Materialism has officially become dangerous in my eyes.

[Nous]

Yes, mass and energy are properties in the material world

Energy and mass are conserved quantities; matter is not. Therefore energy and mass are not mere "properties" of matter, like the color of an object that no longer exists when the object no longer exists. If energy and mass were mere properties of matter, then they wouldn't be conserved quantities when matter is not.

If materialists had no problem with energy before that why would they have them now?

I have never claimed that self-avowed materialists are consistent in their claims, either consistent with the scientific facts or self-consistent.

 

[Polymath257]

Energy and mass are conserved quantities; matter is not. Therefore energy and mass are not mere "properties" of matter, like the color of an object that no longer exists when the object no longer exists. If energy and mass were mere properties of matter, then they wouldn't be conserved quantities when matter is not.

Matter isn't a quantity that *could* be conserved. The corresponding quantity is mass.

I have never claimed that self-avowed materialists are consistent in their claims, either consistent with the scientific facts or self-consistent.

Energy is a property of the motion of matter (allowing for both fermions and bosons).

You really should go take a physics class.

 

[Nous]

Matter isn't a quantity that *could* be conserved.

Wow. Just wow. You come up new ideas all the time. How many claims have you made on this thread that you haven't been able to defend?

You are apprently saying that all this is nonsense:

Matter is not perfectly conserved[edit]

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.

Even when matter is not conserved, the collection of mass and energy within the system are conserved.
​

Conservation of mass - Wikipedia

The idea of the conservation of matter is not something that someone made up out of the blue. It was measured weighed back in the 18th century. But we know now that mass is not weight.

You never were able to state an argument that concludes that any definition of materialism (or naturalism) is true. Right? So what is supposed to be your point now?

 

[Polymath257]

Wow. Just wow. You come up new ideas all the time. How many claims have you made on this thread that you haven't been able to defend?

You are apprently saying that all this is nonsense:

Matter is not perfectly conserved[edit]

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.

Even when matter is not conserved, the collection of mass and energy within the system are conserved.
​

Conservation of mass - Wikipedia

The idea of the conservation of matter is not something that someone made up out of the blue. It was measured weighed back in the 18th century. But we know now that mass is not weight.

You never were able to state an argument that concludes that any definition of materialism (or naturalism) is true. Right? So what is supposed to be your point now?

OK, let's go through this slowly so you can get it, maybe.

Electrons and positrons are matter (specifically, they are fermions). They both have mass. Good so far?

Now, suppose you have an electron and a positron, both at rest, and separated by some distance. What is the energy of such a situation? Well, there is the potential energy because of their charge. If they are farther apart, that energy is increased. Since they are at rest, they do not have kinetic energy. Finally, there is the energy associated with the mass via E=mc^2.

Now, let them move freely. The potential energy is converted into kinetic energy as the particles speed up and approach each other. The mass stays the same (rest mass).

When they get close enough, they will annihilate and produce 2 or 3 photons. Those photons have energy (kinetic energy); the kinetic and mass energies of the electron and postitron were converted into kinetic energy of the photons.

So, a couple of comments.
1. I consider, for purposes of defining materialism, that photons are 'matter'. More generally, anything that is either a fermion or boson is 'matter'.

So, in this reaction, the matter in the electrona nd positron was converted into the matter of the photons.

2. The photons have no rest mass. So rest mass is NOT conserved.

3. Energy is conserved, but only if you consider the mass of the electron and positron to contribute to the calculation of 'energy'.

4. In all cases, the energy of the system is determined by the placement and motion of the matter involved. Originally, it was the electron and positron and at the end it was the motion of the photons.

 

[Nous]

OK, let's go through this slowly so you can get it, maybe.

Electrons and positrons are matter (specifically, they are fermions). They both have mass. Good so far?

Now, suppose you have an electron and a positron, both at rest, and separated by some distance. What is the energy of such a situation? Well, there is the potential energy because of their charge. If they are farther apart, that energy is increased. Since they are at rest, they do not have kinetic energy. Finally, there is the energy associated with the mass via E=mc^2.

Now, let them move freely. The potential energy is converted into kinetic energy as the particles speed up and approach each other. The mass stays the same (rest mass).

When they get close enough, they will annihilate and produce 2 or 3 photons. Those photons have energy (kinetic energy); the kinetic and mass energies of the electron and postitron were converted into kinetic energy of the photons.

So, a couple of comments.
1. I consider, for purposes of defining materialism, that photons are 'matter'. More generally, anything that is either a fermion or boson is 'matter'.

So, in this reaction, the matter in the electrona nd positron was converted into the matter of the photons.

2. The photons have no rest mass. So rest mass is NOT conserved.

3. Energy is conserved, but only if you consider the mass of the electron and positron to contribute to the calculation of 'energy'.

4. In all cases, the energy of the system is determined by the placement and motion of the matter involved. Originally, it was the electron and positron and at the end it was the motion of the photons.

So hopefully you agree that "energy" and "matter" are not merely two words denoting the same "things".

 

[Polymath257]

So hopefully you agree that "energy" and "matter" are not merely two words denoting the same "things".

No, for example, when matter moves, it has kinetic energy. The faster it moves (in any reference frame), the more kinetic energy (and more total energy) it has.

This is another important thing, though. Two different observers may not agree to how much energy there is in any given system. The energy amount depends on the reference frame.

But the amount of energy is determined by the motion and placement of the matter.

 

[Nous]

No

then let's see your argument that energy is reducible to matter. Be sure to explain how, if that were the case, energy is a conserved quantity, but matter is not.

 

[Polymath257]

then let's see your argument that energy is reducible to matter. Be sure to explain how, if that were the case, energy is a conserved quantity, but matter is not.

I went through a specific example above.

 

[Nous]

I went through a specific example above.

I haven't seen any argument by which to conclude that energy reduces to matter. We know for a fact that the energy of the universe was not created within the closed system of the universe.

This is how to make an argument--fill in the blanks:

P1: [. . . ]
P2: [. . . ]
C: Therefore [. . . ]

 

[Polymath257]

I haven't seen any argument by which to conclude that energy reduces to matter. We know for a fact that the energy of the universe was not created within the closed system of the universe.

This is how to make an argument--fill in the blanks:

P1: [. . . ]
P2: [. . . ]
C: Therefore [. . . ]

What are the types of energy?

Kinetic energy: reducible to the motion of matter.
Potential energy: reducible to the position and motion of matter.
Heat energy: reducible to the motion of matter.
Chemical energy: reducible to the motion of matter.
Nuclear energy: reducible to the motion of matter.
Electrical energy: reducible to the motion of matter
Mechanical energy (usually the same as kinetic and potential): reducible to the motion of matter
Gravitational energy (a type of potential energy): reducible to the position and motion of matter
Sound energy: reducible to the motion of matter.
Radiant energy: reducible to the motion of photons, and hence of matter.

Any others you want to bring up?

In fact, we can go farther: all types of energy reduce down to kinetic energy (energy of motion of matter) or potential energy (energy from placement of matter). The others are all examples of these two types.

 

[Nous]

In fact, we can go farther: all types of energy reduce down to kinetic energy (energy of motion of matter) or potential energy (energy from placement of matter). The others are all examples of these two types.

Yes, that's what I was going to say.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, that's what I was going to say.

And since both kinetic and potential energy are reducible to the motion and placement of matter, you finally agree that energy isn't a problem for materialists?

 

[Nous]

both kinetic and potential energy are reducible to the motion and placement of matter

If you become able to deduce that proposition from any fact(s), please show your deduction. Hopefully at some point your argument will include an explanation of how it is that energy is a conserved quantity, but matter is not.

 

[Polymath257]

If you become able to deduce that proposition from any fact(s), please show your deduction. Hopefully at some point your argument will include an explanation of how it is that energy is a conserved quantity, but matter is not.

I already showed that above: all forms of energy are either kinetic (which is the energy of motion of matter) or potential (which is the energy of position of matter).

Energy is conserved because it is the time component of the energy-momentum 4-vector, which is conserved in every interaction.
Matter is not conserved because there are interactions that change the amount of matter, but still keep the same energy (see example above).

 

[Nous]

I already showed that above

If you have an actual argument that energy is reducible to matter, you would be able to fill in these blanks:

P1: [. . .]
P2: [. . .]
C: Therefore [. . . ].

You can't quote any scholarly literature claiming that energy is reducible to matter, can you?

Energy is conserved because it is the time component of the energy-momentum 4-vector, which is conserved in every interaction.
Matter is not conserved because there are interactions that change the amount of matter, but still keep the same energy (see example above).

You've merely restated the facts that energy is a conserved quantity and the motion and relative positions of objects that have mass and volume are not. Those facts only lead to the conclusion that the quantity of energy, which remains constant regardless of the phenomenal changes that objects that have mass and volume undergo, is therefore not reducible to those objects that have mass and volume.

 

[JustWondering]

I think any "goals" a machine might be said to "have" are those it has been programmed to have. I know of no reason to believe that any known sort of machine or any kind of machine that I can imagine has or can have conscious experience or free will--which I would say are the two most defining aspects of the concept of "mind".

Humans are "programmed" for self preservation. How many of your decisions/actions are driven by instinct instead of conscious "freewill"? Furthermore, reality is not constrained by your lack of imagination. Machines with self awareness and intelligence comparable to humans will exist some day.

 

[Nous]

Humans are "programmed" for self preservation.

As noted, machine structure programming can be detected. Programming isn't something that is invisible or mysterious. Where is the programming "for self preservation" in humans?

How many of your decisions/actions are driven by instinct instead of conscious "freewill"?

You'll need to define "driven by instinct". I know of no reason that I should have acquired any "instinct" that compelled me to write and post this message (for instance). I could have chosen to not write and post it, or I could have chosen to write and post something else. I can prove that I can foretell my voluntary acts; I cannot foretell my involuntary bodily movements such as a muscle cramp or spasm.

Machines with self awareness and intelligence comparable to humans will exist some day.

Prove your claim.

 

[JustWondering]

As noted, machine structure programming can be detected. Programming isn't something that is invisible or mysterious. Where is the programming "for self preservation" in humans?

You'll need to define "driven by instinct". I know of no reason that I should have acquired any "instinct" that compelled me to write and post this message (for instance). I could have chosen to not write and post it, or I could have chosen to write and post something else. I can prove that I can foretell my voluntary acts; I cannot foretell my involuntary bodily movements such as a muscle cramp or spasm.

Do you choose to get hungry? Do you choose what tastes good and bad to you? Do you choose to want to mate? Do you choose who appears appealing to you as a potential mate? Humans are also wired to be social creatures. Why is it that facial expressions across EVERY human culture are the same? Facial expressions are an instinctive form of communication.

Prove your claim.

You'll have to be patient. It will happen eventually.

 

[Polymath257]

If you have an actual argument that energy is reducible to matter, you would be able to fill in these blanks:

P1: [. . .]
P2: [. . .]
C: Therefore [. . . ].

You can't quote any scholarly literature claiming that energy is reducible to matter, can you?

You've merely restated the facts that energy is a conserved quantity and the motion and relative positions of objects that have mass and volume are not. Those facts only lead to the conclusion that the quantity of energy, which remains constant regardless of the phenomenal changes that objects that have mass and volume undergo, is therefore not reducible to those objects that have mass and volume.

P1: All types of energy are reducible to either kinetic or potential energy.
P2: Kinetic and potential energy are reducible to the motion (kinetic) and placement (potential) of matter.
C: All energy is reducible to the motion and placement of matter.

 

[Nous]

I will ask again: Where is the programming "for self preservation" and the innumerable acts that individuals perform during their lifetimes?

Do you choose to get hungry?

I choose to perform my voluntary bodily movements: I choose to eat (or not eat), and I choose what to eat. I choose to post (or not post) messages on this board, and I choose the content of those posts. If you are unable to choose the content of your posts, to choose to write true statements rather than false ones, then there is no rational reason to believe that your posts have any value whatsoever--they're just noise that you cannot avoid emitting.

You'll have to be patient. It will happen eventually.

Prove it.