Re: Trouble with concepts

[huttnedu]

Hello, I am the person who Stefan was speaking with during the video reference in the title and I want to start this response by promising you that I am not a troll. I really do enjoy a lot of Stefan's work. This has just been one sticking point for me and I wish he would've given me more time on the call.  In this response I will be addressing your definition of exist and the multiple ways you have applied it inconsistently. Please read the whole way through, I took a couple of hours to write this, though I've decided to just post it before I start proofing it which will probably end up in me not posting it at all.

and hey Stefan, I really hope you have the time to respond. I'd like to conduct myself with a professional attitude, and I will attempt to justify, in my own words, every statement that I make. I have a feeling you'll do the same!

Video description:
                                                                        "Stefan Molyneux is asked about the difference between concepts and reality."

Even this title is misleading, since reality is, in fact, a concept. Reality is a synonym for the universe which is rationally defined as matter and space.

Reality is a relationship that we UNDERSTAND only. It does not exist. Why?

Because, objects and concepts are in totally separate and distinct categories. Objects are "defined" (and I put that in quotes because object really are not defined, they are visualized. All objects are amenable to visualization by definition because an object is that which has shape) And concepts are relationships between those objects. Concepts are defined by their referent objects and how they relate.

So you see, there is a big difference. Stefan Molyneux doesn't seem to understand this difference because he stated within the video I am responding to that "concepts exist within the brain."

Now, I'd like to take an in depth look at both that assumption and juxtapose it with some of Stefan's other statements.

Stefan also states as his definition of exist:

                                                                                 "Objectively detectable as matter, energy, and the effects thereof."

However, detectability is never objective. It is always RELATIVE to a subjective observer, by definition. Detection involves surface to surface contact between objects. You detect a smell when the molecule reaches your nose, you detect a sound when your eardrums are pushed by the air, ect.

Before the telescope was invented, nobody in the entire world could possibly detect distant stars. Did they not exist? Even now there are objects out there that we cannot possibly, even with the best technology, detect. Every new telescope reveals farther and farther objects in the immeasurable distance of the universe. Do they not exist? Clearly this is not an objective criterion.

Since Stefan is working with a definition of exist which is limited to detection, it's impossible for him to come to objective, or observer-independent conclusions about it.

But regardless of Stefan's definition of exist, he contradicts himself by stating that relationships between neurons in the brain exist, but also that the neurons themselves exist. Why is that a contradiction?

Because a neuron is an object, has shape, and the activity it performs, such as the concepts of consciousness and beliefs do not. A shape relates what is bounded from the immediate surrounding. (syn: form). Relationships do NOT have form. But simply having form is not enough, a neuron exists because it has shape AND location, or a distance between it and all other objects in the universe. Concepts such as beliefs have no shape and therefore no possible location. So, Stefan is effectively saying exist is that which has shape and location, and also that exist is that which has no shape and location. A clear contraction.

So once again, I hope you realize I am no troll, but a mere independent researcher who has some weird definitions for words. But I think they are consistent definitions, and cannot be contradicted. So I will reiterate them here for clarity.

Object: That which has shape.
Concept: Relation between two or more objects
Shape: a term that relates what is bounded from the immediate surrounding.
Exist: Physical presence. (Physical refers to the object and presence to location.)

I am very concerned about this distinction because, even as Stefan said, most people would assert that gravity exists, and by using this dual meaning they think they've understood how nature works. This is when Stefan exits philosophy and enters the realm of science. In science, his definitions need to be unambiguous and noncontradictory. Pursuant to a rational definition of exist, gravity does not exist, it is a description of a relationship between objects in reality. It does not explain, or visualize the mechanism (mechanism refers to an object) that actually performs the actions. When we say, "gravity pulls" what do we mean? Gravity is not a mechanism, but a description.

I understand that they are not arms but there has to be SOMETHING out there extending from the Earth to you, pulling you, right? I mean, if concepts are relationships between objects, and gravity is a concept, then what objects does it relate? How do you physically relate to the earth in such a way that it actually pulls you back down to it? I understand that there are no arms, but there must be some *thing* some object that does the pulling. What is it? I would assume it is

, since that would also explain light, the configuration of

,

, all using different configurations of the same fundamental object.

You'll run into a lot of weird conclusions based upon this understanding. Such as experience and perception does not "exist". Gasp! Shocking! I should just jump out of the window then, right? Not really. The fact that perception or consciousness or the mind or whatever other concept you want to reify (reification) does not exist does not mean that it's not actually some activity performed by objects in reality. Even big momma nature and big daddy universe don't "exist" if you define the term and apply it consistently. ONLY objects with location can exist if you want to use the term rationally (i.e. unambiguously and consistently).

But that's not really the topic of the thread. The topic is the term exist. By now, I hope that you can understand why I conclude:

1. Stefan is using a definition of exist which depends on detection, making it subjective.
2. Stefan's usage of exist is contradictory. To him exist means that it has shape & location and no shape & location.

Thanks for reading.

[Victor]

Hi. Jumping in for Stef, as this is posted on the forums and not on a personal message.

Even this title is misleading, since reality is, in fact, a concept. Reality is a synonym for the universe which is rationally defined as matter and space.

That would be your definition. The definition I recognize as rational and true is "the universe is all that exists." What exists is matter and energy or that which interacts with matter and/or energy. Space (or rather space-time) is just the result of inter-relational properties (near, far, above, around, before, after) of matter and energy.

Reality is a relationship that we UNDERSTAND only. It does not exist. Why?

Because, objects and concepts are in totally separate and distinct categories. Objects are "defined" (and I put that in quotes because object really are not defined, they are visualized. All objects are amenable to visualization by definition because an object is that which has shape) And concepts are relationships between those objects. Concepts are defined by their referent objects and how they relate.

So you see, there is a big difference. Stefan Molyneux doesn't seem to understand this difference because he stated within the video I am responding to that "concepts exist within the brain."

I've had this discussion with you before without reaching a conclusion. Your definition of the universe requires it to be populated by objects. An Object is that which has shape. Shape is an external boundary or geometrical description of the space occupied by an object. But we know of things that exist and yet have no shape. A good example is an electron. So, your definition is flawed, and as your argumentation is based on this definition of reality, what follows is an exercise in futility. You cannot understand me and I cannot understand you because we don't agree on the basic definition.

Another issue I've identified in your thinking is that you don't recognize the existence of energy and processes. So you don't recognize that a certain arrangement of physical matter can have properties. A concept can be described as a particular arrangement in our neurons and the electrical processes in our brain, and I think this is what Stef was trying to point out, but your basic definition of reality does not allow for this and you end up asking questions that to me, and I think to Stef too, just seem ridiculously bizarre.

However, detectability is never objective. It is always RELATIVE to a subjective observer, by definition. Detection involves surface to surface contact between objects. You detect a smell when the molecule reaches your nose, you detect a sound when your eardrums are pushed by the air, ect.

Before the telescope was invented, nobody in the entire world could possibly detect distant stars. Did they not exist? Even now there are objects out there that we cannot possibly, even with the best technology, detect. Every new telescope reveals farther and farther objects in the immeasurable distance of the universe. Do they not exist? Clearly this is not an objective criterion.

These two quotes reveal the contradictory nature of your thinking. You state that detection involves surface to surface contact, yet mention the example of telescopes to detect distant stars. Are we in contact with the surface of a distant star in order to detect it? The contradiction springs out of the fact that light is not an object, and then would not exist per your definition. So you quietly ignore it in order to hold on to your believes.

Since Stefan is working with a definition of exist which is limited to detection, it's impossible for him to come to objective, or observer-independent conclusions about it.

If you accept the scientific method, then you understand we cannot arrive at a true or accepted model describing anything independently from observation or detection. This is not a handicap of our thinking. Rather this is a handicap of reality, because by definition what exists is that which interacts... This is actually the essence of the scientific method, as it allows us to disregard fantasy and myth by their inability to interact in any detectable means wiht matter and/or energy.

Because a neuron is an object, has shape, and the activity it performs, such as the concepts of consciousness and beliefs do not. A shape relates what is bounded from the immediate surrounding. (syn: form). Relationships do NOT have form. But simply having form is not enough, a neuron exists because it has shape AND location, or a distance between it and all other objects in the universe. Concepts such as beliefs have no shape and therefore no possible location. So, Stefan is effectively saying exist is that which has shape and location, and also that exist is that which has no shape and location. A clear contraction.

Again, because your definition of existence is "different", your conclusions are bizarre.

So once again, I hope you realize I am no troll, but a mere independent researcher who has some weird definitions for words. But I think they are consistent definitions, and cannot be contradicted. So I will reiterate them here for clarity.

You apply your definitions consistently, but they are not consistent (I think I evidenced it above). I have contradicted them in the past, but you seem impervious to that. That may be why you understand they cannot be contradicted. But at least you are aware your definitions are "weird".

You'll run into a lot of weird conclusions based upon this understanding. Such as experience and perception does not "exist". Gasp! Shocking! I should just jump out of the window then, right? Not really. The fact that perception or consciousness or the mind or whatever other concept you want to reify (reification) does not exist does not mean that it's not actually some activity performed by objects in reality. Even big momma nature and big daddy universe don't "exist" if you define the term and apply it consistently. ONLY objects with location can exist if you want to use the term rationally (i.e. unambiguously and consistently).

Here, as I've pointed out in other threads, you are confusing intuitive definitions with unambiguous and consistent. You seem to think that because you can imagine objects interacting, but cannot imagine energy by itself, holding a definition of reality that includes energy as something that exists by itself (without matter or shape) is ambiguous and inconsistent. That is not the case. I've proposed a definition which is both unambiguous and consistent and I'm willing and able to defend it at your leisure.

But that's not really the topic of the thread. The topic is the term exist.

I'd like to make the thread about you. Because your definitions require we dump most of our physics and re-work most of our science, it does seem like an attempt at stalling progress or holding people down, specially because it has no predictive power and does not help us to model reality in better (truer, more accurate) ways. It would in fact make us abandon most of modern electronics. It looks very much trolly to me; given my definition of a troll as someone who goes out to the world to re-create the bad experiences he's had unto others... someone who works to make the world ugly and the people in it unhappy.

I ask you to prove to me you're not a troll. Demonstrate my definition of reality is inconsistent or irrational, as I've done with yours.

[huttnedu]

Hey Victor, thanks for the response.                                               

                                              "the universe is all that exists"

That's fine, but that still makes the universe a concept, since it relates two or more objects.

                                              "What exists is matter and energy"

Exist = matter
Exist = energy

This is synonymous and therefore ambiguous. Energy is activity of atoms. The atoms exist, the energy does not. This is exactly what I mean when I say you equivocate on the usage of this term. Exist refers to something physically present, and also not physically present.  Here's a perfect example:

                                     " A concept can be described as a particular arrangement in our neurons and the electrical processes in our brain"

The Cerebral Cortex could be described as a "particular arrangement" or "physical configuration" of neurons. The cerebral cortex is NOT a concept. It has a shape and location inside of my head.  On the other hand, an electrical process is the activity or interaction of those existent neurons. The process is not physically present, the process occurs and is understood, but physically present (i.e. existence) only rationally refers to the objects themselves.

                                          "But we know of things that exist and yet have no shape. A good example is an electron."

An electron is not "known", but ASSUMED to exist by mathematicians and the shapeless model cannot possibly explain the phenomena. How is an entity with shape formed with shapeless components? The mathematicians may have found ways to make accurate measurements & predictions about the behavior of whatever is down there, but they don't have a clue what it really looks like. They use multiple, incongruent models of the electron to explain their behavior, which I explain further below. Much like ancient humans with the sun, moon, and stars. They could predict their motion, but they had no idea what they really were. They thought they were gods! Now, we just think they are concepts.

                                               "you don't recognize the existence of energy and processes."

It's not about my recognition! Energy and processes are concepts or relations between objects. They are not physical (i.e. objects). They do not exist pursuant to a consistent definition of exist. We all use the term exist to refer to objects with location, now lets be consistent about it. Concepts do not exist, not even "in the brain". Neurons exist in the brain, concepts do not. I am not saying that concepts cannot be understood. We all understand and think conceptually on a daily basis, but that is an ACTIVITY being performed within the brain. It does not exist. Your ideas do not exist, they are simply processes occuring between objects.

                                                     "These two quotes reveal the contradictory nature of your thinking. You state that detection involves surface to surface contact, yet mention the example of telescopes to detect distant stars. Are we in contact with the surface of a distant star in order to detect it? The contradiction springs out of the fact that light is not an object, and then would not exist per your definition."

I knew I should have put in an explanation with that one... I understand you are not in direct surface to surface contact with the object you see, but you are directly connected via the EM ropes which comprise and connect every object in the universe. The torsion of the ropes is what we call light and when the ropes torque, atoms expand and contract, reeling and releasing rope. This involves direct contact. Even under the photon model, the light particle allegedly comes in direct contact with your eye.

                                               "So you quietly ignore it in order to hold on to your believes."

Dude, what?! Why the stab? I am trying to address the key points of all your arguments and you tell me I'm ignoring? I don't get it.

                                                "we cannot arrive at a true or accepted model describing anything independently from observation or detection."

True or accepted can be used interchangably? I agree. Science is not about coming to "accepted" conclusions, but rather, objective ones. Objectivity is that which relates objects only, thus objectivitiy is observer independent. Apart from exist, motion is another example of an objective concept. Motion is two or more locations of an object. The moon does not require an observer to change location.

                                       "by definition what exists is that which interacts"

Harry Potter interacts with Severus Snape in the Harry Potter books. Interaction does not mean exist. And even if you say, "that which interacts in reality" you are still using a synonym for the term, reality, within the definition. That is circular and ambiguous.

                                                  "your conclusions are bizarre."

I know, I already said that. But bizarre does not mean irrational. Bizarre is only relative to the norm, and the norm has been irrational for thousands of years.

                              "I have contradicted them in the past, but you seem impervious to that."

I have thoroughly rebuked each of your attempts to contradict my arguments. I have also contradicted each of your arguments and definitions thoroughly in this post.

                              "I've proposed a definition which is both unambiguous and consistent and I'm willing and able to defend it at your leisure."

                             "by definition what exists is that which interacts"

Is that your definition? I contradicted it above with the Harry Potter example.

                 "Because your definitions require we dump most of our physics and re-work most of our science, it does seem like an attempt at stalling progress or holding people down, specially because it has no predictive power and does not help us to model reality in better (truer, more accurate) ways."

The theoretical understanding of phenomena does not have anything to do with the furtherance of technology or the mathematical modeling and prediction of future events. Technology is developed via trial and error. It's all tinkering and building upon and modifying old inventions. Scientific theory is meant to explain events that, hypothetically, have already occurred. This is done only for the purpose of understanding rationally. Theoretical science is done analytically in the brain, not in the lab or workshop. When we analyze hypothetical models and phenomena and their theoretical explanations, we do so within our minds to understand. Scientific theories are based on assumptions that stand or fall by critical analysis only. The only objective, scientific conclusions we can reach about events and objects of reality are "possible" and "not possible."

                        "It would in fact make us abandon most of modern electronics"

I don't think so. They are not really understood today! Even Richard Feynman admits that mathematicians have no idea what energy is or how the objects actually interact at that small of a scale.  You mentioned the electron. Even that object is not consistently represented by the establishment. On one hand they require a particle model to explain phenomena such as the photoelectric effect, but on the other hand they need it to be a conceptual probability cloud to explain bonding and ionization. Electricity uses the particle model too, alleging that the electron particles zoom up and down the wire as a "current". Totally contradictory.

                             "It looks very much trolly to me; given my definition of a troll as someone who goes out to the world to re-create the bad experiences he's had unto others... someone who works to make the world ugly and the people in it unhappy."

Damn dude! What about me? You're giving me a pretty bad experience by accusing me of such dark aspirations. How the hell are you coming to such a conclusion? I know I may have acted pretty emotionally in some past conversations but I really want to continue presenting myself with an analytic, emotion-free attitude in these discussions of science.

             "I ask you to prove to me you're not a troll. Demonstrate my definition of reality is inconsistent or irrational, as I've done with yours."

I hope I have done just that! Thanks for a serious response.

[SirJamesIII]

Let me define some terms first:

Phenonmenon: Something detectable by some sensory instrument 

Epiphenomenon: A phenomenon created by a process. 

Object: Something with shape and occupies space.

Identity: A label, subjectively chosen by the observer, to name a phenomenon or noumenon. 

Exist: Something that is phenomenal  

Objects exist because they can be measured and detected. Likewise, a process exists because one can meausure and detect them as well. Processes must exist because if they didn't, then epiphenomena wouldn't exist, and epiphenonmena do exist as objects. If the process of "fusion" didn't exist, then there would be no helium created from hydrogen atoms. Helium is the epiphomenon resulting from the process of fusion. Fusion exists because nuclear energy exists. (Stef is right, energy is not motion, kinetic energy is). Energy is not a relationship between objects. 

However, both objects and processes are phenomenon. Relationships between physical objects exist yet you say that concepts don't exist and that concepts are the relationships between physical objects. Relationships between physical objects do exist as they can be measured. To deny that a process exists is to deny time. Spacetime exists physically as the fabric of the universe. Gravity does not describe the relationship between two objects with mass, it describes the phenomenon of the warping of space time. An object with mass will warp space time around it and consequently the inertial path of any object that is near it. So you say energy doesn't exist? Well then I guess photons don't exist since photons are energy. The shape of a photon is not absolute as it falls under the wave-particle duality.  And they also have no mass. So what say you of photons? Are they objects? Do they exist in your world? 

Matter can also be converted into energy, what are your opinions of that? 

I'd suggest that you learn about "downward causality." Non-physical things (things we believe not to "exist" because they are immaterial) affect physical things provided the physical thing is concious. According to the laws of physics, shadows don't exist, but the are still phenomenal. A shadow is the absence of light, but we can define it as a positive thing if we want to. Like a photon, they have shape but no mass. A shadow can even move faster than the speed of light. 

Your definition of exist needs to be refined. You jump to erroneous conclusions when you say that no objective definitions can be derived from making observations. Just because a distant star wasn't detected before the telescope, that does not imply that these stars were not detectable. This just means that our description of the universe becomes more complete as our detecting insturments become better. The speed of light also does not change depending on the observer. Identites, however, are subjective. It was totally up to us that we called gravity what it is instead of pizza. 

 

[SirJamesIII]

 

That's fine, but that still makes the universe a concept, since it relates two or more objects.

 

Would you be surprised if I told you that objects are sometimes comprised of objects? Is a human an object or the summation of multiple objects (organs, cells, molecules, atoms, or subatomic particles)? Is the universe an object? What level of distinction satisfies you? 

[Nathan T_ Freeman]

 

                                              "What exists is matter and energy"

Exist = matter
Exist = energy

This is synonymous and therefore ambiguous. Energy is activity of atoms. The atoms exist, the energy does not.

 

Then you won't mind holding your hand over this fire for the next 10 minutes. After all, while the plasma matter of the flame that you see exists, the heat energy does not.

[TDB]

This reminds me of a sort of rhetorical problem. In a podcast a year or more ago, Stef was engaged in disproving the existence of god. He mentioned as a sort of illustrative aside and without further clarification that the united states of america did not exist. Now, I am pretty sure I know what Stef means when he says the US does not exist. But I can just imagine a hostile listener thinking "This guy doesn't even think the US exists, who would listen to his opinions about god?" I've never understood the attraction of this sort of rhetorical flourish,which tempts the careless listener to misunderstand, while adding no positive contribution to the conversation that I am aware of. If the US does not exist, what follows? Does my family exist? Apple Inc.? Boy Scouts of America? The human race? The English language? And more importantly, restricting the word "existence" in this way, does it make any difference to anyone? Or does this usage reduce it to meaningless jargon?

How should my behavior change if I accept that "The United States of America" does not exist? Imagine two parallel universes, one where I fastidiously avoid mentioning this phrase when describing territories, bureaucrats, laws, etc. and one where I use the ordinary phrase in the ordinary way. What differences would we observe between these two universes, other than the words coming out of my mouth?

[KyleG]

 

 

That's fine, but that still makes the universe a concept, since it relates two or more objects.

 

Would you be surprised if I told you that objects are sometimes comprised of objects? Is a human an object or the summation of multiple objects (organs, cells, molecules, atoms, or subatomic particles)? Is the universe an object? What level of distinction satisfies you? 

 

Do you acknowledge that there's a difference between two apples and applesauce made from two apples?

If I have two apples, how many objects do I have? Each apple individually, plus the "group" of apples?

I concur with huttnedu, the word "universe" is used to conceptualize the entirety of objects and their relations.

[SirJamesIII]

 

Do you acknowledge that there's a difference between two apples and applesauce made from two apples?

If I have two apples, how many objects do I have? Each apple individually, plus the "group" of apples?

I concur with huttnedu, the word "universe" is used to conceptualize the entirety of objects and their relations.

 

But all objects require conceptualization between objects (except an object that cannot be broken down into smaller components). Does the word apple need to relate more than one object with another for it to have meaning? In a colloquial sense, no. To a laymen observer, it is a single object. In a literal sense, yes. The concept of an apple relates sugar and other the molecules that comprise it. An apple is still a multitude of objects (molecules, atoms etc.). The identity we use in this scenario is still an arbitrary distinction which requires conceptualization and a conscious observer. No different with the universe. 

To answer your question, if my level of distinction is on the single apple level, then I have two objects. If my level of distinction is apple pairs, then I have one object. 

*furiously attempts to make universe-sauce by blending two universes

[KyleG]

Likewise, a process exists because one can meausure and detect them as well. Processes must exist because if they didn't, then epiphenomena wouldn't exist, and epiphenonmena do exist as objects. If the process of "fusion" didn't exist, then there would be no helium created from hydrogen atoms. Helium is the epiphomenon resulting from the process of fusion.

Your example of fusion could be explained in another way:

• Suppose that we have two hydrogen atoms. They have location and shape.
• Moments later, we now only have one helium atom. The previous two hydrogen atoms no longer have shape or location. The new helium atom also has location and shape.

• Did some kind of transformation occur? Yes.
• Does that transformation itself have location and/or shape? No.
• Is that transformation detectable? Only vicariously as a consequence of comparing the current state of a system of objects to the previous state of a system of objects.

A consequence of having location and shape is that the entity is also detectable. Detectability requires location and shape, but introduces a dependence on an observer for existence. That dependence is unnecessary in order to explain existence.

[KyleG]

 

 

Do you acknowledge that there's a difference between two apples and applesauce made from two apples?

If I have two apples, how many objects do I have? Each apple individually, plus the "group" of apples?

I concur with huttnedu, the word "universe" is used to conceptualize the entirety of objects and their relations.

 

But all objects require conceptualization between objects (except an object that cannot be broken down into smaller components). Does the word apple need to relate more than one object with another for it to have meaning? In a colloquial sense, no. To a laymen observer, it is a single object. In a literal sense, yes. The concept of an apple relates sugar and other the molecules that comprise it. An apple is still a multitude of objects (molecules, atoms etc.). The identity we use in this scenario is still an arbitrary distinction which requires conceptualization and a conscious observer. No different with the universe. 

To answer your question, if my level of distinction is on the single apple level, then I have two objects. If my level of distinction is apple pairs, then I have one object. 

*furiously attempts to make universe-sauce by blending two universes

 

Is it really necessarily arbitrary? A reason that the laymen observer identifies it as a single object is because that is how it is presented to him as a consequence of reality. It is only with the aide of technology that the laymen observer can understand that the apple is a composition itself. But even the laymen acknowledges the difference between a single apple and a bucket of apples.

The relationship between objects can be so strong that objects can combine to form larger, distinct units. There's a physical difference between the objects that do fundamentally compose a larger object, and larger objects themselves.

On one extreme, the objects in a system are completely physically separate. On the other extreme, they are physically bonded such that a new entity is formed, and all previous entities are no more.

Is it ever the case that you could have three objects, the two individual apples, and the pair?

Mmmm universe-sauce. Cosmically delicious.

[Wesley]

Exist = matter
Exist = energy

This is synonymous and therefore ambiguous. Energy is activity of atoms. The atoms exist, the energy does not. This is exactly what I mean when I say you equivocate on the usage of this term. Exist refers to something physically present, and also not physically present.  Here's a perfect example:

E=Mc^(2) proves this wrong. Mass and energy are equicalent when multiplied by a fixed constant. Claiming that energy does not exist would be making a claim that matter does not exist and debunk all of reality. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence

In physics, mass–energy equivalence is the concept that the mass of a body or system is a measure of its energy content. In particular, any physical system has a property called energy and a corresponding property called mass; the two properties are always present in the same (i.e. constant) proportion to one another. This means (for example) that the total internal energyE of a body at rest is equal to the product of its rest mass m and a suitable unit conversionfactor which transforms units of mass to proportionate units of energy.

Mass-energy equivalence arose originally from special relativity, as developed by Albert Einstein, who proposed this equivalence in 1905 in one of his Annus Mirabilis papers entitled "Does theinertia of an object depend upon its energy-content?"^[1] The equivalence is described by the famous equation:

where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light. Thus, Einstein stated that the universal proportionality factor between equivalent amounts of energy and mass is equal to the speed of light squared. The formula is dimensionally consistent and holds true irrespective of which system of measurement units is used.

Since there are different ways to define the mass of a body, E = mc² can indicate slightly different meanings. For instance, m orm₀ is called the invariant mass or rest mass of a body, which is related to the rest energy by E₀ = m₀c².^[2] In other texts, the mass is defined in connection with relativistic momentum or energy, called relativistic mass m_rel. So in this context the formula E =m_relc² indicates that energy always exhibits relativistic mass in whatever form the energy takes.^[3] Mass–energy equivalence does not imply that mass may be "converted" to energy, but it allows for matter to disappear, leaving only its associated energy behind, as non-material energy. Mass remains conserved (i.e., the quantity of mass remains constant), since it is a property of matter and also any type of energy. Energy is also conserved. In physics, mass must be differentiated from matter. Matter, when seen as certain types of particles, can be created and destroyed (as in particle annihilation or creation), but a closed system of precursors and products of such reactions, as a whole, retains both the original mass and energy throughout the reaction.

When the system is not closed, and energy is removed from a system (for example in nuclear fission or nuclear fusion), some mass is always removed along with the energy, according to their equivalence where one always accompanies the other. This energy thus is associated with the missing mass, and this mass will be added to any other system which absorbs the removed energy. In this situation E = mc² can be used to calculate how much mass goes along with the removed energy. It also tells how much mass will be added to any system which later absorbs this energy. This was the original use of the equation when derived by Einstein.

E = mc² has sometimes been used as an explanation for the origin of energy in nuclear processes, but mass–energy equivalence does not explain the origin of such energies. Instead, this relationship merely indicates that the large amounts of energy released in such reactions may exhibit enough mass that the mass-loss may be measured, when the released energy (and its mass) have been removed from the system. For example, the loss of mass to an atom and a neutron, as a result of the capture of the neutron and the production of a gamma ray, has been used to test mass-energy equivalence to high precision, as the energy of the gamma ray may be compared with the mass defect after capture. In 2005, these were found to agree to 0.0004%, the most precise test of the equivalence of mass and energy to date. This test was performed in the World Year of Physics 2005, a centennial celebration of Einstein's achievements in 1905.^[4]

Einstein was not the first to propose a mass–energy relationship (see the History section). However, Einstein was the first scientist to propose the E = mc² formula and the first to interpret mass–energy equivalence as a fundamental principle that follows from therelativistic symmetries of space and time.

[fingolfin]

 

Exist = matter
Exist = energy

This is synonymous and therefore ambiguous. Energy is activity of atoms. The atoms exist, the energy does not. This is exactly what I mean when I say you equivocate on the usage of this term. Exist refers to something physically present, and also not physically present.  Here's a perfect example:

E=Mc^(2) proves this wrong. Mass and energy are equicalent when multiplied by a fixed constant. Claiming that energy does not exist would be making a claim that matter does not exist and debunk all of reality.

I'm sorry, what is this gibberish? [8-|] You have to make an argument, not just assert opinions.

As already discussed, 'energy' (an abstract concept) does not exist pursuant to an objective definition of 'exist'. Energy has no shape, nor location. Energy is a vague 'explain it all' (i.e. explain nothing) word invoked to escape the argument at hand. If you don't like the definition of exist provided kindly by the OP, then it is up to YOU to define it without contradiciton or ambiguity for all to see. You don't get to just parrot opinion.

Your equation not only proves nothing (math is tautologous; 'proof' is empirical in context) but it only (at best!) describes dymanic events. No math can explain a single event of nature. For that we need physics, and in physics it is axiomatic that we provide a physical object (object: that with shape) before we begin our thesis.

Energy is what things/objects DO (verb), not what they ARE (noun). You can't have nothing (no-object) perform an action. The object is a priori. All objects in nature can and should be illustrated – so that your audience knows what you're talking about. This is how we begin a rational discussion. Definitions of key terms, and our objects shown upfront. No cheating or magic tricks allowed!

So, please explain unambiguously, frame by frame, and without opinion, contradiction or ambiguity, how a mathematical equation, which doesn't exist, can account for the presence of matter. Please show us all how no-thing (space, concepts) can produce some-thing (an object). No angels or invisible leprechauns!

[DoubtingThomas]

 

 

                                              "What exists is matter and energy"

Exist = matter
Exist = energy

This is synonymous and therefore ambiguous. Energy is activity of atoms. The atoms exist, the energy does not.

 

Then you won't mind holding your hand over this fire for the next 10 minutes. After all, while the plasma matter of the flame that you see exists, the heat energy does not.

 

That about sums my opinion aswell.

[DaVinci]

This topic is way over my head, but I'm enjoying reading it. [H]

[KyleG]

 

 

 

                                              "What exists is matter and energy"

Exist = matter
Exist = energy

This is synonymous and therefore ambiguous. Energy is activity of atoms. The atoms exist, the energy does not.

 

Then you won't mind holding your hand over this fire for the next 10 minutes. After all, while the plasma matter of the flame that you see exists, the heat energy does not.

 

That about sums my opinion aswell.

 

Since huttnedu hasn't responded to this yet, I'll make an attempt to do so.

Are you suggesting that because it would be painful to place your hand above a fire for 10 minutes, therefore the heat must have shape and location?

Suppose we are referring to a wood camp fire. Given the terminology used by huttnedu, it might look like the following:

• My hand has shape and location.
  
• The air molecules around my hand have shape and location
• The embers in the fire have shape and location.
• The air molecules around the embers have shape and location.
• The embers and the air molecules around the embers begin an exothermic relationship.
  
• The exothermic relationship does not have shape or location.
  
• As a consequence of the transformation of the wood resulting from the exothermic relationship, the surrounding air molecules become more active.
• Those air molecules now take up more physical space.
• Since their mass has not changed, they are now less dense
• Consequently, denser, less active molecules fall and the less-dense, more active molecules rise.
  
• As the denser, less-active molecules fall, they too enter into an exothermic relationship with the embers.
• The more-active air molecules continue to rise, eventually entering into a relationship with my hand.
• A sufficient number of active air molecules coming into contact with my hand with sufficient activity will cause my skin to burn, and my nerve endings to activate.

Thus, it does not seem necessary that heat should need to "exist," that is, have shape and location, in order for the experience of placing your hand above a fire to be painful.

"Energy is activity of atoms."

Does anyone dispute the validity of this statement?

"The atoms exist, the energy does not."

Translation: The atoms (have location and shape), the energy does not (have location and shape).

Does anyone dispute the validity of this statement?

[KyleG]

 

This reminds me of a sort of rhetorical problem. In a podcast a year or more ago, Stef was engaged in disproving the existence of god. He mentioned as a sort of illustrative aside and without further clarification that the united states of america did not exist. Now, I am pretty sure I know what Stef means when he says the US does not exist. But I can just imagine a hostile listener thinking "This guy doesn't even think the US exists, who would listen to his opinions about god?" I've never understood the attraction of this sort of rhetorical flourish,which tempts the careless listener to misunderstand, while adding no positive contribution to the conversation that I am aware of. If the US does not exist, what follows? Does my family exist? Apple Inc.? Boy Scouts of America? The human race? The English language? And more importantly, restricting the word "existence" in this way, does it make any difference to anyone? Or does this usage reduce it to meaningless jargon?

How should my behavior change if I accept that "The United States of America" does not exist? Imagine two parallel universes, one where I fastidiously avoid mentioning this phrase when describing territories, bureaucrats, laws, etc. and one where I use the ordinary phrase in the ordinary way. What differences would we observe between these two universes, other than the words coming out of my mouth?

 

I know exactly what you mean. Having discussed this topic with others, it definitely does come as a shock to them to the point that they have an incentive to just dismiss it and not even consider the rationale.

That doesn't totally dismiss the utility of this argument for me. In Stef's case, there's nothing to prevent a careless listener from downloading a random podcast, fast forwarding to position 34:00 and hearing something very off-putting because he/she missed the rationale that came before. That can't be prevented for any topic, so I don't think it is worth being concerned about for this one.

The individual members of your family exist. "Family" is just a description of the members, a concept. Apple too is just a description of members and products. It is a concept. Same for BSA and the human race. Language has no physical presence.

What are the actual consequences of internalizing this approach?

Reality doesn't care what approach you take. Whether you believe 2+2=4 or 2+2=5 doesn't upset or alter reality. Whether you believe that the "United States of America" exists also doesn't change reality one way or the other.

However, false notions that sound reasonable serve to promote a distorted form a language that can then be abused by persons in positions of power over others, or used by persons to acquire power over others. Because of the ambiguity with words like "exists," and confusion over concepts versus objects, there are phrases like "public will" and "common good" that, if you don't internalize this approach would make sense, however, if you do, they just seem ridiculous. The attempt to anthropomorphize collectives comes at the destruction of the individual.

Of course that's totally just my perspective and I could be wrong. Definitely look forward to reading your feedback.

[TheRobin]

Kyle: Why to you think it's necessary to not simply use "exist" in the way most people already use it (which includes energy and effects of matter and not only matter itself)?This debate (IF you want to call it that anyway) isn't about claiming that effects of matter have shape, but it's more about questioning the necessity to redefine one of the most basic words in language.Most of all (and unless my physics knowledge is incorrect here), we already HAVE a word for "object with shape and location", which is "matter" or "material". So why not use the words that are already there?

[KyleG]

 

Kyle: Why to you think it's necessary to not simply use "exist" in the way most people already use it (which includes energy and effects of matter and not only matter itself)?

This debate (IF you want to call it that anyway) isn't about claiming that effects of matter have shape, but it's more about questioning the necessity to redefine one of the most basic words in language.

Most of all (and unless my physics knowledge is incorrect here), we already HAVE a word for "object with shape and location", which is "matter" or "material". So why not use the words that are already there?

 

The only way we have to communicate with each other is with language, and if we use words that are inconsistent or ambiguous, then we can't be certain that the actual meaning of what we're trying to communicate has been understood. We could assume that it was, but I've always found assuming to get me into trouble.

Alternatively (and maybe this is what you were trying to say) you could just personally avoid using the word "exists," and then any time someone uses it, just ask them what they mean. When you say, "exists," do you mean X has physical presence, or do you mean something else?

[Nathan T_ Freeman]

 

 

 

 

                                              "What exists is matter and energy"

Exist = matter
Exist = energy

This is synonymous and therefore ambiguous. Energy is activity of atoms. The atoms exist, the energy does not.

 

Then you won't mind holding your hand over this fire for the next 10 minutes. After all, while the plasma matter of the flame that you see exists, the heat energy does not.

 

That about sums my opinion aswell.

 

Since huttnedu hasn't responded to this yet, I'll make an attempt to do so.

Are you suggesting that because it would be painful to place your hand above a fire for 10 minutes, therefore the heat must have shape and location?

 

I'm suggesting that someone who advocates the proposition that energy does not exist would be unwilling to act in accordance with this proposition.

"Energy is activity of atoms."

Does anyone dispute the validity of this statement?

Sure. From a physics standpoint it is incorrect.

"The atoms exist, the energy does not."

Translation: The atoms (have location and shape), the energy does not (have location and shape).

Does anyone dispute the validity of this statement?

I'm not at all clear why "exists" is identical to "having shape and location." But even if it somehow is, then energy has shape and location. The heat from a flame has a location proximate to the flame and it has a shape in the area over which it can be measured. 

[KyleG]

 

 

Are you suggesting that because it would be painful to place your hand above a fire for 10 minutes, therefore the heat must have shape and location?

 

I'm suggesting that someone who advocates the proposition that energy does not exist would be unwilling to act in accordance with this proposition.

 

Then, unless I'm mistaken, you're conflating the proposition "energy does not have shape or location," with the proposition "there are no consequences to placing your hand above a fire."

If I place my hand above a fire, my hand will form a relationship with the air molecules, etc, as I've explained.

 

"Energy is activity of atoms."

Does anyone dispute the validity of this statement?

Sure. From a physics standpoint it is incorrect.

 

I don't understand how. Can you explain, or link me to a resource that explains?

 

"The atoms exist, the energy does not."

Translation: The atoms (have location and shape), the energy does not (have location and shape).

Does anyone dispute the validity of this statement?

I'm not at all clear why "exists" is identical to "having shape and location."

 

Maybe it's not. Maybe it is incorrect or unnecessary to say "exists = having shape and location."

My desire is to use language that is as consistent and free of ambiguities as possible. To that end, I personally avoid using the word "exists," as much as possible. In its place, I explain what I really mean. If someone uses exists, I don't necessarily assume what they mean. I'll ask them to explain if they mean it has physical presence, or is detectable, or etc. Some people feel that it's appropriate to describe concepts as existing.

What definition of exists are you comfortable with? Does your definition depend on detectability, thus necessitating an observer? Does it introduce any unnecessary ambiguities, such as those delineated by huttnedu in this thread? Do you find those ambiguities acceptable for communication?

 

But even if it somehow is, then energy has shape and location. The heat
from a flame has a location proximate to the flame and it has a shape in
the area over which it can be measured.

 

When you say "heat from a flame" what you are describing is the collection of more-active molecules relative to the surrounding less-active particles. There is no "thing" called "heat."

All of the more-active molecules occupy a shared
region of space. That is not the same as shape. An apple has a shape.
Two apples in close proximity do not have physical shape. We can conceptualize a shape and that process can be useful, but that doesn't make it a thing.

[Nathan T_ Freeman]

 

An apple has a shape.
Two apples in close proximity do not have physical shape. We can conceptualize a shape and that process can be useful, but that doesn't make it a thing.

 

When you say "apple" that's just a conceptualization. It's just a bunch of molecules in a particular configuration. The apple is just a conceptual relationship between these molecules and that concept can be useful, but that doesn't make it a thing.

Of course, when you say "molecule" that's just a bunch of atoms in a particular configuration. The molecule doesn't have a shape, since it's just how we describe atoms in a relationship. The concept can be useful, but that doesn't make it a thing.

And then when you say "atom", that's just a bunch of protons, neutrons and electrons in a particular relationship. You can't even tell the location of the electrons, you just know a percentage likelihood of their position. The concept can be useful, but that doesn't make it a thing.

It shouldn't be necessary for me to continue this play...

[KyleG]

 

 

An apple has a shape.
Two apples in close proximity do not have physical shape. We can conceptualize a shape and that process can be useful, but that doesn't make it a thing.

 

When you say "apple" that's just a conceptualization. It's just a bunch of molecules in a particular configuration. The apple is just a conceptual relationship between these molecules and that concept can be useful, but that doesn't make it a thing.

 

 

This is correct.

A single apple is composed of atoms. I agree.

The word "apple" acts as a pointer to an idealized configuration of those atoms, or to an actualized configuration.

What makes an apple a thing (rather, an object, is what I should have said) is not the fact that we can conceptualize the relationship between the molecules, but the fact it has physical shape and location as a consequence of the physical bonded-ness of those molecules.

The question we should ask is: Is there an objective difference between the collection of atoms that compose a single apple, and a collection of individual apples?

I claim that there is an objective difference. The atoms within a single apple are physically bonded. The individual apples in spatial proximity are not physically bonded. They have distinct boundaries.

When I have two apples, I do not have three objects (the two apples and the group).

However, I can mash the apples together to make applesauce. The original two apples are transformed into a single object. I can separate the applesauce spatially to create as many distinct objects as I want.

[DoubtingThomas]

 

Thus, it does not seem necessary that heat should need to "exist," that is, have shape and location, in order for the experience of placing your hand above a fire to be painful.

"Energy is activity of atoms."

Does anyone dispute the validity of this statement?

"The atoms exist, the energy does not."

Translation: The atoms (have location and shape), the energy does not (have location and shape).

 

 

The heat energy has the location and shape of the matter which is accellerated and producing thermal energy. It can be located and measured precisely.

[Nathan T_ Freeman]

 

 

 

An apple has a shape.
Two apples in close proximity do not have physical shape. We can conceptualize a shape and that process can be useful, but that doesn't make it a thing.

 

When you say "apple" that's just a conceptualization. It's just a bunch of molecules in a particular configuration. The apple is just a conceptual relationship between these molecules and that concept can be useful, but that doesn't make it a thing.

 

 

This is correct.

A single apple is composed of atoms. I agree.

The word "apple" acts as a pointer to an idealized configuration of those atoms, or to an actualized configuration.

 

"a pointer to an idealized configuration of those atoms" or, in more colloquial terms, a "concept." (I'll leave out the part about it being "idealized" which is pretty obvious Plantonic residue.)

What makes an apple a thing (rather, an object, is what I should have said) is not the fact that we can conceptualize the relationship between the molecules, but the fact it has physical shape and location as a consequence of the physical bonded-ness of those molecules.

What makes heat a thing (rather, a force, is what I should have said) is not the fact that we can conceptualize the relationship between the molecules, but the fact that it has an area of effect and location as a consequence of the physical motion of those molecules

The question we should ask is: Is there an objective difference between the collection of atoms that compose a single apple, and a collection of individual apples?

 

Is there an objective difference between the motion of atoms from a flame, and the energy radiated from that flame?

I claim that there is an objective difference. The atoms within a single apple are physically bonded. The individual apples in spatial proximity are not physically bonded. They have distinct boundaries.

The atoms within a single apple are physically bonded? I guess I've never managed to bite into one, then. And since there's no boundary between something radiating energy and something not radiating energy (because energy doesn't exist) then you'll have no trouble placing your hand on a hot stove. The force that affects your skin is, after all, just a conceptualization, and lacks distinct boundaries.

When I have two apples, I do not have three objects (the two apples and the group).

However, I can mash the apples together to make applesauce. The original two apples are transformed into a single object. I can separate the applesauce spatially to create as many distinct objects as I want.

 

Your fallacy is: strawman.

[Nathan T_ Freeman]

KyleG, let's make this easier. Can you read this question? Can you see me asking you a question in front of you at this very moment?How? 

[huttnedu]

KyleG, I think you've got it for the most part. Thank you so much. You are a voice of reason in this thread and I cannot thank you enough.

Seriously, it's nice to see that people understand what I'm talking about.

                         "The heat energy has the location and shape of the matter which is accellerated and producing thermal energy. It can be located and measured precisely. "

I think you think energy has "location" because you haven't defined the term location.

Location refers to "the static set of distances from an object to all other objects". If energy is an object then it has a shape of it's own.

So what does energy look like in the absence of matter?

What does "a" SINGLE energy look like with nothing around it?

                                                             "The force that affects your skin is, after all, just a conceptualization, and lacks distinct boundaries."

This is exactly why you're confused. The skin is not being contacted BY "a force". The skin is being contacted, surface to surface, by the vibrating atoms of the stove or the air. That contact is what we call "a force". It is a verb... what an object is DOING. The action of the object, not the object itself.

                                "KyleG, let's make this easier. Can you read this question? Can you see me asking you a question in front of you at this very moment?"

Nathan, for common speech, we all understand what people mean when they say "questions exist".  However, what really exists in the screen and my eyes and the mediator of light between them and all of those are physical objects, interacting.  However, in reality, questions do not exist as chairs or apples or humans do.  They have no shape or location.  In reality, you interact with the screen and your brain understands that a question is being asked.

See: Your brain performs a specific action (wonders about something) which activates your nerves which activate your fingers to type which activates your computer which activates the mediator of electromagnetic waves which then activates my computer which activates my screen which activates the atoms of my eyes which activate the atoms of my brain in such a way that we could understand it as "reading the question".

In normal speech we can turn actions into nouns (such as with "a" question rather than "activity of your brain") but if you really want to know how the universe really works and how to understand phenomena rationally (i.e. science) then you have to understand the difference between concepts and objects. All words refer to either concepts or objects... that which has shape and that which is a relation between two or more objects. Objects may exist, concepts may not.

Like KyleG said, we need to actually define the terms we use unambiguously and consistently in order to actually understand them or apply them rationally within their proper context. However, it's tough to get people to define basic words because they have even tricked themselves into thinking they understand it, even though they inconsistently on a regular basis.

But I do completely understand because I used to apply exist to energy the way Stefan does and had no idea how I was being inconsisent. That's because I had never actually defined, in an unambiguous manner, the term exist.

It is crucial for any scientific explanation.

[Nathan T_ Freeman]

 

So what does energy look like in the absence of matter?

 

What does anything look like in the absence of matter? Your eyes are matter. In the absence of your eyes, nothing looks like anything.

What does "a" SINGLE energy look like with nothing around it?

What does a single boson or quark or electron or atom or molecule look like? You have no perception of any of these things. They are all conceptual models of observed phenomena based on predictive outcome.

However, what really exists in the screen and my eyes and the mediator of light between them and all of those are physical objects, interacting.

"Mediator of light?" Ummm... what's that?

In reality, you interact with the screen and your brain understands that a question is being asked.

I'm about 18 inches away from the screen, so please describe the means of interaction. Don't use the terms "light" or "energy" please.

See: Your brain performs a specific action (wonders about something) which activates your nerves...

What specific action does my brain perform that is independent of nerves? Is there some kind of homonculus inside my cerebral cortex that evaluates the sensory evidence independent of my actual brain?

If you're confused by Stef's response, may I suggest Daniel Dennett? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jBUtKYRxnA

But I do completely understand because I used to apply exist to energy the way Stefan does and had no idea how I was being inconsisent. That's because I had never actually defined, in an unambiguous manner, the term exist.

It is crucial for any scientific explanation.

 

Condescension is the reflex of those who can't offer explanations. Why don't you just say that he hasn't "achieved enlightenment, man?"

[fingolfin]

 

Condescension is the reflex of those who can't offer explanations. Why don't you just say that he hasn't "achieved enlightenment, man?"

 

You are the only one being condescending here. And the one not providing any explanation, while invoking magic (energies).

[TheRobin]

 

 

Kyle: Why to you think it's necessary to not simply use "exist" in the way most people already use it (which includes energy and effects of matter and not only matter itself)?

This debate (IF you want to call it that anyway) isn't about claiming that effects of matter have shape, but it's more about questioning the necessity to redefine one of the most basic words in language.

Most of all (and unless my physics knowledge is incorrect here), we already HAVE a word for "object with shape and location", which is "matter" or "material". So why not use the words that are already there?

 

The only way we have to communicate with each other is with language, and if we use words that are inconsistent or ambiguous, then we can't be certain that the actual meaning of what we're trying to communicate has been understood. We could assume that it was, but I've always found assuming to get me into trouble.

Alternatively (and maybe this is what you were trying to say) you could just personally avoid using the word "exists," and then any time someone uses it, just ask them what they mean. When you say, "exists," do you mean X has physical presence, or do you mean something else?

 

Sure, but how is including energy and effects of matter inconsistent or ambigious?

As I tried to say, we already DO have a precise word, for excluding energy and it's effect from a  phenomenon, we call that "matter". So language already has all the necessary words, to be precise about these things. The only thing that makes it difficult to understand each other, is if someone simply tries to imprint new definitions upon commonly known words. But if they do that, then saying they try to communicate, is kind of self-contradictory.

"Hey I'm trying to talk to you, just learn this new weird language that I just invented first..." -_-

[Victor]

huttnedu, I think you're misquoting me on my definition of reality. Or maybe I wasn't clear enough. I attempted to show the definition by developing it in stages on the previous post.

The definition is: The universe/reality is composed of matter and energy. To exist means to be composed of matter and/or energy and interact with matter and/or energy.

Because we know that matter and energy are interchangeable (matter can be turned into radiation and other forms of energy without mass) we presume the definition can still be reduced to: to exist is to have energy and interact with energy. This definition is derived out of the current model (standard model) that describes the universe. It has more unknowns than knowns, but it's a work in progress.

I'm no physicist, just an engineer. I personally dislike the introduction of the Higgs field because I think it raises more questions than it answers, and I also think a spatial/geometrical/dimensional model would serve better than the concept of Dark energy to explain the expansion of the universe in its largest scales. But I find no purpose in going out to ramble about these things when I don't have a model that can better describe these phenomena and hold when subjected to experimentation/observation. If I did that, it would simply be trolling.

If I had a model that I thought better described the universe and could hold to observation/experimentation, first I'd be excited about the possibilities to predict things we don't know about yet, and also the technological impact it'd have on the world. It'd be pretty awesome. I'd be working hard to experiment on it and run it through the peer review process. Fame and fortune would be awaiting just around the corner. What I'd be doing the least is go around the internet telling people they are inconsistent.

Now, Stef is no ordinary person. He is the host of the largest most popular phylosophy conversation in history. He also works with a model of reality that would be impacted by my new model (pending confirmation). He would be high on my list of people to contact once I have proof. I'd even contact him to tell him how excited I am about proving my model is correct/true.

You mentioned a model where there are tiny ropes connecting atoms. I mentioned some of the problems with this model in another thread. Basically, a rope is a very specific thing with very specific characteristics. If you say there's something down there in the atom that is like a rope in some aspects, but unlike others, then you're introducing a concept, and we need to go out and find evidence for it. If indeed there are tiny rope-like things down there, that's great... we'd have a new standard model of physics. You'd be the man. [notworthy]

I'll add something I think you'll like. A concept describes an arrangement of an interaction of matter and energy in our brain's neural network. The matter and energy in the brain both exist, as they interact with matter and energy in the universe. But the concept by itself does not exist. It is still useful to describe a process or a state of matter and energy, but absent of the matter and energy, a concept is immaterial.

So, concepts do not exist. But matter and energy in our brains arranges itself in ways that allows for a process we call conceptualization, where "concepts" (or particular arrangements of matter and energy in our brains) form as a result of identification of characteristics of matter and energy that interact with the brain. It's a process of tagging and categorizing reality through phenomena (identified matter/energy interactions).

I think Conceptualization is not inescapable; meaning there may be (and there are) other forms of intelligences that don't need to create concepts in order to produce results and thrive. But I think Conceptualization is required for comprehension.

On the rest of your posts, I'm choosing to ignore some of the points you've made. I feel is unnesessary to go and debate those. Please tell me if after reading this you still think I need to address those.

I also understand I was harsh on you with comments uncalled for. I'm sorry. I got overprotective of this community. I think you'd agree it's a great thing.

I think you're brilliant and I'm happy you're part of this community. I look forward to lots of energetic arguments with you in the future.

 

[KyleG]

"a pointer to an idealized configuration of those atoms" or, in more colloquial terms, a "concept." (I'll leave out the part about it being "idealized" which is pretty obvious Plantonic residue.)

"Plantonic" residue? I have no idea what that is. "Idealized" refers to the imagined version of a tree.

What makes heat a thing (rather, a force, is what I should have said) is not the fact that we can conceptualize the relationship between the molecules, but the fact that it has an area of effect and location as a consequence of the physical motion of those molecules

Sure. Force occurs between objects. A relationship. The only way we can conceptualize the force is because we compare the after state of those objects to the before state. The heat / force isn't itself an object in the system.

The question we should ask is: Is there an objective difference between the collection of atoms that compose a single apple, and a collection of individual apples?

Is there an objective difference between the motion of atoms from a flame, and the energy radiated from that flame?

I don't know. I will need to think about that more. My initial thought the "flame" is occurs when molecules of the wood separate and the exothermic reaction takes place at a distance away from the embers.

Are you able to answer my question?

The atoms within a single apple are physically bonded? I guess I've never managed to bite into one, then. And since there's no boundary between something radiating energy and something not radiating energy (because energy doesn't exist) then you'll have no trouble placing your hand on a hot stove. The force that affects your skin is, after all, just a conceptualization, and lacks distinct boundaries.

Physical bondedness does not imply permanence. I've already addressed that it is not a force that affects my skin, it's highly active air molecules.

When I have two apples, I do not have three objects (the two apples and the group).

However, I can mash the apples together to make applesauce. The original two apples are transformed into a single object. I can separate the applesauce spatially to create as many distinct objects as I want.

Your fallacy is: strawman.

I have not attacked anything. I've only presented a scenario which appears to illustrate the case I am making. If that scenario is flawed, I'm happy to understand why. I don't find just saying "strawman." very productive, even if it is correct.

[Guest Upthedownescalator]

I think I understand what you were saying.

 

Basically the contradiction is:

 

1. Stef defines 'existence' as "Objectively detectable"

However

2. Stef then states that concepts can exist not in objective reality, within the mind.

 

Is this correct Huttnedu?

[KyleG]

 

KyleG, let's make this easier. Can you read this question? Can you see me asking you a question in front of you at this very moment?

How? 

 

 

Yes, I can read that question. No, I cannot see you asking me a question in front of me at this very moment.

How? I don't know for certain. I can try to explain what I experience:

• My eyes have location and shape
• My computer screen has location and shape
• The atoms in my computer screen are configured in such a way that they cause my eyes to perceive them as being illuminated.

How does the luminosity of those atoms  "get to" my eyes? A fascinating question, and I don't know the answer.

You are now entering the theorizing zone! All content contained below is for entertainment purposes only. Unless it's correct.

There is a gravitational attraction between my eyes and the sun. How does that force "get to" my eyes?

 

Suppose the sun were to suddenly disappear. Would the earth break orbit instantly, or, would it take a few minutes before the absence of the sun's mass was realized by the earth?

"Gravity" is a unidirectional relationship between two or more objects that operates at a distance, causing the objects to be drawn to each other.

Is it possible that what we conceptually call "light" (or EMF) operates in a similar fashion? I don't know.

Physics isn't particularly set or clear on exactly what "light" is or how it works.

Suppose all that "existed" was the sun. No other objects. What would it mean to say that the sun produces light and
gravity?

[Guest Upthedownescalator]

This first principles stuff is really interesting to me.

The only non-conceptualized thought is directly experiential or raw sense data. The differentiation of data into objects requires differing sensations. To group the similiar objects under a name (say an apple or orange) is to compare them to imaginary conceptualized standards. So they are a creation of consciousness (they do not derive directly from sensation but are a tool for categorizing sensations).

Existence being defined as "that which is objectively detectable as matter and the effects thereof." - since Energy is an effect of matter and (as Stef has said) Consciousness is also an effect of matter - to say that the concepts which constitute consciousness 'exist', is logically acceptable. Concepts are an effect of a particular arrangement of brain-matter. And yes the brain is part of objective reality, but stef did agree that concepts exist in the brain only not in external reality. A concept itself does exist in objective reality (only in so far as it is in the brain) but what the concept is in reference to does not have to, for example a deity.

As for gravity, to say that it 'exists' is acceptable, because although we have a conceptualized understanding of it, it is still in reference to an actually occuring detecable phenomenon, effected by existent matter.