Ok, we can go a bit further. The point made by the article Bart cited (not by Bart) is that conservation of energy need not hold; the system may not be closed. That's a fair point, but if it is not closed there would be an identifiable source of energy flowing into the system - work would get done for free. — Banno
The argument remains that if spirit has an impact on the physical world, then it does work and hence uses energy. That is, if spirit has an impact on the physical world then it is part of physics. Any posited dualism collapses. — Banno
It's completely different to what Bartricks is saying — Down The Rabbit Hole
asically, if spirit does anything, what it does would be measurable. — Banno
That's the downfall of dualism, you can't insist that there are two distinct incommensurable substances and then say that one can move the other. — Banno
Best approach is just to say that what is physical is what is dealt with by physics, which includes time. — Banno
Benj, that coins work does not imply a new form of physics but a need for a different description. It's group intentionality that makes money work. See Institutional Facts: John R. Searle — Banno
But that is not what I said. Your bank balance exists, yet is not physical.To say things that exist are only those that physics deals with means no other human discipline reveals anything physically true about reality. And has no merit. Which I think is overly physics biased. — Benj96
So give an account of your bank balance using relativity and quantum physics...We have those different descriptions. Relativity and quantum physics. — Benj96
It's group intentionality that makes money work. See Institutional Facts: John R. Searle — Banno
Metaphysician Undercover doesn't believe in instantaneous velocity. Hence it is not wise to spend time considering his views on matters involving physics. — Banno
Ha, ha. It's very obvious that Instantaneous velocity is really an oxymoron. — Metaphysician Undercover
We have those different descriptions. Relativity and quantum physics.
— Benj96
So give an account of your bank balance using relativity and quantum physics... — Banno
I collapse the waveform when I observe the bank balance again. — Benj96
If the measurement is done only by machines, with no humans involved, the same results occur — universeness
When you see your physicists again, explain to them how energy disappears and how 0.9˙≠10.9˙≠1. They will be so grateful. — Banno
So are you claiming that this:
Since a photon is a particle of light, this means that it does not need to accelerate to light speed, as it is already travelling at the speed of light when it is created. A photon does not rest and then reach the speed of light at a certain length of time, or even instantly. A photon is always travelling at the speed of light, from the moment of creation.
From a website called Ask an Astronomer, is wrong? In electron, positron annihilation, when two photons are created, there is no acceleration to light speed. — universeness
This is the mistaken interpretation which I referred to above. The sensor registers a physical change, and through the principles employed, it is calculated that this change is equivalent to a quantity of energy represent by "a photon". The photoelectric sensor does not actually detect a photon, it just undergoes a change, an effect which we calculate as the effect of a photon's worth of force. That the sensor detects a photon is a common misinterpretation. — Metaphysician Undercover
Um... How do we know it occurs when machines do it?Who read (observed) the machine result. Haha.
If no humans are involved how on earth can you make that conclusion. — Benj96
I can't say I agree with that because i do not really believe there is such a thing (meaning a real object) as a photon. So it really makes no sense to talk about a fictional particle (photon) speeding up and slowing down. However, if there is such a thing as a photon, then I would agree, that it must always be travelling at the speed of light, by definition. — Metaphysician Undercover
we apply a formula to calculate "energy", so energy is calculated, not a property of the movement itself. — Metaphysician Undercover
In simple terms, we do not ever measure energy directly, we apply a formula to calculate "energy", so energy is calculated, not a property of the movement itself. — Metaphysician Undercover
. That's not a quantum account of banking, but it is sufficient to show the dearth of content here. — Banno
Seems you wanted me to include the specific particularities like quarks, spins, the etc and not the main principles/ideas behind quantum physics. — Benj96
Tellers do not rely on schrödinger's equations. — Banno
Do you ascribe to QFT then? If you accept a photon as a field disturbance/excitation/vibration, you still have the result that the excitation travels at a constant speed with no initial acceleration.
This is backed up by the fact that the property of mass prevents light speed motion.
Electrons don't travel at light speed as they have some mass. — universeness
If you consider something like maxwells demon, when it opens the massless door between the two chambers based on the speed of each particle it observes, would you still insist it would be applying a formula, to make its measurements? Is it not just basing it on 'fast,' 'slow.' How about when you touch something to decide on its temperature? are you applying a formula or taking a sensor reading?
Is sensing the presence of a property of something like relative position, the application of a formula?
Ignoring a measure of actual distance for a moment, simply observing the position of an object as north, south, east, west etc, is the gathering of such information formula based? — universeness
I would suggest that base sensory information is not based on formula. I see, touch, taste, hear, smell and even think before I apply any formulae to measure scalar (magnitude) quantity or vector (magnitude and direction). Is information such as 'I see there is a car there' not just based on me comparing stored images with what I see? I would not call such 'shape/pattern recognition,' a formula application, would you? — universeness
I think we can observe a property of a motion as relatively fast or slow, enough to be able to know when to jump out of the way for example, and there is no formula-based calculation, involved, just a use of instinct and sensors. — universeness
I don't see how you think this is relevant to "energy". — Metaphysician Undercover
Why would I choose to give any credence to the use of the terms 'immaterial' or 'dualism,' when considering what energy is?But force is just as much immaterial as "mental event" is. So in any case, mental event or not, we still need dualism to account for energy transfer. — Metaphysician Undercover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.