they're adding an unnecessary entity.

 

[Dancing David]

My point fell through the gaps of what materialism does and doesn't concern itself with.

So now I'm just curious if any materialist can tell me what energy is?
Its kind of important because this entire edifice of existence is composed entirely of energy.

Oh and another question come to think of it;

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.

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.

 

[Dancing David]

As for Shakespeare and poetry and art actually being anything more than aesthetic constructs, you're just mistaking a map for the actual land it's describing again. You're sitting here trying to argue to us that the map actually exists in the context of a real place you go to, if you only look at it from the correct point of view. But a map is not a real place, it's ink on paper. It's nothing but a symbolic representation of a place. And you're only convincing yourself that you can explore the map and visit the map because of an emotional attachment to the idea.

It wouldn't be so bad, if you weren't so smug about it.

It does map the cultural and social mores of those who create the art.

 

[PixyMisa]

An infinitely long rod doesn't have two ends, at most one. That's why it's infinite. There is no absurdity in the concept of an infinite rod. You don't know what you're talking about, you just think you do. See the Dunning-Kruger effect.

First Corollary of the Dunning-Kruger Effect: If you think it may apply to you, it probably doesn't.
Second Corollary of the Dunning-Kruger Effect: If you think it doesn't apply to you, it almost certainly does.

 

[PixyMisa]

Your ignorance doesn't mean anything besides that you're ignorant. Not all questions have answers, especially nonsensical ones. Most people (yes, that includes you too) are incapable of understanding the answers to the hard questions. There is a lot of groundwork needed, higher mathematics, solid physics knowledge, etc. The fact that you don't understand something does not entitle you to jump to unwarranted conclusions.

Actually understanding the Standard Model takes serious work - more work than I have the time, inclination, or talent to put in - but we can still follow the details of how it was developed, how it has been tested, and what it tells us.

punnnsh, if you're looking for easy answers, you've come to the wrong universe. There are hard answers, and there are comfortable lies. That's all the choice you have.

 

[dafydd]

I will let annnnoid spell it out rather than wading in.

Annnoid spell it out? Some hope.

 

[dafydd]

Thankyou for confirming my point.

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

Matter is a form of energy

matter is a form of phase/state/condition/ of itself.

energy is that force exercised on itself.

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.

Please learn something about physics,then come back.

 

[dafydd]

How can there be gaps between what materialism does and doesn't concern itself with? I think those pretty much cover everything, don't you?



You've been told several times. Read the articles. Stop asking the same question over and over again.



Look up fundamental forces. For Pete's sake, do your homework for once!

Your ignorance doesn't mean anything besides that you're ignorant. Not all questions have answers, especially nonsensical ones. Most people (yes, that includes you too) are incapable of understanding the answers to the hard questions. There is a lot of groundwork needed, higher mathematics, solid physics knowledge, etc. The fact that you don't understand something does not entitle you to jump to unwarranted conclusions.

Take heed punshhh and annnoid.

 

[yy2bggggs]

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.

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

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.

energy is that force exercised on itself.

No, money doesn't exist by paying itself.

So now I'm just curious if any materialist can tell me what energy is?

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.

Its kind of important because this entire edifice of existence is composed entirely of energy.

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.

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

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.

The answer is not also energy, I hope.

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.

 

[tsig]

Actually understanding the Standard Model takes serious work - more work than I have the time, inclination, or talent to put in - but we can still follow the details of how it was developed, how it has been tested, and what it tells us.

punnnsh, if you're looking for easy answers, you've come to the wrong universe. There are hard answers, and there are comfortable lies. That's all the choice you have.

How true. When I started college I was looking for that big Aha moment when everything would become clear and I would understood all but somehow that never came. There were many small ahas but no big all encompassing one and finally I saw that hard work and small steps were the only way to knowledge and there no great illumination in which the universe gave up its' secrets but small lamps sometimes lighted the way to further steps.

 

[gentlehorse]

Yes, I agree.
My point to pixy was that science cannot tell us what energy is. If we want any kind a grasp on the "mysteries" of existence like this we have to look elsewhere.

Any grasp one might have on the mysteries of existence, beyond that which is knowable, is no grasp at all. It's only words, self-delusion, idle speculation, emotional ejecta, and wishful thinking, layered between two slices of crapola.

 

[dafydd]

Yes, I agree.
My point to pixy was that science cannot tell us what energy is. If we want any kind a grasp on the "mysteries" of existence like this we have to look elsewhere.

Some of these posters could do with a 'whack' every now and then, might keep them on their toes. Fortunately I never felt the 'whack' myself, although I sneekily wish I had

Share it with us. What does Eastern philosophy tell us about energy? That it is yin and yang? That explains nothing.

 

[Robin]

They're going for "it is god"... They just don't realize they're adding an unnecessary entity.

Yes, I imagined that the X that he has in mind is probably god. And, yes, it is an unnecessary. If "god" is the answer to the question "what is energy?" he only has raised another question "what is god?".

 

[TmoonII]

Why question god, when questioning the self gets an answer?

 

[dafydd]

Yes, I imagined that the X that he has in mind is probably god. And, yes, it is an unnecessary. If "god" is the answer to the question "what is energy?" he only has raised another question "what is god?".

Which god? Mankind has invented many gods.

 

[punshhh]

You have no point.



An infinitely long rod doesn't have two ends, at most one. That's why it's infinite. There is no absurdity in the concept of an infinite rod. You don't know what you're talking about, you just think you do. See the Dunning-Kruger effect.

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.

 

[tsig]

Why question god, when questioning the self gets an answer?

I questioned myself and he looked straight at me and said "What are you asking me for, you know everything that I know so it's pretty stupid to be asking me anything you dummy", it's really bad to humiliate yourself like that.