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. — Bartricks

Ok, so you admit, you are just defining the term to suit your purpose.

Now, is the principle of the conservation of energy compatible with the dualism? — Bartricks

Before we can proceed with this inquiry, we must determine the truths and falsities concerning what "conservation of energy", and "dualism" mean. Otherwise, as I said, people will just be defining the terms to suit their preference. And that's a pointless exercise.

Ok, so you admit, you are just defining the term to suit your purpose. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, how did I admit that? I am using the term to refer to someone who is extremely good at philosophy. If you're using it more loosely to refer to anyone who tries to do philosophy, regardless of how well or badly, then 'being a philosopher' wouldn't carry any status.

Before we can proceed with this inquiry, we must determine the truths and falsities concerning what "conservation of energy", and "dualism" mean. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you mean that we need to understand what A and B are?

You think that's not clear in the OP? The conservation of energy principle says that the level of energy in the material world will remain constant. Resist the temptation to say that you think the principle is false- that's philosophically inept.

Dualism, as explained in the OP, is the view that our minds are immaterial things that are causally interacting with the material world (the latter is interactionism - strictly speaking one could be a dualist and deny it - but by hypothesis that is not the case with the kind of dualism under consideration).

There: now you know - and quite why you didn't already, given if was abundantly clear in the OP - what A and B are.

Are they compatible? I have argued that they are. Entirely pointlessly, it would seem

:heart:

I can't believe that you cannot grasp what I am telling you, — Metaphysician Undercover

Believe it lol. As I said "agree to disagree" here seems to be the best way to leave it for the time being.

One cannot directly measure the energy of something, and I don't see why you can't understand this. — Metaphysician Undercover

So if I put my hand up towards a fire I cannot measure that it gives off energy (thermal energy)? I must make a calculation? Hardly. Yes I can't calculate the exact joules my hand absorbs per second just with my hand, but I can definitely measure the energy of the fire inaccurately with the general term "warm". (warmer than the surroundings/exothermic).

except a clear indication that you do not understand the principles involved. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your principles yes. I don't understand them as we already highlighted at the beginning that our two approaches to the laws of thermodynamics are fundamentally opposed. So why would we agree?

You said they're false. I disagreed. Then you used their falsity as the premise for your argument while I used their veracity as the premise for mine. And now you "can't believe that we are still arguing?" shocker.

Am I coming across as so extremely intelligent that I appear to be God or something like that? — Metaphysician Undercover

Odd question. But yes you seem to be so certain of your belief and determined to rationalise it that anyone like myself - who thinks the laws of thermodynamics that underpin a large portion of physics are true, is by default absurdly uncomprehending/ irrational/worthy of argueing down until they either agree or give up. Are you that knowledgeable that you do indeed know everything or is there perhaps the chance that I too may know what I'm talking about. Whether you ever even considered it or otherwise.

The belief that those thermodynamic principles are true are the foundation from which we have standardised and built virtually all newtonian physical laws and formulas.

So if they are false to ordinary lifes physical parameters how did we do that?

How did we gain such predictive power, knowledge and technology based off something fundamentally incorrect? It doesn't seem to be coherent. Falsities/delusions do not lend themselves to progress/advancement of understandings when accepted as a premise for further research. Right?

I think rather than the the thermodynamic laws being absolutely and definitively true or absolutely and definitively false as we argued, they may be a subset of a larger Duality. Relativism.

And thus relativity stands to reason because newtonian physical formulas begin to break down in special relativity and all of its implications - black holes etc. But only then.

If you want to deny the existence of newtonian physics and its achievements or relativity and its one's in order to prove that thermodynamics is not binary but absolutely and discretely false, be my guest.

What you have argued for based on the falsity of thermodynamics laws is rationally consistent throughout your argument and well composed. But it is confined to Materialism - We can only infer the existence of energy from measurement/ calculation of other physical things.

However what I argued, that you don't need to measure energy to know it's there - and I gave a first person account to prove that - I don't touch fire coz it's hot as. I don't need a maths degree or calculations or formulas or standardisation to know that a fire is releasing thermal energy that I can feel (personally measure/estimate).

So again.. Let's agree to disagree. Because you have validity. And I have validity. From fundamentally different perspectives which I doubt can ever be proven to one another whilst holding opposing assumptions. They're just the dualistic nature of energy.

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. — Bartricks

Even if it doesn't require energy itself, if something immaterial like a ghost or a mind acts on the material world, wouldn't this create physical energy?

how did I admit that? — Bartricks

You used a definition of "philosopher" which is not consistent with anything printed that I've ever seen.

I am using the term to refer to someone who is extremely good at philosophy. — Bartricks

But that's not consistent with the definition you produced, you did not say anything about being extremely good.. You said someone who teaches philosophy at a university, and who has articles published in peer reviewed journals. This excludes all the extremely good philosophers who are not teaching at a university, and allows for all the extremely bad philosophers who teach and have published bad philosophy.

You think that's not clear in the OP? The conservation of energy principle says that the level of energy in the material world will remain constant. Resist the temptation to say that you think the principle is false- that's philosophically inept. — Bartricks

It's definitely not clear in the op. There is no indication as to what "energy" refers to, and how any quantity of energy is determined. These are very important issues otherwise people might just assert that there is the same quantity of energy now, as there was before, therefore energy is conserved. Or, people might produce a mathematical formula which will necessarily, whenever applied, always result in the same amount of energy being determined, regardless of what exists in reality. This is why it is important toward your discussion, to determine what "energy" refers to, and how any specific quantity of energy is determined. Otherwise we have no indication as to how the law of conservation relates to anything, it might just be something that people assert while it has no real relation to anything whatsoever. Then your question is pointless.

Dualism, as explained in the OP, is the view that our minds are immaterial things that are causally interacting with the material world (the latter is interactionism - strictly speaking one could be a dualist and deny it - but by hypothesis that is not the case with the kind of dualism under consideration). — Bartricks

OK, since you want me to focus on the op, here is the part which is problematic:

But how? First, note that the evidence that the principle of the conservation of energy is true is empirical evidence and no empirical evidence will ever conflict with dualism.

Second, in order for the principle of the conservation of energy to be violated, some energy would need either to disappear or be introduced into the picture by the addition of event B. But event B does not do this. We have no more or less energy in the system than if one supposed A caused C directly. Thus, there is no violation of the principle. — Bartricks

As is very evident, and what I've been explaining to Benj, the law of conservation of energy is not true, and, in transactions, some energy does disappear so the addition of event B would cause a disappearance of energy. You assert "But event B does not do this". You are wrong, every event causes some energy to disappear and that's what the second law of thermodynamics accounts for, the energy which disappears when an event occurs.

The issue is that the law of conservation is a useful principle which is not true, and the second law accounts for the untruth of it. But in your comparison with dualism, you are assuming that it is true. Furthermore, as indicated by the passage quoted, the assumption that it is true constitutes a significant part of your comparison with dualism. Since this assumption is incorrect, as I've been arguing, the comparison in the op is completely wrong. And the op, as stated, is completely pointless.

So, you need to reformulate your comparison with an accurate representation of the laws of thermodynamics. You need to allow that the law of conservation is false, and bring in also its relation to the second law which accounts for this falsity, and perhaps even the third law, which describes the consequence of that falsity, in order to make a proper comparison between the laws of thermodynamics and dualism. Your proposal is nothing more than a misleading oversimplification of these laws, which clearly misrepresents the first law in a way which is completely inaccurate. Your op therefore, is not worth considering, as is.

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. — Metaphysician Undercover

:clap: Otherwise we have:
A = Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds matter to be the fundamental substance in nature, and all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist. This concept directly contrasts with idealism, where mind and consciousness are first-order realities to which matter is dependent while material interactions are secondary.
B= Immaterialism is the philosophical position that there is no material world, and all that exists does so only in the mind and is for the mind. It is also the position that the supernatural has existence, i.e., ghosts, spirits.
Is A compatible with B? Imo, NO!
A and B = false

:up:

The belief that those thermodynamic principles are true are the foundation from which we have standardised and built virtually all newtonian physical laws and formulas. — Benj96

This is completely untrue. First, Newtonian laws are prior to, in time, and therefore not derived from thermodynamic principles. Furthermore, Newtonian laws of physics are distinct from, and in a completely different class, from the laws of thermodynamics. Newtons laws relate to the activities of individual things with one centre of mass, and the interactions between these things. The laws of thermodynamics relate to the energy of a system with multiple centres of mass. The issue is that a system is not a thing, it's a conceptual structure which is be applied toward a group of things. So Newtonian laws apply to the interactions of things, which may be assumed to be a part of a system, whereas the laws of thermodynamics apply to the system as a whole, but this whole does not have a centre of mass, as a Newtonian object does.

Now, the important aspect which are not grasping is that Newtonian laws, taken individually are believed to be true, each being supported by empirical evidence. But the laws of thermodynamics are not. The law of conservation is not supported by empirical evidence, it requires an amendment, the second law, to account for the empirical evidence. So the law of conservation, on its own is not believed to be true, because it is known to be false, and that's why we all scoff at the idea of perpetual motion. Nor does the truth of this law provide the foundation for any other laws of physics, because we know it to be untrue, and we know that the second law is required to amend its untruth. So the two laws must be taken in unity.

How did we gain such predictive power, knowledge and technology based off something fundamentally incorrect? — Benj96

Predictive power does not require truth, it is provided for very well with statistical mathematics. But I think what you are really missing is the necessity of the second law to provide the amendment which accounts for the falsity of the first. If we simply had the first law, we would always be looking for that little bit of missing motion, never being able to find it, and we would have to conclude that the first law is not supported by the empirical evidence. Empirical evidence would always show some missing motion. So we simply initiate a second law, which accounts for that little untruth.

Now, with the unity of the first and second together, we have the appearance of truth, energy is conserved, but some of it just ends up being unaccountable for. But this appearance of truth is really just an illusion of deception, because it relies on the assumption that energy is something real, in the world, which can exist independently from our measurements and calculations. But as I've explained to you, energy is really just a product of our calculations, not something existing independently.

What you have argued for based on the falsity of thermodynamics laws is rationally consistent throughout your argument and well composed. But it is confined to Materialism - We can only infer the existence of energy from measurement/ calculation of other physical things. — Benj96

That's because this is what energy is, by definition, and this is an important point. We use formulas to produce a conclusion concerning the "energy" of an object, or a system. It is something which we assign to the thing as an attribute or property, which is non-empirical, never directly sensed. It is abstract, and since it is never sensed, it cannot be verified, as it is simply a creation of the mind. So, if we want to get to the point of reifying energy, saying that it is something real in the world, we need to get beyond materialism, because energy is not a material thing. If we adhere to materialism, then energy is simply a product of calculations, it has no real existence other than as an idea of the mind, and the lost energy which is described by the unity of the first and second laws is necessarily due to faulty principles of the mind. But if we allow for the real existence of the non-material, we might allow that there is real "energy" existing in the world, as an immaterial existence, and the lost energy referred to by these laws, is actually out in the world somewhere, where we cannot locate it (energy escaping sense detection). Then, these united laws are actually correct, and there is a real immaterial existence of energy which we will never be able to find. That's what these laws imply, if taken as the truth, that there is energy existing in the universe which will never be revealed to us. This energy must be truly immaterial, therefore forcing dualism on us.

However what I argued, that you don't need to measure energy to know it's there - and I gave a first person account to prove that - I don't touch fire coz it's hot as. — Benj96

This is not an argument at all. You don't touch the fire because it's hot. This in no way implies that there is energy there. You need a premise which relates being hot to being energy, in order to conclude that being hot implies energy. This is because energy is really not the thing you feel, and you only know that there is energy where you feel heat, because there are logical principles which relate the two. That's why energy is an abstraction, it is not something sensed. We sense things, we measure them and we determine the energy. Because we have the logical principles which relate these, you can say that if I see motion, I know that there is energy there. And, I don't need to measure the motion to know this, but the knowing is based in a logical implication, dependent on certain principles, it is not directly derived from sensing motion.

:up: Thank you!

You don't touch the fire because it's hot. This in no way implies that there is energy there. You need a premise which relates being hot to being energy, in order to conclude that being hot implies energy. — Metaphysician Undercover

My premise is "Ouch that f*@king hurt.

Physicist why did it hurt?"
Physicist :" because it contains a lot of kinetic energy (heat)"
Me: Ah okay so hot (subjective/my experience of heat) =energy, and that energy is being transferred to my hand by "kinesis" (movement)?"
Physicist:" yes that's right, movement from molecule to molecule. Which you can measure with your hand or an instrument.
Enter Metaphysician: "you can't imply that reasoning. You need a premise.

I just gave you one. I suffered a burn. Someone told me don't do that again. I asked why and they said because of the heat (energy moving).
My premise for energy being hot is an ethical one.

If you don't believe it go put your hand in the fire and measure it yourself. Tell me what you feel.

Or don't, and we can just assume that energy is hot as a decent conclusion. And things with more energy in them are hotter (furnaces, nuclear bombs, sun, supernovae etc).

I'm quite tired now of arguing with you. So I'm gunna go. I don't agree with all of what you said. At most i can concede that if you're entirely a materialist puritan then that would stand. But leaves little room for ethical basis for truth about energy.

Am I correct in assuming that at this stage in the argument your only motivation is to prove me wrong? That's fine if you want to. But we would literally be here argueing forever so Ima stop now. Endless unresolved argument is not in much of anyone's interest. I value your time and mine.

Best of luck with it.

A and B = false — universeness

Agreed. However could A + B (summed total) =true? What remainder would that leave behind? Have we considered all when we united A and B ? Consciousness, the material and the interaction between the two?

I a cough out the word dualism/relativism again here. Because I think dualism trumps two opposimg monism.

But as I've explained to you, energy is really just a product of our calculations, not something existing independently. — Metaphysician Undercover

Are you stating this as a scientific fact? and if you are, can you give me references from experts in the field who have stated this as fact or are you just offering the statement above as a valid/convenient way to 'envisage or personally perceive' what energy is. Calculation/measurement can provide information about an instantaneous energy state, but it does not give much information as to what materialistically IS.
Perhaps we really would have to be able to 'see' a photon to better know what energy IS.
'Provides the ability to do work' falls short for most people.
If we really knew what energy IS, would we not have a better description of what a singularity actually is?
Science does not know what energy materialistically IS.
Any energy 'packet' or 'wave' or 'particle' or 'field excitation,' labelled photon or massless etc, are just convenient labels for observed or implied behaviour but none of these labels tells us what energy IS.
Would you agree that energy is material as opposed to immaterial?
Do you think that supernatural and immaterial are synonymous?
For you, if you think that the energy conservation laws are fundamentally incorrect then are you forced to also suggest that something must exist 'outside' of this universe or do you envisage some other way for energy to become 'non-existent' rather than 'changed form.'

Science does not know what energy materialistically IS. — universeness

Hmm I think Einstein begs to differ. Energy is equivalent to matter. "E=M" (x c^2) The only difference is a function of light speed.
If a few grams of hydrogen are converted to energy the energy release is massive. Because (c^2) is a massive exponent.

Atomic explosion massive. However matter can never be 100% converted to energy this way as always has byproducts (helium) in the case of nuclear fusion (nuclear bombs).

I can't say for the case of a blackhole/singularity if matter is completely covered back into pure potential energy as we do not know exactly what happens within a blackhole because of space, time and gravity and the event horizon they create in interaction with one another.

A+B and A and B. One is a calculation and the other is a propositional logic question.
I don't see the value is equating + with 'and.'

Monism and dualism are opposites, so I am not sure what you mean by

I a cough out the word dualism/relativism again here. Because I think dualism trumps two opposimg monism. — Benj96

In coin tosses, two heads can't make a tail, two wrongs don't make a right, or am I totally missing your point here?

Energy is equivalent to matter. "E=M" (x c^2) The only difference is a function of light speed. — Benj96

That's an equivalence, a balance. Like a ton of feathers and a ton of gold. I can see what makes feathers and gold different. Similarly in E=MC squared; I can see that it takes a great deal of energy to produce a little mass. Just like the bundle of feathers is physically much bigger than the bundle of gold but in E=MC squared, we don't know what E or M physically IS. We can't see the feathers or the gold.

E=MC squared, we don't know what E or M physically IS. We can't see the feathers and the gold. — universeness

We do know what M physically is because it's matter (it quite literally by definition "physically is".

So by that fact we ought to know what energy really IS.
The only thing standing in the way is (C2). So should our focus not be on that?

A+B and A and B. One is a calculation and the other is a propositional logic question.
I don't see the value is equating + with 'and.' — universeness

Not neccesarily.
One and two equals three. Two pieces of eight of pie and six pieces of the same eight equals a whole pie.

Maths can be written linguistically. It's slower, less efficient but nay say impossible.
So if the reverse is true we should be able to make the immaterial and the material into summable concepts

I suspect that's what e=mc2 was doing. I just don't think many people understand it

We do know what M physically is because it's matter (it quite literally by definition "physically is". — Benj96

No, it's MASS, defined as:
Mass is the quantity of matter in a physical body. It is also a measure of the body's inertia, the resistance to acceleration (change of velocity) when a net force is applied. An object's mass also determines the strength of its gravitational attraction to other bodies.

Mass is a property of its physicality. We can see the consequences of mass. We can see the manifestations of mass but we can't see mass. We can detect its affects such as gravity but we cant 'see' gravity either or know if its consequential or exists and is quantisable. The Higgs field may even identify the source of mass, but we still don't know exactly what it is. We can see an atom but not electrons or quarks. You might like this
Scientific American Article.

What is mass made of? The Higgs boson from the Higgs field? what does that look like?
Try:
The Higgs. Mexican hat shaped field! and:

The Higgs field is pivotal in generating the masses of quarks and charged leptons (through Yukawa coupling) and the W and Z gauge bosons (through the Higgs mechanism).

It is worth noting that the Higgs field does not "create" mass out of nothing (which would violate the law of conservation of energy), nor is the Higgs field responsible for the mass of all particles. For example, approximately 99% of the mass of baryons (composite particles such as the proton and neutron), is due instead to quantum chromodynamic binding energy, which is the sum of the kinetic energies of quarks and the energies of the massless gluons mediating the strong interaction inside the baryons. In Higgs-based theories, the property of "mass" is a manifestation of potential energy transferred to fundamental particles when they interact ("couple") with the Higgs field, which had contained that mass in the form of energy.

The underlined part above puts me into deadlock. To know what mass is, I have to know what energy is and to know what energy is I have to know what mass is, so I currently dont know what mass fundamentally is or energy. I can lsit the properties of the gold or the feather or the quark or the Mexican hat shape, but I still don't know what they ARE.

The underlined part above puts me into deadlock. To know what mass is, I have to know what energy is and to know what energy is I have to know what mass is, — universeness

I recommend factoring in space (distance) and time.
Oh look that relationship appears to be speed. The speed of light - energy. (C) :P
And we are right back at Einstein equation.

Energy and matter both have mass. Energy's mass is potential mass and matters mass is actualised mass (matter).

Not neccesarily.
One and two equals three. Two pieces of eight of pie and six pieces of the same eight equals a whole pie. — Benj96

1+2 = 3, 1 and 2 is 12. If you want to apply the concept of 'and' arithmetically then to me that mean to place them contiguously. Words are created by 'anding' letters. I know that + and 'and' are conflated together in many ways. Some of them may even be useful and convenient but to me + means to add together. I come from a computing background and if 1,2 are inputs and the operator is + then the output will be 3 and YOU CANNOT get the original inputs back again. You cannot reassemble the cake once it is smashed on the floor. If you use 1 and 2 then you do maintain the original inputs in the result (output).

. I know that + and 'and' are conflated together in many ways. — universeness

They're not conflated per se just dynamic in utility. Conflation denotes erroneous association. It's just that "and" can = "+" but doesn't have to. As you pointed out.
One and two equals three.
One and two equals twelve.
Bob and elsa go..
And another thing...
And what?
And so forth.

All uses of "and" above mean something different.

At a very general, basic and definitive meaning "and" means "combined" or "put together". How or what it puts together is open to interpretation.

Maths is great for discrete logic but not for explaining more abstract (non discrete) concepts. That's where Ands flexibility of use comes in.

What I was saying is that the whole set of the material can be considered as discrete (it's a whole set of things). The whole set of immaterial can also be made discrete as it is a (whole set of things). And thus my Duality proposal is set on that basis.

That if we want to know the truth about the material, immaterial and the interaction between them then we must do some addition and sum to the "universal". Like a Venn diagram.

Venn diagrams can be applied to sets of numbers: primes, powers, multiplications etc. But they can equally be used for abstract concepts to generate relationships between them that are informative of their definitions relative to one another.

The whole set of immaterial can also be made discrete as it is a (whole set of things). And thus my Duality proposal is set on that basis. — Benj96

Car Sagan has always been a very important influence in my life. He used the phrase 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' It's one of the very very few statements he has ever uttered that I don't fully agree with. I would agree that 'absence of evidence is not proof of absence.'
There is zero evidence of the existence of the immaterial (especially when used as a synonym of supernatural) there is no evidence of such a set. Concepts such as dark energy or dark matter are materials/energies we can't yet detect but they are not immaterial.

You used a definition of "philosopher" which is not consistent with anything printed that I've ever seen. — Metaphysician Undercover

What's that got to do with anything? Get out more.

It's definitely not clear in the op. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes it is, it is just that, like most, you don't read the OP carefully - you just see 'conservation of energy principle' and think 'I can say something about that' and then you say it, regardless of whether it is relevant to the argument.

Once more, the issue here is not whether the conservation principle is true. I know you think it is and you're now unable to accept that you're wrong and it's all feeling a little disorientating. But there it is. .

The issue is whether the principle of the conservation of energy is COMPATIBLE with dualism.

"But, but, but..."

No.

The issue is whether the principle of the conservation of energy is COMPATIBLE with dualism. — Bartricks

The issue, lil D-K troll, is whether the principle of the conservation of energy is COMPATIBLE with 'five-sided triangles' or 'conscious atoms' or "angels dancing on pinheads' like yours. :roll:

My premise is "Ouch that f*@king hurt.

Physicist why did it hurt?"
Physicist :" because it contains a lot of kinetic energy (heat)"
Me: Ah okay so hot (subjective/my experience of heat) =energy, and that energy is being transferred to my hand by "kinesis" (movement)?"
Physicist:" yes that's right, movement from molecule to molecule. Which you can measure with your hand or an instrument.
Enter Metaphysician: "you can't imply that reasoning. You need a premise. — Benj96

OK, so you gave me the premise right here, the physicist told you so. I never said that you couldn't infer the conclusion with a premise, I said you couldn't infer it without the premise. Now you gave me the premise, and your conclusion, that energy burns your hand, is valid, but only if we do not consider your appeal to authority to be a fallacy, and we exclude your premise on that basis.

But saying ""Ouch that f*@king hurt." does not qualify as making a measurement, by any stretch of the imagination. To touch something is to measure it? Come on Benj96, your reaching for straws. And how would you know that it is energy you are measuring, except that someone told you? So, you know that you measured energy, because someone told you that this is what tyou did when you touched the fire. And how much energy did you measure?

If you don't believe it go put your hand in the fire and measure it yourself. Tell me what you feel. — Benj96

Sorry, Benj, I will not oblige you and stick my hand in a fire. I will tell you quite honestly though, that doing such is not an act of measuring the energy which is there. If it were, you'd be able to tell me how many calories were transferred from the fire to your hand when you touched it.

Or don't, and we can just assume that energy is hot as a decent conclusion. And things with more energy in them are hotter (furnaces, nuclear bombs, sun, supernovae etc). — Benj96

That's not a decent conclusion at all. Things are loaded with potential energy, which are not hot at all. Remember tht famous equation, E=mc2? Anything with mass has a heck of a lot of energy within it. Remember the atom bomb? The mass does not need not be hot to contain a lot of energy.

I really must tell you, you have some very strange notions about energy, Benj.

Am I correct in assuming that at this stage in the argument your only motivation is to prove me wrong? — Benj96

The idea behind this type of discussion is that we both learn. The problem which has developed is that you don't seem to have much which you can teach me in this subject. So at this stage it's pretty much me teaching you. However, you seem to be a very reluctant student, very skeptical so the process has become very slow, and maybe we've gone beyond the point of making any progress at all.

Are you stating this as a scientific fact? and if you are, can you give me references from experts in the field who have stated this as fact or are you just offering the statement above as a valid/convenient way to 'envisage or personally perceive' what energy is. — universeness

All you have to do is take a look at what energy is, and you'll see that it is not something directly measured. The quantity of energy which is said to be attributed to any object or any specific location, is always the product of a calculation. Look at the famous equation E=mc2. In this case, the amount of energy is derived from a measurement of mass. And when kinetic energy is assigned to a moving object, the equation is 1/2mv2. So kinetic energy is derived from applying that formula to measurements of mass and velocity. It's just a simple fact, that the quantity of energy is always derived from applying a formula to measurements. Energy is not something directly measured, it is calculated. Contrary to Benj96's claim, that he sticks his hand into a fire, and feels the energy in the fire, energy has no empirical existence. It is in no way sensed.

Perhaps we really would have to be able to 'see' a photon to better know what energy IS. — universeness

This is the point, we do not sense energy at all. Notice that we see rainbows, and other instances of refraction, and interference patterns, being the wave property of light, but we do not see the photon, which is supposed to be a unit of energy. The photon is a calculated unit of energy, not a sensed unit of light.

Would you agree that energy is material as opposed to immaterial? — universeness

No, I would obviously not agree to that. Since energy is never sensed, it is only the product of a calculation, it must be immaterial, as a conception only.

For you, if you think that the energy conservation laws are fundamentally incorrect then are you forced to also suggest that something must exist 'outside' of this universe or do you envisage some other way for energy to become 'non-existent' rather than 'changed form.' — universeness

Yes, I think there is necessarily a beyond the universe. This is because "the universe" is a materialist conception, based on all that is material, and sensible. But we can understand, through the concept of energy, that there is necessarily an immateril aspect of reality.

Yes it is, it is just that, like most, you don't read the OP carefully - you just see 'conservation of energy principle' and think 'I can say something about that' and then you say it, regardless of whether it is relevant to the argument. — Bartricks

Did you not read the part of my post, where I described explicitly the problem with your op? You said "note that the evidence that the principle of the conservation of energy is true is empirical evidence". This is incorrect, as I explained. All empirical evidence indicates that the law of conservation is false.
Therefore you need to correct this.

But correcting that would create an even bigger problem for your op, because you then go on to say: "in order for the principle of the conservation of energy to be violated, some energy would need either to disappear or be introduced into the picture by the addition of event B. But event B does not do this. "

Now, you need to just face the facts. The law of conservation is always violated, all the time, and so, in the event of B, energy must disappear, according to the second law of thermodynamics. Therefore, if you maintain your assertion, that no energy disappears in the instance of B, then B is not a real empirical event, and your claim of compatibility fails.

Is this sufficient as a reply to your issue of compatibility?

Is this sufficient as a reply to your issue of compatibility? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, because you're just finding different ways of saying 'but the law of conservation isn't true".

Assume it is true. Is it compatible with dualism?

If the goal of the thread is to just make assumptions with no respect for whether or not they are true, then why don't we just assume that the law of contradiction is compatible with dualism, and get the thread done with.

All you have to do is take a look at what energy is, and you'll see that it is not something directly measured. The quantity of energy which is said to be attributed to any object or any specific location, is always the product of a calculation — Metaphysician Undercover

We don't know what energy IS. A photon has associated quantum numbers which are attributes of a photon but are not enough to reveal the 'material' of a photon. A photoelectric sensor can 'detect' a photon, which to me, is evidence that it is not immaterial.

Would you agree that energy is material as opposed to immaterial?
— universeness

No, I would obviously not agree to that. Since energy is never sensed, it is only the product of a calculation, it must be immaterial, as a conception only. — Metaphysician Undercover

in what way are you using 'immaterial' here? as a synonym with supernatural? If not, then do you have other synonyms you would accept for 'immaterial' as you use it here?

Yes, I think there is necessarily a beyond the universe. This is because "the universe" is a materialist conception, based on all that is material, and sensible. But we can understand, through the concept of energy, that there is necessarily an immateril aspect of reality. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you have any 'descriptions' or even 'attributes' of that which you perceive exists 'outside' of this universe. Does it have special dimensions? Is any of its 'substances' quantisable? Any structure?
Can 'stuff' from here go there and vice versa? Is every 'planck length' here connected to the 'outside' you envisage. Can you refer to 'outside' this universe without suggesting an existent which we would currently label 'supernatural'?