@Bartricks :eyes:

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. — Banno

: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. — Banno

Just had a read of the article. It's completely different to what @Bartricks is saying but close to what @Metaphysician Undercover is saying (@Metaphysician Undercover is saying the conservation of energy principle is incorrect, and Rodrigues is saying it could be).

I think the best approach for those that believe in spirits would be to say that when doing work, the spirits are just returning the energy they are using. But you make a good point:

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. — Banno

That's the downfall of dualism, you can't insist that there are two distinct incommensurable substances and then say that one can move the other.

@Metaphysician Undercover doesn't believe in instantaneous velocity. Hence it is not wise to spend time considering his views on matters involving physics.

It's completely different to what Bartricks is saying — Down The Rabbit Hole

Yep.

asically, if spirit does anything, what it does would be measurable. — Banno

Just like in the other (ineffable) thread, what spirit does, is what is taken for granted. Newton's first law of motion for example. That a body will continue moving in the same way that it has in the past, onward into the future, is something taken for granted. But the universe doesn't necessarily have to be this way, there could be randomness in the movement of bodies. So Newton said his first law is dependent on the will of God.

That's an instance of Spirit causing what is taken for granted. But since Newton's first law is taken for granted we do not apprehend this activity described by it as requiring a cause, that activity is taken for granted. Newton saw it as requiring a cause though, and he attributed that cause to God.

That's the downfall of dualism, you can't insist that there are two distinct incommensurable substances and then say that one can move the other. — Banno

There is no such problem. That the two are incommensurable does not mean that they cannot interact. It just means that the interactions cannot be properly measured, because the activity of the one cannot be measured with the same form of measurement as the activity of the other.

The difference between potential energy and kinetic energy may actually demonstrate the interaction of incommensurables. The two, potential and kinetic energy, affect each other. But that they are most likely incommensurable is evident from the fact that when one is said to convert to the other, there is always some energy missing, as per the second law of thermodynamics. This makes the claimed conversion a fiction, and demonstrates that the two must be in some way incommensurable. That's why the law of conservation is not true, it tries to establish commensurability between two incommensurables, potential energy and kinetic energy, and this just can't be done.

Metaphysician Undercover doesn't believe in instantaneous velocity. Hence it is not wise to spend time considering his views on matters involving physics. — Banno

:up: :up:

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

What is physical is not just dealt with by physics though is it? What is physical - the reality we live in and its true nature whatever that may be, is reckoned with by every living person through several disciplines.

To say things that exist are only those that physics deals with means no other human discipline reveals anything physically true about reality. And has no merit. Which I think is overly physics biased.

If we are to explain how the universe works we can't ignore everything that occurs within it that has not or can not be addressed by physics.

We have to understand the perception of time (a product of consciousness) as well as physical time. For example. And reconcile how those both exist empirically to an observer

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 — Banno

We have those different descriptions. Relativity and quantum physics. They work on premises not the same as materialist/mechanistic physics. (newtonian).

I'm not arguing that why money works requires a new form of physics, I'm using it to highlight the importance of what the other two domains of physics represent - that those things newtonian physics standardises as constant -time and space for example, Are not always the case, they change as observers are brought into the picture.

So, the immaterial (the mind/observation) does influence the external physical environments behaviour and vice versa.
Dualistic behaviour.

To say things that exist are only those that physics deals with means no other human discipline reveals anything physically true about reality. And has no merit. Which I think is overly physics biased. — Benj96

But that is not what I said. Your bank balance exists, yet is not physical.

We have those different descriptions. Relativity and quantum physics. — Benj96

So give an account of your bank balance using relativity and quantum physics...

It's group intentionality that makes money work. See Institutional Facts: John R. Searle — Banno

Midgley would also do nicely. You've entirely missed the point. The description of how your bank balance works is intentional, not physical. There is no dualism.

Metaphysician Undercover doesn't believe in instantaneous velocity. Hence it is not wise to spend time considering his views on matters involving physics. — Banno

Ha, ha. It's very obvious that Instantaneous velocity is really an oxymoron. No time passes at an instant, and velocity requires a period of time, so velocity at an instant is impossible.. I've spoken to more than one physicist about this, and they clearly recognize this fact, but accept "instantaneous velocity" as a useful principle provided by mathematics. In philosophy some call this a useful fiction. However, some inept philosophers like you Banno, don't seem to recognize these useful fictions as fictions, and can't get beyond the idea that if physicists use the principle it must be a truth. But that's simply the influence of mathematics on physics, mathematics has no respect for truth or falsity.

~~

If the mind is immaterial then it is not physical and in fact non existent.

So the problem is how do minds exist, right? If you define minds as physical matter ( brains ) that have the capability to contain immaterial objects you explain how minds can physically exist and why we can deal in the immaterial.

Bartricks isn't out of line suggesting these immaterials can be affected by and affect physical matter.

If you understand the problem from a brain, mental content perspective, all the physical states should work out. But if you separate the mind from the physical brain you will have endless problems.

Left speechless, as usual.

Self censoring. When you see your physicists again, explain to them how energy disappears and how $0.\dot9 \neq 1$. They will be so grateful.

Ha, ha. It's very obvious that Instantaneous velocity is really an oxymoron. — Metaphysician Undercover

So are you claiming that this:
Since a photon is a particle of light, this means that it does not need to accelerate to light speed, as it is already travelling at the speed of light when it is created. A photon does not rest and then reach the speed of light at a certain length of time, or even instantly. A photon is always travelling at the speed of light, from the moment of creation.

From a website called Ask an Astronomer, is wrong? In electron, positron annihilation, when two photons are created, there is no acceleration to light speed.

Also, from the physics stack exchange:

How does light re-accelerate after slowing down?
When light travels through a physical medium the photons don't actually slow down. They still travel at the speed of light. What makes it look like it slows down is the interactions between the photons and the physical medium.
For example the electrons in atoms can absorb photons and go to a higher energy state and then re-emit the photons when they move back to their normal energy state.
How long it takes between the absorption and emission of the photons determines how fast the light moves through a medium.

We have those different descriptions. Relativity and quantum physics.
— Benj96
So give an account of your bank balance using relativity and quantum physics... — Banno

Very well.

QM: If I don't observe my bank balance for years meanwhile spending and earning at largely variable rates each. (ie if I add a huge amount of uncertainty into the system.)

I can justify any belief between having next to no money or even being in negative equity, or possibly having a huge lump sum. As I cannot recall/calculate in my mind the original sum or all the debits and credits. And can't rely on my own subjective sense of penny-wisdom at a given time.

This is the waveform of potential states of my bank balance.
I collapse the waveform when I observe the bank balance again.

I now have a certain/particular/discrete number. Whether I'm jumping with glee or panicking that I just bought a $4 dollar coffee is dependent on that waveform collapsing. If I don't look, then I'm neither happy nor said assuming thr sun stays someone in the mid range.
It's schrodingers cat/heisenbergs uncertainty principle and waveform-particle Duality in the context of my bank balance.

Shall I go on with a relativistic account also?
Or can we agree that the three domains of physics can be applied to any interaction between an observer and their environment, the limititations of which being which of the three domains of physics you apply.

I collapse the waveform when I observe the bank balance again. — Benj96

Wave function collapse due to measurement or/and observation remains highly controversial.
The following addresses this pretty well:

The idea of the wave function in quantum mechanics and its indeterministic collapse during a measurement is without doubt the most controversial problem in physics today. Of the several “interpretations” of quantum mechanics, more than half deny the collapse of the wave function. Some of these deny quantum jumps and even the existence of particles!
So, it is very important to understand the importance of what Dirac called the projection postulate in quantum mechanics. The “collapse of the wave function” is also known as the “reduction of the wave packet.” This describes the change from a system that can be seen as having many possible quantum states (Dirac’s principle of superposition) to its randomly being found in only one of those possible states.
Although the collapse is historically thought to be caused by a measurement, and thus dependent on the role of the observer in preparing the experiment, collapses can occur whenever quantum systems interact (e.g., collisions between particles) or even spontaneously (radioactive decay).
The claim that an observer is needed to collapse the wave function has injected a severely anthropomorphic element into quantum theory, suggesting that nothing happens in the universe except when physicists are making measurements.

If the measurement is done only by machines, with no humans involved, the same results occur, So the presence of a human is not needed to 'collapse the waveform.'

If the measurement is done only by machines, with no humans involved, the same results occur — universeness

Um... How do we know it occurs when machines do it?Who read (observed) the machine result. Haha.

If no humans are involved how on earth can you make that conclusion.

Machines, like all measuring tools don't act as the observer in isolation, they are only an extension of the observers ability to observe. If the machine was sentient, consciously aware, then the story would be different. But for that they would require their own agency/choice to tell or not tell what they measured.

Machines/devices/tools can measure things we cannot measure with say, the naked eye, but a machine is only useful if it can make those observations that our senses are not sensitive enough to detect, detectable to those senses.

So having a machine do the hard graft work of measuring doesn't exclude need for the observer.

It's simple. If an observer "knows" of a single state through observing it. And uncertainty (a waveform of possibility) is the case when the observer doesn't "know"/hasn't observed it.

Collapse of the uncertainty into one point of certainty stands as the logical process that occurs between the two.

Whether they observe with their eye, or through a machines screen, or through a machines measurement of another machines measurement of another's etc the length of travel of the information from object to subject makes no difference, the collapse is the same outcome.

When you see your physicists again, explain to them how energy disappears and how 0.9˙≠10.9˙≠1. They will be so grateful. — Banno

Unlike you, reasonable people recognize these useful mathematical fictions as fictions, so these explanations are not even needed. Some of the mathematicians on this forum, who being quite reasonable themselves, recognize that such propositions are not true, like to deny the true/false dichotomy which is commonly applied to propositions, claiming mathematical axioms are neither. In that case we might conclude that the axioms prove to be useful, but neither fact nor fiction. You, I've noticed, seem to like the utility of bivalence, so you don't have the same recourse unless you release that conviction. Maintaining bivalence, and not wanting to admit that falsity enters into physics by way of mathematical axioms, you deny the obvious.

So are you claiming that this:
Since a photon is a particle of light, this means that it does not need to accelerate to light speed, as it is already travelling at the speed of light when it is created. A photon does not rest and then reach the speed of light at a certain length of time, or even instantly. A photon is always travelling at the speed of light, from the moment of creation.

From a website called Ask an Astronomer, is wrong? In electron, positron annihilation, when two photons are created, there is no acceleration to light speed. — universeness

I can't say I agree with that because i do not really believe there is such a thing (meaning a real object) as a photon. So it really makes no sense to talk about a fictional particle (photon) speeding up and slowing down. However, if there is such a thing as a photon, then I would agree, that it must always be travelling at the speed of light, by definition.

If you see what I wrote earlier, I believe that there is no such object as a photon. The photon, being a unit of energy, is like all instances of energy, the product of measurement. We measure certain spatial-temporal aspects (motions), apply calculations using various principles, and conclude a quantity of energy. So "the energy" which is said to constitute a photon, is a product of those measurements with the required calculations. In simple terms, we do not ever measure energy directly, we apply a formula to calculate "energy", so energy is calculated, not a property of the movement itself. And since a photon is nothing more than a quantity of energy associated with a specific type of activity, the photon has no real existence, it is the product of a calculation. This is what I wrote earlier in this thread:

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. — Metaphysician Undercover

Um... How do we know it occurs when machines do it?Who read (observed) the machine result. Haha.
If no humans are involved how on earth can you make that conclusion. — Benj96

Jess H. Brewer (Physics professor since 1977.)
What's the proof that consciousness doesn't collapse the wave function?
That’s like asking what’s the proof that prayer doesn’t heal illness.
You can heal illness without prayer, and you can collapse a wave function without consciousness. Any sufficiently energetic interaction will do the trick.
This doesn’t address the question of whether consciousness (whatever that is) can collapse a wavefunction without any physical interaction, but I wouldn’t bet on it. How can consciousness be aware of the wavefunction without bouncing photons off it or the equivalent physical interaction?


Jonathan Hardis (Ph. D. Physicist)
“Does human consciousness cause the collapse of the quantum wave function when measured?”
No. There is no role for human consciousness in quantum mechanics.

In the double slit experiment, you will get an interference pattern regardless of the presence of a human conscience.

If an automated system performed the double slit experiment and no human EVER looked at the results, would that mean the wave function never collapsed? Or if humans look at the results a week or an hour after the auto system shut everything down. Would it still be the moment that a human read the results on a printout, that the wave collapses?

It's like you are suggesting, if a tree falls and makes sounds then if no conscious observer is present, then no sound/event occurred!

I can't say I agree with that because i do not really believe there is such a thing (meaning a real object) as a photon. So it really makes no sense to talk about a fictional particle (photon) speeding up and slowing down. However, if there is such a thing as a photon, then I would agree, that it must always be travelling at the speed of light, by definition. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you ascribe to QFT then? If you accept a photon as a field disturbance/excitation/vibration, you still have the result that the excitation travels at a constant speed with no initial acceleration.
This is backed up by the fact that the property of mass prevents light speed motion.
Electrons don't travel at light speed as they have some mass.

we apply a formula to calculate "energy", so energy is calculated, not a property of the movement itself. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you consider something like maxwells demon, when it opens the massless door between the two chambers based on the speed of each particle it observes, would you still insist it would be applying a formula, to make its measurements? Is it not just basing it on 'fast,' 'slow.' How about when you touch something to decide on its temperature? are you applying a formula or taking a sensor reading?
Is sensing the presence of a property of something like relative position, the application of a formula?
Ignoring a measure of actual distance for a moment, simply observing the position of an object as north, south, east, west etc, is the gathering of such information formula based?
I would suggest that base sensory information is not based on formula. I see, touch, taste, hear, smell and even think before I apply any formulae to measure scalar (magnitude) quantity or vector (magnitude and direction). Is information such as 'I see there is a car there' not just based on me comparing stored images with what I see? I would not call such 'shape/pattern recognition,' a formula application, would you?

Science suggests there are 38 'particles/excitations/vibrations' (perhaps of strings), that we are unable to currently detect. Dark energy/matter being 2. I think we need new sensors, not necessarily, new formula. I would say we use formulae to measure scale, based on units, but we can 'sense' hot, cold, close, far, fast, slow, magnetic, electric, etc.

To perhaps make my point a little clearer, I am not so sure about your claim of:

In simple terms, we do not ever measure energy directly, we apply a formula to calculate "energy", so energy is calculated, not a property of the movement itself. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think we can observe a property of a motion as relatively fast or slow, enough to be able to know when to jump out of the way for example, and there is no formula-based calculation, involved, just a use of instinct and sensors.

Thanks for that, . That's not a quantum account of banking, but it is sufficient to show the dearth of content here.
I'll leave you to continue shooting your foot.

The scientific ignorance, philosophical illiteracy and poor reasoning on display in this thread from the OP onwards are staggering and, no doubt, endemic. Alan Sokal et al would have a field day with this clown show.

It's ubiquitous, across the forums, at present.

. That's not a quantum account of banking, but it is sufficient to show the dearth of content here. — Banno

Seems you wanted me to include the specific particularities like quarks, spins, the etc and not the main principles/ideas behind quantum physics.

Schrodinger used a cat and it was quite fine.
I used a bank balance. And yet mine is according to you totally irrelevant.

So I do wonder how well versed you might be in QM to not see the exact equivalence between the two. Would you prefer I throw mathematic jargon at you instead so convoluted that it "may" be describing qm

Good luck with it, we can leave it there.

Seems you wanted me to include the specific particularities like quarks, spins, the etc and not the main principles/ideas behind quantum physics. — Benj96

No, I want you to realise that quantum mechanics does not apply to banking.

Tellers do not rely on schrödinger's equations.

Not something I should have to find myself pointing out. Physics does not explain everything.

Tellers do not rely on schrödinger's equations. — Banno

Not yet. You do know quantum computing is currently on the rise.

https://www.idquantique.com/quantum-safe-security/quantum-key-distribution/?utm_source=google_ads_search&utm_medium=cpc&gclid=Cj0KCQiAveebBhD_ARIsAFaAvrH4S4NL5r2RrIPrsFgJV0aIutpAseVuUfx3UFhYPAWDzzRUtioNapkaAuoLEALw_wcB


It will be used by banks soon due to security properties (entanglement and proof of non interference). It has great promis for physics based encryption.

Psychoceramic Tribbles. :yikes:

Do you ascribe to QFT then? If you accept a photon as a field disturbance/excitation/vibration, you still have the result that the excitation travels at a constant speed with no initial acceleration.
This is backed up by the fact that the property of mass prevents light speed motion.
Electrons don't travel at light speed as they have some mass. — universeness

I think QFT has obvious problems. And, as I said to Banno, I believe that potential energy and kinetic energy, are fundamentally incommensurable, hence your problem with "initial acceleration". It is a problem inherent within our conception of mass.

If you consider something like maxwells demon, when it opens the massless door between the two chambers based on the speed of each particle it observes, would you still insist it would be applying a formula, to make its measurements? Is it not just basing it on 'fast,' 'slow.' How about when you touch something to decide on its temperature? are you applying a formula or taking a sensor reading?
Is sensing the presence of a property of something like relative position, the application of a formula?
Ignoring a measure of actual distance for a moment, simply observing the position of an object as north, south, east, west etc, is the gathering of such information formula based? — universeness

I went through this already. "Energy" has a very specific definition, the capacity to do work. In no way is touching something and feeling its heat, a case of measuring its capacity to do work. Even if you determine, with your senses that a particular object is moving, and you construe this as taking a measurement of its motion, you do not produce a determination of a quantity of energy without applying a formula to your measurements. This would convert your measurements of motion, to a quantity of energy. Then there's potential energy, which is not even motion itself, but the potential for motion. This is what I mean when I say that any determination of a quantity of energy is dependent on a formula. It's not simply measurements, it's measurements plus an application of a formula. This is because the concept of energy relates the thing measured to other things, and therefore requires a formula for the comparison.

I would suggest that base sensory information is not based on formula. I see, touch, taste, hear, smell and even think before I apply any formulae to measure scalar (magnitude) quantity or vector (magnitude and direction). Is information such as 'I see there is a car there' not just based on me comparing stored images with what I see? I would not call such 'shape/pattern recognition,' a formula application, would you? — universeness

I agree, sensing cannot be described as applying a formula. But in no way is such activity (simple sensing) a case of measuring the energy of something. I don't see how you think this is relevant to "energy".

I think we can observe a property of a motion as relatively fast or slow, enough to be able to know when to jump out of the way for example, and there is no formula-based calculation, involved, just a use of instinct and sensors. — universeness

Again, how is this relevant? "Energy" has a very specific definition. In no way is looking at the motion of something, and making the judgement to jump out of the way, a case of measuring the energy of the thing.

Furthermore, look at your use of "relatively fast or slow". Such a judgement would require a comparison, fast or slow compared to what? And this would require that we posit a standard for comparison. Therefore such a judgement actually would be formula based. But this is just the result of your faulty description. We do not need to make such a comparison when deciding to jump out of the way of a moving object, there need not be any formula based judgement at all.

I don't see how you think this is relevant to "energy". — Metaphysician Undercover

Its relevant only in that I am able to distinguish between a big force/explosion and a small one.
I can also use sensory info to be able to perceive quite a range between big and small, without having to employ actual measured, unitised, accuracy via formulae. I can therefore perceive and detect 'material' aspects of 'energy' or force using something as simplistic as my own sensory input and without application of formulae.

But force is just as much immaterial as "mental event" is. So in any case, mental event or not, we still need dualism to account for energy transfer. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why would I choose to give any credence to the use of the terms 'immaterial' or 'dualism,' when considering what energy is?
You are simply typing that during energy transfer, we cannot account for the totality of the energy as it disperses. The second law of thermodynamics confirms that concentrated energy will disperse over time, (no stored energy in batteries lasts forever even if unused).
Energy transfer from hot to cold until thermal equilibrium. So, if we can't detect every Planck sized unit of energy, to confirm that the original hot/cold area has the exact same amount of energy as the area now in thermal balance, then this does not mean we have to start to employ words like immaterial or dualism. It just means that science will always have more work to do, to confirm how correct the conservation of energy laws are. To me, it's akin to the accuracy of pi or the speed of light in a Vaccuum. We will never get 100% accuracy, will we? That doesn't make pi or the speed of light or the conservation of energy laws, wrong in any way. It just means they are not perfect, but nothing is or ever will be perfect.
I don't think we are going to completely agree on the usefulness/uselessness of the words 'immaterial' or 'dualism,' but it's interesting to consider how others choose to employ such words.
So, I appreciate the exchange.

"Inmaterialism" is immaterial and, as Advaita Vedanta teaches, "dualism" is maya. Why do we keep on flogging this perennial hobby horse?