:100:

Noether's theorem
and
symmetries in fundamental physics
and ...

When given the choice to throw out the conservation of energy or cartesian dualism, they tend to throw out the latter. — Down The Rabbit Hole

:fire: :up:

Also, philosophically since Spinoza's refutation of Cartesian dualism.

:roll:

Such a cool name as well, considering the implications of her theorem.
Even cooler, if her middle name was thereis. Emmy Thereis Noether. :grin:
Award:

Normal problem here: inability of others to focus on the topic. Ooo a squirrel.

In the OP I argued that dualism does not violate the principle of the conservation of energy.

So, to assess the claim, for those who don't know, you need to assume the principle of conservation of energy is true, and then see if what I have said is correct.

The issue, then, is not whether the principle of the conservation of energy is true.

The issue is whether the conservation principle is consistent with dualism.

Again: the issue is not whether the conservation principle is true. Assume it is.

Is it compatible with dualism?

I have argued that it is.

If you disagree, then you need to address the argument I gave.

Here's the rule: when someone argues that A is compatible with B, what you do is assess whether that's true - so, if A is true, can B be as well? What you don't do is say "A isn't true" or 'B isn't true". That's to ignore entirely the claim that is being defended. See?

In the OP I argued that dualism does not violate the principle of the conservation of energy. — Bartricks

The argument is unsound because [1A] one of your major (implicit) premises is incoherent (re: category error ~ attributing physical properties to nonphysical substance). [1B] Your other unstated premise is that physical substance is not bound by causal closure, again compounding the unsoundness of what what you "argue". [2] If, however, "nonphysical" substance shares physical properties (e.g. causation, kinetics, inertia, etc) with physical substance, then there is one substance and not two, different substances (à la neutral monism). Either way, Bratshitz, your OP (as usual) doesn't coherently say, or "argue", anything.

... if A is true, can B be as well?

Yeah, and if A is conceptually incoherent, then nothing follows.

What you don't do is say "A isn't true" or 'B isn't true". That's to ignore entirely the claim that is being defended.

If the "claim" is false (or in this case not even false), then, on the contrary, to say so, Bratshitz, is to address the "claim" directly. You're the one ignoring elementary logic and any warrant for making such a "claim".

Yeah, er, that made no sense. I suggest you go away and stop Bartricks baiting, you boring little twerp.

Hey, I'm not trying to persuade you, kid, just help expose your witless vapidity as a public service. When I'm bored I troll D-K trolls like you. :razz:

So, er, you're a troll, yes? You have nothing to say, but you enjoy Bartricks baiting. That is, you enjoy being scolded by me. Did you mummy not give you enough hugs as a child or something? Go away.

So, to assess the claim, for those who don't know, you need to assume the principle of conservation of energy is true, and then see if what I have said is correct. — Bartricks

What is the point of assuming to be true, a principle which is demonstrably false? Anything which follows from this discussion will be irrelevant to the reality of the situation, as is the case when we assume a false premise to be true. The conclusions which follow are unsound and do not have any useful meaning.

Yes you're right the energy is released elsewhere than where the measurement tool is being used. Just like we argued about the room releasing heat to the environment. — Benj96

This is a statement drawn from your false assumption, that all the missing energy still exists as energy. You say "the energy is released elsewhere". The problem is that energy is a feature of the measurement not of the thing measured. As I explained, we measure the motion and proceed to calculate the thing's energy. So if the missing motion cannot be located and measured, and the energy calculated, it is a faulty assumption to say that the energy is elsewhere.

What I'm saying is "wasted" because it wasn't measured is the wrong word.
It's gone elsewhere. Just because I can't measure every molecule of water that goes over niagara falls per second doesn't mean what I couldn't measure is "wasted"... "lost" "disappeared". — Benj96

The issue is that all attempts to locate all the missing motion and energy have failed. And, we conclude that it is impossible to locate all the missing energy, as indicated by the second law. Therefore the assumption that this motion exists, and could be located, measured, and assigned a value as energy is simply false. We know that this is not the case, as expressed by the second law.

So this is not comparable to water over the Niagra falls. In this case we assume that we could set up a collection basin, and measure all the water coming over the falls, without a drop being missed by that measurement process. In the case of energy, we assume the exact opposite, that it is impossible to detect al the motion, measure it all, and assign a value as energy, because we assume that some will always be lost, as per the second law. Therefore we have no good reason to believe that this motion exists at all, and no good reason to believe that the law of conservation is stating something true. It is a simple falsity, which we can clearly see as a falsity, and know it as a falsity, but we use it because it is useful.

Heat disperses outwards and as it does it heats up the environment its spreading into, the further it spreads out the less amount it heats up each part. But it still heats them up by ever more minute amounts.
Absolute zero when reached is a timeless state of no change (no heat/kinetic motion) where all energy is only "potential" again. The exact same conditions as at the big bang. Alpha state = omega state — Benj96

These two statements directly contradict each other, as incompatible, inconsistent. In the first, you say that heat spreads out, and heats less and less, but continues to heat, implying an infinite regress in this continuity of heating less and less. In the second, you suggest an end to the infinite regress, "absolute zero". But clearly, what you describe in the first denies the possibility of the absolute zero which you speak of in the second.

It definitely is. If I punch a punchbag at a fairground, the force of the impact (the momentum of my arm) is measured digitally in a number scale. Which can be compared to others - maybe a professional boxer. — Benj96

No, the force is calculated from some measurements, as I described, through the application of some principles, such as f=ma. The exact principles employed in each instance is irrelevant, and whether the calculations are carried out by a human being with pen and paper, or by a computer using algorithms, is irrelevant.

The measurement must use some of the energy in its measurement. Otherwise how exactly can it function as a measuring device? Are measuring devices somehow magically outside of all cause and effect relationships/energy transfer and the information those hold? — Benj96

Sorry, I cannot grasp what you are saying here. There are different ways of measuring motion, in some cases the measuring instrument absorbs the motion, such as your punching bag example. Some measuring techniques simply observe and make comparisons from numerous observations. Which is more accurate is irrelevant, because no matter which one you use, you will still have to make adjustments for inefficiencies, therefore energy which is lost during the activity being measured.

I don't think so.
The device converts kinetic force into a voltage and the measurement of that voltage is a measurement of the energy that generated (converted) into it. — Benj96

You're still wrong Benj96. Voltage is a measurement of electric potential, and some principles of conversion must be applied to state an energy equivalent to the voltage measured, joules or something like that.

You're still wrong Benj96. Voltage is a measurement of electric potential — Metaphysician Undercover

So, physics defintion of Electric potential: the amount of "work needed to move a unit charge from a reference point to a specific point against an electric field.

Physics definition of" work": In physics, work is the "energy" transferred to or from an object via the application of force along a displacement.

Oh gosh look what we have arrived at? So it seems electric potential is, hmm, energy. Who knew? Physics did.

Which retrospectively confirms my reasoning about measurement devices requiring not only energy to run them, and energy to be them (matter, bonds, forces that hold its molecules together), and what do they measure? Energy.

It seems like you don't really want to attempt to consider any alternative explanation as you had your own answer (assumption) from the beginning.

Out of curiosity, if energy is "wasted" or "disappears" or somehow "ceases to exist" as you say, then where did it come from in the first place? Are you proposing that energy just spontaneously comes into existence also?
If not it would mean that time is finite as is the existence of the universe, and it will simply wind down to a heat death.

What happens then? An eternity of non existence/no universe. I think if that's the case it seems exceedingly improbable that we even exist now in the one "blip" of finite and ending universe that will ever occur.

To me it makes more sense that the universe is a cycle of expansion and contraction with heat death/the end being =to the beginning at the big bang.

But hey let's just agree to disagree. You haven't convinced me and I haven't convinced you so why endlessly argue about it eh?
Best of luck with it.

So, if dualism is true, then we have material event A causing immaterial event B, which causes material event C. — Bartricks

For clarity, what's an example of material event A causing immaterial event B? Is immaterial event B ever not caused by a material event?

180 Proof Yeah, er, that made no sense. — Bartricks

Oh, I'm sure to you, kid, my comments go way over your head. Worse for you being so incorrigibly dogmatic too.

Stub toe - material event - causes pain - mental event - shout out in agony - material event. The example doesn't add anything to my case, however. It just means that now some will think this is about stubbing one's toe and will talk about how this never happens; others will now deny that pain is real; and some will question begging redescribe the scenario in purely materialist terms.

Can immaterial events occur without material events as their causes - yes, I do not see why not.

Because that is what this OP is about.

It is not about whether the conservation principle is true.

It is about whether it is compatible with dualism.

I constantly tell my students that compatibilism about free will is not the thesis that determinism is true. Nor is it the thesis that we have free will. It is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. And yet every year about 90% don't get this and proceed to tell me how either determinism is false or that we do not have free will, totally oblivious to the fact they're doing nothing whatever in terms of assessing the credibility of compatibilism.

So, once more: the claim I have defended is not that the principle of c is true, or that dualism is true. The claim I have defended is that they are compatible. That is the claim that needs assessing.

It's a good test of basic philosophical competence. When someone says thesis x is compatible with thesis y, the person with good philosophical instincts will wonder whether the claim is true; whereas the c-grader will wonder whether x is true or whether y is true.

God is compatible with evil. Philosophically promising student - is that true? If God exists, could evil exist too? Philosophically hopeless student "but God doesn't exist!" Or "what is evil? There is no evil. Who's to say what's right and wrong".

Now again: the claim I have defended is that the c principle is compatible with dualism.

So do not question whether the c principle is true or whether dualism is true. Ask 'are they compatible?'

... pain - mental event .. — Bartricks

:rofl:

Can immaterial events occur without material events as their causes - yes, I do not see why not. — Bartricks

In this case, does it not take energy for the mind to be activated? Where does this energy come from?

Also, mental energy turns into physical energy - adding to the energy within the physical world?

In this case, does it not take energy for the mind to be activated? — Down The Rabbit Hole

No. Why would it?

The conservation of energy principle concerns the behaviour of the material world.

The point I have made is that dualism - interactionist dualism - does not violate it.

:smile:

If you have a philosophical criticism of the OP, by all means try and make it.

what are you talking about?

My point is there's a lot of nasty name-calling here. I don't see the need for it, it doesn't add to the discussion, it's ad hominem, and honestly seems like petty bickering, not philosophy.

So, physics defintion of Electric potential: the amount of "work needed to move a unit charge from a reference point to a specific point against an electric field.

Physics definition of" work": In physics, work is the "energy" transferred to or from an object via the application of force along a displacement.

Oh gosh look what we have arrived at? So it seems electric potential is, hmm, energy. Who knew? Physics did. — Benj96

I can't believe that you cannot grasp what I am telling you, and you just instinctively want to dispute everything I say. Energy is the capacity to do work, and energy is said to be "transferred" from one thing to another, in the instance of doing work. Now look at your definition of electric potential, it is the amount of work needed to move a unit charge. This amount of work could be supplied in numerous different ways. That is why a conversion formula is always required when determining energy, it is not a simple property, it is what is transferred from one object to another, and the same amount of work might be provided in numerous different ways. So it is not the work (energy) which is measured, only the before, or after are measured, and the work is calculated, as a universal.

Which retrospectively confirms my reasoning about measurement devices requiring not only energy to run them, and energy to be them (matter, bonds, forces that hold its molecules together), and what do they measure? Energy. — Benj96

As I said, your claim is false. One cannot directly measure the energy of something, and I don't see why you can't understand this. A calculation is required, to relate the motion of that object to other objects, to determine the object's capacity for work. Consider the simple formula for momentum, mass times velocity. You can measure an object's mass, and measure it's velocity, but you need a further principle to calculate it's momentum. it's not measured. Furthermore, to predict how the momentum will affect another object another formula. This is the transferal, mentioned above. So we have a formula for force, force equals mass times acceleration. Now, the important thing for you to notice in the context of our discussion here, is that force is not directly measured. Force is inferred, through the difference in the measurements of velocity (giving acceleration), and the measurement of mass. Therefore the "force" which is a description of the transferal, the energy involved, is calculated from that formula, it is not directly measured.

Look at your definition of electric potential now, for example. It is the amount of work needed to move the unit charge in a specified way. So, when the unit charge is observed to have been moved in that way, it is inferred that this amount of work has been applied, according to that definition. The amount of work is not measured, what was measured was the movement of the charge. The amount of work, is inferred through the application of the definition.

It seems like you don't really want to attempt to consider any alternative explanation as you had your own answer (assumption) from the beginning. — Benj96

You have not given me anything to consider, except a clear indication that you do not understand the principles involved. If you gave me something reasonable to consider, rather than off the wall assertions which amount to nothing more than misunderstanding, then I would consider what you say.

Out of curiosity, if energy is "wasted" or "disappears" or somehow "ceases to exist" as you say, then where did it come from in the first place? — Benj96

Look Benj96, energy is something calculated. We say that a specified moving object has a certain capacity to move other objects (do work), because we can make measurements and calculate this capacity. What sense is there in asking me where this capacity to do work came from, or where it goes after it is spent. Am I coming across as so extremely intelligent that I appear to be God or something like that?

I constantly tell my students that compatibilism about free will is not the thesis that determinism is true. Nor is it the thesis that we have free will. It is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. And yet every year about 90% don't get this and proceed to tell me how either determinism is false or that we do not have free will, totally oblivious to the fact they're doing nothing whatever in terms of assessing the credibility of compatibilism. — Bartricks

I think that compatibilism involves necessarily a misunderstanding of either free will, determinism, or both. And assessing the credibility of compatibilism necessarily involves determining the truth concerning free will and determinism. I mean, one could easily define "free will", and "determinism" such that these are compatible, but there is absolutely no point to this. So your example does nothing for me.

So do not question whether the c principle is true or whether dualism is true. Ask 'are they compatible?' — Bartricks

To understand the meaning of the c principle, and the meaning of dualism, requires necessarily that one understands how these names relate to reality, and that requires an assessment of their truth. Whether or not the two are compatible can only be judged after this assessment. Otherwise, one will conform the meaning of the terms (create definitions) so that they are either compatible, or not, depending on what one prefers. What's the point to this exercise you propose, of defining terms so as to support one's belief, rather than looking at the truth and falsity of the matter?

Glenny, oh Glenny- you told me to go F-myself, did you not? I had not insulted you, but you nevertheless decided to tell me to go F-myself. So you're an incredibly rude little man who can't take what he deals out, yes?
Now get off your pedestal and engage with the OP or, you know, do to yourself what you'd have me do to me.

I think that compatibilism involves necessarily a misunderstanding of either free will, determinism, or both. And assessing the credibility of compatibilism necessarily involves determining the truth concerning free will and determinism. I mean, one could easily define "free will", and "determinism" such that these are compatible, but there is absolutely no point to this. So your example does nothing for me — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, I would have predicted that. Needless to say, you'd get a C in an essay on compatibilism for having singularly failed to understand the issue.

If someone says A is compatible with B, then you should focus on whether that's true - that is, you should focus on the compatibility claim - not on whether A or B is actually true.

Nope

Again. I wasn't talking to you. If I was I would've used the appropriate link, as I am now. Have a great night.

But that 'wow' was a condescending 'wow', yes? So you were expressing an insult, correct? No philosohical content. Just an insult. Me smells a giant pile of hypocrite. Anyway, why don't you have a great night. Go on. Go great night yourself.

If someone says A is compatible with B, then you should focus on whether that's true - that is, you should focus on the compatibility claim - not on whether A or B is actually true. — Bartricks

No Bartricks, before focusing on whether A is compatible with B, we need to determine what A and B mean. And this is a matter of truth, otherwise one will define A and B so that they either are, or are not compatible with each other, according to one's preference. In other words, one will make fictitious definitions of A and B to make them either compatible or not. And that is a pointless exercise. So we ought to proceed with determining the truth about A and B.

Are you a philosopher?

No, right - for no philosopher would ever say what you just said.

I am and you're completely wrong. You assess the compatibility claim.

It's how we can tell if someone is good at philosophy or not. Do they assess the compatibility claim or are they instantly distracted by whether A or B is true.

Anyway, black is white and up is down.

Are you a philosopher? — Bartricks

You have a very strange definition of "philosopher". It looks like a definition which you manufactured for your purpose.

Have you never heard of Platonic dialectics? It's all about finding the true meaning of the words we use, the true idea behind the word. Obviously this is necessary before we can make any meaningful judgement concerning compatibility.

I am using the term 'philosopher' to refer to someone who is employed to teach philosophy in a university and who has a track record of publishing in philosophy in peer review journals.

Now, again, when someone argues that A is compatible with B, a philosopher considers whether that is true. Are they compatible?

Is evil compatible with God? You're philosophically inept if you reply "God doesn't exist!" or "evil doesn't exist". You are not addressing the question. You'd get a bad mark.

Is free will compatible with determinism? Again, you haven't really understood the question if you reply "determinsim isn't true!!!" or "free will doesn't exist!!!!"

Now, is the principle of the conservation of energy compatible with dualism? My answer, which i have defended, is 'yes'. But what the rest of you are doing is not even addressing the question but questioning whether A or B is true. It's just inept.

Focus on the actual question: is A compatible with B? That's the question. Not, note, 'is A true' or 'is B true'. Are they compatible?