Materialism has officially become dangerous in my eyes.

[Polymath257]

Energy is a conserved quantity; "matter" is not. Right?

If you include mass in your definition of energy, then energy is conserved. Otherwise it is not.

But this does not mean we do not detect energy.

 

[Polymath257]

The fact that no one has seen or touched energy has nothing to do with nerve damage. Energy is a quantity.

So is mass. So what?

 

[Jumi]

Energy is a conserved quantity; "matter" is not. Right?

If mass is matter then nope. The easy way to think about it is that energy and mass are basically interchangeable.

 

[Polymath257]

If mass is matter then nope. The easy way to think about it is that energy and mass are basically interchangeable.

I'm not sure this is true. Yes, there is some interconversion, but the best way to link think things is to see energy as the 'time-component' of the energy-momentum vector for a particle.

The usual equation you see, E=mc^2, is only for a particle at rest and that has mass. The more general formula is E^2 =m^2 c^4 +p^2 c^2, where as usual, E is the energy, m is the mass, and c is the speed of light. The new addition is p, which is the momentum.

The nice thing about this equation is that it is true even for massless particles like photons: if m=0, we get E=pc. So this is a case where energy is not associated with mass.

Now, in any reaction, the momentum and energy are conserved. But this means that the masses will inevitably change (especially for very energetic reactions). We can interpret this as energy being converted into mass or vice versa. But it is usually easier to follow the energy and momentum and then calculate the masses.

So, for example, if we have two masses equal masses going in opposite directions and the same speeds that collide, and if, after the collision, the two merge into one, the mass of the merged particle will be *more* than the sum of the two original masses. Essentially, the kinetic energy of the originals is converted into the mass of the final particle. The energies added up, the momenta, becaus ethey were equal and in opposite directions, canceled out, and the result is a more massive final product. The reverse can happen in fission of one particle into two.

 

[blü 2]

One can detect neutrinos. There is no instrument that detects the conserved quantity known as energy.

Is that right?

E=mc^2 ─ why doesn't that mean that if we can measure / detect mass we can measure / detect energy?

And why wouldn't that be a correct statement about any system, whether with conserved energy or not?
.

 

[Nakosis]

Materialism has officially become dangerous in my eyes. Not in any way to the extent of Islamic extremism, fascism, or other rising positions in the world, but dangerous nonetheless. Why?

1. The death of skepticism: even the slightest skeptical questioning casts doubt on materialism, for how can we reduce the mind to matter when we know the mind directly and matter through it? Can we trust our senses that there's a physical world out there? Is there really no other valid possibility in the world? Skepticism is about doubt whereas materialism is a position of certainty. There's very little questioning of it and that questioning is dogmatically brushed off rather than addressed. With the increasing popularity of materialism this is very dangerous.

2. Neglect of the mind and its role in health and happiness is dangerous. Even just the simple way we perceive our situation has an effect on us, such as whether we believe we are happy or not. To have any hope of treating the mentally ill we need to address both mind and brain, not simply the latter. We have to address subjective symptoms, not simply what physical ailments are immediately noticable.

3. The rejection of all immaterial things completely destroys concepts such as math and logic. In materialism these things must be mind dependent, where they exist as concepts, at least according to materialism. But the idea that things like math and logic, which lead us to objective truth and intelligent thought, are mind dependent is extremely dangerous. It basically allows for whatever one wants to be true to be treated as true, because logical and mathematical truths are more or less subjective and fabricated. Any group that teaches things like logic to be relative posses a threat to knowledge and growth. An ignorant community is one ripe for the plucking!

4. Life-Fields are another thing rejected by materialists. Despite being confirmed by thousands of experiments, and leading to massive break throughs in medicine like predicting ovulation, materialists reject the idea of L-Fields, and in fact likely never have heard of them due to them being ignored in mainstream science specifically for not fitting with materialism (see #1). Life-Fields can help us predict things like ovulation, cancer, birth defects in a developing egg, highs and lows of mental stability, even things like when would be the best time for someone to learn something. The benefits to human life could be so numerous, but alas since L-Fields bring questions like Teleology and design to the table, they are simply ignored by materialists who care neither for scientific truth nor human life.

5. Materialism greatly implies a belief in hard predeterminism, as there is nothing to stand against the every flowing onslaught of nature. If this this the case there's simply no hope in ever changing or improving upon any situation. Why would we go to a doctor or see a counselor if nothing we do can actually change anything? Of course some realize, almost self evidently for many of us, that we can indeed go against the flow of material nature. We can manipulate it such as to make medications in this example, or use the strength of our mind to recondition the way we act and think. These being only two small examples!

Now sure, materialists are not going around killing people, I'd never pretend they're as bad as extremist groups like ISIL. But materialism is dangerous in a much longer run, it's taking over culture far more quickly than ISIL could ever hope to, and it's ingrained in us for most of our lives, stuck as part of our education systems, dominating the way we view and treat human life. There may not be genocide, but it's still dangerous nonetheless. It's led to a death of doubt and questioning, led to a rejection of the power and independent existence of the mind, it is forced to push a view of logic and mathematics (which sciences like physics rely on) as mind dependent and therefore not objective or real, it ignores hard science that can benefit humanity simply so that it's authority as leading philosophy cannot be questioned, and it leads to a point of nihilism where we may as well wallow in our problems because nothing can stand up to the flow of the material world.

Materialism is just the belief that matter is the basis of existence. Everything that exists has a material explanation.

Whereas the only limit to supernatural explanations is your imagination.

Logic and math are basically languages we create to test and describe material existence.

Concepts are information. The information itself is carried/stored by matter and it physical properties. Reality has a material explanation. Any explanation given can therefore been tested and validated or even proven wrong.

Supernatural explanations on the other hand can't be tested or validated. Because of this, they can't even be disproved.

You can be as creative as you want to be with your supernatural explanation but know they can never be validated. They can never be known to be true.

My feelings, my happiness, my desires, my experience of life is no different than yours. I just feel that if I'm going to accept something as the truth, I ought to have a way to validate it.

 

[Nous]

Energy is a conserved quantity; "matter" is not. Right?

If mass is matter then nope.

So you have a new definition of "matter"? Cite your source for that definition.

I'll repeat: Energy is a conserved quantity; matter is not. If you find any scholarly source that claims the contrary, quote it.

 

[Polymath257]

So you have a new definition of "matter"? Cite your source for that definition.

I'll repeat: Energy is a conserved quantity; matter is not. If you find any scholarly source that claims the contrary, quote it.

Energy can fail to be conserved on small time scares. dE*dt <= hbar.

 

[Nous]

Is that right?

E=mc^2 ─ why doesn't that mean that if we can measure / detect mass we can measure / detect energy?

Obviously I didn't say or imply that energy cannot be measured. Energy can definitely be measured. Energy is a quantity, and cannot be detected. There isn't an instrument that detects the quantity that remains unchanged in a closed system despite all other phenomenal changes.

 

[Nous]

Energy can fail to be conserved on small time scares. dE*dt >=hbar.

How quickly does energy right itself?

 

[Polymath257]

How quickly does energy right itself?

That is what the quoted formula is about. The amount of violation of energy conservation ( i.e, dE ) multiplied by the length of time for the violation (i.e, dt) must be smaller than Planck's constant divided by 2pi (hbar).

 

[Polymath257]

Obviously I didn't say or imply that energy cannot be measured. Energy can definitely be measured. Energy is a quantity, and cannot be detected. There isn't an instrument that detects the quantity that remains unchanged in a closed system despite all other phenomenal changes.

What is the difference between being measured and being detected?

 

[Nous]

What is the difference between being measured and being detected?

Energy is a quantity that is calculated. That's how it's measured.

 

[Jumi]

I'll repeat: Energy is a conserved quantity; matter is not. If you find any scholarly source that claims the contrary, quote it.

I'll continue to disagree. I'll cite the law of conservation of mass.

Energy is a quantity that is calculated. That's how it's measured.

The same way any mass or other physical property is measured. Using standardized methods.

Energy is also not something spiritual or something like prana, qi, spiritual feelings. Science doesn't touch those since they can't be measured.

 

[Polymath257]

Energy is a quantity that is calculated. That's how it's measured.

Which, again, shows that it is determined by the motion of matter (allowing for bosons to be included in matter). The same, by the way, is true of momentum, of spin (which is calculated from changes in magnetic fields), and most other physical quantities.

So how does that show materialism is wrong?

 

[Nous]

I'll repeat: Energy is a conserved quantity; matter is not. If you find any scholarly source that claims the contrary, quote it.

I'll continue to disagree. I'll cite the law of conservation of mass.

This is what I mean about materialists brandishing the pretense of science.

In contrast to energy and mass, matter is not a conserved quantity.

Matter is not perfectly conserved

The principle of matter conservation may be considered as an approximate physical law that is true only in the classical sense, without consideration of special relativity and quantum mechanics. It is approximately true except in certain high energy applications.

A particular difficulty with the idea of conservation of "matter" is that "matter" is not a well-defined word scientifically, and when particles that are considered to be "matter" (such as electrons and positrons) are annihilated to make photons (which are often not considered matter) then conservation of matter does not take place over time, even within isolated systems. However, matter is conserved to such an extent that matter conservation may be safely assumed in chemical reactions and all situations in which radioactivity and nuclear reactions are not involved.​

Conservation of mass - Wikipedia

 

[Nous]

Which, again, shows that it is determined by the motion of matter

False. The fact that energy is a conserved quantity that is measured by calculation does not mean that energy is "determined" (whatever you mean by that) by matter or the motion of matter.

So how does that show materialism is wrong?

Energy is a conserved quantity; matter is not.

 

[Jumi]

This is what I mean about materialists brandishing the pretense of science.

I'm not sure I qualify as a materialist because of my beliefs, so attack me personally directly and avoid sweeping generalizations to any group you think I might belong to.

You could say that I've been a worker in various scientific fields and hold great interest in more sciences than I've practically applied. I have never claimed expertise of them. Regarding this debate I think it's clear that you don't have much real interest or background in sciences or the group of materialist philosophies.

In contrast to energy and mass, matter is not a conserved quantity.

Yes, mass and energy are properties in the material world and they aren't "mysterious stuff" to us. Indeed I've used energy in a routine way in my work measuring to determine properties of matter. In a purely physics definition way mass is not matter. If mass is conserved, how is energy special? We don't in general use the definitions of physics in philosophical definitions of materialism which predate modern physics definitions of the term "matter". One such definition of materialism is that the physical is all that there is. Clearly energy and mass are not non-physical but exist within the physical universe and any materialist I've talked to has no problem with energy existing. Indeed it's been a feature of the natural sciences long before 1918. If materialists had no problem with energy before that why would they have them now?

 

[Polymath257]

False. The fact that energy is a conserved quantity that is measured by calculation does not mean that energy is "determined" (whatever you mean by that) by matter or the motion of matter.

You calculate the energy of a system by looking at how the matter in that system is moving and the relative positions. Nothing else is involved in that calculation. So, energy is property of the *maerial* system.

Energy is a conserved quantity; matter is not.

Matter is the type of thing. Mass is the quantity corresponding to that. Outside of relativistic effects and nuclear reactions, mass is conserved.

 

[Polymath257]

This is what I mean about materialists brandishing the pretense of science.

In contrast to energy and mass, matter is not a conserved quantity.

Matter is not perfectly conserved

The principle of matter conservation may be considered as an approximate physical law that is true only in the classical sense, without consideration of special relativity and quantum mechanics. It is approximately true except in certain high energy applications.

A particular difficulty with the idea of conservation of "matter" is that "matter" is not a well-defined word scientifically, and when particles that are considered to be "matter" (such as electrons and positrons) are annihilated to make photons (which are often not considered matter) then conservation of matter does not take place over time, even within isolated systems. However, matter is conserved to such an extent that matter conservation may be safely assumed in chemical reactions and all situations in which radioactivity and nuclear reactions are not involved.​

Conservation of mass - Wikipedia

So why are photons not considered to be matter?

This is actually one of the definitional questions. Are only fermions 'matter'? or do we include bosons? Certainly both types of particles exist and are 'material'. Certainly no materialist would claim bosons fail to exist. So, whether or not photons are 'matter', they are definitely *material*.

Can we at least agree on that?