The Watchmaker Revisited

[exchemist]

IOW, it is a 'field of energy', such as the Higgs Field.

But you are saying that the following is not true?

"The Higgs field is a field of energy that is thought to exist in every region of the universe."

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_field

Before the Big Bang, there was no 'physical system'. The physical system of The Universe came into existence at the moment of inception of the BB. And yet, a tremendous amount of energy was involved in the BB. What was the source of this energy? You say it is a property of a physical system. I see the physical system as a function of energy.

Hmmmm....a 'disturbance' is not energy?

If energy is a property of the field, as you claim, then what is the nature of the field itself?

Well, touché, I have to say that statement you quote took me by surprise! As I've said, I'm far from knowledgeable about the Higgs field, but I am very suspicious of the statement, which I see comes not from the normal Wiki but the "Simple English" version. My guess is something has indeed got lost in the simplification.

There is a more detailed (but still non-mathematical) description of the Higgs field by Prof Matt Srassler (who I find very good on such things) here: https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/the-higgs-particle/the-higgs-faq-2-0/

You may notice he writes for several pages without ever saying it is a field "of energy". Indeed, he is at pains to say how little we understand of what it "is", save that it has to be there for the Standard model equations to come out right. But I see elsewhere that it, i.e. the field, is thought to have an equilibrium value measured in GeV, which are indeed energy units! I continue to maintain energy is a property of an entity, rather than an entity in itself, but I will have to read more about the Higgs field before I can resolve the issue in that particular case. So thanks for drawing this mystery to my attention - something to learn here evidently.

Polymath has echoed my sentiments regarding the energy of a wave. To say you "see" physical systems as "functions" of energy is an unscientific perspective. For instance how is electric charge a function of energy?

 

[exchemist]

Without energy, where is the wave?

Without frequency, or amplitude, or speed and direction of propagation, where is it? Waves have a number of properties necessary for them to be waves. Energy is one of them.

You don't create a wave just by putting energy into it - you could do that in any number of ways, most of which would not produce a wave. To make a wave, you have to displace the medium from its equilibrium value. That is the most fundamental thing required. To do that energy is transferred into the medium, sure, as you have to do work against the tendency of the medium to return to its equilibrium value. But the displacement is the crucial feature that sets up a wave, as opposed to some other effect.

 

[Polymath257]

There is no way to prove that. Moon (or any whatsoever object, including mental thoughts) are objects in waking awareness. There are dream state objects too, which seem to have objective existence in dream.

No, the moon is not just an object of our awareness. We can take pictures of it while not ourselves looking at it. You can't do that with dream objects. Nor are dreams shared by people.

 

[Polymath257]

Hmmmm....a 'disturbance' is not energy?

No. A disturbance is a change. It does not gave to be a change in energy.

If energy is a property of the field, as you claim, then what is the nature of the field itself?

Depends on the specific field: electron, photon, gluon, quark, etc. All are different types of fields with different properties.

 

[atanu]

No, the moon is not just an object of our awareness. We can take pictures of it while not ourselves looking at it. You can't do that with dream objects. Nor are dreams shared by people.

No experience is separate from awareness. There is actually no way to prove that there is any shared experience, since one cannot prove existence of another, separate from the awareness.

 

[exchemist]

No experience is separate from awareness. There is actually no way to prove that there is any shared experience, since one cannot prove existence of another, separate from the awareness.

You have failed to explain how we can get of the moon, taken when we are not looking at it. Do you want to try to address this, or just continue making assertions?

 

[godnotgod]

The wave *has* energy..

I disagree: waves do not exist without energy; energy does not exist without waves. They are one and the same phenomena.

 

[exchemist]

I disagree: waves do not exist without energy; energy does not exist without waves. They are one and the same phenomena.

That is simply wrong. Energy most certainly exists without waves: gravitational energy and kinetic energy, to give two simple examples.

 

[godnotgod]

A mind is a certain type of complex physical process as seen inside of human skulls. I don't see it as a 'point' of distinction any more than I see a running car as separate from 'matter'.

Perhaps its better to use the term 'process' instead of 'program'. A process is a running program. It is a physical sequence of events. Consciousness is a certain type of process that matter can undergo. It tends to be limited to biological systems with brains. But perhaps we will eventually create artificial consciousness based on silicon.

'Mind' must have a corresponding object in order to process information. But it is mind itself which sets up the conceptual framework of the subject/object split, which does not originally exist. IOW, originally, there is no distinction or separation between mind and object, such distinction being purely a function of mind. If you fail to see a point of distinction between the two, then mind and its corresponding object do not exist in reality. 'I' does not even exist, and so there is only a singular and seamless experience.

A process still involves the hardware and the software, which work together as a single reality. The one without the other fail to create a process.

 

[godnotgod]

That is simply wrong. Energy most certainly exists without waves: gravitational energy and kinetic energy, to give two simple examples.

How do you detect the presence of such energies?

 

[exchemist]

How do you detect the presence of such energies?

By enabling them to do work, or by calculating the work they could do.

That is the simple definition of energy: the capacity to do work. "Work", in its physics sense, means applying a force through a distance: F x d = W (=E).

For example if you lift a mass of 1kg a vertical distance of 2 metres, you have to apply a force equal to its weight (about 9.8 Newtons) through 2m, which requires you to do 9.8 x 2 = 19.6 Joules of work on it. A joule is a unit of energy or work.

So, now that you have lifted your mass, you have given it an extra 19.6J of gravitational energy which, if you now let it fall back down, it can give up to drive a dynamo and light a bulb for a bit or charge a battery, thus converting the energy into other forms (heat and chemical energy respectively).

 

[godnotgod]

Finally if "how that which is of a material nature becomes conscious" is a hard question, I find the counter question even harder.
Cheers

Unless 'material nature' is not really 'material'.

We determine such materiality via perceptual tools and their extensions. That, we call 'reality'.

When you are asleep, dreaming, the dream world is real to you, until awakening occurs.

Likewise, when awakening occurs to the next higher level of consciousness, that of Self-Transcendence, we see clearly that the perceptual world of 'reality' is also an illusion, except that it is an illusion of a much higher caliber. For one thing, it does not vanish upon awakening as imagery in dream-sleep does, further confirming its 'real' nature. So what we call 'material reality' is in reality a manifestation, rather than a creation, of higher consciousness, softening the 'hard problem'.

 

[godnotgod]

By enabling them to do work, or by calculating the work they could do.

That is the simple definition of energy: the capacity to do work. "Work", in its physics sense, means applying a force through a distance: F x d = W (=E).

For example if you lift a mass of 1kg a vertical distance of 2 metres, you have to apply a force equal to its weight (about 9.8 Newtons) through 2m, which requires you to do 9.8 x 2 = 19.6 Joules of work on it. A joule is a unit of energy or work.

So, now that you have lifted your mass, you have given it an extra 19.6J of gravitational energy which, if you now let it fall back down, it can give up to drive a dynamo and light a bulb for a bit or charge a battery, thus converting the energy into other forms (heat and chemical energy respectively).

The actual work that they do create waves, which can be detected and measured.

 

[exchemist]

The actual work that they do create waves, which can be detected and measured.

Explain to me how lifting a mass creates waves, then.

Waves in what? What is displaced, in what medium? In what direction do these waves travel? What is their speed and wavelength?

Its nonsense, isn't it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Explain to me how lifting a mass creates waves, then.

Waves in what? What is displaced, in what medium? In what direction do these waves travel? What is their speed and wavelength?

Its nonsense, isn't it?

I sense a disturbance in the Force.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't see why you bring "consciousness" into this. It seems to me that consciousness is the activity of a living brain, that's all. I see no reason to treat "consciousness" as a thing, an entity, when it refers to an activity of a physical structure. That is making a category error, in my view.

It is not accurate to say that QM treats matter as "standing waves of energy". It treats matter as having both a particle-like aspect and a wave-like aspect. That is rather different.
.

I am saying that the brain, and all material reality, is a function of consciousness.

No, consciousness is not a thing or an entity; it is a state.

I was suggesting that the 'particle-like' aspect is in reality a standing wave. IOW, all 'material' reality is energy, acting as if it is material. The 'particle-like' aspect is not permanent, suggesting it is not really a particle. You have stated that a particle is a function of the field, so if that is the case, there is no such particle without the field. IOW, it's really all about the field.

But I understand that both you and Polymath see the particle as something 'real'. I do not, but from a mystical POV, and not a scientific one. I am just trying to establish that some physicists also do not see it as real. In the following excellent video, the theoretical physicist David Tong categorically states that 'there are no particles; there are only fields', and that what we call 'the particle' is, in reality, an interaction between fields:

You wanted to know more about fields. Well, here it is:

 

[godnotgod]

Explain to me how lifting a mass creates waves, then.

Waves in what? What is displaced, in what medium? In what direction do these waves travel? What is their speed and wavelength?

Its nonsense, isn't it?

Lifting a mass involves the expending of energy, which can be measured as waves.

 

[Polymath257]

How do you detect the presence of such energies?

1/2 m v^2, for example. It isnt the same as the mass energy. It is the energy of motion.

 

[exchemist]

I am saying that the brain, and all material reality, is a function of consciousness.

No, consciousness is not a thing or an entity; it is a state.

I was suggesting that the 'particle-like' aspect is in reality a standing wave. IOW, all 'material' reality is energy, acting as if it is material. The 'particle-like' aspect is not permanent, suggesting it is not really a particle. You have stated that a particle is a function of the field, so if that is the case, there is no such particle without the field. IOW, it's really all about the field.

But I understand that both you and Polymath see the particle as something 'real'. I do not, but from a mystical POV, and not a scientific one. I am just trying to establish that some physicists also do not see it as real. In the following excellent video, the theoretical physicist David Tong categorically states that 'there are no particles; there are only fields', and that what we call 'the particle' is, in reality, an interaction between fields:

Well we've both pointed out, quite politely and at some length, that this energy stuff of yours is a load of codswallop, so I'd give that a break if you want the discussion to continue. It is plain that you do not understand what energy is or how to use the term.

Leaving that irritation to one side, however, neither of us says "the particle" is "real". We say the material world is real, since it behaves predictably under objective observations (i.e. by different observers, in different places and using different means of observing) and that is what we mean by something being real.

We - or at least I - went on to say that all this about particles, waves , fields etc is the stuff of our models of that physical reality, which are acknowledged to be very likely imperfect. If you actually read my posts, instead of projecting onto them what you seem to want me to be saying, you find I have several times made a point of NOT referring to "particles" but to "QM entities" or "wave-particles". I even remarked how the concept of a "particle" is itself rather ridiculous, if you stop to think about it.

Your guru in the video will say we now model these QM entities in terms of disturbances in fields of various sorts. Yes, we know. That is fine. It does not alter the objective nature of our observations of nature though, so it does not make anything less "real" than before. It makes it harder to visualise in terms of everyday human concepts, but that is a different matter.

 

[Polymath257]

I disagree: waves do not exist without energy; energy does not exist without waves. They are one and the same phenomena.

Waves generally have kinetic energy f rf on the vibration. But, for example, heat is a form of energy that is not a wave.