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.

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.

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.

Why did you name the thread "The philosophy of anarchy", when the op is only talking about the philosophy of governance. Are you ready to get on topic, and talk about an absence of government, rather than talking about governance?

Suppose we remove all forms of governance. Could we proceed to live in this way? Would there be problems? If there is foreseeable problems, how would we deal with them without any form of governance?

If the most detailed possible list of instructions for riding a bike does not give one the knowledge of how to ride, then there is a gap between saying how to ride a bike (via a detailed list of instructions) and knowing how to ride a bike, which means that there is something about riding a bike which is known but which cannot be stated and included in the instructions. Which is just to say that there is something ineffable. — Luke

The missing ingredient is that little bit of inspiration which gets you up off the couch and out to the bike, and continues to guide your movements at every step of the way. Sometimes its called spirit, motivation, ambition, or even determination. We all know how to use this feature of one's psyche toward getting what is desired, but since it only exists in the most general way, being able to be directed in any way whatsoever, it does not enter into any specific instructions. It is taken for granted.

E.g.: first, direct your attention toward the bike. Next, make your body move toward the bike. I think the majority of the processes occurring here are left undescribed. We easily cope with the ineffable by taking things for granted.

But knowing how to ride a bike does require being able to ride a bike. Claim that you can ride a bike all you want, the proof is in the riding.

The point, again, is that there is nothing that is not said, nothing that we can add to the list; only something that has not been done; hence there is nothing that is ineffable. — Banno

To be able (knowing-how) to ride a bike, is not the same thing as riding a bike. When I say "I know how to ride a bike", it does not mean the same thing as "I am riding a bike" means. And this is contrary to what you claimed here:

but there is no difference between "knowing how to ride a bike" and "riding a bike"; we don't have two things here, one being bike riding and the other being knowing how to ride a bike. — Banno

Since there is very clearly a difference between these two, we need to respect this difference, and when we attempt to analyze, and describe the difference, we hit the place where the ineffable supposedly lies. How is it that knowing how can be something different from actually doing, and how is it that knowing how readily transitions, or translates, into actually doing in practise, when the two are so different.

We can start by inquiring exactly what the difference in meaning is, between the two phrases. So, "riding a bike" means to be actively involved in the named activity, at the present time. But, "knowing how to ride a bike", is quite difficult to determine the precise meaning, because it divides in two ways. One way references past acts, and the other references possible future acts.

We can refer to the past, and say that the person has demonstrated one's ability, through past actions of actually riding. This is Wittgenstein's preferred method. It is somewhat faulty though, because it requires a logical inference similar to the following: 'if one has carried out the activity, then the person knows how to do it'. So Wittgenstein approaches this little problem with the question of how many times must one successfully carry out the activity before it constitutes a demonstration of knowing how. Since there really is no adequate answer to this question, we can see that this way of determining the meaning of "knowing how" is really faulty, so we must turn to the second way.

The second way is the more common way, the way of what people normally mean when they use the phrase. This is to refer to possible future acts. Now, "knowing how to ride a bike" means that the person can in the future, successfully carry out the activity referred to, at will (with proper respect for natural restrictions). I would urge you to recognize this as the proper meaning of "knowing-how" (according to common usage), regardless of Wittgenstein's attempt to cast "knowing-how" in a different light, having demonstrated the capacity.

To correctly understand "knowing-how" we must refer directly to future acts, and not allow past acts to confuse us. This is because there is a multitude of different ways to learn how, and if ever we set a definition of what constitutes an adequate demonstration, we might always find something outside this. That's the problem Wittgenstein approached with the question of 'how many times' constitutes a demonstration of knowing-how. There really is no answer to this question because it varies from person to person, and as pointed out, a person could very well learn how through an instruction manual, or even simple observation. Then the person could actually know how, without ever having demonstrated one's capacity. So we must relinquish the idea that we can explain knowing-how through reference to past acts.

Now we can approach the supposed ineffable, the future action. The future action does not exist yet, so we cannot describe it. Any attempt to describe it will be imaginary, fictitious, because there is no action yet to describe, and we only have prediction, and hope that the action goes as predicted. To aid us in this attempt to describe what cannot be described, because it does not exist, we turn to probabilities, statistics, and mathematical principles. Now we can describe a future action with words, and determine the probability of occurrence, concerning the different parts of the act. However, when discussing future actions, there is always a hole in our understanding which presents as a probability instead of as a certainty. This is the supposed ineffable, it is unknown therefore it is not talked about, and cannot be talked about, unless we alter our understanding such that the unknown no longer exists. However, that would require removing probability from the future act, which is probably impossible.

We don't know what energy IS — universeness

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

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

This is the mistaken interpretation which I referred to above. The sensor registers a physical change, and through the principles employed, it is calculated that this change is equivalent to a quantity of energy represent by "a photon". The photoelectric sensor does not actually detect a photon, it just undergoes a change, an effect which we calculate as the effect of a photon's worth of force. That the sensor detects a photon is a common misinterpretation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is, "Some things you have to learn on your own" looks like it is about an ineffable entity we might call "knowing how to ride a bike", but there is no difference between "knowing how to ride a bike" and "riding a bike"; we don't have two things here, one being bike riding and the other being knowing how to ride a bike. — Banno

Yes there is two distinct things here, as correctly points out. And, you ought not neglect this difference as it is a manifestation of the difference between potential and actual, which is the substance of Aristotle's biology. Knowing how to ride a bike does not require that one is actually riding a bike. The knowledge resides in a type of dormancy, as a feature of the memory; it is a potential which is only expressed as the action of actually riding, from time to time. Therefore knowing how to ride a bike is only the potential to actually ride, which is clearly distinct from the act of riding. All of the so-called "powers of the soul", self-nourishment, self-movement, sensation, intellection, are all understood in this way, as not active all the time. They are understood as a continuous potential, which is ready, and able to be activated at any moment, in a punctuated, discontinuous way.

And if this is right, then there is nothing here that is ineffable. Or if you prefer, what appeared to be the ineffable bit is just the doing, the getting on the bike and riding it. — Banno

The ineffable bit, for us because we have yet to figure this out, is the actualization itself. Knowing how to ride, as the potential to ride, we can talk about, and know about. Actually riding, we can also talk about. But the difficulty lies in the bit in between, the impetus, which is the actualization of the potential. This is where we find free will. But it is only "ineffable" because it does not very well fit into our categorization, and so it is something not understood. And since it's not understood we can't talk about it. It's that instant in time when something changes from being at rest, to being in motion, where acceleration must be infinite, we haven't figured out what constitutes this so we cannot sensibly talk about it.

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

Your response seems disingenuous. On the one hand you claim that Planck units are "fictitious" and then on the other you claim that "falsity often works well". :roll: — 180 Proof

You think I'm disingenuous, then you must actually believe that falsity may work well, and you are guarding yourself against it. In reality falsity works very well, far more often than it ought to. That's why there's such a thing as deception.

There's obviously no logic which allows you to proceed from "it works well", to "therefore it's true". Mathematics, which works well as a tool, is categorically separated from propositions which state truths. So, as any mathematician will tell you, their axioms are neither true nor false. Therefore by introducing "it works well" as evidence of truth you have simply demonstrated a category mistake.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

how did I admit that? — Bartricks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am using the term 'philosopher' to refer to someone who is employed to teach philosophy in a university and who has a track record of publishing in philosophy in peer review journals. — Bartricks

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

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

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

Are you a philosopher? — Bartricks

You have a very strange definition of "philosopher". It looks like a definition which you manufactured for your purpose.

Have you never heard of Platonic dialectics? It's all about finding the true meaning of the words we use, the true idea behind the word. Obviously this is necessary before we can make any meaningful judgement concerning compatibility.

If someone says A is compatible with B, then you should focus on whether that's true - that is, you should focus on the compatibility claim - not on whether A or B is actually true. — Bartricks

No Bartricks, before focusing on whether A is compatible with B, we need to determine what A and B mean. And this is a matter of truth, otherwise one will define A and B so that they either are, or are not compatible with each other, according to one's preference. In other words, one will make fictitious definitions of A and B to make them either compatible or not. And that is a pointless exercise. So we ought to proceed with determining the truth about A and B.

As you see above in the definitions of "different" and "distinct," the two words are synonyms, thus your claim I "identify wrongly; mistake" "different" as "distinct" is false. — ucarr

Wow! Now I've seen everything in an attempt to argue a point. Equivocation at it's worst, right here.

As I understand the above, you're claiming humans insert partitions that break up a continuum into (artificial) parts. In line with this configuration, you're fusing three different states: steam, water, ice into one continuum, H2O. Breaking up H2O into three different states or fusing three different states into H2O, either way, human performs a cognitive operation. Share with me the logic you follow to the conclusion that the fusion operation is more valid than the separation operation. — ucarr

Sorry, I don't understand what you claim I am saying. I just can't place your reference to fusion. You clearly haven't undertsood me, or else you are intentionally creating a straw man. So be it.

In your own words, cited in my previous post, you establish your understanding of yourself as a consistent POV who transitions through different states of being across a continuum of time. This is a confirmation of human individuality - yours - not a refutation. — ucarr

I'm finding you very difficult to communicate with. It seems you willfully misrepresent what I say. That's a shame, it makes discussion pointless.

An example of a pertinent answer to my question "How does your experience of the conversation differ from mine?" would have you telling me what I'm thinking based upon your ability to read my mind. Your ability to read my mind follows logically from your claim "there is no real boundary between us, and the idea that we are distinct individuals is an illusion, an artificial creation..." — ucarr

Again, I just cannot follow what you are trying to say here. Sorry, but your misuse of words is just annoying and I am unable to pay attention to drivel, it grosses me out.. Even though I am apparently reading your mind, communication with you is impossible because your mind is just so confused. Surely you must find yourself to be incorrigible.

So it's your position then, MU, that the Planck constant is not (and any other constants derived from it e.g. Dirac constant), in fact, a fundamental physical constant? And therefore that quantum mechanics does not work (i.e. likewise is "ficticious", extreme precision notwithstanding, instead of approximative)? Because, so to speak, this theoretical map is not identical with the real territory? — 180 Proof

I don't see what being a "physical constant" has to do with this. Being, a constant of physics, which works in its application, doesn't mean that it says something true about the world. It just means that it's a useful principle. Falsity often works very well, as you seem fully aware of.

So, physics defintion of Electric potential: the amount of "work needed to move a unit charge from a reference point to a specific point against an electric field.

Physics definition of" work": In physics, work is the "energy" transferred to or from an object via the application of force along a displacement.

Oh gosh look what we have arrived at? So it seems electric potential is, hmm, energy. Who knew? Physics did. — Benj96

I can't believe that you cannot grasp what I am telling you, and you just instinctively want to dispute everything I say. Energy is the capacity to do work, and energy is said to be "transferred" from one thing to another, in the instance of doing work. Now look at your definition of electric potential, it is the amount of work needed to move a unit charge. This amount of work could be supplied in numerous different ways. That is why a conversion formula is always required when determining energy, it is not a simple property, it is what is transferred from one object to another, and the same amount of work might be provided in numerous different ways. So it is not the work (energy) which is measured, only the before, or after are measured, and the work is calculated, as a universal.

Which retrospectively confirms my reasoning about measurement devices requiring not only energy to run them, and energy to be them (matter, bonds, forces that hold its molecules together), and what do they measure? Energy. — Benj96

As I said, your claim is false. One cannot directly measure the energy of something, and I don't see why you can't understand this. A calculation is required, to relate the motion of that object to other objects, to determine the object's capacity for work. Consider the simple formula for momentum, mass times velocity. You can measure an object's mass, and measure it's velocity, but you need a further principle to calculate it's momentum. it's not measured. Furthermore, to predict how the momentum will affect another object another formula. This is the transferal, mentioned above. So we have a formula for force, force equals mass times acceleration. Now, the important thing for you to notice in the context of our discussion here, is that force is not directly measured. Force is inferred, through the difference in the measurements of velocity (giving acceleration), and the measurement of mass. Therefore the "force" which is a description of the transferal, the energy involved, is calculated from that formula, it is not directly measured.

Look at your definition of electric potential now, for example. It is the amount of work needed to move the unit charge in a specified way. So, when the unit charge is observed to have been moved in that way, it is inferred that this amount of work has been applied, according to that definition. The amount of work is not measured, what was measured was the movement of the charge. The amount of work, is inferred through the application of the definition.

It seems like you don't really want to attempt to consider any alternative explanation as you had your own answer (assumption) from the beginning. — Benj96

You have not given me anything to consider, except a clear indication that you do not understand the principles involved. If you gave me something reasonable to consider, rather than off the wall assertions which amount to nothing more than misunderstanding, then I would consider what you say.

Out of curiosity, if energy is "wasted" or "disappears" or somehow "ceases to exist" as you say, then where did it come from in the first place? — Benj96

Look Benj96, energy is something calculated. We say that a specified moving object has a certain capacity to move other objects (do work), because we can make measurements and calculate this capacity. What sense is there in asking me where this capacity to do work came from, or where it goes after it is spent. Am I coming across as so extremely intelligent that I appear to be God or something like that?

I constantly tell my students that compatibilism about free will is not the thesis that determinism is true. Nor is it the thesis that we have free will. It is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. And yet every year about 90% don't get this and proceed to tell me how either determinism is false or that we do not have free will, totally oblivious to the fact they're doing nothing whatever in terms of assessing the credibility of compatibilism. — Bartricks

I think that compatibilism involves necessarily a misunderstanding of either free will, determinism, or both. And assessing the credibility of compatibilism necessarily involves determining the truth concerning free will and determinism. I mean, one could easily define "free will", and "determinism" such that these are compatible, but there is absolutely no point to this. So your example does nothing for me.

So do not question whether the c principle is true or whether dualism is true. Ask 'are they compatible?' — Bartricks

To understand the meaning of the c principle, and the meaning of dualism, requires necessarily that one understands how these names relate to reality, and that requires an assessment of their truth. Whether or not the two are compatible can only be judged after this assessment. Otherwise, one will conform the meaning of the terms (create definitions) so that they are either compatible, or not, depending on what one prefers. What's the point to this exercise you propose, of defining terms so as to support one's belief, rather than looking at the truth and falsity of the matter?

So, to assess the claim, for those who don't know, you need to assume the principle of conservation of energy is true, and then see if what I have said is correct. — Bartricks

What is the point of assuming to be true, a principle which is demonstrably false? Anything which follows from this discussion will be irrelevant to the reality of the situation, as is the case when we assume a false premise to be true. The conclusions which follow are unsound and do not have any useful meaning.

Yes you're right the energy is released elsewhere than where the measurement tool is being used. Just like we argued about the room releasing heat to the environment. — Benj96

This is a statement drawn from your false assumption, that all the missing energy still exists as energy. You say "the energy is released elsewhere". The problem is that energy is a feature of the measurement not of the thing measured. As I explained, we measure the motion and proceed to calculate the thing's energy. So if the missing motion cannot be located and measured, and the energy calculated, it is a faulty assumption to say that the energy is elsewhere.

What I'm saying is "wasted" because it wasn't measured is the wrong word.
It's gone elsewhere. Just because I can't measure every molecule of water that goes over niagara falls per second doesn't mean what I couldn't measure is "wasted"... "lost" "disappeared". — Benj96

The issue is that all attempts to locate all the missing motion and energy have failed. And, we conclude that it is impossible to locate all the missing energy, as indicated by the second law. Therefore the assumption that this motion exists, and could be located, measured, and assigned a value as energy is simply false. We know that this is not the case, as expressed by the second law.

So this is not comparable to water over the Niagra falls. In this case we assume that we could set up a collection basin, and measure all the water coming over the falls, without a drop being missed by that measurement process. In the case of energy, we assume the exact opposite, that it is impossible to detect al the motion, measure it all, and assign a value as energy, because we assume that some will always be lost, as per the second law. Therefore we have no good reason to believe that this motion exists at all, and no good reason to believe that the law of conservation is stating something true. It is a simple falsity, which we can clearly see as a falsity, and know it as a falsity, but we use it because it is useful.

Heat disperses outwards and as it does it heats up the environment its spreading into, the further it spreads out the less amount it heats up each part. But it still heats them up by ever more minute amounts.
Absolute zero when reached is a timeless state of no change (no heat/kinetic motion) where all energy is only "potential" again. The exact same conditions as at the big bang. Alpha state = omega state — Benj96

These two statements directly contradict each other, as incompatible, inconsistent. In the first, you say that heat spreads out, and heats less and less, but continues to heat, implying an infinite regress in this continuity of heating less and less. In the second, you suggest an end to the infinite regress, "absolute zero". But clearly, what you describe in the first denies the possibility of the absolute zero which you speak of in the second.

It definitely is. If I punch a punchbag at a fairground, the force of the impact (the momentum of my arm) is measured digitally in a number scale. Which can be compared to others - maybe a professional boxer. — Benj96

No, the force is calculated from some measurements, as I described, through the application of some principles, such as f=ma. The exact principles employed in each instance is irrelevant, and whether the calculations are carried out by a human being with pen and paper, or by a computer using algorithms, is irrelevant.

The measurement must use some of the energy in its measurement. Otherwise how exactly can it function as a measuring device? Are measuring devices somehow magically outside of all cause and effect relationships/energy transfer and the information those hold? — Benj96

Sorry, I cannot grasp what you are saying here. There are different ways of measuring motion, in some cases the measuring instrument absorbs the motion, such as your punching bag example. Some measuring techniques simply observe and make comparisons from numerous observations. Which is more accurate is irrelevant, because no matter which one you use, you will still have to make adjustments for inefficiencies, therefore energy which is lost during the activity being measured.

I don't think so.
The device converts kinetic force into a voltage and the measurement of that voltage is a measurement of the energy that generated (converted) into it. — Benj96

You're still wrong Benj96. Voltage is a measurement of electric potential, and some principles of conversion must be applied to state an energy equivalent to the voltage measured, joules or something like that.

Such an argument would suffer from your faulty premise, MU. Planck units are approximative metrics and are no more "ficticious" than e.g. yards, inches or light seconds. Besides, account for Einstein's model of the photoelectric effect – from which Planck's constant is derived IIRC – without them. — 180 Proof

The issue is whether there is a real discrete unit within the continuum of space-time, independent from human existence. Neither yards, nor inches exist as independent units either, so you are just making my argument for me.

In parallel to this, we can look at three different states of H2O: steam, water, ice. — ucarr

Your example confuses "different" with "distinct". We are talking about distinct, discrete individual units, not differences within the same thing. That is the issue, how to place a boundary within something which appears as a continuous change, to say that it consists of discrete units. I am different today from what I was yesterday, just like the ice is different this morning, from the liquid it was yesterday, but these differences do not make me a distinct thing from what I was yesterday. So your example is not relevant to what we were talking about.

If I take a prism and hold it before a source of white light and a subsequent spectrum of red and blue and green light emerges, are these three primary colors of radiant light, each one measurable, non-existent illusions? — ucarr

I will address this when you show me how you will place an exact boundary between each colour. If you show me the exact division, where each colour ends, and the next starts such that there is no ambiguity, and you base your boundaries on principles which are independent from one's which are arbitrarily chosen by human beings, then you will have an example for me to address. Otherwise, your example just hands me a continuum without any real boundaries, with you insisting that there are boundaries.

When I walk down the street, I move through a sequence of transitory positions while I remain in motion. — ucarr

Are you claiming that the activity of walking consists of a series of static positions? Come on ucarr, get real. Each of those "positions" would be an instance of standing, and any activity of walking would occur between the instance of standing.

But clearly, walking does not consist of a series of static positions. If it did, then what would we call what happens between these static positions? How would the person get from one static position to the next? They couldn't walk from one static position to the next because that would just imply more static positions.

Let's imagine you and I standing on the street having a conversation. I think we exist as discrete individuals. You deny we exist as discrete individuals. How does your experience of the conversation differ from mine? — ucarr

The fact that we are sharing words, conversing, indicates that there is no real boundary between us, and the idea that we are distinct individuals is an illusion, an artificial creation. This is an illusion which you seem to believe in.

Do you think process philosophy shares some common ground with Platonism_Neo-Platonism?

Neoplatonic philosophy is a strict form of principle-monism that strives to understand everything on the basis of a single cause that they considered divine, and indiscriminately referred to as “the First”, “the One”, or “the Good”.Jan 11, 2016 — ucarr

I always understood Platinism and Neo-Platonism as dualist philosophies, not monist. So you'd have to better explain your interpretation before I could address your question here.

How is Neoplatonism different from Platonism?

Platonism is characterized by its method of abstracting the finite world of Forms (humans, animals, objects) from the infinite world of the Ideal, or One.

Neoplatonism, on the other hand, seeks to locate the One, or God in Christian Neoplatonism, in the finite world and human experience. — ucarr

You've left out "the good" of Platonism here, which is not the same as "the One" of Neo-Platonism. For Plato, the ideal is "the good", but it is distinct from "the One". "The One", for Plato is a mathematical Form, a fundamental unity, as explained by Aristotle, yet "the good" is an unknown, as explained in "The Republic" which falls into the class of "Many" as implied by the arguments in "The Sophist". Therefore "the One" cannot be the same as "the good".

Some people might dub such an experience 'numinous' — Tom Storm

The aesthetically beautiful can only be accounted for in terms of numeral. This why we have numerology.

How is that the only inductive reasoning possible? It could be this case. But it could also be that not all the energy can be measured.

Does something not exist because it can't be measured?

Does my internal state of mind not exist to you because it cannot all be measured at once? Except by me - considering only I hold my memories, beliefs and emotions (my personal consciousness). — Benj96

Actually, energy is not something measured. Measurements are made, and the energy level is determined through the application of mathematics. So energy is synthetic. I think this might be where the problem lies, in the tendency to reify energy, as if it is something which is measured.

I didn't say it could capture all the energy lost from the room did I? — Benj96

We\re talking about all the energy. That's what the law of conservation of energy implies, all the energy is conserved. If you are not talking about calculating all the energy then your example is useless.

In that way you can calculate with reasonable accuracy to account for the remaining heat energy you haven't picked up on the camera. And you can prove it by reference to the dropping temperature within the room. You can say okay at this rate the room will drop by 1 degree celcius every 30 minutes until it reaches ambient (outside) temperature. — Benj96

As I said, any properly carried out experiments have demonstrated that all the energy cannot be accounted for in this way, hence the second law of thermodynamics. That law is necessary to account for the fact that it is always impossible to account for all the energy.

Sum the heat released (energy) with the remaining masjids (energy) and it should equal the sum of the mass and chemical energy of the original food. — Benj96

You say, "it should equal...", and that is according to the law of conservation. The fact is, that it never does. That is the "waste" which was referred to in the statement of the second law which I provided.

Why do physicists believe it is then? When given the choice to throw out the conservation of energy or cartesian dualism, they tend to throw out the latter. — Down The Rabbit Hole

People believe in it because it's a law of convenience, which is extremely useful. The amount of wastage is generally so slight, and consistent, that it can easily be corrected for. As I said before, it's a matter of the efficiency of a given system. The efficiency (degree of wastage) can be determined and corrected for. We do not ever expect a hundred percent efficiency in practise, so the law serves us fine. But the fact that the ideal, being the theoretical law, is different from what we get in practise implies something significant about the nature of reality, i.e that reality is different what we think it is, if we believe the law to be true. Therefore it is a mistake to believe that law to be true.

Infinite. Isn't the ineffable, in its own way, the inspiration for these questions? — Moliere

"infinite" is a curious case. What we cannot express with words, mathematics has proven to have the ways and means for understanding. So the ineffable is not a problem, mathematics is there for us. But then there are places where mathematics cannot go, and here we use words, like "infinite". Interesting, ineffable is not a problem unless you think it is, but then it's something personal. There's really just a matter of needing to know the limits of words, and the limits of math.

Can you send me a reference to that proof then? — Benj96

I already told you, it's been proven by many, many scientific experiments. Never has all the energy been accounted for, in any experiment. So the conclusion is inductive, some energy is always lost. All you have to do is look up any experiment where there was an attempt to account for all the energy involved in an event, and you will find that all the energy has never been accounted for. Therefore we can make the inductive conclusion that contrary to the law of conservation, all the energy is never conserved.

Of course you can. Set up an infrared camera outside the room and you'll see the heat energy lost from the room. — Benj96

Sure, you can put up an infrared camera, but as I said, you will not find all the energy, only some of it, even if your sensing device encircles the entire building. You are the one being silly, suggesting that a mere infrared camera could capture all the energy lost from a room.

The only proof you've provided is personal opinion. — Benj96

It's an inductive conclusion, as are many of the proofs of scientific hypotheses.

Entropy is the tendency for energy to disperse further afield. Down a gradiant from high energy to a more widespread low energy state. The energy can't disappear it just keeps spreading out until it becomes matter (still energy). — Benj96

That is your baseless assertion. The following is a statement of the second law:

The second law of thermodynamics states that as energy is transferred or transformed, more and more of it is wasted. — https://www.livescience.com/50941-second-law-thermodynamics.html

Unless you can demonstrate where that "wasted" energy is, then to claim that it is actually conserved is a baseless assertion. Where is your proof that all of this "wasted" energy is actually conserved? I think it is actually you who is in the position of needing to prove what you are asserting. If all of the wasted energy is actually conserved, you ought to be able to show exactly where it is.

We can just agree to disagree if you'd like? But so far you haven't convinced me of your explanation and I cited several examples to the contrary. — Benj96

You have cited exactly zero examples of an experiment in which all of the energy available prior to an event has been accounted for after the event. Your example of an infrared camera is simply ridiculous. Until you provide something more realistic,, your claim to have cited examples is simply bullshit.

We can agree to disagree, if that's what you like, but you need to take a serious look at what you are asserting.

Living in the cave is like cutting your arms repeatedly on the shackles, suffering thus and wondering why or where this suffering comes from. Yet seeking comfort in the fact that you don't know.

All the while, a key sits in the locks unturned. Waiting if it is no longer ignored. But that key is frightfully uncomfortable to look at. The uncertainty the key represents from a state of delusion. — Benj96

Comfort of one sort brings suffering of another sort. So we often do not really understand when it's time to discontinue the comfort, as a bad habit, for the sake of something else which appears to require effort.

Transactions of energy from A to B lose energy from the |AB| system as heat, light and sound energy (usually due to unavoidable friction).

That doesn't mean energy conservation isn't true. It just means not all energy in A can be transformed perfectly into B (perpetual motion) without loss to C - the external environment (unless that environment is a frictionless/gravitiless environment - of which outerspace is a close but not perfect fit for those conditions). — Benj96

That is just a completely unproven assumption. In fact, it has been proven to be false. You assume that the lost energy actually exists somewhere else, and is measurable in that form, somewhere, however it exists. But it has really been proven that this is false. Despite all sorts of attempts to find it, all of the lost energy has never ever been located. Therefore your assumption that it exists somewhere as energy, is simply false, having been proven to be false by many, many, experiments. Numerous experiments have demonstrated that all of the energy cannot ever be recuperated therefore we must conclude that it does not exist as energy.

Not only that but the transaction of energy from A to B doesn't even have to be a loss. It can be a gain - from C.
If a cold cup of water is put in a hot room, the hot room heats up (gives energy) to the cold cup system (A - the container and B the water) until the heat in the cup and the heat in the room are equal and balanced, and energy is exchanged equally in both directions, constantly. — Benj96

I don't see how this is relevant. There is still energy lost to this system. You could say that some of the heat from the room is lost to the outside, but if you go outside and make measurements, you will not find it all. And it makes no difference if the outside is warmer, so that heat from the outside enters the room, you still will not be able to account for all the energy.

The sum of energy in any system |AB| plus C (the environment/ system encapsulating |AB| is conserved. — Benj96

That's exactly the assumption which has been proven to be false, as explained above. Measurements of C, "the environment", cannot account for the loss of energy to the system. And many attempts to do this have proven that the lost energy cannot ever be completely accounted for, therefore your statement is false.

If you don't believe that you would have to challenge all of physics based on the laws of thermodynamics (which is a lot) which I doubt will get you very far in proving without undoing all the useful technology (like fridges and AC) that work because of those principles. — Benj96

As I said, the laws of thermodynamics include the second law, which accounts for the loss of energy with entropy. But the second law is just as false as the law of conservation, because it assumes that the lost energy still exists as energy, when it does not. That's where the fundamental deficiency in the laws of thermodynamics lies, in the idea that the energy which is lost (rendering the law of conservation as false), still somehow exists as energy. That assumption, that the lost energy still exists as energy, is necessary to maintain the law of conservation, which has been proven to be false by the fact that all the energy cannot ever be accounted for.

My takeaway from your claims is, presently, that Process Philosophy is kinda like metaphysics of fluid dynamics -- without the practicality of the quantitative equations -- wherein the practitioner puts on, as it were, a pair of QM glasses, subsequently viewing life as a movie, except it's a movie stuck in a state of super-position, wherein no discrete individualities are distilled. We're inside the cloud of probabilities that plays like lightning in a bottle. Thus, parent_child_grandchild are as one within an indivisible conglomerate of activity, with heads, arms, legs etc., (mere evanescences, not material realities) showing themselves more illusion than individualities. — ucarr

If you say so... But I really can't decipher this. Doesn't a movie exist as a succession of distinct still-frames?

Here's the rub. Somewhere down the line, even process philosophy has to talk about something that exists discretely, otherwise there's nothing intelligible or linguistic to talk about. — ucarr

I tend to agree with this, but in process philosophy it's an event which 'exists' discretely. Now, my question would be, do these discrete events really have true existence as discrete entities, distinct from other events, or do we just artificially conceive of them in this way, so that we can talk about them? Do you see what I mean? You say there must be discrete things because that's all we can talk about, but I'm saying that perhaps we randomly create distinct things by arbitrarily (meaning not absolutely random or arbitrary, but for various different purposes) proposing boundaries within something continuous. So I am saying that in reality it may be that there is just one big continuous event, and depending on what our purpose is, we'll artificially project boundaries into this continuity, boundaries which are completely imaginary and fictitious creations, and this allows us to talk about distinct parts, and do our thing. So it's true that we can only talk about discrete existents, as you say, but this doesn't imply that discrete existents are actually real, because they might all be imaginary fictions, created by us for a variety of purposes.

Could it be the time element, at low resolution on the super-atomic scale, parses the flow mechanics of super-position into apparently discrete individualities? — ucarr

The problem again, is the question of whether such individualities are true or fictional. Currently we use the Planck scale, to individuate distinct, fundamental space-time units. But I would argue this is completely fictitious, and such individualities have no real existence. Until we discover the real basis for any such division of the assumed continuous substratum, into discrete units, any such proposed individualities will remain completely fictitious.

The truth is, 'conservation of energy' is not true. In reality all transactions of energy lose some energy and this is why 'perpetual motion' is unobtainable. This loss of energy is understood under the concept of efficiency. In a mechanical system energy is lost to friction for example. You might think that we could measure the heat from the friction, and this would account for the lost energy, but it wouldn't, because some would still be lost to the system of measurement.

So 'conservation of energy' is not true, and the second law of thermodynamics has been proposed as an amendment, a way to account for lost energy. And since the second law of thermodynamics is a proposal meant to amend the falsity of another law, it is actually false itself.

It sounds as if you're reifying 'potential energy'. — Bartricks

Isn't any talk of a transfer of energy a matter of reifying energy? That's the problem. When energy is reified we have to disclose the means by which the same energy might cease being a property of A and start being a property of B. We don't have to assume a mental event as the medium, we could invoke "force" or something like that. 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.

The problem I see here is that we are not really imprisoned, or held captive in Plato's cave. We are simply very comfortable there, and so have no desire to leave. So the point is that we do not go out and discover the truth about reality because we have no need to, we are quite satisfied living our lives in the shadows. And not only that, it is difficult, painful, to face the true reality, as the sun hurts the eyes.

So if we take the "hard as steel shell" comparison, it is not the case that the agrarian society forces an extremely difficult life of hard labour and moral duty on us, which we need to escape from. It's actually the very opposite to this. The society provides us with a very relaxed and easy, luxurious life, which we have absolutely no inclination toward breaking away from. In fact, even such a suggestion would be scorned as ridiculous. This is why the philosopher in Plato\s cave allegory has such a difficult task to lead the others out of the life of illusion, toward the truth. The deluded are very comfortable in their delusions.

I believe the situation is sort of like this. A has a specific quantity of kinetic energy, as a property of its activity. Relative to C, that kinetic energy is potential energy. But after causation occurs, the kinetic energy is now a property of C. So when the activity of A causes the activity of C, it does this through the medium of potential energy. Therefore potential energy is B, the medium between the activity of A and the activity of C. This is the immaterial aspect of the world.

Is time a mathematical construct external to matter , such that it acts as a generic and universal limit on matter , while matter itself has aspects or properties which can be understood independently of time? Is time external to and unaffected by the things located in time? — Joshs

I don't see how anything could be understood independently of time. I think we could presume to understand something independent of time, but that would just be a misunderstanding.

Progression of physical matter.
Clocks are physical matter that can delivery a number. — Mark Nyquist

But what is measured by the clock, as time, is decisively not the "progression of physical matter". It is something which applicable to all the progression of all physical matter, yet it is not the progression of any physical matter itself. This is evident from the relationship between time and light. In this sense, time, as the thing measured, becomes more like a limit or restriction to the progression of physical matter.

All we are doing with the idea of time is piggybacking on the progression of physical matter. — Mark Nyquist

No that's not the case at all. As indicated above, we use time in the practise of physics, to restrict the things we can say about the progression of matter. So it is not a case of "piggybacking", it is a case of us saying, this is what time is, and time imposes limitations on matter, so our conceptions of matter must abide by these limitations which we say time enforces. A good example is the law of entropy.

The problem though, is that when we stipulate this is what time is, and these are the limitations it imposes on matter, how do we know that we have it right?

You're baking a cake. When you do this, are you claiming that all of what baking a cake entails is non-existent? — ucarr

Yes, that's what I am saying. Baking a cake is an activity. And, we cannot say that activities exist. You would say that activities necessarily involve existents, like baking a cake involves ingredients, but this is what process philosophers dispute. They claim that activity is fundamental and there is no need to assume any ingredients

Your parents conceived you. Does process philosophy say that, before your birth, your parents and your conception were non-existent? If this is the position of process philosophy, I claim it has done away with much of (if not all of) causation (and causality). Following from this, how can objects come into existence in the terms of process philosophy if the means of creation of objects are non-existent? — ucarr

This, I can't make any sense of. You are not distinguishing between the act referred to with "conceived", and the objects , "your parents" which are supposed to have been involved in that act. Until you start to separate these concepts discussion on this issue is pointless.

I have the impression process philosophy assigns premium value to motion_dynamism_change. Regarding these three, I don't care if they're physical or metaphysical, in either case they populate a continuum of existence. — ucarr

Yes, but the question is whether essence is prior to existence.

Cite me an example of consciousness in the absence of existence. You're the one trapped in contradiction. The reasons for this I've already articulated in my post above yours. — ucarr

I'm not talking about consciousness, I'm talking about essence. You brought up consciousness as a way to support your claims. But your attempt at justification is only a vicious circle. We cannot replace "essence" with "consciousness".

Throughout our conversation, you've been acting in violation of your dictum above. Notice how you ascribe highest logical priority to "existence." When you deny existence-in-process ( a denial of existence itself), you destroy the individuals to whom you try to make reference. — ucarr

I didn't ascribe "highest logical priority" to existence. I simply stopped there in my example of logical priorities.

This is exactly the point. If you want to understand process philosophy pay close attention to this very point. When we proceed forward in our attempt at substantiation, there is a need to validate "individuals", because reference to individuals is what substantiates all the other logical categories. Process philosophy claims that we find the supposed individuals to be nothing but processes. The reality of individuals, as separate independent units, needs to be supported, and only processes are found to be there. This implies that we must assign logical priority to something which is prior to the existence of individuals, and this is what I called essence. There is no contradiction here, just a resolution to the incoherency and contradiction which arises if we stop at "existence" and claim it to be the first principle.

As I read the Wikipedia definition above, it claims that process (a fluid, dynamical phenomenon) is the principal operator in Process philosophy. — ucarr

I think it's pointless to discuss interpretation of a Wikipedia article, because I do not accept Wikipedia as a valid authority in philosophy, to begin with.

The issue I pointed to, was that from the perspective of process philosophy, the appearance of a thing, or an object, is the result of, therefore posterior to, activity. Since things, or objects, are what we attribute "existence" to, then form this perspective there is activity which is prior to existence.

Other operators, such as material objects and thoughts, although objectively real, hold subordinate positions of importance beneath processes. It doesn't claim processes are the only elements of the real world. Rather, the claim says there is a hierarchy with processes at the top. Are you denouncing this hierarchical definition? — ucarr

I do not know how you distinguish top from bottom in your analysis, but process philosophy puts processes at the bottom, as the foundation for, and prior to, existence. And not only that, it is processes all the way up. That's the point of process philosophy. The appearance of "an object" is just an instance of stability in a system of processes, such that there is a balance or equilibrium (symmetry perhaps), of processes.

My weird language above, as definition of non-existence, exists because I'm contorting it into something that does exist in order to talk about non-existence with a semblance of rationality. When trying to talk about something non-existent, we're thrown into the paradoxical land of talking about non-existence as an existing thing. — ucarr

Your approach defeats your proposed purpose of "rationality" by causing contradiction. If it is the case, that we can only talk about existent things, and because of this you are inclined to define the non-existent as existent, so that you can talk about non-existence, then your approach is producing contradiction. You need to change your approach, and allow yourself to talk about non-existent things as well as existent things, to avoid this contradiction which you have just forced onto yourself. This means that you need to redefine "exist", to allow that we talk about non-existent things as well, because you find yourself inclined to talk about nonexistence.

Whenever I see a claim of non-existence, I'm reminded of the question "Why is there not nothing?" My answer to the questioner is "Because you exist." This is a way of saying ontology has a special problem of perspective. This problem of perspective is rooted in the fact that existence is an all-encompassing ground WRT consciousness. Query presupposes consciousness, and consciousness presupposes existence. Existence, when it queries "Why existence?" presupposes itself in the asking of the question, which presupposes the ground for asking the question i.e., existence. — ucarr

This is a good example of the deficiency in your approach. You create a vicious circle between consciousness and existence, which traps you, and incapacitates you from understanding. That's what happens if you define one term (consciousness) with reference to another (existence), then turn around and invert this by defining the latter (existence) with reference to the former (consciousness).

Instead, the better way to proceed is to use increasingly broad (more general) terms, always assigning logical priority to the broader term. So for example, we can say "human being" is defined with "mammal", which is defined with "animal", which is defined with "living", and then "existing". In this way we do not get a vicious circle. And we can avoid an infinite regress by moving to substantiate, that is, to make reference to individuals.

Speaking linguistically, you cannot claim something doesn't exist because, in making the claim, you posit the existence of the thing denied existence. Coming from another direction, when you deny the existence of something, that denial contradicts itself.

All of this folderol is a way of saying conscious beings cannot think themselves out of existence, nor can they think material objects out of existence.

When you say "Predetermination is not existence." I suppose you want to say something parallel to saying "Unicorns don't exist." Unicorns do exist as thoughts, as proven by the denial. — ucarr

The result of this is that you have no way to distinguish between a truthful statement and a dishonest one, an outright lie. In fact, there is a unicorn on my front lawn right now.

In physics time is what the clock says. — Mark Nyquist

Sure, but in measurement there is a duality of the thing measured, and the measurement. These two are distinct. What the clock says, is the measurement. What do you think is being measured?

and that reality is physicalist in origin. — Tom Storm

It's not really true this, because a physicist can be dualist, and believe that God created the universe, and also believe that physics is only applicable toward understanding that part of reality which is physical. Hence the often quoted expression, 'shut up and calculate'. This can be interpreted as 'don't get distracted by what is outside the discipline. For example, biology does not rest on any assumptions about the origin of life. Nor does physics rest on any assumptions about the origin of reality.

It’s easy enough to understand, just not easy to accept. Superficially, his account works well enough; it does seem like the dog we see here and now is just like the dog we saw yesterday. Oversimplification, I know, but still a place to start. — Mww

The problem though is that the dog is not the complete perception. The dog is only a part of the perception, so it is not very accurate to say that each time a dog is seen, that this is a perception of a dog. That's not what perception is like, it always consists of many aspects, so that the dog is only a part. Perception always has many facets.

Maybe that’s exactly the key. If Hume understood it is only possible in humans to have one thought at a time, and asserting the mind to be the container of thoughts, Hume very well could have figured the mind can only do one thing at a time, which must include receiving impressions one at a time, otherwise he suffers self-contradiction. Even though this is logically consistent given the set of premises Hume worked with, it subsequently became obvious the premises were not as sufficiently explanatory as they need to be. — Mww

Right, because if this was Hume's premise it would be very inaccurate. The reality is that we can perceive with all of the senses at the same time. So a person might be looking at something, while hearing something else, and also touching, tasting, and smelling all at the same time. And even with one sense, such as sight for example, there are many different things being sensed at the same time. How would Hume describe this type of perception?

Incidentally, we often think of observation as watching with the eyes, but it's interesting to note the importance of hearing in ontology. Vision often gives us an image with the majority of the aspects within that image, appearing quite static, staying the same as time passes. But hearing only gives us the effects of a change. Something changing is what causes a noise.

The Pythagoreans understood sound as a vibration, and had developed some theories about the division of the octave, and basic musical principles. As I understand it, they hypothesized that if there was a sound which was constant and unchanging, it would not be heard. And this formed the basis of their cosmology. They posited a background vibration in an aether that permeates the entire cosmos, the vibration being continuous and consistent, so that it could not be sensed with the eyes. Then all the heavenly bodies in their orbs, are supposed to be variations to the background vibration, making them visible.

Suppose that non-existence = unspecifiably small volume of unlimited application. — ucarr

I can't see how you can conceive of a small volume with unlimited application. That seems incoherent. As a matter of fact, i can't see how you would conceive of anything having unlimited application. That in itself appears incoherent.

lso ontology of becoming, or processism is an approach to philosophy that identifies processes, changes, or shifting relationships as the only true elements of the ordinary, everyday real world. It treats other real elements (examples: enduring physical objects, thoughts) as abstractions from, or ontological dependents on, processes. — ucarr

This is poorly written. If processes are the only elements of the real world, then there is no such "other real elements. Someone made a mistake writing that Wikipedia piece, and you are running away with the mistake.

Trial and error is how we learn, yes, but not necessarily as individuals, that is to convoluted. We get most passed on by our parents, society at large, by tradition.... and then we can work with that and try out some things, sure. But almost nobody has the time, energy and the genius to make that sort of strategy work purely as an individual. — ChatteringMonkey

You think trial and error is convoluted, it's actually extremely simple compared to trying to explain how we learn from others.