Let's start with the following, if you don't mind.

In the Preface to the Second Edition (1787) of The Critique of Pure Reason, Kant says:

At the same time, it must be carefully borne in mind that, while we surrender the power of cognizing, we still reserve the power of thinking objects, as things in themselves.¹ For, otherwise, we should require to affirm the existence of an appearance, without something that appears — which would be absurd.

¹ In order to cognize an object, I must be able to prove its possibility, either from its reality as attested by experience, or a priori, by means of reason. But I can think what I please, provided only I do not contradict myself; that is, provided my conception is a possible thought, though I may be unable to answer for the existence of a corresponding object in the sum of possibilities. But something more is required before I can attribute to such a conception objective validity, that is real possibility — the other possibility being merely logical. We are not, however, confined to theoretical sources of cognition for the means of satisfying this additional requirement, but may derive them from practical sources. — Kant

I don't

Ok, it was worth a shot. Nevermind then, carry on.

By the way, if any Admins are reading this, I find it somewhat obnoxious that I can't use superscripts for the purpose of formatting the title of this thread.

Nevermind, I found simpler solution to that.

It was invented by Albert Einstein. — Arcane Sandwich

Invented or discovered? Maybe a quibble, maybe not. — RogueAI

Neither invented nor discovered. It was popularized by him, but it was there before him. Poincare for instance said it before Einstein did.

The formula is a special case since energy is frame dependent.
A more general version is E = mc²/√(1-(v²-c²))

Thesis
I think that the formula is true.

Lead in
Do you agree, or disagree with it? — Arcane Sandwich

Do I agree that you actually think what you claim to think? Seems to be a shallow question.

The truth of the formula seems to be related to the working of our physics and not something objectively true, the way the question is worded.

Most people intuit why you would multiply a Time by a Speed. That makes intuitive sense. Why a mass? — flannel jesus

mv is momentum, something reasonably intuitive. KE is half mv², which is also intuitive to some, and is the same units as the mc² thingy. But those two formulas (momentum, KE) are newtonian concepts that work only at low v. c is not just another speed, but a universal constant, and mc is not the momentum of a rock moving at light speed. So we're back to exactly what you're trying to convey: What does mc² mean anyway? People (without understanding) say "ooh, that explains why such a big bang when mass is converted to energy", since c seems to be a pretty big number. But in natural units, c is 1, reducing the formula to E=m which doesn't sound very bangy at all. Energy is proportional to mass, but has different units.

I didn't read the whole thread. After a whole page+ of posts I could not figure out what the OP was trying to say that was any deeper than "hey, the sum of 3 and 5 is said to be 8, do you really believe that?".

The truth of the formula seems to be related to the working of our physics and not something objectively true, the way the question is worded. — noAxioms

Nonsense.

mv is momentum, something reasonably intuitive. — noAxioms

If you think about it, the principle of momentum is really not at all intuitive. It's based in an assumption of constant velocity, which is not at all real, due to the influence of a multitude of factors. The constant velocity assumption is provided by Newton's first law, but this is just an ideal which is not at all representative of reality, due to that fact, that there is always an influence of a multitude of factors, constantly altering a body's velocity. In reality, velocity is always changing.

So Newton's first law is stated as a principle from which we can address the multitude of factors which are always causing velocity to change, as forces. It doesn't provide a truth about anything, but it provides a principle of utility, from which we can establish a perspective on changing velocity. However, since it negates the observed reality, that velocity is constantly changing due to the influence of a multitude of factors, which is the truth, and replaces it with an ideal fiction, designed with some specific purpose in mind. it is very counterintuitive. It is a denial of intuition for the sake of purpose.

KE is half mv², which is also intuitive to some, and is the same units as the mc² thingy. But those two formulas (momentum, KE) are newtonian concepts that work only at low v. — noAxioms

Kinetic energy is not a Newtonian concept, it is derived from Leibniz' "vis viva". Newton and Leibniz were at odds as to what was the best way to express an ideal (law) representing the conservation of motion. Leibniz insisted that his vis viva (kinetic energy) provided a better (more accurate) representation than Newton's momentum. Application demonstrated Leibniz to be correct. However, the second law of thermodynamics indicates that energy is never really conserved, and such principles are just fictional ideals anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vis_viva

To me the greatest difficulty here is applying General and Special Relativity to fundamental particles like electrons (to say nothing of quarks), and also to the exact moment when t = 0 in the context of the theory of the Big Bang.

OK but what is truth?

OK but what is truth? — JuanZu

It's Reality Itself.

But what about the theory? Isn't it the theory which is true?

↪Arcane Sandwich But what about the theory? Isn't it the theory which is true? — JuanZu

I like your Forum Name, by the way. Very European-Asian sounding, Eurasian perhaps?

Anyways. Reality itself cannot be known. Only its appearance can be known. But Reality Itself can be studied scientifically. More importantly, as philosophers, we can speculate about its nature. And if it just so happens that intellectual intuition is a real faculty of the human mind, if not the brain itself, then it follows that we can know Reality Itself: and we have direct, unmediated intellectual access to it, all of the time. And necessarily so.

It just so happens that we forget about it sometimes.

Don't you think that if we had this faculty it would not be necessary to make theories about reality? I mean, any theory would be true insofar as reality is given to us in its truth and we simply have to intuit it.

Reality itself cannot be known.
...
And if it just so happens that intellectual intuition is a real faculty of the human mind, if not the brain itself, then it follows that we can know Reality Itself. — Arcane Sandwich

What kind of logic takes you to a conclusion which contradicts your premise?

What kind of logic takes you to a conclusion which contradicts your premise? — Metaphysician Undercover

A contradictory one. Paraconsistent logic, for example.

Don't you think that if we had this faculty it would not be necessary to make theories about reality? — JuanZu

Like I said, sometimes we forget our connection to reality, just as we sometimes forget our connection to Nature.

And to Culture, I would add.

I mean, any theory would be true insofar as reality is given to us in its truth and we simply have to intuit it. — JuanZu

OK.

That's your argument?

Then here's a counter-point to it. I declare that I am the creator of the Philosophy to be called "Argentine Realism" (Realismo Argentino).

Then here's a counter-point to it. I declare that I am the creator of the Philosophy to be called "Argentine Realism — Arcane Sandwich

How that refutes what I just argued?

How it refutes what I just argued? — JuanZu

That sentence is not grammatical, to begin with. It's not a well-formed formula.

So it does not refute it. Right?

Yes it does. If you say something ungrammatical, then it cannot have a truth value by definition. Actually I should qualify that: it can't have a truth value by definition unless you specify or stipulate certain conditions.

OK. Could you help me to correct it and make it grammatical.

OK. Could you help me to correct it and make it grammatical. — JuanZu

I could, if I wanted to. For example, you should have included a ? sign in your reply number 969740. Cool?

And for your other comment, why should I help you, even if I can?

You should if you want to have a debate with me according to your conditions.

You should if you want to have a debate with me according to your conditions. — JuanZu

And if I don't want to have a debate with you?

Well, tell me if you want or don't want to have a debate with me.

Well, tell me if you want or don't want to have a debate with me. — JuanZu

I want you to tell me the Absolute Truth about Reality Itself. In comparison to that request, debating is worthless. Why would anyone debate anyone, if someone where to say the Absolute Truth about Reality Itself?

I want you to tell me the Absolute Truth about Reality Itself. — Arcane Sandwich

But what if I am wrong? I can at least give it a try.

But what if I am wrong? — JuanZu

Well, the request I made is quite a tall order, so there's no problem if you say the wrong thing. Who cares? Not even you should care about that, as a speaker or writer.

I can at least give it a try. — JuanZu

Go for it.

Already did it:

Don't you think that if we had this faculty it would not be necessary to make theories about reality? I mean, any theory would be true insofar as reality is given to us in its truth and we simply have to intuit it. — JuanZu