I accept your viewpoint, but I find it unconvincing and akin to god of the gaps proposals.
You have provided no compelling example of an existent immaterial, other than your attempt to label some currently, poorly understood, aspects of human consciousness as 'immaterial.'

I am not a physicist or a philosopher, so I am not best placed to debate the academic details involved in the example experiment I linked to. My expertise is Computing science but having looked at the details of the experiment a little closer, I would type the following.

" For first task, we found that kinetic energy increases as potential energy decreases during downward motion of the glider but the total energy remains almost constant". Notice the experimenters state "almost constant", in the introduction and "remains constant" in the conclusion which you've quoted, It appears like they contradict themselves. So what happened here? — Metaphysician Undercover

The underlined section in your above quote appears in the section titled 'Abstract,' not Introduction.
In the introduction, the words are "For the first task, we simply observed that during the first downward motion of the glider the total energy remained constant throughout the motion." In the Results and conclusions section the words "For task 1: we have found that total energy remains constant during the motion of the glider until the collision occurs". are used.

One name is offered for the authors, Osamah Nuwisser. I assume English was not his first language, as he uses terms such as 'For first task' in the section titled 'abstract,' and then the more correct 'For the first task,' in the introduction section. Maybe his shortfalls in his command of English, caused his mistaken use of 'almost' or perhaps, it was due to the words in the 'abstract' section; We accomplish two tasks: first we verified the conservation of total energy during single step of the movement of the glider over the ramp and then we compared total energy of several consecutive up and down motions to check whether the collision of glider with the bumper at the lower end of the ramp was elastic or inelastic.
Perhaps the results they/he got from the several consecutive up and down motions showed some small error bar style variations which caused him to use the word 'almost,' in the way he did.

The first task is an indication of the theory of gravity. Potential energy is calculated through the measured mass of the glider and the theoretical force of gravity which has the capacity to accelerate the glider as it falls from a height. We know that as things fall, acceleration rapidly decreases due to things like air resistance, so there is a substantial loss of energy occurring with a falling object. There is no indication that the experiment was carried out in a vacuum, or any means were employed to measure all the different losses of energy which might occur. How did the experimenters account for all this loss of energy, which actually occurs in practise? — Metaphysician Undercover

Small ramp, so I assume the issues you mention are negligible for the experiment performed.

Of course, they applied a "coefficient of restitution", and this coefficient varies according to the measured parameters, height and mass. That is demonstrated in task two. There is an arbitrariness to the setting of this coefficient, and this is what allows them to make the total energy equal zero, by adjusting this coefficient. In other words, that there is a perfect balance between potential energy and kinetic energy, and this is reported as remaining constant, is simply a product of the coefficient of restitution, which is a manifestation of "the arbitrariness of the value of PE": as stated. Notice that the coefficient of restitution which was required varied according to mass and height, but in this experiment it was very significant, between .63, and .77. In other words, the theoretical potential energy, which would be directly produced from the theory of gravity, needed to be reduced by about a quarter or a third, to match the determined kinetic energy in the falling glider. That's a significant loss of energy. — Metaphysician Undercover

The coefficient of restitution (COR, also denoted by e), is the ratio of the final to initial relative speed between two objects after they collide. It normally ranges from 0 to 1 where 1 would be a perfectly elastic collision. A perfectly inelastic collision has a coefficient of 0, but a 0 value does not have to be perfectly inelastic. It is measured in the Leeb rebound hardness test, expressed as 1000 times the COR, but it is only a valid COR for the test, not as a universal COR for the material being tested.

The value is almost always less than 1 due to initial translational kinetic energy being lost to rotational kinetic energy, plastic deformation, and heat. It can be more than 1 if there is an energy gain during the collision from a chemical reaction, a reduction in rotational energy, or another internal energy decrease that contributes to the post-collision velocity.

So, it seems to me, the COR is only relevant to the issue of the collisions being elastic or inelastic.

Do you agree that the experiment completely supports what I've been arguing? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, it suggests to me, that you need to consult a physicist, as to the academic details of the experiment my link provided. After you have done so, you can return here and report, whether or not the physicist agreed with the points you make about the experiment and the opinion you hold and present to others, that the conservation of energy laws are false.

I understand what you are typing but I don't hold the same view.
We can invent labels, for that which we have zero evidence for. Our brains however fail completely, whenever one tries to perceive infinity, or nothing, or perfect, or god, or immaterial. We mainly anthropomorphise or try to imagine or conjure some random pattern or effect. I hold that the structure and workings of the universe, are knowable. If any aspect of the 'immaterial' is knowable then it seems to me, that such never was immaterial, and if the immaterial truly does exist, then it has no relevance to this universe, unless it can be irrefutably demonstrated (or at least, very close to irrefutably), that the immaterial can affect this universe.

Well he clarifies his position a little more, with:
"The configuration of our universe isn't invariant under time shifts; things used to be closer together, and in the future, they'll be further apart. If we simply take the energy contained in all the different forms of matter that we know about (radiation, ordinary matter, dark matter, dark energy, what have you) and add it all together, we get a number that is not constant over time."

Show me this system which has 50 joules, and maintains 50 joules after energy transformations. That's 100 percent efficiency. No system has 100 percent efficiency, according to the article I linked, so I think you are just making things up, to support what you believe. — Metaphysician Undercover

It might be better for you to start a new thread on a physics forum, which employs the detailed results, from an actual conservation of energy experiment. You can challenge physicists, based on your interpretation of the results from the experiment. There are some straight forward examples available online, such as:
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/physics/experiment-study-conservation-energy-8335.php
Results and Conclusion:

For task 1: we have found that total energy remains constant during the motion of the glider until the collision occurs. Thus law of conservation is verified and its limitation (inelastic collision) is found.
For task 2: By comparing the total energy before collision with the total energy after collision, we conclude that the collision is inelastic. Also, we showed that by using the arbitrariness of the value of PE we can set the total energy of a sliding object to be zero.
By varying two continuous parameters mass of the glider and initial height of the glider, we found that increasing any one of them leads to a decrease in the value of coefficient of restitution. Since smaller value of coefficient of restitution means greater loss of energy, we conclude that: by increasing height or by increasing mass, more energy is lost during the collision. The physical reasoning behind this conclusion can be understood. In both the cases, increasing height or increasing mass, the maximum PE (mgh) increases. This entire maximum PE becomes maximum KE just before the collision. Thus more energy is lost during the collision.

We shouldn't let Bartricks claim immaterial events in our minds consume no energy. — Mark Nyquist

I think it's more important to challenge the proposal that a 'mind event' is an 'immaterial event.'

Physicists are burdened to explain the nuances/error margins, of incredibly complicated system, to lay people. A very difficult task indeed.

I can't agree to this framework you've proposed here, because we cannot designate the law of conservation as "imperfect". — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes we can, especially if we accept that 'perfect has no existent.'

The law is an ideal, a statement of perfection in the conservation of energy. In reality, in practise, there is no perfect or ideal conservation of energy. Yet we keep talking about this law, of a perfect or ideal conservation, as if it is a true representation, and we are led to believe that the reason why there is no perfect conservation in our practise is because we are no able to perfect our practise apparatus. — Metaphysician Undercover

No measurement of a quantity is ever 100% correct. distance, time, density, none are 100% correct.
Is the distance actually 1cm or 0.999999999999999999999999912.......... cm.
You are over burdening the word LAW.

And this type of imperfection (misrepresentation) is most properly called a falsity. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, that's why science uses error bars! It is not a falsity, it just does not claim 100% accuracy.

there is not one hundred percent conservation anywhere, and our conception of energy is simply a misunderstanding. But we delude ourselves by saying that the concept is true and only our practises are imperfect, while the rest of the universe behaves in that perfect ideal way. — Metaphysician Undercover

We are OF the universe and FROM the universe. The fact that we are not perfect, to me, is probably because the universe is unable to produce perfection. I think our understanding of energy is spectacular, considering, we have achieved that understanding within a few seconds, on the cosmic calendar scale.

Please take note now, of the lesson to be learned here. It was only by determining the falsity of the principle, the ideal, eternal circular motion, that astronomers could move forward, and model the orbits as other than circular, which led to the modern understanding of the solar system. It was imperative for them to recognize the falsity of the principle, that the perfection of the ideal did not exist in the real universe, for them to be able to move toward a true understanding of these motions. — Metaphysician Undercover

The principle was not false, it was just that some of the assumptions and projections were wrong. Many planets do orbit on a path which is 'almost' circular. The motion is not eternal, or perpetual and there was no supernatural, immaterial, duality involved. They were correct about a circle, it has no beginning/end, unless you impose one.
So, correcting the flaws in the thinking of the ancients was not as hard, as trying to understand quantum mechanics, for example.

Now we have a very similar situation with the concept of energy. We have a similar false principle, an ideal, eternal energy conservation. Only by recognizing that this perfect ideal is false, that energy is not actually conserved in reality, in the true motions of things, that we will be able to move forward with a true understanding of time, motion, and all the real things involved in the concept of energy. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, physicists are fully aware, that the language used to describe the structure and workings of the universe is not IDEAL, not perfect. You seem to be bogged down with tiny 'error bar' imperfections made by formulae calculations, from a scenario such as:
A system has an energy equivalence of 50 joules. It then goes though energy transformations, and the resultant system has an energy equivalence of 50 joules, when IN REALITY its 49.999999999999921356 Joules and we can't yet account for the missing fraction.
We can still move forward to new discoveries in science, quite comfortably.
We can always keep an eye out or a detector running, in our search for that tiny missing energy fraction as we continue with our large hadron collider experiments.

So we have a whole class of these ideals, which are actually false, which have emerged out of this false ideal of energy conservation, which are simply misunderstandings, but can be very misleading to undisciplined metaphysicians. — Metaphysician Undercover

If physicists tried to use language and many, many exemplars, to explain every circumstance in which a particular law of physics might produce a solution which varies a little from that which the law exactly predicted, then a typical physics book would be as big as the entire encyclopaedia Britannica collection. I think the likes of Sean Carroll does the best he can. He can't afford to be overly concerned with the musings of undisciplined metaphysicians or even disciplined ones.

Right, it does not make these laws wrong, it makes them false. They can still be correct, as long as we invoke some sort of dualism or something like that, to account for the incommensurability between our principles for measuring the world, and the reality of the world. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think this is the main difference between us. I choose not to try to fill in gaps in our knowledge, with unnecessary terms like god(I am not suggesting YOU have employed this term), immaterial or dualism. The 'perfect' measure of the speed of light in unattainable. So is achieving human omniscience. To me, if we ever achieve the omnis, then our existence would become as ridiculous and pointless as any conception of god.
Let's continue to debate and confirm what we know and where we can go from here. Let's resist any temptation to plug gaps or incompletions in our scientific knowledge, with useless (imo) concepts, such as immaterialism, dualism or god. The conservation of energy is not false it is just imperfect.

In his book 'The Biggest Ideas In The Universe (space, time and motion,)' Sean Carroll writes about the conservation of energy.
"Both momentum and energy are conserved in classical mechanics, but kinetic energy by itself is not, since it can be converted into (or created from) other kinds of energy."
"Noether's theorem states that every smooth, continuous symmetry transformation of a system is associated with the conservation of some quantity."
"Our universe is expanding; faraway galaxies are gradually moving away from one another as time passes. Consequently, there is a sense in which energy is not conserved in an expanding universe."

I think Sean demonstrates some of the imperfection present in the conservation laws.

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.

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.

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 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.'

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.

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.

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 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.

Governments are ruling classes which force society to obey their laws through force. — AntonioP

I don't think this is an accurate description of a democratically elected government. People in government come from every class but apart from 'economic' separation, I don't think the term class has any value we should accept or wish to sustain.

A law is comprised of words on paper. If I wrote down some random rules such as "You can't eat ice cream on Sundays" or "You must wear a red hat on public buses" and called them laws and claimed that you have to obey them because I have declared them as laws, would you take me seriously? If not, then why should the politicians who write their own dictates and call them "laws" be taken seriously? — AntonioP

But what about criminal laws for example, do you think those are needed in a human community?

It was attempted in relatively small groups in France during their revolution and Spain during their civil war, I think, but I don't think there are many, if any, surviving communities that live under an anarchist doctrine. Do you know of any?
If one did get fully established and recognised. I wonder if this would be their national anthem:

Is that no jist oor big yin (Billy Connolly, withoot his specs!), huvvin a wee laff wi you yankie doodles by posing as a polly tician?

and take place in different settings and with a variety of teachers, as well as different cohorts for each activity, rather than the same little flock (with their same pecking order), presided over by the same adult (with his or her same competence level and preconceptions) in all subjects. — Vera Mont

Only in a society, where people can take their basic means of survival for granted, perhaps via a UBI or via a money free, resource-based economy, where the basics are birthrights, from cradle to grave, could 'Teaching' become the vocation it always should have been. I never needed a salary to teach, I needed a salary to live. VR, AR and internetworking are essential teaching tools for the future, for the very practical and irrefutable reason, that a single teacher cannot cater effectively to the needs of any significant number of individual, mixed ability, and special needs children.
In private schools, mixed ability classes can be as small at 5-10 pupils.
I can deal effectively with 20 high ability academics, that's easy, and a joy, but mixed ability and special needs, is a whole different ball game, and is, by far, the majority situation that teachers have in front of them in their classrooms every day. Some can produce astounding successes, even under very difficult circumstances and crushing workloads but they burn out in a few short years because they are humans!
I think I would still be teaching if I had not completely mentally and physically burned out due to the stresses and implausible demands, I could just about deal with at the beginning.

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

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

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

Two example sites worth looking at and thinking about:
https://litslink.com/blog/usage-of-virtual-reality-in-education-pros-and-cons
https://e-student.org/virtual-reality-in-education/

There are many many others, which look at all aspects of education via VR and AR.

In the US, studies show that distance learning that took place as a result of the pandemic has seriously undermined the quality of education for students involved. — T Clark

Is that a valid comparison or a valid standard to measure by? A time of national crisis?
I don't think there was much high-quality AR or VR used during the emergency situation education authorities found themselves in during the pandemic. Both my nieces were at uni at the time and the quality of the hardware/software systems they were using at home was minimal to say the least.
Certainly, no VR or AR.

I am skeptical that there is some sort of technological solution to improving education. It seems to me that a program generated and implemented by artificial intelligence would be more rigid and limited and less responsive to students than regular schools are. — T Clark

A skeptical position is always a healthy one. Parents need to have system prototypes presented to them. They have to be allowed to ask all the kinds of questions you are asking and the solutions must be demonstrated to them. If no current solution exists to the problems identified, then they must be developed, based on the cyclical feedback of all stakeholders. There is an established software development method for doing this, use of alpha testers, beta testers, demo software etc.

When I think back to the good parts of my experiences in school, it is particular teachers that come to mind. Mrs. Coepcke, my 11th grade English teacher. Mr. Polychronus, my 12th grade biology teacher. Professor Deandre, my geotechnical engineering professor. — T Clark

There are plans to identify 'good teaching practice' and film such over a school year.
If this was done very systematically over a few years, then these exemplars could be used to create emulated characters based on the kind of 'good teachers' you refer to. The quality of emulation and simulation is becoming very impressive. But you are correct. A full replacement of our current school system with a home-based VR/AR academic and social education system must be demonstrated and be able to convince a majority that it offers many improvements to our current system.
Many more internet controls would be required but the ability of such a system to deliver good citizenship to the next generation seems very attractive to me. Human teachers would stilll be a vital part of such a system but would have so many more helpful tools at their disposal.
In Scotland we have a strong policy of inclusion in our secondary schools. This gave me many classrooms of pupils of mixed ability and special needs. A class with high, medium and low academic ability kids is hard enough but if you add special needs kids as well, autistic, MS sufferers, asperger's, ADHD, selective mutism, partial hearing, partial sight etc, etc. Often each special needs kid had their own helper in the room with them, so you could have three or 4 adults trying to do their tasks as you tried to cater successfully to 20+ children. Some software assists were starting to come in to alleviate the stress on teachers, just as I decided on early retirement. Much more is needed. I completely agree with inclusion, but one teacher does not have all the skills required.

Another thought. I think any centralized, standardized education program will be subject to political and social pressure to conform to a particular vision of what education should be. That's already a problem with regular school systems. — T Clark

I agree, but I don't want to retype, regarding some of the ways I think we need to get rid of party politics as a means of governance. I posted about my views on that recently in the thread US Midterms
As for social pressure, I can only report that in my whole teaching career, the few schools I worked in were strongly supported by the people in their catchment areas. There was a lot of scrutiny as to what was going on in the school but, on the whole, I think such scrutiny was healthy, even if some groups did try to 'bring in more religion' or 'constantly complained about almost everything, whilst offering no solutions or ridiculous solutions.'

What would motivate them - the same elite that's still in possession of the power and wealth - to implement your plan? — Vera Mont

You have already identified it, people power!
I don't think it is the same elite as the ones from days gone by. Their power has been in decline since the days of the first nations, otherwise you would still be ruled by a foreign King Charles II.
I don't think they have the power or anonymity they used to.
I think they are more and more unsure of their 'divine rights' or their 'Money trick,' and gangster style tactics and their dynastic, inherited/passing on of that which was stolen, self-justifications.
I think even the celebrity culture and status is eroding.
What's 40 years or a human lifetime or 2022 years. Nothing but a splash in the cosmic ocean.
In the cosmic calendar, there are 437.5 years per cosmic second, so 43.75 human years would be 0.1 seconds in the cosmic calendar. A current human lifespan, at that scale, is a camera flash!
I think the last page of the cosmic calendar should have the message 'so give us humans a f****** chance guys, we are still just coming out of the end of our beginnings!'

They served and still serve a political, ideological, economic social agenda that isn't about suiting education to children but molding children to the needs of the elite. — Vera Mont

Better to plan for a better future than to mourn the bad behaviours of the past or present. We all must just learn from them and not repeat or continue to sustain them.

I highly recommend that anyone interested in the topic of energy and the conservation laws related to it, watch this:

You will be far more informed if you do!

However, ghosts and minds would still create physical energy when they move things in the physical world, contrary to the conservation of energy principle. — Down The Rabbit Hole

How do you know what ghosts and immaterial minds would/could do?
What are you labelling a ghost? Some remainder of dead humans?
Do you think such entities exist, based on evidence you have studied, in depth enough to believe it would stand up to scientific scrutiny?
Surely claims that the immaterial exists must first convince the scientific community before people such as bar tricks asks us all to comment on its relationship with dualism or its compatibility with conservation laws.

What you prefer isn't the question. In general, we have to trust that parents and families are the best people to look out for their children. I certainly believe that. Sure, there are bad parents. Human social behavior is not perfect. I still think it's our best bet. — T Clark

while I believe religion has no place in school. Good citizenship, yes - informed citizenship. — Vera Mont

One must address the lacklustre to highlight the lustre. Otherwise we are simply being biased which leaves teens vulnerable and naive. — Benj96

Do you think we could create AE systems (artificial expert systems) that could do a lot of the heavy lifting, when it comes to the balanced academic and social education that children need in today's world?
There are a few new systems (one I know about in Finland), that teaches children electronically from home. They don't attend school but they do still get together physically in groups, when they can, for the purposes of live debate, physical education etc. They visit hospitals, charity orgs, parks, museums etc. The cities become their school grounds so to speak. At home, they are taught via Virtual reality systems, augmented reality systems and just by networking with software and live teacher/pupil conferencing. It is thought that such systems are initially very expensive to set up but will be much cheaper, long term, when applied to city populations, compared to the costs involved in running city schools.
If we can create a balanced, unbiased, virtual, educational, electronic system which can almost immerse the child, in an education, that would allow them to meet and talk to a virtual Socrates or/and Carl Sagan etc. Role play in many emulated social circumstances and be presented with 'situations,' and be given feedback on whether they made wise choices etc and they would have the possible consequences of the choices they made in a simulated scenario, fedback to them, perhaps as further simulations. Do you think we could create a very high quality, economically viable, reliable, balanced social and academic, virtual reality, home based education system, that would do the heavy lifting in nurturing all the children in the world from year 1 to year 21? I think we probably could.

No. Those seed banks libraries, archives and DNA repository are being prepared for the people who will restore biodiversity and agriculture after the climate crisis has passed. These are very optimistic and ambitious projects undertaken by dedicated specialists. — Vera Mont

Yes, I have watched a few docs about such human repositories, and I agree the efforts involved are prudent and commendable as a protection against some natural disaster we had no control over or as protection against us causing our own approach towards extinction that we need to rebuild from.

The exact opposite. I wrote a utopian one. That/s why I dislike the disparagement of utopian ideology. — Vera Mont

I think it's good that you are trying to dilute the assumption that anything labelled utopian is not attainable by humans, but I think it's because it is often associated with notions of perfection.

It seems to me that all official (legislated, legally enforced) censorship tends toward propaganda. Even if with the most benign intentions, — Vera Mont

And there is no way that legal standard can be nuanced enough to fair in all cases; a great deal of unjust prosecutions and persecutions get swept up in a general intention to protect the public. (And of course, we can't really depend on all governments to have the best intention.) — Vera Mont

I agree with the level of complexity you cite within the issues you raise but I think the solution may lie in some kind of AI/expert systems, which will help humans deal with such complexity and will indeed allow the kind of nuanced, individualised approach, which will remove the chance of personal human prejudices being applied, which cause unjust and imbalanced actions.

Yet the existeence of such events is as clear as can be, indeed clearer than the occurrence of any material events. — Bartricks

Nonsense. It what sense is a 'mental event' immaterial? Mental events are detectable in brain scans and I can confirm my own mental events to you verbally! How is that immaterial?

The issue is whether it is compatible with the principle of the conservaton of energy. — Bartricks

No! the concept of duality and conservation of energy are about as compatible as science and belief in the supernatural.

Can your baker friends not answer your OP for you better than any TPF member can?

I showed how consciousness is made of states of pastry and that I am a croissant.
-Bartricks

Unless the evidence forces us there, believing in a spirit realm feels like giving up on science. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I kinda feel the same way about the word 'immaterial.'

I prefer naturalist which covers them both. — 180 Proof

Yeah, I might switch to that label! It is clearer. Your command and depth of knowledge of terminology and philosophy continues to impress. You should offer your contact details as a rehab for bar tricks students.

Like Sean Carroll I prefer the label physicalist rather than materialist. I'm not sure there is any real difference. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I consider those terms synonymous, and I am a Sean Carroll fan.

I didn't say that. I said they can't be detected simultaneously. It can be detected by science but at the detriment to other certainties, which themeselves can also be detected in isolation. — Benj96

But if something becomes detectable, such as dark energy say, or some other exotic particle, let's even suggest the unlikely tachyon. If we detected a dark energy field excitation, then it would not be immaterial.
If it's detectable then how can it be labelled immaterial?

I need to do some other stuff Ben but I will be back here or on some other thread. My loving message for @Bartricks is:


Unless I get banned in between times of course :halo:

The uncertainty principle is more about knowing multiple attributes of a system in the same instance of time, as you suggest. I don't think it says anything about existents that can NEVER be detected by human science.

So, is your acceptance of the existence of the immaterial, similar to that of @Metaphysician Undercovers, in that you think the immaterial has existence 'outside' of this universe or do you think what you call 'immaterial' exists within this universe but is forever indetectable to us.
If this were true then the Greeks were wrong with 'Cosmos' as the universe, would therefore, not be fully knowable.

Every time I ask you if you are a panpsychist you seem to pause in your rate of response and then your eventual response ignores the question. :chin:

Are you having a breakdown?