Here is an interesting viewpoint from Victor Toth on Quora. He is a popular poster of answers to physics questions.

The question posted was:
Do you agree with this statement: "Matter can be created and destroyed but energy cannot"?

Victor's response was:
The concept of “matter” is surprisingly ill-defined. Different branches of physics would consider different things “matter”. To a cosmologist, for instance, or a relativist, everything that is not gravity is “matter”. A particle theorist might consider, e.g., fermions “matter” and bosons as particles that mediate forces. Others may have different views. In any case, “matter” is not a quantitative concept, so creating or destroying matter is also ill-defined.

So whether you view the annihilation of a particle-antiparticle pair into a pair of photons the “destruction of matter” or just a conversion from one form of matter into another is, to a large extent, a matter of taste.

Energy is a constant of the motion in systems that are described by equations that are invariant under time translation. To the best of our knowledge, all finite closed physical systems (systems that do not communicate with their environment) have this invariance, but we do not know if this property can be extended, e.g., to the universe as a whole.

An accurate response imo.

We don't know what energy IS — universeness

I would say that there is no such thing as what energy is, and trying to make such a determination would be a mistaken venture.

A photoelectric sensor can 'detect' a photon, which to me, is evidence that it is not immaterial. — 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.

n 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? — universeness

I really can't understand what you are asking. I am using "immaterial" in the common way, as non-material, such as we would say that concepts have immaterial existence. Energy is nothing more than a concept. There is absolutely nothing in the world of matter which "energy" represents. It is very similar to "time" in that respect. We use the concept freely, but there is nothing material in the world which is represented by it. So if we try to reify it, to say that there is something real which is represented by it, we end up being forced to say that there is something real which is immaterial. That's what happens when we try to reify concepts.

Do you have any 'descriptions' or even 'attributes' of that which you perceive exists 'outside' of this universe. — universeness

No, I have no such description. It's simply the case that the way that we conceptualize "the universe" produces from logical necessity, the conclusion that there is something outside the universe. In other words, that there is something outside the universe is a logical conclusion produced from our current conception of "the universe". To determine some logical principles concerning the nature of what it is which is outside the universe would require that we analyze closely the premises which lead to this conclusion, such as the premises involved in the concept of energy.

It is possible that we might conceptualize "the universe" in a different way, but such a conceptualization might not be as useful to us. A supposed "true conceptualization" of the universe might be able to represent all of reality as "the universe", but this conceptualization would be very different from the useful conceptualization which we currently employ.

Can you refer to 'outside' this universe without suggesting an existent which we would currently label 'supernatural'? — universeness

Do you label concepts, being artificial instead of natural, as supernatural?

So whether you view the annihilation of a particle-antiparticle pair into a pair of photons the “destruction of matter” or just a conversion from one form of matter into another is, to a large extent, a matter of taste. — universeness

I guess the nature of matter is a feature of which flavour of quark you prefer.

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' — universeness

I think what he meant was that there is information out there that we haven't yet obtained. Bigger truths that contextualised our differences of opinion.

. I would agree that 'absence of evidence is not proof of absence.' — universeness

And in what way does one "prove" something? I think it's with evidence no? The empirical.
So proof of absence is what in this case but lacking evidence to do so.

There is zero evidence of the existence of the immaterial — universeness

There isnt? Are you sure?

When i invent/construct in my mind a fantasy. There is no evidence for that fantasy existing except for me (the beholder of the fantasy contained in my mind - the immaterial, inaccessible to anyone else unless I speak. My. Mind).

The minute I write it down as a novel. It becomes real. Something physical that people can read and interpret/read/appreciate. I have shared my creativity and imagination with the world in that case. Something that was once private and inaccesible to anyone else.

I never said that you couldn't infer the conclusion with a premise, I said you couldn't infer it without the premise. — Metaphysician Undercover

Read that again bud.

Energy is nothing more than a concept. — Metaphysician Undercover

How then (if it is a concept) is it equivalent to matter. If it was truly equivalent to matter then matter is also, by proxy, a concept. Are you denying Einsteins discoveries. Thats a bold attempt. Admirable maybe but no less bold in conviction.

How would you go about explaining that Einsteins theory is totally false?

. A supposed "true conceptualization" of the universe might be able to represent all of reality as "the universe", but this conceptualization would be very different from the useful conceptualization which we currently employ. — Metaphysician Undercover

It would be different. But science is about shifting paradigms to those that have better explanatory power for what is actual about the universe. What is truly real.

Just because one demi-concept is partially useful doesn't mean it cannot be replaced with something even more useful, more explanatory. As has been done many times in the past.

That the sensor detects a photon is a common misinterpretation. — Metaphysician Undercover

I disagree as what is detected satisfies the human label 'photon' and is considered 'material.'
I accept that a photon is probably not geometrically shaped like the traditional snooker ball that it is sometimes depicted as or the geometric waveform is it also sometimes shown as. This is because we now think it is a field excitation but we cannot current show its actual shape. As you suggest, that might be because it does not have one that we will ever be able to physically see or even imply via detection but there is zero evidence for your suggestion that it is immaterial. It's utter conjecture to play the bar tricks game and suggest that the immaterial can create the material. That's just a god of the gaps inference.

I really can't understand what you are asking. I am using "immaterial" in the common way, as non-material, such as we would say that concepts have immaterial existence. Energy is nothing more than a concept. There is absolutely nothing in the world of matter which "energy" represents. It is very similar to "time" in that respect. We use the concept freely, but there is nothing material in the world which is represented by it. So if we try to reify it, to say that there is something real which is represented by it, we end up being forced to say that there is something real which is immaterial. That's what happens when we try to reify concepts. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think you do understand what I am asking. But I can be more direct if you wish. I am asking if your dalliance with the term immaterial leaves room in your psyche for god posits?

the conclusion that there is something outside the universe. In other words, that there is something outside the universe is a logical conclusion produced from our current conception of "the universe". — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, I accept that's your conclusion and you are certainly not alone in that. The many worlds/multiverse/oscillating universe proposals and many many more, all have credence levels that individuals assign to them, from the novice to the expert. These are backed up by various logical, fairly coherent proposals but none of them have sufficient evidence to be as overwhelmingly convincing as theories/facts such as the evolution of species or the rules of arithmetic.

Do you label concepts, being artificial instead of natural, as supernatural? — Metaphysician Undercover

Artificial is material artificial intelligence for example is emulation and emulation is real. Artificial simply means made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural. The terms supernatural and immaterial, belongs in god posits imo.

I guess the nature of matter is a feature of which flavour of quark you prefer. — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps.

I think what he meant was that there is information out there that we haven't yet obtained. Bigger truths that contextualised our differences of opinion. — Benj96

Carl actually used the term to confirm that atheism was not attempting to disprove god posits and used the phrase to support his point but I think the 'proof' substitution I suggested makes the phrase clearer, as the absence of any evidence to support a claim, does add significant credence to the idea that the claim has no existent, especially when the evidence remains zero as time goes forward.

And in what way does one "prove" something? I think it's with evidence no? The empirical.
So proof of absence is what in this case but lacking evidence to do so. — Benj96

You need to edit your last sentence above as it makes no sense. I agree with your text in the quote, before the last sentence.

There is zero evidence of the existence of the immaterial
— universeness
There isnt? Are you sure? — Benj96

Yes, I am currently convinced, the immaterial has no existent.

When i invent/construct in my mind a fantasy. There is no evidence for that fantasy existing except for me (the beholder of the fantasy contained in my mind - the immaterial, inaccessible to anyone else unless I speak. My. Mind).
The minute I write it down as a novel. It becomes real. Something physical that people can read and interpret/read/appreciate. I have shared my creativity and imagination with the world in that case. Something that was once private and inaccesible to anyone else. — Benj96

A human fantasy, constructed within a human mind is not immaterial, its real, you are really experiencing it, either in sleep or awake mode. Exactly what is immaterial in your fantasies? They are made of thoughts and thoughts are not immaterial, they are the results of combinatorial brain actions.
I think dualism is nonsense (as I have typed to you before, I do raise an eybrow to the idea of an emerging panpsychism and I agree that all of the 'ingredients' of human consciousness, must exist outwith humans, but still within this universe) and human consciousness exists ONLY in the brain. I think YOU are fundamentally, a brain, in that your brain is the most significant part of YOU.
I can remove most of the rest of you and you will still be able to act as a thinking human, if not a fully functioning one.

A human fantasy, constructed within a human mind is not immaterial, its real, you are really experiencing it, either in sleep or awake mode — universeness

But how do you empirically prove I'm experiencing it unless I tell you I am experiencing it? My internal thoughts are private to me are they not? Inaccesible by any study, objective measurement etc until I elucidate them verbally.

How then are they not immaterial? You cite so because they are the product of the brain. But the hard problem of consciousness exists. To assume it doesn't means you have proof as to how my brains function gives rise to my sensations/emotions and feelings. And the imagination.

If you had such a proof you'd be able to predict not only what I'm thinking now but whatever I could possibly think of in the future.

Do you know who I am in my entirety? All my memories, experiences, beliefs and opinions, feelings? Does anyone?

Or are they strictly immaterial (non physical/not expressed/not written down) to everyone if I choose not to divulge them?

How would you, with a materialist explanation, account for the information in my mind that you cannot access?

I can remove most of the rest of you and you will still be able to act as a thinking human, if not a fully functioning one. — universeness

I doubt you can remove anything from me that isn't vital to my interpretation/sense of the world without impacting my consciousness. If you remove my vital organs I die. If you remove my limbs then I cannot be conscious of all the sensation that limbs provide or the ways they interact with the world to give me information in my consciousness.

Yes, I am currently convinced, the immaterial has no existent. — universeness

If the immaterial doesn't exist then I suppose the material cannot do anything. It cannot be acted on, move etc. Because what would exist to do those things to the material? What fills in the gap between material things and allows them to move towards or away from eachother for example.

How do we make sense of "material" without, oh I don't know, the opposite? Are opposites not required to exist for eachother to be separable/distinct?

Can light exist without darkness? Can poverty exist in isolation from wealth? Can sound exist without silence!? Can up exist without down?

Can the material exist without the immaterial?

Artificial is material artificial intelligence for example is emulation and emulation is real. Artificial simply means made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural — universeness

Can natural systems created artificial things? Can the natural/organic (humans) create non-natural things? Or is everything a natural thing does/make and extension of nature ?

I think "artificial" means "unlike that which came before it" which can be applied to humans verses our ape/primate ancestors. Or multicellular organisms verses unicellular organisms. None of which are "unnatural".

"artificial" is a fancy and misleading word for the things and operations that humans carry out that supposedly are not permitted by natural processes despite the fact that everything artificial is a). composed of and B). Obeys the laws of - natural things, metals, silicon, electricity etc.

:up:

Because the op is about an argument for their compatibility.
Look, you just don't know how to argue or what the op is on. If you have nothing to say about the compatibility of the principle of c and dualism, no thoughts on the carefully laid out argument in the op, then go away. Stop blathering on about how it is false. Start a thread on that, even though it isn't remotely philosophical. Then I can join that one and say things irrelevant to your op.

But how do you empirically prove I'm experiencing it unless I tell you I am experiencing it? My internal thoughts are private to me are they not? Inaccesible by any study, objective measurement etc until I elucidate them verbally. — Benj96

Well, I could scan your brain and use the science we have, to see if the bits of the brain that should 'light up' or activate during dreaming or 'imagining,' do in fact 'light up' or 'activate'. I am not a neuroscientist, but I have watched various documentaries on what we currently understand is going on in the brain, and how brain activity maps to human activity/thought. We also have your confirmatory verbal input, to assist the process. I am not suggesting that such mapping of brain activity, can map perfectly on to a comment you might make such as 'I just thought of a unicorn with the feet of a lion,'
but we are progressing in neuroscience in very impressive ways.

But the hard problem of consciousness exists. To assume it doesn't means you have proof as to how my brains function gives rise to my sensations/emotions and feelings. And the imagination. — Benj96

I did not suggest that science has solved the hard problem of consciousness. I am suggesting that I dont know why you jump to woo woo words such as 'immaterial.' There is no evidence that the immaterial has an existing example. You are suggesting we can use the term credibly and confidently, in regard to phenomena such as human consciousness. I do not see where that confidence or credence comes from, but I do see where the confidence and credence come from when a word like 'material' is used in regard to human thought, as we have what is considered to be many detectable attributes of energy particles or energy field excitations.

If you had such a proof you'd be able to predict what I'm thinking now plus whatever I could possibly think of in the future.
Do you know who I am in my entirety? All my memories, experiences, beliefs and opinions, feelings? Does anyone?
Or are they strictly immaterial (non physical/not expressed/not written down) to everyone if I choose not to divulge them?
How would you, with a materialist explanation, account for the information in my mind that you cannot access? — Benj96

I don't claim to have telepathic ability, no, but again, nueroscience does know a respectable amount about the workings of the brain and what we don't yet know is a gap that does not require an immaterial plug.

If the immaterial doesn't exist then I suppose the material cannot do anything. It cannot be acted on, move etc. Because what would exist to do those things to the material? What fills in the gap between material things and allows them to move towards or away from eachother for example. — Benj96

There is no gap. The universe consists of different forms of material, nothing immaterial needs to be involved. Force/energy is material and energy does work so that material with mass can do stuff.

I doubt you can remove anything from me that isn't vital to my interpretation/sense of the world without impacting my consciousness — Benj96

How about a hair or a skin cell or a fingernail? How about a skin graft?

If you remove my vital organs I die. — Benj96

Artificial heart? Modified pig organs? heart, liver, kidney transplants?

Can light exist without darkness? Can poverty exist in isolation from wealth? Can sound exist without silence!? Can up exist without down? — Benj96

These are not alternative existents they are states of a quantity range. A dimmer switch demostrates that light and dark is part of the same range of states. As is poverty/wealth and up/down (same single dimension)

Can natural systems created artificial things? — Benj96

No but humans can. Plastic is not natural it is a human combinatorial but it's still real!
Artificial does not literally mean, 'not real.'

Well, I could scan your brain and use the science we hve not to see if the bits of the brain that should 'light up' or activate during dreaming or 'imagining,' do in fact 'light up' or 'activate'. I am not a neuroscientist, but I have watched various documentaries on what we currently understand is going on in the brain and how brain activity maps to human activity/thought. We also have your confirmatory verbal input to assist the process. — universeness

But I outlined a situation in which I don't volunteer the information verballyx but rather keep it to myself. You can scan my brain but with no input from me you cannot make any associations between what you see on the screen to what I'm actually thinking.

There is no evidence that the immaterial has an existing example. — universeness

I'm saying that my mind is exactly such an example. If you have no access to the entirety of my minds content then it is by default immaterial to you. Unprovable with what's available to materialism. Without my input.

nueroscience does know a respectable amount about the workings of the brain — universeness

But all brains are different no? Structured differently. Otherwise we would all have the same memories and think the same things simultaneously.

You cannot standardise a brains function. As we are individuals therefore unique, therefore our brains hold different information in a different arrangement.

But I outlined a situation in which I don't volunteer the information verballyx but rather keep it to myself. — Benj96

Sure, one day science might be able to produce a toy which allows you to concentrate on a number and my brain scanner can tell you what the number is. It might not work every time but even once or twice would be impressive, yes? On what basis is you keeping your thought secret from another evidence that the immaterial exists. All that would be evidence for is the fact that you have the ability to not tell me what you are currently thinking!

Force/energy is material — universeness

If force/energy is material Should we not be able to see it just like we can see matter - a cup of coffee on the table.

How about a hair or a skin cell or a fingernail? How about a skin graft? — universeness

If you remove a hair I can't feel any fly/mosquito brushing against it. If you remove a fingernail I can't feel what it's like to get my nail clipped/pared back.

Granted if you remove a skin cell I wouldn't notice.

I'm saying that my mind is exactly such an example. If you have no access to the entirety of my minds content then it is by default immaterial to you. Unprovable with what's available to materialism. Without my input. — Benj96

Not at all! In what way is my inability to read your mind, evidence of the immaterial? I cant see the inside of a black hole, does that make its contents immaterial? is a black hole immaterial?

Sure, one day science might be able to produce a toy which allows you to concentrate on a number and my brain scanner can tell you what the number is. It might not work every time but even once or twice would be impressive, yes? On what basis is you keeping your thought secret from another evidence that the immaterial exists. All that would be evidence for is the fact that you have the ability to not tell me what you are currently thinking! — universeness

The fact that I can keep information private from everyone else is by definition something that is not physical - something that it is impossible for others to ascertain with objective methods.
And if they tried I could cite invasion of privacy. An ethical Implication which would likely stand up in court even if you could scientifically extract the information from my mind by scanning.

Therefore it is immaterial to others. Inaccesible information that yes exists. But only for me and no one else. And you cannot prove it empirically without my cooperation.

What définition of immaterial can you offer that doesn't satisfy what I just explained.

But all brains are different no? Structured differently. Otherwise we would all have the same memories and think the same things simultaneously. — Benj96

We would if we experienced every life event since birth in exactly the same way.
Every electronic memory chip is identical in physical structure and functionality but they don't all hold the same software or data.

If force/energy is material Should we not be able to see it just like we can see matter - a cup of coffee on the table. — Benj96

How are the blind still able to experience a 'reality'?
You can 'feel the force/the gravity/the heat' is that not as good as seeing it?
Have you felf anything immaterial recently or ever?

Focus on the OP!! Jesus, you people are unbelievably bad at philosophy! This place never used to be this awful in terms of philosophical quality.

The question is whether dualism is compatible with the conservation of energy principle. So that is what you should be discussing . Not - note - any thought that enters your mind while reading the op regardless of its relevance to it.

Why the fuck even bother with an op? Focus! or start your own thread on whatever you think passes for a philosophical point worth discussing ("Are philosophy is progress free will consciousness bananas oo money the poor oppression" - some thought vomit like that). Don't derail this one with your inane thoughts.

Again: if you have nothing to say about the compatibility (look it up) of dualism with the conservation principle, then go away. Your thoughts are not being sought.

If you remove a hair I can't feel any fly/mosquito brushing against it. — Benj96

Even that is not true if the hair I removed had not yest broken through your skin!
You remove waste products for YOU all the time dont you? Do you still feel like YOU afterwards?

We would if we experienced every life event since birth in exactly the same way. — universeness

But we can't can we? Because in order to exist we must be separate objects occupying individual space that creates opposing perspectives. In order to be exactly the same we have to occupy the same space simultaneously. Otherwise I'm 2 meters away from something whilst you're 1 meter away. And the two perspectives and sensations are fundamentally different. You think it's too hot 1m away from the fire but I 2m away think it's fine.

How are the blind still able to experience a 'reality'? — universeness

They experience reality differently to those that can see. Obviously. If their other senses are in tact then they can perceive them just as anyone else can, if not better because the part of their brain that normally perceives vision is idle and can likely be included into other processing making it more astute.

The fact that I can keep information private from everyone else is by definition something that is no physical - something that it is impossible for others to ascertain with objective methods.
And if they tried I could cite invasion of privacy. An ethical Implication which would likely stand up in court even if you could scientifically extract the information from my mind by scanning. — Benj96

No it's not! It only involves a physical ability to decide to not speak and not tell me your current thoughts. Nothing immaterial is needed.
I don't think we want to get so far off topic that we start to discuss the legal situation as regarding a future neurological ability to mind read.

They experience reality differently to those that can see. — Benj96

Just like science has many ways to detect what's going on in the universe without having to surrender to concepts like the immaterial.