I still believe everything is made out of just empty space. However contradictory it is.
New question. Is empty space the same as nothing?
Empty is the same as nothing in most senses but space implies a size, a dimension. Or maybe the question is wrong. — Razorback kitten
I find I can best describe it as the interaction of potentiality. — Possibility
All the current gaps and contradictions in our understanding - the origin of the universe, quantum mechanics, abiogenesis, consciousness, the question of ‘God’ - all seem to dissolve for me in light of the interaction of potentiality as the underlying ‘substance’ of the universe, the fundamental ground of all being. — Possibility
What's any energy, regardless of perspective, made of? — Razorback kitten
The way I see it, what exists is potentiality, because without it, nothing CAN exist. Does that make sense? — Possibility
Yes but what difference does it make? It's just a more complicated way of pushing the buck. I could say space is the only thing which exists because without it, nothing could. Or energy, time... — Razorback kitten
In my own research on this, I’ve realised that there are far too many more intelligent and knowledgeable people and teams out there who are a hair’s breadth away from discovering this in their own fields of research for me think my philosophical ramblings can achieve anything except perhaps to nudge them over the lip, or point out connections or collaborations they maybe hadn’t considered yet. — Possibility
What influence would considering matter as potential have on the future?
You said this way of thinking allows the gaps in our understanding to dissolve away (for you). So how? — Razorback kitten
Yeah, I don't buy it. Also I can't see any paradigm shift in this direction. It's just fancy spiritualism. — Razorback kitten
Given that we don’t really know what energy IS (only what it does) — Possibility
Perhaps it was the G-word that prompted you to close your mind all of a sudden? You won’t see much of anything that way, let alone any paradigm shift. Too bad. — Possibility
The philosophical definition of spiritualism; the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter, or that spirit is the only reality. — Razorback kitten
22. Matter is generally defined as being "that which has extension," "that which can make an impression upon our senses," "that which possesses impenetrability." Are these definitions correct? - From your point of view they are correct, because you can only define in accordance with what you know. But matter exists in states which are unknown to you. It may be, for instance, so ethereal and subtle as to make no impression upon your senses; and yet it is still matter, although it would not be such for you. — Allan Kardec - The Spirits' Book
What definition can you give of matter? - Matter is the element which enchains spirit, the instrument which serves it, and upon which, at the same time, it exerts its action. (From this point of view it may be said that matter is the agent, the intermediary, through which, and upon which, spirit acts.) — Allan Kardec - The Spirits' Book
23. What is spirit? - The intelligent principle of the universe. — Allan Kardec - The Spirits' Book
- is not composite or ‘dissoluble into parts on which it is dependent’; — Possibility
This one is troublesome for one who "knows, loves, and relates", for a system of mind and an emotional system would have parts (that would have to be more fundamental). — PoeticUniverse
Given that we don’t really know what energy IS (only what it does), — Possibility
The concept of energy is problematic when we say that it causes things, or that it is what matter is made of. — leo
If I launch a ball upwards and it decelerates, why do I have to say that it decelerates because its kinetic energy is converted into potential energy, why can't I simply say that I observe it decelerates and I model that through the concept of gravitational acceleration, or through the mathematical concepts of kinetic and potential energy? Energy there appears simply as a concept, a tool of thought, a model of motion or of change, not a cause of motion or of change.
Then if we say that energy is what matter is made of, and we can't say what energy is, then what does it mean to say that matter is made of energy? If we say that energy is the ability to do work, what does it mean to say that matter is made of an ability? — leo
There's no reason to believe that it's something other than the "doing" you're referring to. But the incoherence of doing sans something doing isn't linguistic, it's ontological. — Terrapin Station
This is one part I’m still trying to find a way to explain: how this concept of energy, as ‘the capacity to do work’, shifts to and from potentially and actually doing work. But I don’t have the physics or math background to conceive or critique any formula for the connection. — Possibility
I think I get what you’re saying, but the way I see it, any state of being is finite in time. The doing refers to an event that loses its status as an entity once it’s measured. Energy measured is a difference in relational 3D information states over time, just as a photon measured becomes a moving particle. Even a life measured becomes a series of relational 3D information states over time. So yes, a doing or being that can’t be measured in relation to time doesn’t cohere. — Possibility
Why did the object accelerate during the fall? Well we don't know, that's just what we observe, and we model that through a law, talking about energy doesn't explain anything, saying that there was a potential stored in the object that got released during the fall and made the object accelerate is just one abstract way of looking at it, but if you choose to reify that potential as something concrete that really got converted or actualized during the fall, maths and physics won't tell you anything about that (so don't spend years studying maths and physics in the hope that you will find such an explanation in there). — leo
The idea is much simpler than that. We can't have motion, and we can't have forces transferred, etc., without having SOMETHING that is moving, something that is applying and receiving forces, etc. — Terrapin Station
So, when you say ‘SOMETHING’ here, do you mean it must always be a physical, tangible something applying or receiving forces, or could it be a conceptual, abstract or subjective experience of ‘something’ that interacts with a physical something and in doing so effects an applied force? — Possibility
I'm a physicalist, so on my view, concepts, subjective experience, etc. are physical processes. — Terrapin Station
So you would find it sufficient to explain concepts such as potential energy — Possibility
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.