If you understood the OP and understood the article, you'd see I'm making the same point. But note, you don't.

You also do not understand what plagiarism involves, clearly. For regardless of whether the argument in the OP is original to me or is the one in that article, it would not be plagiarism.

Cheers, Bart. Thanks for the laugh.

Thinking out loud, after reading from the article Bart cites as his source, the following argument:

(1) The universe is an isolated system.
(2) In an isolated system, the total amount of energy is constant.
(3) If souls interact with bodies, they change the total amount of
energy of the universe.
(4) Souls interact with bodies.
(5) 1–4 are inconsistent.
(6) Therefore, reject 4. — José Gusmão Rodrigues

Rodrigues addresses each in turn, showing that the argument as presented is quite weak.

What I'm puzzling over, for those of you with a decent background in physics, is if we can word (3) and (4) in terms of work done rather than the loose "interact"; Something like

(3') If souls do work, they change the amount of
energy available for work (entropy?).
(4') Souls do work.

But that does not quite what I think we can get to. It's more that if a spirit has some impact of a physical system, then it does work (exerts a force over some distance), and it is part of the physical system.

Hence reinforcing the intuition that any spirit or other supposed non-physical entity, if it is detectable, is physical.

And the converse, that a spirit that is not part of this universe does not work and is irrelevant, dropping out of consideration faster than a beetle in a box.

others might be able to harden such an argument up.

(1) The universe is an isolated system.
(2) In an isolated system, the total amount of energy is constant.
(3) If souls interact with bodies, they change the total amount of
energy of the universe.
(4) Souls interact with bodies.
(5) 1–4 are inconsistent.
(6) Therefore, reject 4. — José Gusmão Rodrigues

The argument is not sound because, unlike the universe & bodies, there is not any public evidence of "souls".

I enjoyed nBSG as a more adult, grittier, semi-harder tech "reimagining" of the cartoony oBSG which was an excremental, faux-Mormon Star Wars-clone. Okay, yeah, the premise doesn't make sense but ...

:roll: My muscular buttocks you have "peer reviewed.".

The argument is not sound because, unlike the universe & bodies, there is not any public evidence of "souls". — 180 Proof

Oh, obviously, but there remains a problem with the physics of things that are supposedly not physical that we might be able to articulate. If they are not physical, they cannot do stuff.

If we are allowed part-series, the first series of Earth: Final Conflict had more to it than nBSG, and the first few episodes of Lexx were grittier.

Do you really want Bart peering at your buttocks? I mean, it's up to you, but...

Trust me: I assess how good people are at philosophy for a living. — Bartricks

Who employs you? Donald Trump? Trust YOU :rofl:

Hence reinforcing the intuition that any spirit or other supposed non-physical entity, if it is detectable, is physical.
And the converse, that a spirit that is not part of this universe does not work and is irrelevant, dropping out of consideration faster than a beetle in a box.
others might be able to harden such an argument up. — Banno

No need to. You have again killed bar tricks already dead OP, as I typed earlier. The OP died on page 1 with posts such as:

Why are you framing this physical-nonphysical dualism in physical terms of "causality", "energy", "conservation laws" etc?
What warrants your assumption that nonphysical substance shares the property of "causality" with physical substance?
And if this assumption is warranted, then what warrants assuming that they are two, different "substances"? — 180 Proof

:smirk:

I got carried away with a (Jayne Cobb) partial quote from the movie Serenity. :snicker:

If you don't mind, please explain why you are, if I understand correctly, a "material-immaterial dualist". — 180 Proof

Because they are neccesary/symbiotic/complimentary to one another. Materialism would be meaningless without Immaterialism and vice versa. They contextualise one another.

Both gather empirical evidence, but differ in the quality of that empirical evidence. One is based on observation of its physical qualities that can be precisely measured using instruments or experiments. Observations that are fixed, constant and ought not to change if true.
The other is based on its symbolic (metaphysical) qualities, invented for purpose which can be arbitrarily changed and through its purpose it is true.

If I give a 20 dollar note to a puritan materialist and ask it to find its inherent value/ability to do work. They will burn it and say that it has an inherent value of 100 joules (or whatever) of chemical energy when fully combusted.

Give the same note to a puritan Immaterialist and they will say well it has a 20 written on it so I can symbolically exchange that with someone else who also believes it's worth 20 of something and buy two products worth 10 of that something each. It can be transacted and that is its value/ability to do work - procure goods and services.

The materialist will be like where did you find the 20? Where is its physical basis? What part of its structure, mass, density etc gives rise to this 20 value?
The Immaterialist will say its physical basis comes from collective belief and agreement in the imagined worth of a piece of paper. Only then can it be assumed real and functional in reality.

Similarly if I and a friend show someone an object and say that it is called a "smoogflump" the materialist will say Where's the physical evidence for that? Prove it. Of course the Immaterialist cannot prove it by any standard accepted as proof by the materialist. It is only called so because they agree with another person to refer to it as such. The basis for linguistics.

In essence consciousness has the capacity to interpret the world materially by controlling/standardising parts of the environment that are not neccesarily standardisable in all cases - time, space etc to elucidate physics/chemistry etc.
or imaginatively/creatively/with artistic licence (metaphor, figurative speech, abstraction, word-play, mythology, emotion, feeling) - all things that in the mind of an individual have no materialist counterpart in reality that can be physically proven, lest them make it so through agreement.

This is why I am a dualist. I believe materialism provides us with some of the picture. And Immaterialism fills in the rest.

If they are not physical, they cannot do stuff. — Banno

Time is not physical in the "material" sense. You can't point to it, pick it up, say what colour it is etc, yet it allows for "stuff to be done".
We reduce it to the assumption of physicality in the sense that we objectify it/standardise it/make it finite and discrete - with seconds minutes and hours.

Because we "measure" it's passage consistently we can say its "physical" - real and exists. But our measurements are arbitrary. A second is a human invention. Nature doesn't deal in seconds it deals in cycles and oscillations and frequencies, all of which run at different rates.

There needs to be the distinction between being "physical" as something that is "material" - has matter, is an object that occupies space, or something that is "measurable"- which includes far more things than just that that is material.

They are not the same thing.

This is why I am a dualist. I believe materialism provides us with some of the picture. And Immaterialism fills in the rest. — Benj96

But your exemplifications of what you are labelling 'immaterial' are completely notional.
Just because the term 'material' exists does not demand it must have an opposite.
Consider actual material examples! Does a human or a car have an opposite?
What's the opposite of a human? Everything that's not human?
What's the opposite of this universe?
Up and down are only opposites, in the sense of which linear directions they might exist at.
I agree that something like particle, anti-particle pairs/opposites, have a different aspect to them, compared to most objects that might be labelled 'opposites,' as they annihilate each other when they meet but even that situation remains 'material,' as resultants such as photons are produced from the annihilation. What is the opposite of time?
I see nothing in your description of your dualism that I can even consider as a valid example which warrants the label 'immaterial.'

I don't think the 'non-physical' mentioned in the description below from wiki to mean non-natural or non-material. I just assumed it to mean non-physical as it is 'invisible energy,' but not immaterial or non-detectable! Are the more important words in the description below for dualism, not, 'distinct and separable?'
In the philosophy of mind, mind–body dualism denotes either the view that mental phenomena are non-physical, or that the mind and body are distinct and separable. Thus, it encompasses a set of views about the relationship between mind and matter, as well as between subject and object, and is contrasted with other positions, such as physicalism and enactivism, in the mind–body problem.

Good summation. Ghosts are fine provided they don't do any work (W=Fs). — Banno

Thank God someone understood what I was saying.

@Bartricks saying that it does not take energy for the spirits to be activated made my argument about energy coming from nowhere when they move things in the physical world easier.

However, if it is asserted that the spirits (whether minds or ghosts) use energy, it is not so easy. The stock argument is that even if the spirit takes energy from the physical systems and then adds the same amount of energy back, the amount of energy within the system would be fluctuating. The total amount of energy within the system is not supposed to be fluctuating, it is supposed to remain constant per the conservation of energy principle.

Consider actual material examples! Does a human or a car have an opposite? — universeness

Yup. "absence of said human/ car". The opposite is the lack thereof in the material world. The only other possibility of its existence then being within the minds eye/imagination. Although if oddly specific, it's unlikely to spontaneously arise unless someone describes it to you.

What's the opposite of this universe? — universeness

Potentiality of this universe. Possibility to be.

Good summation. Ghosts are fine provided they don't do any work (W=Fs). — Banno

Witches similarly are fine provided they don't do any work. However such a belief lead as we know well to a lot of burning women (work done).

A belief can be brought into reality. If it is acted upon. If not then it remains in the mind only. That is not to say the belief is coherent, sensible or with good explanatory power but that doesn't stop it from being cited as a reason to carry out physical acts which can be observed. In that way there is a link between the material and immaterial.

Some beliefs are good ones, predictive, useful, and other are more on the delusional/irrational side. But all can be manifested through action of their beholders.

But this means your 'immaterial' has as much significance to any content of this universe as 'no car, no human and no universe,' No significance at all. There is no evidence that 'something from nothing' happens as 'nothing' is impossible to quantify or even qualify. You can't even reference 'nothing' as your reference is 'something.'

This thread is about whether the principle of conservation is compatible with duaiism. Is A compatible with B. I have argued that they are. — Bartricks

Let me remind you though, your argument is based in the premise that the law of conservation is true.

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

Since the law of conservation is not true, your argument is unsound. Therefore I've requested that you produce a better argument, one which represents the law of conservation as a useful principle, but not true unless employed in conjunction with other principles, like the second law of thermodynamics. Representing the law of conservation as true by itself, is the false premise of your argument Bartricks. You strawman the law of conservation as a stand-alone truth.

There is no evidence that 'something from nothing' happens as 'nothing' is impossible to quantify or even qualify. You can't even reference 'nothing' as your reference is 'something.' — universeness

I didn't reference "nothingness" I referenced "absence and potential/possibility to be".

Nothing doesn't exist without something - its opposite.
So before the simultaneous emergence of material stuff (something) and nothing (the seeming lack/the void/space) around that what ought there have been?

Potential. Which is not the same as nothing. Potential has characteristics "to be" - both something and its opposite.

"Nothing" does not have that same characteristics "to be". It is a by-product of somethingness.

I don't know if that will make sense but I did my best to explain my views. I'm haply to try and elaborate. But the meaning of my words and yours are critical here in not misinterpreting one another.

Well, at least I can reaffirm my rejection of duality.
The credence you are giving to a notion such as 'a potential universe,' has no credence at all for me.
Similar to the idea of a 'potential car, human, unicorn or god.' Such notions just seem meaningless to me.

Well, at least I can reaffirm my rejection of duality.
The credence you are giving to a notion such as 'a potential universe,' has no credence at all for me.
Similar to the idea of a 'potential car, human, unicorn or god.' Such notions just seem meaningless to me. — universeness

And yet they exist. Here on this page. And in both our minds. How is that so? They don't have to be valued to exist. If you don't value another's beliefs, reject them at will. Does that mean they cease to exist? I believe not. They are just not agreed upon as real.

I don't think "a potential universe" is all that far off from the "singularity" concept of physics. A pointless, spatially dimensionless, timeless, entity in which all energy is condensed, all possible information and interactions that could and/or ever will exist.

Pure potential. Potential everywhereness (Omnipresence), potential every energy stateness (omnipotence) and potential every interactioness/measurable occurrence (omniscience).

Not nothing. Not something. But the in-between, a state that can remain as potential, or become mass energy time and space - as required for one another to exist relativistically.

To give dimension to the dimensionless.
Yes it sounds fantastical and bizarre and almost inconceivable and mainly will dismiss it as purely absurd thus, but it's just as strange as much of the other possible rationales for the origin of existence.

...the law of conservation is not true... — Metaphysician Undercover

:roll: We're still waiting for the disproof of Noether's theorem (e.g. a "perpetual motion machine").

This is why I am a dualist. I believe materialism provides us with some of the picture. And Immaterialism fills in the rest. — Benj96

Aka "woo-of-the gaps" (via false dichotomy due to reification fallacy of binary-opposition semantics). Okay. I appreciate your honesty, Ben.

:up:

via false dichotomy due to reification fallacy of binary-opposition semantics — 180 Proof

How is it a false dichotomy and a reification fallacy simultaneously? That's a contradiction.

Reification fallacy is the inappropriate concretising of abstractions. Right? Saying the imaginary is real.

And you say this leads to false dichotomy - meaning a separation between two supposed opposites that doesn't actually exist.

If they don't actually exist as opposites, and there's only really one thing, where does the reification fallacy apply then? It can't apply to monism. Which in turn makes the premise to refer to it, a fallacy.

It's like the liar paradox in disguise. The following statement is true (reification fallacy). The previous statement is false (false dichotomy).

You're basically saying: they're not two they're one, due to the fact of misplaced concreteness. So is the one thing concrete or is it abstract?

If its concrete, how do we the word abstract meaningfully. And if its abstract how do we use the term concrete meaningfully.

Opposites have to exist for reification fallacy to be applied. And monism has to exist for false dichotomy to be applied. Its self proving that it's a dualistic state for either of those to ever be applied.

I think its absurd to think that only concrete things can exist and abstraction doesn't. Because if it doesn't what say you of creativity, imagination, invention, new words etc. They would have had to already exist if abstraction doesn't exist.

Can you explain to me a universe where only light exists and no darkness. Or where only sound exists and no silence?

Or perhaps it takes two to tango?

The "dualism" referred to in the OP and (mostly) discussed throughout this thread is substance dualism. I assumed that is also what you meant by "dualism". If I was mistaken and you are a property dualist instead, then my criticism doesn't apply. However, at best, as far as I can tell, you are conflating substance with property.

The "dualism" referred to in the OP and (mostly) discussed throughout this thread is substance dualism. I assumed that is also what you meant by "dualism". If I was mistaken and you are a property dualist instead, then my criticism doesn't apply. At best, as far as I can tell, you are conflating substance with property — 180 Proof

Ah yes the heavy burden of definitions is upon us once again. So easy to assume I'm explaining how I define something comprehensively verses what one interprets that is (based on their own definition readily at hand). Leading to all sorts of mismeanings and twistings of communication.

If only language was a bit less ambiguous.

Well for me substance is similar to material. Substance is that which "substantiates" physical things. Properties on the other hand are that which substances can do, behave like, impart.

As in color is a property imparted by substances to a perceiver.

So I guess my dualism doesn't argue for the immaterial having "substance". In fact its the very opposite. It doesn't have a tangible, physical presence except through symbols/symbolically.

The dualism i suppose is that substance and property are two sides of the same coin - existence. For something to exist it must have a property and/or a substance.

My properties (as a sentient being with substance) is to have an imagination of immaterial things. I can impart that immateriality using a substance - by that I mean communicating it through a medium (a substance) to another sentient being.

If I write a novel idea (something previously immaterial - within only my private mind, inaccesible) onto paper with ink (both substances), the representation/symbols (words and sentences) of my immaterial idea can be communicated (perhaps Imprecisely) to another mind.

In that way the immaterial and material piggyback on one another.

If I were to write "i think that force is equal to pressure multiplied by area" this can be taken as a concept (immaterial idea) suggesting a possible material existent outside of personal bias. It can be tested and is found consistent and so is taken to be material (independent/actual) when once it was just an idea, a concept (immaterial).

This two and fro between immaterial (imagination/ideas/concepts) and the material world (what we use to interact with one another) is what I mean by my Duality. Both exist. To say the mind doesn't exist without the body and the rest of physical things (pure materialism) would be logically incoherent based on empiricism.

And likewise to say only the mind exists (without the consistent properties and substance of the material world) woukd be equally incoherent.

So we must then conclude that immaterial and material things exist and they can interact with one another. The immaterial can describe the material world accurately (science) and the material is approaching a stage where it can ever more accurately describe the immaterial (the mind - neuroscience).

More or less standard terminology used by (most) contemporary Western philosophers (to which I've referred):

Property dualism

Substance dualism

Pro-tio: Making up your own, idosyncratic terms / definitions almost always confuses more than it clarifies the issue.

Pro-tio: Making up your own, idosyncratic terms / definitions almost always confuses more than it clarifies the issue. — 180 Proof

It may confuse, yes indeed, but I guess that is simply a failure of mine to impart what I mean clearly and concisely.

All I can do is reconsider, and try to narrow down exactly what it is I wish to describe and try to formalise it in an approachable manner.

If I have not done so, if I have failed, then I suppose I owe an apology. Such is the difficulty of outlining one's terms exactly as meant.

If you wish to continue establishing what we both think in respect to one another we can try. It may fail or succeed but that is no less one of the challenges faced by the philosopher.

Time is not physical in the "material" sense. — Benj96

Elsewhere I've pointed to the anachronistic (it's the key word for this thread) use of 'materialism'; it leads to muddles. Materialism was shown to be wrong by Newton.

While the length of a second is arbitrary, time is not.

Best approach is just to say that what is physical is what is dealt with by physics, which includes time.

There are plenty of psychoceramic approaches to time. If yours is one, I'll not be trying to repair your pot.

:up:

Ok, we can go a bit further. The point made by the article Bart cited (not by Bart) is that conservation of energy need not hold; the system may not be closed. That's a fair point, but if it is not closed there would be an identifiable source of energy flowing into the system - work would get done for free.

While @Bartricks topics are occasionally interesting, he has no capacity to accept and respond appropriately to critique and does not have a strong grasp of logic nor of philosophy. Don't be concerned about how he replies to your posts.

Your use of substance/property dualism works well here against 's dualism.

The argument remains that if spirit has an impact on the physical world, then it does work and hence uses energy. That is, if spirit has an impact on the physical world then it is part of physics. Any posited dualism collapses.

Basically, if spirit does anything, what it does would be measurable.

Benj, that coins work does not imply a new form of physics but a need for a different description. It's group intentionality that makes money work. See Institutional Facts: John R. Searle