The simplest explanation is best. --The case against the immortal soul--

[PolyHedral]

But mass is energy. Kinda. Or maybe only momentum is "mass". But a stationary object will bend spacetime, so I'm fairly sure that mass has something to do with it.

 

[Reptillian]

But mass is energy. Kinda. Or maybe only momentum is "mass". But a stationary object will bend spacetime, so I'm fairly sure that mass has something to do with it.

Mass does have something to do with it, since energy has mass. A lot of energy is associated with a little bit of mass. So a lot of mass is a LOT of energy-momentum, thats why large masses are associated with gravity in classical Newtonian physics.

 

[Reptillian]

no need for mass to influence geometry

I should be a little more careful about what I say. Mass does influence geometry to the extent that energy has mass, but the geometry is ultimately dependent on the energy-momentum distribution. Kind of a weird situation when you think about it...the energy-momentum distribution influences the geometry and the geometry tells the energy-momentum how to distribute. Sort of a chicken and the egg thing going on.

I guess my original point was that one can have an electric or magnetic field present in a region devoid of matter and still have it influence gravity. Electromagnetic fields are not matter, but have energy (and thus mass) associated with them.

 

[Meow Mix]

I guess my original point was that one can have an electric or magnetic field present in a region devoid of matter and still have it influence gravity. Electromagnetic fields are not matter, but have energy (and thus mass) associated with them.

Yeah I forgot to mention fields. I didn't mean to imply that energy was exclusively a property of matter; just that all matter has energy.

Either way energy never has independent ontological existence, it's always a property of something.

 

[Walkntune]

I do not study science but i am curious, why is it not possible that materialism is a product of energy.
Why is it not possible that at the beginning energy got caught in a state of resistance in itself and exploded causing a big bang and materialism being a result of different frequencies of energy locked within itself.When I see things corrode or die they seem to turn back into a form of energy, dissipation of heat etc....
Why can't all of existence not be in a sea of a form of energy that is unmeasurable(possibly the same that creates gravity).
Isn't it energy that is never created or destroyed.We know that materialism does corrode so why not assume everything began with energy.
Please answer in layman terms.

 

[Meow Mix]

I do not study science but i am curious, why is it not possible that materialism is a product of energy.
Why is it not possible that at the beginning energy got caught in a state of resistance in itself and exploded causing a big bang and materialism being a result of different frequencies of energy locked within itself.When I see things corrode or die they seem to turn back into a form of energy, dissipation of heat etc....
Why can't all of existence not be in a sea of a form of energy that is unmeasurable(possibly the same that creates gravity).
Isn't it energy that is never created or destroyed.We know that materialism does corrode so why not assume everything began with energy.
Please answer in layman terms.

Because energy just isn't an independently existing thing... it's defined as the capacity to perform work (which is to have a force acting over a distance, W = Fs where "s" is distance). Hopefully this makes it more clear why it simply isn't a thing which exists on its own.

Consider that a doorknob has a capacity to rotate. Can you imagine "capacity to rotate" existing without being a property of something?

Likewise, just substitute "capacity to perform work" for energy and maybe it will be immediately obvious that it's not something which can exist on its own, but only as a property of something else.

 

[LuisDantas]

Either way energy never has independent ontological existence, it's always a property of something.

Is it possible to know that for sure? If so, how or why?

Likewise, just substitute "capacity to perform work" for energy and maybe it will be immediately obvious that it's not something which can exist on its own, but only as a property of something else.

I don't really like to encourage unproven hypothesis, but all that I can see is that we have no way of detecting energy except by its effects over other things. It is conceivable that there may be forms of energy that we did not detect yet.

Too bad that such a possibility emboldens all kinds of nutjob ideas out there. Still, it seems to me to be very real.

 

[Meow Mix]

Is it possible to know that for sure? If so, how or why?

Yes, in the same way it's possible to be sure "length" never exists on its own -- because energy is a property in the exact same sense that length is a property. Both are capacities of something which possesses them to do something.

 

[fantome profane]

Consider that a doorknob has a capacity to rotate. Can you imagine "capacity to rotate" existing without being a property of something?

Would that be a Cheshire doorknob?

 

[Walkntune]

Because energy just isn't an independently existing thing... it's defined as the capacity to perform work (which is to have a force acting over a distance, W = Fs where "s" is distance). Hopefully this makes it more clear why it simply isn't a thing which exists on its own.

Consider that a doorknob has a capacity to rotate. Can you imagine "capacity to rotate" existing without being a property of something?

Likewise, just substitute "capacity to perform work" for energy and maybe it will be immediately obvious that it's not something which can exist on its own, but only as a property of something else.

I still believe the door knob itself to be a form of energy ,or moving particles in and of itself but I have to let the scientists fight out whether string theory is true or not.
I see reality as energy changing in and out of form especially observing that of life.
I am not a scientist though so this is just my own intuition which I think might make a good subject to discuss in and of itself.
So I can't imagine the door knob existing or materialism existing without the property of energy either.

 

[Meow Mix]

Would that be a Cheshire doorknob?

It's interesting that you say that: there's a lot of speculation that Lewis Caroll's Cheshire Cat was in response to the philosophy of mathematics that was developing at the time.

Mathematicians were starting to talk about "one" and "two" instead of "one apple" and "two apples."

Thus, Alice had surely seen a cat without a smile before but never a smile without a cat...

Incidentally, mathematical objects do have independent ontological existence as they aren't truly attributes of specific objects. "Length," "softness," "parity," "energy," "color" are, though. Such things will never exist except as properties of something else.

 

[fantome profane]

It's interesting that you say that: there's a lot of speculation that Lewis Caroll's Cheshire Cat was in response to the philosophy of mathematics that was developing at the time.

Mathematicians were starting to talk about "one" and "two" instead of "one apple" and "two apples."

Thus, Alice had surely seen a cat without a smile before but never a smile without a cat...

Incidentally, mathematical objects do have independent ontological existence as they aren't truly attributes of specific objects. "Length," "softness," "parity," "energy," "color" are, though. Such things will never exist except as properties of something else.

Yes I think I had heard that before, but had forgotten till you mentioned it. Still it is interesting that it must have been floating around somewhere in the miasma that is my brain. And while I am there have you ever heard of the book “Alice in Quantumland”? It is a cute little allegory of quantum physics, very basic but as I said, cute.


Alice in Quantumland: An Allegory of Quantum Physics: Amazon.ca: Robert Gilmore: Books

 

[Meow Mix]

Yes I think I had heard that before, but had forgotten till you mentioned it. Still it is interesting that it must have been floating around somewhere in the miasma that is my brain. And while I am there have you ever heard of the book “Alice in Quantumland”? It is a cute little allegory of quantum physics, very basic but as I said, cute.


Alice in Quantumland: An Allegory of Quantum Physics: Amazon.ca: Robert Gilmore: Books

Haha no I haven't, but it looks awesome! I <3 Alice and I <3 QM so why not?

Another cute gimmicky book is Flatterland by Ian Stewart -- it's a "sequel" to the original Flatland but deals with more topology than just extra spatial dimensions. If you dig that sorta thing check it out, I've read it and it's excellent.

 

[fantome profane]

Haha no I haven't, but it looks awesome! I <3 Alice and I <3 QM so why not?

Another cute gimmicky book is Flatterland by Ian Stewart -- it's a "sequel" to the original Flatland but deals with more topology than just extra spatial dimensions. If you dig that sorta thing check it out, I've read it and it's excellent.

I enjoyed flatland, so perhaps I will check out the sequel, thanks.

 

[Walkntune]

Is it possible to know that for sure? If so, how or why?



I don't really like to encourage unproven hypothesis, but all that I can see is that we have no way of detecting energy except by its effects over other things. It is conceivable that there may be forms of energy that we did not detect yet.

Too bad that such a possibility emboldens all kinds of nutjob ideas out there. Still, it seems to me to be very real.

I have always wondered this and even wondered if there is a form of energy that keeps planets and stars from colliding unless they fell out of alignment similar to free radicals in our body.
I have shared this before.

If the definition of space was the lack of force/matter. A void.

It is not logical to assume that just because A is between B and C, that A keeps B and C from colliding.
Especially when the definition of A (space) is the very lack of ability to interfere with B or C.
Here is part of a quote from Tesla and I tie in this particular force of creation with what makes more sense to me being as I don't study science.
crowning achievement?

Long ago he recognized that all perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, or a tenuity beyond conception, filling all space, the Akasha or luminiferous ether, which is acted upon by the life-giving Prana or Creative Force, calling into existence, in never ending cycles, all things and phenomena. The primary substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears, reverting to the primary substance. Nikola Tesla

So Einstein and Tesla both speak of a creative force in creation as you read the other quote I took from Einstein.

I pulled out some notes. "Once, in England, I was at dinner with people highly trained in meditation, among them Professor Suzuki who asked me to ask you if spiritual vibrations and electricity have the same original cause or force."
"I believe," Einstein answered, "that energy is the basic force in creation. My friend Bergson calls it élan vital, the Hindus call it prana."

I am curious to get someones point of view who study science what is this force in creation that these two great minds are speaking of.
I believe personally the reality has gotten lost in mathmatics(Tesla spoke of this) but because I know the intellect is not are only source for retrieving information but also through intuition which Einstein valued much.
It is fine to disagree but as one who has to put my faith in science as am not schooled though I have some basic ideas of what differing theories are out there I do value these two scientists a lot.

 

[Meow Mix]

I don't really like to encourage unproven hypothesis, but all that I can see is that we have no way of detecting energy except by its effects over other things. It is conceivable that there may be forms of energy that we did not detect yet.

Too bad that such a possibility emboldens all kinds of nutjob ideas out there. Still, it seems to me to be very real.

I must have responded before you added this portion.

The reason why we can't detect energy except by its effects over other things is because it's a property -- just like we can't detect length except through things which possess it, we can only detect energy through things which possess it.

There indeed may be forms of energy that we don't detect yet; after all dark energy wasn't empirically detected until recently and wasn't hinted at before Einstein. Regardless, energy is always a property of something else just like color is always a property of something else -- it isn't possible in principle to find it alone; it's not just that we haven't found it yet: it can't happen.

Of course, that's if we're talking about the same context of "energy" as we use in physics.

For instance we use the word "energy" to refer to someone who is very active. Though a person is indeed expending energy when they're active we use "energetic" in a different context there -- but it's not really saying that something exists; just describes a person's mood.

If there is some unknown thingy out there which exists ontologically independently and someone wants to call it "energy" then they can, but I think it would be a terrible idea due to the confusion that's obviously already inherent over the term "energy."

Energy -- as we use the term in physics, to describe such things as the flow of electrons or the chemoelectric properties that allow us to think or move our muscles or to move anything with any force over any distance -- is a property, and will never be found existing on its own any more than we'll find a lump of "red" or a lump of "softness" existing on its own.

 

[Meow Mix]

I have always wondered this and even wondered if there is a form of energy that keeps planets and stars from colliding unless they fell out of alignment similar to free radicals in our body.
I have shared this before.

If the definition of space was the lack of force/matter. A void.

Space isn't empty; it's teeming with quantum particles popping into and out of existence, fields, dust left over from supernovae and the Big Bang, and cosmic radiation left over from the Big Bang. Some small percentage of your old analog TV set (when it was analog, anyway) when it's snowy and receiving nothing but static is actually radiation from space left over from the Big Bang event.

Planets and stars do collide pretty frequently in the universe -- binary stars sometimes have unstable orbits and collide, a large body is thought to have struck Earth which separated Luna from it, etc.

Here is part of a quote from Tesla and I tie in this particular force of creation with what makes more sense to me being as I don't study science.
crowning achievement?

Was that a quote of Tesla's? Who is the "he" referred to in the quote? Or is it a quote about Tesla, from someone interpreting him?

So Einstein and Tesla both speak of a creative force in creation as you read the other quote I took from Einstein.

Einstein has long been known to be a Spinozan-esque pantheist. In any case, energy is indeed vitally important to the universe; but it doesn't seem that Einstein is saying that energy has independent ontological existence.

I am curious to get someones point of view who study science what is this force in creation that these two great minds are speaking of.
I believe personally the reality has gotten lost in mathmatics(Tesla spoke of this) but because I know the intellect is not are only source for retrieving information but also through intuition which Einstein valued much.
It is fine to disagree but as one who has to put my faith in science as am not schooled though I have some basic ideas of what differing theories are out there I do value these two scientists a lot.

Well I'm not a scientist yet, just a cosmology student for a while longer. However amongst scientists there is often a deficit of understanding of metaphysics. How good Tesla was at metaphysics I'm actually not sure because in his later years he began to believe and act very strange things; such as circling a building a certain number of times before entering it. That of course doesn't discredit his science (which was excellent) but it calls into at least some question any metaphysical statements he was making at the time as to how clearly he was thinking.

Einstein was an excellent metaphysicist. When Wigner, Bohm, von Neumann, and Wheeler were getting wrapped up in the idea that consciousness causes the collapse of a real wave-function, it was Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Bohr, and Einstein that understood those were terrible metaphysics and rejected it.

Einstein is reputed to have said, "Do you really believe the moon isn't there if you're not looking at it?"

He was also a staunch defender of restoring realism to quantum mechanics (hence his "God does not play dice with the universe..." comment), which is only just now starting to come to fruition in the 21st century. In more ways than one and in more fields than one he was far ahead of his time. I think you've chosen an excellent thinker in Einstein to gauge your thoughts on philosophy of science to.

Back to the original topic, Einstein was indeed a pantheist and believed that the universe "is" God; not a personal, creative god but it was just so powerfully wonderful to him that he equated it to what a theist calls God. I agree with Einstein insofar as the universe is so indescribably awesome (in the original sense of the word, not "awesome dude") that it can and should take our breath away... but calling it "god" is as silly to me as calling a pair of socks "god." Be that as it may, I think Einstein can afford to have a strange quirk after everything else that he's done.

I think his comments on energy, just like his comments on God, are just illustrating his deep and ferocious love of the majesty of the universe.

 

[Jeremiah]

Technically, only by doing this can we truly begin to imagine ourselves and the reality around us.

The reality I explore, I could never imagine.

I wrote something about this not too long ago.

To live in the mind, in a lie, a delusion, a fabrication, no matter how skillful the conceptual creation, is to live in world that will never parallel the richness, complexity or beauty of the real. No matter the collective brilliance, to be enamored into a world fabricated by the imagination, is to limit oneself to world of shadows, reflections and echos. A condemnation to a shade world, a distance echo of the real, a world forged by human imagination and due to this, bound by human imagination. A world which, no matter how compelling or awesome, will never compare to a real world full of detail, complexity and beauty that the human imagination could never fabricate.

 

[Walkntune]

Space isn't empty; it's teeming with quantum particles popping into and out of existence, fields, dust left over from supernovae and the Big Bang, and cosmic radiation left over from the Big Bang. Some small percentage of your old analog TV set (when it was analog, anyway) when it's snowy and receiving nothing but static is actually radiation from space left over from the Big Bang event.

Planets and stars do collide pretty frequently in the universe -- binary stars sometimes have unstable orbits and collide, a large body is thought to have struck Earth which separated Luna from it, etc.

I picture this as a bunch of objects being thrown in a room with no gravity and just distance keeping the objects from colliding.I can't make sense out of it.To me I can understand how free radicals in the body get out of alignment and collide and in my common understanding it seems to make more sense for the universe to operate the same.I don't see why there would be different patterns of behaviour between quantum structure of human beings or materialism we observe as there would be in all of the universe. In other words how do we really know that the same way that cells in our body keep from colliding the planets don't operate under the same principals.
Might sound like a dumb question but makes common sense.Can we measure the forces in between the cells in our body?

Was that a quote of Tesla's? Who is the "he" referred to in the quote? Or is it a quote about Tesla, from someone interpreting him?

Yes that was a tesla quote.
Here is the whole quote.

What has the future in store for this strange being, born of a breath, of perishable tissue, yet Immortal, with his powers fearful and Divine? What magic will be wrought by him in the end? What is to be his greatest deed, his crowning achievement?
Long ago he recognized that all perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, or a tenuity beyond conception, filling all space, the Akasha or luminiferous ether, which is acted upon by the life-giving Prana or Creative Force, calling into existence, in never ending cycles, all things and phenomena. The primary substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears, reverting to the primary substance.
Can man control this grandest, most awe-inspiring of all processes in nature? Can he harness her inexhaustible energies to perform all their functions at his bidding? more still cause them to operate simply by the force of his will?
If he could do this, he would have powers almost unlimited and supernatural. At his command, with but a slight effort on his part, old worlds would disappear and new ones of his planning would spring into being. He could fix, solidify and preserve the ethereal shapes of his imagining, the fleeting visions of his dreams. He could express all the creations of his mind on any scale, in forms concrete and imperishable. He could alter the size of this planet, control its seasons, guide it along any path he might choose through the depths of the Universe. He could cause planets to collide and produce his suns and stars, his heat and light. He could originate and develop life in all its infinite forms.

Here is another one

&#8220;But the female mind has demonstrated a capacity for all the mental acquirements and achievements of men, and as generations ensue that capacity will be expanded; the average woman will be as well educated as the average man, and then better educated., for the dormant faculties of her brain will be stimulated to an activity that will be all the more intense and powerful because of centuries of repose. Woman will ignore precedent and startle civilization with their progress.&#8221;

Now if you want to say Tesla is wrong well.....LOL Kidding

Einstein has long been known to be a Spinozan-esque pantheist. In any case, energy is indeed vitally important to the universe; but it doesn't seem that Einstein is saying that energy has independent ontological existence.

He is calling it the creative force that religions call prana.Not sure if you are familiar with the term but I am pretty sure Einstein understood this comparison.

Prana (&#2346;&#2381;&#2352;&#2366;&#2339;, pr&#257;&#7751;a) is the Sanskrit for "vital life" (from the root pr&#257; "to fill", cognate to Latin plenus "full"). It is one of the five organs of vitality or sensation, viz. prana "breath", vac "speech", caksus "sight", shrotra "hearing", and manas "thought" (nose, mouth, eyes, ears and mind; ChUp. 2.7.1).
In Vedantic philosophy, prana is the notion of a vital, life-sustaining force of living beings and vital energy, comparable to the Chinese notion of Qi. Prana is a central concept in Ayurveda and Yoga where it is believed to flow through a network of fine subtle channels called nadis. Its most subtle material form is the breath, but it is also to be found in the blood, and its most concentrated form is semen in men and vaginal fluid in women.[1] The Pranamaya-kosha is one of the five Koshas or "sheaths" of the Atman.
Prana was first expounded in the Upanishads, where it is part of the worldly, physical realm, sustaining the body and the mother of thought and thus also of the mind. Prana suffuses all living forms but is not itself the Atman or individual soul. In the Ayurveda, the Sun and sunshine are held to be a source of Prana.

Its interesting to me how scripture speaks of God breathing the breath of life into us and not eating the blood of animals for it is the life source of the animal.Although I don't take scriptures literal as I think it is interpretation of the times I find what might be considered coincidences pretty astonishing.

Well I'm not a scientist yet, just a cosmology student for a while longer. However amongst scientists there is often a deficit of understanding of metaphysics. How good Tesla was at metaphysics I'm actually not sure because in his later years he began to believe and act very strange things; such as circling a building a certain number of times before entering it. That of course doesn't discredit his science (which was excellent) but it calls into at least some question any metaphysical statements he was making at the time as to how clearly he was thinking.

Einstein was an excellent metaphysicist. When Wigner, Bohm, von Neumann, and Wheeler were getting wrapped up in the idea that consciousness causes the collapse of a real wave-function, it was Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Bohr, and Einstein that understood those were terrible metaphysics and rejected it.

Einstein is reputed to have said, "Do you really believe the moon isn't there if you're not looking at it?"

He was also a staunch defender of restoring realism to quantum mechanics (hence his "God does not play dice with the universe..." comment), which is only just now starting to come to fruition in the 21st century. In more ways than one and in more fields than one he was far ahead of his time. I think you've chosen an excellent thinker in Einstein to gauge your thoughts on philosophy of science to.

Back to the original topic, Einstein was indeed a pantheist and believed that the universe "is" God; not a personal, creative god but it was just so powerfully wonderful to him that he equated it to what a theist calls God. I agree with Einstein insofar as the universe is so indescribably awesome (in the original sense of the word, not "awesome dude") that it can and should take our breath away... but calling it "god" is as silly to me as calling a pair of socks "god." Be that as it may, I think Einstein can afford to have a strange quirk after everything else that he's done.

I think his comments on energy, just like his comments on God, are just illustrating his deep and ferocious love of the majesty of the universe.

[/quote]We either have to assume he meant his choice of words to reflect his meaning or assume his meaning despite his choice of words.

 

[Willamena]

To live in the mind, in a lie, a delusion, a fabrication, no matter how skillful the conceptual creation, is to live in world that will never parallel the richness, complexity or beauty of the real. No matter the collective brilliance, to be enamored into a world fabricated by the imagination, is to limit oneself to world of shadows, reflections and echos. A condemnation to a shade world, a distance echo of the real, a world forged by human imagination and due to this, bound by human imagination. A world which, no matter how compelling or awesome, will never compare to a real world full of detail, complexity and beauty that the human imagination could never fabricate.

And that's all well and good. Power to you.

I don't know why imagination has to be so maligned, though. Do you?