What is energy?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Have you refuted any claim I made here?

The latest one springs to mind, given that you were absolutely wrong about the double-slit experiment and seemingly didn't understand your own source. Apart from that, there's only the issue of the OP and energy and your conception of energy in relation to physics being incorrect along with your conception of physics. Other than that you're batting 1000.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I'm asking what energy is. A materialist might argue that all energy is physical.

Or they might recognize that most forms of energy are labels we give and are no more physical than "work".

An idealist might argue that all energy is spiritual. A dualist might argue that there are two kinds of energy - physical and spiritual.

When you don't understand the basics of what energy is in physics and are seeking to maintain some connection to it, then one can be a monist, materialist, reductionist, dualist, pluralist, or supercalifragilisticexpialidociousist, it still doesn't matter when one doesn't understand the basics.

And if one isn't trying to connect "energy" to physics in some sense (i.e., interpret energy as it is meant in the sciences, particularly the natural sciences), then one can make up whatever definition one pleases.

 

[Gambit]

But every version (of the Copenhagen interpretation) asserts what?

Nothing, actually, as several argue that there is no such thing, but if I were to guess what the authors mean

There is no need to guess. The authors explicitly stated that "an observation produces the property observed" (your long-winded diversionary tactic notwithstanding).

Some will argue that an "observation" may apply to a measurement device. However, this is based on the wrong assumption that quantum mechanics applies only to the microscopic, not the macroscopic.

That was Bohr's view (except you have it backwareds; the assumption that QM applies only to the microscopic means that "observation" doesn't apply to the measurement device...[blah, blah, blah]

The authors explicitly stated that whenever they use the term "observation" that consciousness is lurking. Why? Because mathematician John von Neumann demonstrated that "an ultimate encounter with consciousness is inevitable" whenever a measurement is taken (your long-winded diversionary tactic notwithstanding).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

There is no need to guess. The authors explicitly stated that "an observation produces the property observed" (your long-winded diversionary tactic notwithstanding).

Do you know what we are capable of observing when we measure/observe quantum systems? Are you aware that an "observable" in quantum mechanics isn't a physical property but a Hermitian operator? Can you tell me anything with respect to how I might prepare a "quantum system" and measure it such that you can tell me precisely what the nature of measurement/observation produces?

To make this simple, if I am interested in the speed of a car, the velocity of a bullet, the mass of an elephant, etc., all these "observables" directly correspond to the values I am interested in. If I am using a radar gun and I clock some individual in Dodge Challenger or a Ferrari as going at a speed of 100 mph, the value of this "observed" quantity is the quantity: that's how fast the car is going.

In QM, you cannot do this: ever. You can never, ever obtain any value that corresponds to any measurable property of any system. You represent these properties before you even measure them by mathematical functions (you might add this, while your at it, to the list of things you've been wrong about). If you would like me to provide you with questions that actual physicists (or even would-be physicists in grad school or something) have to answer so that you can show you are aware of what it means when "an observation produces the property observed", I'd be more than happy to.

The authors explicitly stated that whenever they use the term "observation" that consciousness is lurking.

Yes, they very clearly state that photographic film are conscious. Oh, wait, they don't. Moreover, as observables in QM aren't properties of any system whatsoever, you produce them mathematically. If you would like to compare your source which starts out with the claim that it is controversial and doesn't in any way remotely address quantum physics as physicists use it and just barely scratch the surface of how some understand it, then would you be wiling to answer some standard questions that an upper-level physics undergrad could probably answer regarding observation using QM?

Why? Because mathematician John von Neumann demonstrated that "an ultimate encounter with consciousness is inevitable" whenever a measurement is taken (your long-winded diversionary tactic notwithstanding).

1) It is impossible to demonstrate that consciousness encounters anything when there is no agreed upon definition what this is (or if it exists) among those who actually study consciousness (unlike von Neumann) or amongst scientists.
2) Granted that we are conscious, obviously whenever we try to observe or measure our conscious state is relevant, because we're the one's observing. This is no more meaningful than to (correctly) assert that the encounter of solar magnetic flux with galactic cosmic rays is inevitable and non-trivial. Whatever half-baked understanding you possess of quantum measurement, you may wish you look into the measurment problem for context here. Because it is this problem which makes it particularly relevant for us when we make measurements, not because our consciousness does anything whatsoever, but because all the other infinite interactions that do the exact same thing involve systems that are inanimate and couldn't give a crap whether or not their interaction changed the state of the system.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The authors explicitly stated that whenever they use the term "observation" that consciousness is lurking. Why?

To sell books based upon sensationalist bunk that people who don't understand QM will pay for? Let's look at what actual physics literature has to say with respect to both the book and this notion. See attached.

 

[HonestJoe]

I'm asking what energy is. A materialist might argue that all energy is physical. An idealist might argue that all energy is spiritual. A dualist might argue that there are two kinds of energy - physical and spiritual.

The problem is that the word "spiritual" has no clear and definitive definition so the statement "energy is spiritual" is meaningless. It would require a more detailed explanation and, the usual sticking point in such discussions, some kind of evidential support.

As a general point, if any of the things commonly identified as spiritual actually exist, there is no reason for them not to be physical/material, indeed they arguably must be if they're defined as having physical effects upon anything or anyone. I think this kind of question is trying to create a false dichotomy and, as I mentioned earlier, I suspect part of the reason for that is an attempt to avoid the requirement to support "supernatural" claims with "natural" evidence.

 

[Bunyip]

The problem is that the word "spiritual" has no clear and definitive definition so the statement "energy is spiritual" is meaningless. It would require a more detailed explanation and, the usual sticking point in such discussions, some kind of evidential support.

As a general point, if any of the things commonly identified as spiritual actually exist, there is no reason for them not to be physical/material, indeed they arguably must be if they're defined as having physical effects upon anything or anyone. I think this kind of question is trying to create a false dichotomy and, as I mentioned earlier, I suspect part of the reason for that is an attempt to avoid the requirement to support "supernatural" claims with "natural" evidence.

Beautiful summation.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The problem is that the word "spiritual" has no clear and definitive definition so the statement "energy is spiritual" is meaningless.

That's not the only problem. Members responding to you and before you have not sought any spiritual explanation yet have been almost as misled (and misleading) and arguably as wrong. For example:

Beautiful summation.

Here is a quote by one who has consistently failed to define scientific terms from physics such as energy over and over and over and over again. It is only through such meaningless ignorance that a comparable lack of anything remotely resembling a clear or accurate or definite account of anything related to the physical or spiritual has been and could be spread. Those who rely on popular sciene to defend pseudo-science such as the capacity for consciousness to determine reality are no worse nor better than those who rely on definitions from physics they cannot grasp using an understandkng or langiuage they do not possess.

It would require a more detailed explanation and, the usual sticking point in such discussions, some kind of evidential support.

Indeed.

 

[Thief]

The problem is that the word "spiritual" has no clear and definitive definition so the statement "energy is spiritual" is meaningless. It would require a more detailed explanation and, the usual sticking point in such discussions, some kind of evidential support.

As a general point, if any of the things commonly identified as spiritual actually exist, there is no reason for them not to be physical/material, indeed they arguably must be if they're defined as having physical effects upon anything or anyone. I think this kind of question is trying to create a false dichotomy and, as I mentioned earlier, I suspect part of the reason for that is an attempt to avoid the requirement to support "supernatural" claims with "natural" evidence.

So there is not difference between the flame and fire ....
as compared to the arsonist?

 

[HonestJoe]

So there is not difference between the flame and fire ....
as compared to the arsonist?

Sorry but I've absolutely no idea what you're getting at here.

 

[Thief]

Sorry but I've absolutely no idea what you're getting at here.

Natural forces have no mind to guide them.
Fire spreads through forest driven by wind.

We don't think of the wind as an Entity.
We don't think of fire as a God.

But there is intention and decision in the hand of Man.
We hunt for the arsonist.
We have to.

 

[HonestJoe]

Natural forces have no mind to guide them.

Some natural forces combine to form minds that guide other natural forces. It's all just energy and matter though.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Energy is the path to entropy.
I do not know if Spirituality shares a similar path.
It would be sad to think so.
One would hope that spirituality had an upward path.
May be the reciprocal of that taken by energy.

 

[Gambit]

The problem is that the word "spiritual" has no clear and definitive definition so the statement "energy is spiritual" is meaningless. It would require a more detailed explanation and, the usual sticking point in such discussions, some kind of evidential support.

The term "physical" has no clear and definitive definition as made evident in my thread entitled "How do you define the physical?"

As a general point, if any of the things commonly identified as spiritual actually exist, there is no reason for them not to be physical/material, indeed they arguably must be if they're defined as having physical effects upon anything or anyone. I think this kind of question is trying to create a false dichotomy and, as I mentioned earlier, I suspect part of the reason for that is an attempt to avoid the requirement to support "supernatural" claims with "natural" evidence.

Quantum fluctuations are one of the most-confirmed events in science. Quantum fluctuations have no physical cause.

 

[Gambit]

Do you know what we are capable of observing when we measure/observe quantum systems?.

I am coming to realization that you are nothing more than an annoying blowhard.

 

[Gambit]

To sell books based upon sensationalist bunk that people who don't understand QM will pay for? Let's look at what actual physics literature has to say with respect to both the book and this notion. See attached.

Just some more blah, blah, blah, blah. In the meantime, my argument still stands.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So, you believe there are basically two different types of energy - physical and spiritual?

We only have evidence for physical energy, "spiritual energy" sounds like pure speculation. And what earth is "spiritual energy" supposed to be?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The religious stance on spirit is that spirits are undetectable, but with energy it not only detectable, it is also quantifiable.

Exactly. And spirits are undetectable...so they are by definition pure speculation.

 

[Gambit]

We only have evidence for physical energy, "spiritual energy" sounds like pure speculation. And what [on] earth is "spiritual energy" supposed to be?

You might find the following two references to be helpful:

"Energy (psychological)"

"Energy (esotericism)"

 

[Gambit]

According to what I have learned from the church is that spirits has no substance. No substance then mean no energy. The religious stance on spirit is that spirits are undetectable, but with energy it not only detectable, it is also quantifiable.

Medical science cannot measure a patient's energy level. Nevertheless, human beings can definitely detect whenever they are feeling fatigued. (Fatigue is one most common health complaint.)