Materialism has officially become dangerous in my eyes.

[Nous]

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.

But your P2 isn't true. Energy is associated with photons (for instance), yet photons are not objects that have mass and volume.

 

[Polymath257]

But your P2 isn't true. Energy is associated with photons (for instance), yet photons are not objects that have mass and volume.

And, like I said previously, I consider all fermions and bosons to be 'matter'. So, yes, by this definition, photons are 'matter'. The definition in terms of mass and volume is outdated in the extreme and fails for most subatomic particles.

 

[Nous]

And, like I said previously, I consider all fermions and bosons to be 'matter'.

Photons (and gluons?) are not objects that have mass and volume. Obviously your only argument that energy "is reducible" to matter requires a perverted (and apparently vacuous) definition of "matter".

Other than that, your argument requires a perverted concept of "is reducible to," where you mean the quantities are equivalent. E=mc2 doesn't say or imply that E is reducible to mass; it says that the two quantities on either side of the equals sign are equivalent. Obviously the quantities E and mass remain 2 distinct quantities; neither "is reducible to" the other.

Moreover, your argument, even if it were sound, doesn't help you to argue for the thesis of materialism. Your conclusion doesn't lead to any fact about the nature of everything that exists. It doesn't even lead to any fact that accounts for the nature of well established phenomena, namely the correlations that violate the Bell and Leggett-Garg inequalities.

 

[Polymath257]

Photons (and gluons?) are not objects that have mass and volume. Obviously your only argument that energy "is reducible" to matter requires a perverted (and apparently vacuous) definition of "matter".

Well, the modern thesis of materialism allows for fermions and bosons as components of 'matter'. Sorry if that offends you, but it certainly isn't a vacuous proposition to claim that everything in the universe reduces to the motions of fermions and bosons.

Other than that, your argument requires a perverted concept of "is reducible to," where you mean the quantities are equivalent. E=mc2 doesn't say or imply that E is reducible to mass; it says that the two quantities on either side of the equals sign are equivalent. Obviously the quantities E and mass remain 2 distinct quantities; neither "is reducible to" the other.

Well, the whole point is that knowing the motion of the matter is enough to determine things like energy and momentum. THAT is the relevant sense of 'reduction' being used here.

Moreover, your argument, even if it were sound, doesn't help you to argue for the thesis of materialism. Your conclusion doesn't lead to any fact about the nature of everything that exists. It doesn't even lead to any fact that accounts for the nature of well established phenomena, namely the correlations that violate the Bell and Leggett-Garg inequalities.

Well, this alone certainly doesn't, but quantum mechanics, which is a physical/materialist description, *is* enough to explain such correlations.

 

[Nous]

Well, the modern thesis of materialism allows for fermions and bosons as components of 'matter'.

There is no rational jusitification for perverting the definition of "matter" merely in order to try to salvage the discredited metaphysical thesis of materialism.

All the everyday objects that we can bump into, touch or squeeze are ultimately composed of atoms. This ordinary atomic matter is in turn made up of interacting subatomic particles--usually a nucleus of protons and neutrons, and a cloud of orbiting electrons.[3][4] Typically, science considers these composite particles matter because they have both rest mass and volume. By contrast, massless particles, such as photons, are not considered matter, because they have neither rest mass nor volume​

Matter - Wikipedia

Again, even if your argument were sound, it doesn't help you to argue that energy is actually reducible to matter: energy is a quantity that is equivalent to, not reducible to, a quantity of mass. The concept of energy is not subsumed by matter. Energy remains a conserved quantity, while matter is not.

And, again, even if your argument were sound, it doesn't help you to argue for materialism, as your argument doesn't deduce the nature of everything that exists, and doesn't even provide an account for known phenomena being an effect of matter.

 

[Polymath257]

There is no rational jusitification for perverting the definition of "matter" merely in order to try to salvage the discredited metaphysical thesis of materialism.

All the everyday objects that we can bump into, touch or squeeze are ultimately composed of atoms. This ordinary atomic matter is in turn made up of interacting subatomic particles--usually a nucleus of protons and neutrons, and a cloud of orbiting electrons.[3][4] Typically, science considers these composite particles matter because they have both rest mass and volume. By contrast, massless particles, such as photons, are not considered matter, because they have neither rest mass nor volume​

Matter - Wikipedia

Again, even if your argument were sound, it doesn't help you to argue that energy is actually reducible to matter: energy is a quantity that is equivalent to, not reducible to, a quantity of mass. The concept of energy is not subsumed by matter. Energy remains a conserved quantity, while matter is not.

And, again, even if your argument were sound, it doesn't help you to argue for materialism, as your argument doesn't deduce the nature of everything that exists, and doesn't even provide an account for known phenomena being an effect of matter.

Once again, energy isn't the same as mass. We agree on that. But energy *is* determined by the position and movement of fermions and bosons. It isn't an independent thing. It is a derived quantity, like momentum or angular momentum.

The thesis of materialism is that everything supervenes on the 'material', which includes fermions and bosons.

 

[Nous]

Once again, energy isn't the same as mass. We agree on that. But energy *is* determined by the position and movement of fermions and bosons. It isn't an independent thing. It is a derived quantity, like momentum or angular momentum.

The thesis of materialism is that everything supervenes on the 'material', which includes fermions and bosons.

So you cannot argue that there is any rational jusitification for perverting the definition of "matter" merely in order to try to salvage the discredited metaphysical thesis of materialism.

And you cannot argue that the concept of energy is dispensable, i.e., that it is anything other than a quantity that is equivalent to, not reducible to, a quantity of mass. Regardless of how much you pervert the meaning of the phrase "is reducible to," the fact is that energy remains a conserved quantity, while matter is not.

And you cannot state any argument that deduces that materialism is true. You cannot deduce from any fact or set of facts the nature of everything that exists, and you cannot deduce that even all known phenomena are merely the effect of matter.

We agree on all that. Right?

 

[Polymath257]

So you cannot argue that there is any rational jusitification for perverting the definition of "matter" merely in order to try to salvage the discredited metaphysical thesis of materialism.

Sure I can. Bosons (gluons) are an integral part of the protons and neutrons that make up the nuclei of atoms. As such, they should be included in the definition of matter. Once you allow one boson in, there is no good reason to disallow the others.

And you cannot argue that the concept of energy is dispensable, i.e., that it is anything other than a quantity that is equivalent to, not reducible to, a quantity of mass. Regardless of how much you pervert the meaning of the phrase "is reducible to," the fact is that energy remains a conserved quantity, while matter is not.

The point of 'reducing to' is ultimately supervenience. And yes, energy supervenes on fermions and bosons.

And you cannot state any argument that deduces that materialism is true. You cannot deduce from any fact or set of facts the nature of everything that exists, and you cannot deduce that even all known phenomena are merely the effect of matter.

We agree on all that. Right?

I know of no phenomenon that doesn't reduce to matter *and its motion*.

 

[Nous]

Sure I can.

Obviously you haven't been able to state any rational justification for classifying objects that do not have mass or volume as "matter".

Obviously you haven't been able to state any argument that energy is dispensable in physics, subsumable or reducible to the concept of "matter".

Obviously you haven't been able to state any argument that the violations of Bell and Legget-Garg inequalities are due to the motions of matter.

And obviously you haven't been able to state any argument that concludes that the thesis of materialism is true.

 

[Polymath257]

Obviously you haven't been able to state any rational justification for classifying objects that do not have mass or volume as "matter".

Yes, I have: the fact that both fermions and bosons are crucial for the description of how atoms function: the composition of matter should again be matter. You have given no good reason to think that bosons are NOT matter (especially since even fermionic matter can act like bosons).

The 'volume' aspect of matter is a result of the Pauli exclusion principle, which is a characteristic of fermions.

Obviously you haven't been able to state any argument that energy is dispensable in physics, subsumable or reducible to the concept of "matter".

Once again, it reduces to the motion of matter: of fermions and bosons.

Obviously you haven't been able to state any argument that the violations of Bell and Legget-Garg inequalities are due to the motions of matter.

Huh? The violations *are* the fact that matter doesn't act the way we would expect classically. They are *fully* based on the motions of matter.

And obviously you haven't been able to state any argument that concludes that the thesis of materialism is true.

And you have failed to give an example of anything that isn't supervenient on the 'material': meaning both fermions and bosons.

Now, sure, if you want to *arbitrarily* exclude bosons from being 'material', then your thesis follows: bosons are examples of non-material things.

But, if we include both fermions and bosons in the definition of 'material' (your definition of 'matter' is recognized as outdated and useless in subatomic physics), then yes, energy is a *derived* quantity from the motion of material things.

 

[Nous]

Yes, I have: the fact that both fermions and bosons are crucial for the description of how atoms function: the composition of matter should again be matter.

No, you haven't stated any rational justification for claiming that objects that do not have mass or volume are "matter". What you are "arguing" is nonsense. Human bodies contain hormones; that does not mean that humans are hormones or hormones are humans.

You have not stated any sound argument that energy is dispensable or reducible to matter. It isn't. Energy is a conserved quantity; matter is not.

My assertions here are premised on facts, not on metaphysical allegiance.

Matter is anything that has mass and takes up space.

Energy is the capacity to cause change. Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be conserved and converted from one form to another.​

Matter: Definition & the Five States of Matter

(in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, especially as distinct from energy:
​

matter - definition of matter in English | Oxford Dictionaries

2 b : material substance that occupies space, has mass, and is composed predominantly of atoms consisting of protons, neutrons, and electrons, that constitutes the observable universe, and that is interconvertible with energy​

Definition of MATTER

Matter can be identified by its characteristic inertial and gravitational mass and the space that it occupies.​

Classification of Matter

There are many possible definitions for matter. In science, matter is the term for any type of material. Matter is anything that has mass and takes up space.

EXAMPLES OF MATTER

Proton

Atoms (e.g., a helium atom)

Molecules (e.g., water, sugar)
Compounds (e.g., table salt, silicon dioxide)

Cat

Tree

House

Computer

EXAMPLES THAT ARE NOT MATTER

Not everything we can perceive consists of matter. Examples of things that aren't matter include:

Photons (light)
​

What Is the Definition of Matter?

Matter is anything that has mass and occupies space.​

Chemistry Is Everywhere - American Chemical Society

All particles fall into one of two classes, bosons or fermions. Two bosons with identical properties can be in the same place at the same time, but two fermions cannot.

There are two kinds of elementary particles in the universe: bosons and fermions. Bosons don’t mind sitting on top of each other, sharing the same space. In principle, you could pile an infinite number of bosons into the tiniest bucket. Fermions, on the other hand, don’t share space: only a limited number of fermions would fit into the bucket.

Matter, as you might guess, is made of fermions, which stack to form three-dimensional structures. The force fields that bind fermions to each other are made of bosons. Bosons are the glue holding matter together.​

Bosons

Article by Sean Carroll, who "is a theoretical physicist and author of the new book The Particle at the End of the Universe: How the Hunt for the Higgs Boson Leads Us to the Edge of a New World."

Be sure to cite your sources to substantiate your claims.

And again, even if your argument were sound, you still cannot deduce that the thesis of materialism is true. You cannot deduce from any fact or set of facts the nature of everything that exists, nor even that all known phenomena are merely the effect of motions of matter.

 

[JustWondering]

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

Decades of research show beyond any shadow of a doubt that our consciousness is generated by the brain and what parts of the brain are responsible for what. Of course, since you seem to be a close minded science denier I'm wasting my breath here.

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.

I never said determinism negates thought and choice, just that our thoughts and choices are bound to run a predetermined course.

Prove it.

I am incapable of proving it, which you know. However, unless you can prove that intelligence doesn't originate from the physical aspects of the brain, it's only a matter of time until science replicates and then surpasses human intelligence with AI.

 

[Mister Silver]

I realized when I was younger that materialism was not beneficial to me personally. I own very little in the way of anything.

I look at theists who hoard wealth through monetary and materialistic gains, wondering how they can possibly reconcile their lifestyles with Jesus' teachings. It is one of the many theistic hypocrisies that make me shrug my shoulders when they judge me as a heathen sinner.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

realized when I was younger that materialism was not beneficial to me personally. I own very little in the way of anything.

You can believe in material-only without being a hoarder.

 

[Nous]

Decades of research show beyond any shadow of a doubt that our consciousness is generated by the brain

Cite it.

I never said determinism negates thought and choice, just that our thoughts and choices are bound to run a predetermined course.

Obviously you haven't explained how a person is able to choose in a world where the thesis of determinism is true. Determinism does not entail more than one possible future.

I am incapable of proving it, which you know.

Yes, you shouldn't make assertions that you can't demonstrate are true. Your posts are full of statements that have no basis in reality.

 

[Nous]

You can believe in material-only without being a hoarder.

But you obviously can't "believe in material-only" without being anti-science.

 

[JustWondering]

Cite it.

I'm not going to bother looking up and posting things you are not going to even look at. You have access to the internet, if you were truly interested in how the human brain works you could look it up for yourself. However, you won't do that, science and rational thought interferes with your mystical way of thinking.

Obviously you haven't explained how a person is able to choose in a world where the thesis of determinism is true. Determinism does not entail more than one possible future.

Making a choice is a process, that takes place in the brain, according to the various laws of how things work in our universe. If you want to refuse the obvious then have fun being a science denier, hope it works out for you.

Yes, you shouldn't make assertions that you can't demonstrate are true. Your posts are full of statements that have no basis in reality.

I still have a greater grasp of reality than you, and I am also more intellectually honest than you.

 

[Nous]

I'm not going to bother looking up and posting things you are not going to even look at. You have access to the internet, if you were truly interested in how the human brain works you could look it up for yourself. However, you won't do that, science and rational thought interferes with your mystical way of thinking.



Making a choice is a process, that takes place in the brain, according to the various laws of how things work in our universe. If you want to refuse the obvious then have fun being a science denier, hope it works out for you.



I still have a greater grasp of reality than you, and I am also more intellectually honest than you.

Your claims here are utter nonsense. That's why you can't substantiate any of them to be true.

 

[Nous]

This thread seems to well demonstrate that the thesis that nothing exists but objects that have mass and volume (i.e., "matter") is indefensible. Hopefully people will soon outgrown the need to espouse a metaphysical thesis that they can't defend.