How do you define "physical?"

[LegionOnomaMoi]

And in the sense that they have direction

They usually don't. Why do you think they are governed by a wave-function? And I thought that everybody was aware of the double-slit experiment even if they knew nothing else about physics. How can something that isn't even in a single location (and is in fact in potentially infinitely many locations) have a direction?

spin

I don't suppose you can supply a reasonable definition for what this is that accords with the physics literature?

they are material.

Why are those the properties that make something material, particularly when you'ave already equated material and physical with notions like "tangible" (literally and etymologically a notion rooted in touching/feeling)?

 

[Bunyip]

They usually don't. Why do you think they are governed by a wave-function? And I thought that everybody was aware of the double-slit experiment even if they knew nothing else about physics. How can something that isn't even in a single location (and is in fact in potentially infinitely many locations) have a direction?

I am familiar with the double slit experiment. Are you asking me to resolve wave-particle duality?

I don't suppose you can supply a reasonable definition for what this is that accords with the physics literature?
Why are those the properties that make something material, particularly when you'ave already equated material and physical with notions like "tangible" (literally and etymologically a notion rooted in touching/feeling)?

Pointing out that words are synonymous in the context of discussing what is real and what is abstract does not mean that those words do not have other meanings in other contexts. They are simply words that we use to describe the material.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I am familiar with the double slit experiment.

Then could you explain how a photon that (in the "canonical' version) goes through both slits and never ends where anything with a direction would, and in Feynman's variant traverses infinitely many paths? Where does this direction come in?

Are you asking me to resolve wave-particle duality?

No. There's nothing to resolve. It's just a misnomer, and in particle physics quantum systems aren't described as either wave-like or particle-like.

Pointing out that words are synonymous in the context of discussing what is real and what is abstract does not mean that those words do not have other meanings in other contexts.

That's true. However, it does make listing synonyms something of a waste, as what you really mean to do is define physical or real i particular ways and any synonymous terms mater only so far as they overlap with the definition you've already chosen, and since all words are polysemous the more "synonyms' you add the more meanings you get that aren't what you mean. It just seems like actually giving a good definition such that we can say a photon is "physical" but metabolic-repair or anger or even concepts are not.

They are simply words that we use to describe the material.

Something with no mass has no material.

 

[Bunyip]

Then could you explain how a photon that (in the "canonical' version) goes through both slits and never ends where anything with a direction would, and in Feynman's variant traverses infinitely many paths? Where does this direction come in?

When the photon behaves as a particle.

No. There's nothing to resolve. It's just a misnomer, and in particle physics quantum systems aren't described as either wave-like or particle-like.


That's true.

Correct

However, it does make listing synonyms something of a waste, as what you really mean to do is define physical or real i particular ways and any synonymous terms mater only so far as they overlap with the definition you've already chosen, and since all words are polysemous the more "synonyms' you add the more meanings you get that aren't what you mean. It just seems like actually giving a good definition such that we can say a photon is "physical" but metabolic-repair or anger or even concepts are not.


Something with no mass has no material.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

When the photn behaves as a particle.

Ok, I will (despite the fact that it is quite inaccurate and a major bone of contention I have) pretend that the wave-particle description given in so many popular sources and even in textbooks is meaningful. Here's the problem: the only time a photon "behaves" like a particle is when we observe.measure it and thus disturb it. Which means we can never know no what direction if any it is heading in, and the only reason it seems to be heading in some direction is because we forced it to temporarily "localize". And just to correct a common mistake- Heisenberg's uncertainty principle isn't restricted to measurements telling us about either location or direction. It's any two properties, so the more accurately we seek to determine a "particle's" spin, the less we know about both direction and position (more accurately momentum, not direction, but we're not in a physics class or conference, are we?)
In other words, your "material" photon with "direction" and "spin" has no material, no direction, and vaguely defined "spin". So, again, what makes this "physical" such that e.g., concepts, anger, wealth, etc., aren't?

 

[Bunyip]

Ok, I will (despite the fact that it is quite inaccurate and a major bone of contention I have) pretend that the wave-particle description given in so many popular sources and even in textbooks is meaningful. Here's the problem: the only time a photon "behaves" like a particle is when we observe.measure it and thus disturb it. Which means we can never know no what direction if any it is heading in, and the only reason it seems to be heading in some direction is because we forced it to temporarily "localize". And just to correct a common mistake- Heisenberg's uncertainty principle isn't restricted to measurements telling us about either location or direction. It's any two properties, so the more accurately we seek to determine a "particle's" spin, the less we know about both direction and position (more accurately momentum, not direction, but we're not in a physics class or conference, are we?)

I was hoping you would eventually make that realisation.

In other words, your "material" photon with "direction" and "spin" has no material, no direction, and vaguely defined "spin". So, again, what makes this "physical" such that e.g., concepts, anger, wealth, etc., aren't?

In that anger is an abstract, it is conceptual and photons are real.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

In that anger is an abstract, it is conceptual and photons are real.

I see. So the fact that photons are generally described as a purely mathematical entity, are not material, don't have direction, and don't have spin in any way that you have been able to describe makes them "real", but anger isn't because it is an abstract (like a photon). You are defending your definitions by defining them to be true. As I said many posts ago on one of these threads, I think this physical/real vs. non-physical/abstract dichotomy is at best inaccurate and at worst an artificial imposition constraining scientific progress (and has numerous socio-cultural problems too, but we are already dealing with enough). You've responded by giving synonyms, by defining physical to be that which exists in the physical universe (using the word defined in the definition), in terms that exclude things you want to call physical and/or include things you don't, but you haven't really ever dealt with the nature of what is "physical" in physics other than with several inaccurate statements.

 

[Bunyip]

I see. So the fact that photons are generally described as a purely mathematical entity, are not material, don't have direction, and don't have spin in any way that you have been able to describe makes them "real", but anger isn't because it is an abstract (like a photon).

Correct. Anger is conceptual, abstract and thus not physical. Photons are fundamental particles of the physical universe and thus physical. Pretty simple.

You are defending your definitions by defining them to be true.

Actually no - quite the opposite, what I have been pointing out is that these words are all used to define each other in common usage.

As I said many posts ago on one of these threads, I think this physical/real vs. non-physical/abstract dichotomy is at best inaccurate and at worst an artificial imposition constraining scientific progress (and has numerous socio-cultural problems too, but we are already dealing with enough). You've responded by giving synonyms, by defining physical to be that which exists in the physical universe (using the word defined in the definition), in terms that exclude things you want to call physical and/or include things you don't, but you haven't really ever dealt with the nature of what is "physical" in physics other than with several inaccurate statements.

Yes mate, the language and terminology used in this context is problematic - that was the whole point.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Correct. Anger is conceptual, abstract and thus not physical. Photons are fundamental particles of the physical universe and thus physical. Pretty simple.

Ok. Gravitons are also "fundamental particles" (and they have spin too!). Are they physical? If they are, then general relativity, quantum mechanics, nuclear physics, solid state physics, not to mention chemistry, are all wrong. In fact, basically every theory of physics that isn't particle physics is wrong if they are physical. But they are fundamental particles, so...?

 

[Bunyip]

Ok. Gravitons are also "fundamental particles" (and they have spin too!). Are they physical? If they are, then general relativity, quantum mechanics, nuclear physics, solid state physics, not to mention chemistry, are all wrong. In fact, basically every theory of physics that isn't particle physics is wrong if they are physical. But they are fundamental particles, so...?

Yes Legion, the language we use in QM is problematic in terms of describing these phenomena. The language we use to discuss what is physical in the context here is also problematic - that has been my point from the beginning. Yes Legion, the words we use - real, physical, material, existant etc do not adequately describe these concepts - that has been my point from the beginning.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes Legion, the language we use in QM

That term isn't used in quantum mechanics. Regardless, I'm confused. After all:

Photons are fundamental particles of the physical universe and thus physical. Pretty simple.

All I did was refer to another particle. So why isn't it "pretty simple"? And if it is, then is the answer yes or no?

The language we use to discuss what is physical in the context here is also problematic - that has been my point from the beginning.

The question is whether you are contributing to the problem. You have made many claims about physics and about what is physical. I've tried to show how these are problematic. Until now, every single time you've simply dismissed what I said or said I was wrong or both and further that I don't understand science.

A few posts earlier, according to you not only was a photon physical because it was a particle, but this was a simple matter. Now you refer to problems not with the language used to discuss the physical but the terms physicists use in physics literature. Graviton isn't a term like "real", nor is it as term "we" use (either in the sense of people in general or however you meant the first person plural), nor have you ever referred to problems with the language "we use in QM" (and I am confused as to what, exactly, you mean by "we" hear as only one of us uses such language in general and there is no general usage). This isn't the kind of problematic language use you've ever referred to.

 

[Bunyip]

That term isn't used in quantum mechanics. Regardless, I'm confused. After all:

All I did was refer to another particle. So why isn't it "pretty simple"? And if it is, then is the answer yes or no?



The question is whether you are contributing to the problem. You have made many claims about physics and about what is physical. I've tried to show how these are problematic. Until now, every single time you've simply dismissed what I said or said I was wrong or both and further that I don't understand science.

A few posts earlier, according to you not only was a photon physical because it was a particle, but this was a simple matter. Now you refer to problems not with the language used to discuss the physical but the terms physicists use in physics literature. Graviton isn't a term like "real", nor is it as term "we" use (either in the sense of people in general or however you meant the first person plural), nor have you ever referred to problems with the language "we use in QM" (and I am confused as to what, exactly, you mean by "we" hear as only one of us uses such language in general and there is no general usage). This isn't the kind of problematic language use you've ever referred to.

You are the master of missing the point. You do not understand QM, nobody does - you are just derailing the thread to QM. Nobody knows how to define what is physical and what is not in QM, you are asking unanswerable (rhetorical) questions in what is supposed to be a discussion forum. That the terminology is problematic is the point. The context here is mind-body duality, language - not QM.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yoy are the master of missing the point. You do not understand QM, nobody does

"The glib assertions by many scientists and science popularizers that ‘nobody understands quantum mechanics’ – another Feynman idiom – is balderdash. Competent physicists (as opposed to poorly informed science writers or science philosophers), who use quantum mechanics on a daily basis to elucidate successfully countless physical phenomena, clearly must understand the instrument with which they are working."
Silverman, M. P. (2008). Quantum superposition: counterintuitive consequences of coherence, entanglement, and interference. Springer.

There is a difference between not fully understanding a subject, and not knowing it. Nobody knows everything (nor does anybody know even something about every topic, subject, or field). Generally, however, the less one knows about some field or fields, the less they should say about them. There are exceptions, of course, such as philosophical discussions about the nature of reality, in which everybody has experience just be existing, and thus everyone has something to contribute. But not every body contributes the same way or can contribute the same things.

You've made claims about the physical, as have I. Namely, I've said your definition is overly constrained (and I would add simplistic), because it doesn't reflect reality. To show this, I've try to elucidate some notions from physics that make it clear simple treatments such as dividing everything into either physical or conceptual. Physics is not the only way to show the problems with your schema, but it seemed the most natural.

you are just derailing the thread to QM

Again, gravitons aren't in QM. That was the point. You made a claim about how simple it was to categorize something as physical, and if we use your reasoning than gravitons are physical/real, and we loose most of the natural sciences.

 

[Bunyip]

"The glib assertions by many scientists and science popularizers that ‘nobody understands quantum mechanics’ – another Feynman idiom – is balderdash. Competent physicists (as opposed to poorly informed science writers or science philosophers), who use quantum mechanics on a daily basis to elucidate successfully countless physical phenomena, clearly must understand the instrument with which they are working."
Silverman, M. P. (2008). Quantum superposition: counterintuitive consequences of coherence, entanglement, and interference. Springer.

There is a difference between not fully understanding a subject, and not knowing it. Nobody knows everything (nor does anybody know even something about every topic, subject, or field). Generally, however, the less one knows about some field or fields, the less they should say about them. There are exceptions, of course, such as philosophical discussions about the nature of reality, in which everybody has experience just be existing, and thus everyone has something to contribute. But not every body contributes the same way or can contribute the same things.

You've made claims about the physical, as have I. Namely, I've said your definition is overly constrained (and I would add simplistic), because it doesn't reflect reality. To show this, I've try to elucidate some notions from physics that make it clear simple treatments such as dividing everything into either physical or conceptual. Physics is not the only way to show the problems with your schema, but it seemed the most natural.


Again, gravitons aren't in QM. That was the point. You made a claim about how simple it was to categorize something as physical, and if we use your reasoning than gravitons are physical/real, and we loose most of the natural sciences.

As i said you are the master of missing the point - which was how PROBLEMATIC it is to categorise something as physical. You have hold of the wrong end of the figurative stick. I repeat (just for luck) My point is how PROBLEMATIC, the terminology being used is, not how simple it is to categorise something as physical - Ok? So the precise oposite of what you have imagined.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

My point is how PROBLEMATIC, the terminology being used is, not how simple it is to categorise something as physical - Ok?

Some logic for you. Let's say the term "physical" is problematic. Now imagine I wish to categorize something as physical. If the terminology is problematic, that makes categorization problematic, does it not? Particularly in this case, as we are seeking to understand the terms that categorize that which is physical or real, which is only possible if we are able to categorize that which is physical or real.

As i said you are the master of missing the point - which was how PROBLEMATIC it is to categorise something as physical.

You've said it was "pretty simple", and have repeatedly categorized as if it were:

Light is composed of elementary particles called 'photons', photons are physical.

And in the sense that they have direction, spin and charge they are material.

That turned out not to be true, though, didn't it?

So the precise oposite of what you have imagined.

Except that problems with categorization entails problems with terminology and vice versa. So it is impossible to be the complete opposite of what I said.

 

[Blackmarch]

How do you define "physical?"

Merriam-Webster defines "physical" generally as "relating to the body of a person instead of the mind" or
"existing in a form that you can touch or see" and specifically as "of or relating to natural science," "of or relating to physics, " "characterized or produced by the forces and operations of physics," or "having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature."

"Everything physical is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance." - Thomas De Quincey





Why is this relevant? Because I would contend that the majority of the "skeptics" or "nonbelievers" are materialists (or, at least, they believe they are) and the majority of "believers" are nonmaterialists (dualists or idealists).

something that has mass or can be observed interacting with something that has mass.

 

[Bunyip]

Some logic for you. Let's say the term "physical" is problematic. Now imagine I wish to categorize something as physical. If the terminology is problematic, that makes categorization problematic, does it not? Particularly in this case, as we are seeking to understand the terms that categorize that which is physical or real, which is only possible if we are able to categorize that which is physical or real.

Yep. My point exactly.

You've said it was "pretty simple", and have repeatedly categorized as if it were:

No need to so transparently bear false witness. I said that distinguishing between anger and photons was simple - not that determining what is physical was simple. There is no need to be so dishonest. Given your claims of such expertise it is unfortunate you seem so often to rely on dishonesty. Why not use this great mind of yours rather than resort to such tactics?

That turned out not to be true, though, didn't it?



Except that problems with categorization entails problems with terminology and vice versa. So it is impossible to be the complete opposite of what I said.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yep. My point exactly.

Then it cannot be true that what I said was the "OPPOSITE" of your point.

No need to so transparently bear false witness.

You said it. Not only that, but you've repeatedly stated or implied that a simple dichotomy exists between the conceptual and the physical. However, you've acknowledged now that it isn't so simple to sort out what belongs to which category (at least not always). However, the only reason that this could be so is because the dichotomy isn't simple, well-defined, and probably not very useful. After all, pretty much the only criterion you've offered to determine whether or not something belongs in one category vs. the other is the application of one of the categories. One exception to this, as quoted above, is the use of terms from physics (asking whether Sanskrit terms have "spin" or properties of particles). This fails. We've established that. So the question remains what use is your dichotomy conceptual vs. physical if the criterion you depend upon to determine that something is conceptual is to say that it is, and the same for physical?

I said that distinguishing between anger and photons was simple

Perhaps I misunderstood you. But be that as it may, the criteria via which you claimed made it "pretty simple" to distinguish the two were properties that photons have such that they were physical. Gravitons have the same properties. So, either it is "pretty simple' to categorize a photon as physical for reasons other than those you gave, you aren't using consistent criteria but rather applying ad hoc criteria, or it is not simple.

 

[Bunyip]

Then it cannot be true that what I said was the "OPPOSITE" of your point.


You said it. Not only that, but you've repeatedly stated or implied that a simple dichotomy exists between the conceptual and the physical.

Well yes, there is a simple dichotomy between concept and physical, that is not what you claimed I said in the previous post - your memory is failing you.

However, you've acknowledged now that it isn't so simple to sort out what belongs to which category (at least not always). However, the only reason that this could be so is because the dichotomy isn't simple, well-defined, and probably not very useful. After all, pretty much the only criterion you've offered to determine whether or not something belongs in one category vs. the other is the application of one of the categories. One exception to this, as quoted above, is the use of terms from physics (asking whether Sanskrit terms have "spin" or properties of particles). This fails. We've established that. So the question remains what use is your dichotomy conceptual vs. physical if the criterion you depend upon to determine that something is conceptual is to say that it is, and the same for physical?


Perhaps I misunderstood you. But be that as it may, the criteria via which you claimed made it "pretty simple" to distinguish the two were properties that photons have such that they were physical. Gravitons have the same properties. So, either it is "pretty simple' to categorize a photon as physical for reasons other than those you gave, you aren't using consistent criteria but rather applying ad hoc criteria, or it is not simple.

Concepts are by definition abstract, non-physical products of the mind photons and gravitons are components of the physical universe.
Honestly Legion, reading your responses I don't think you have the faintest idea what is being discussed in this thread or why. Nor do I see your responses and rebuttals meaningfully relating to the topic. Let's just leave it there.

I am not trying to invent a distinction between conceptual and physical, I am pointing out the existing distinction. They are opposites.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well yes, there is a simple dichotomy between concept and physical, that is not what you claimed I said in the previous post - your memory is failing you.

That's because in my previous post I was responding to your 180 degree turn in which all of the sudden what was simple was suddenly not, and then it was specifically that the categorization wasn't simple but the terms were (which I pointed out is impossible). I'm trying to follow the tangled web you weave.

non-physical products of the mind photons and gravitons are components of the physical universe.

So gravitons ARE physical? So all of chemistry, nuclear physics, and most of the natural sciences are all wrong, because they treat as physical something that doesn't exist but is fundamental to every theory, model, and development within these fields?

Concepts are by definition abstract

By what definition? More importantly, how is something like anger "abstract" but "sky" or "electricity" not? Is metabolism physical? How about the climate? Or heat? If energy is physical, is work (I mean in the physics sense of the term)?

Honestly Legion, reading your responses I don't think you have the faintest idea what is being discussed in this thread or why.

We were discussing what is and isn't physical. You were claiming that physical things were real things, and concepts were nonphysical, and were supporting this claim by restating it over and over again. I was trying to point out that physicists don't treat the physical the way you do in order to show you one of the many ways such a simple dichotomy might help you understand the world but would be a huge problem if scientists had to be constrained by such a simplistic model.

Nor do I see your responses and rebuttals meaningfully relating to the topic. Let's just leave it there.

Feel free. I've said my peace, you've admitted that most of the natural sciences are wrong (and by extension anything that relies on theories within these), and failed to give any reason not to define concepts in terms of their neural representation or define as physical those things which are physical processes, just to name a few issues.

I am not trying to invent a distinction between conceptual and physical,

No you are just using both words poorly and arbitrarily. Neuroscientists study the physical nature of concepts, various specialists study the physical nature of anger, anxiety, depression, and almost none of the physical sciences include a thing called a "graviton".