Exploring the Absurdity of Energy

[Les Sleeth]

In another thread when this Stephen Hawking quote was cited, “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe," it reminded me of a question that has been on my mind a lot lately. It seems to highlight the apparent absurdity of representing matter as energy, but then in a different context describing energy as a mere abstraction which has no reality beyond how it helps explain the behavior of matter. As science writer Paul Davies explained, “Energy is . . . an imaginary, abstract concept which nevertheless has become so much a part of our everyday vocabulary that we imbue it with concrete existence.”

Energy, whatever it is, moves things, heats things, gets work done . . . So how can what is capable of all that, and which is absolutely essential to matter, be only a concept? After all, the formula isn’t C=mc^2 (C standing for concept). Is there really nothing actual to what supposedly constitutes matter other than it’s just an explanatory convenience? Should one deduce that since we are only able describe how things happen, but don’t know what it is that is driving it or what the physical is made up of, that the physical behaves but there's nothing substantial comprising it?

My question is, are we missing something essential in our accounts of the physical universe? Is there something most basic which energy is (or is a manifestation of) which is so fine/unstructured/subtle we can’t observe it directly and so must content ourselves with describing what it does? Or if you reject that, can you resolve what appears to be the contradiction in representing energy as only a concept, yet simultaneously having it be the most essential (or only) ingredient of matter?

 

[Locrian]

Personally, I see nothing absurd at all about describing matter in terms of energy, even given that energy is an extremely abstract concept. In our studies of the world, it has turned out that matter is an exceedingly abstract concept. I see no reason to believe that any concept we use to describe reality is a real, true depiction of reality in a pure sense; only that they all are good enough depictions to be useful.

My question is, are we missing something essential in our accounts of the physical universe?

Almost certainly. However, I'd like to wager a guess that when it is discovered, you'll find it to be an even more abstract and less "concrete" idea than whatever one(s) it replaces.

This is just my personal take on this issue.

 

[Les Sleeth]

This is just my personal take on this issue.

I thank you for it.

Personally, I see nothing absurd at all about describing matter in terms of energy, even given that energy is an extremely abstract concept. In our studies of the world, it has turned out that matter is an exceedingly abstract concept. I see no reason to believe that any concept we use to describe reality is a real, true depiction of reality in a pure sense; only that they all are good enough depictions to be useful.

I am afraid I don't get your point about matter being abtract, maybe you could explain. Regarding energy, if we were only going to discuss what is "useful," then I suppose one can ignore the paradox presented by the fact that work is being done by a concept! But my realist streak can't get past the fact that we have attributed virtually all of existence to the presence of energy, yet we are not allowed to assign it any existential qualities.

Analogously, water is essential to the existence of life, 75% so, and because we can see it, touch it, taste it, etc. we are able to say it is wet, a fluid, and so on. However, if we couldn't detect it, yet we knew "something" was doing all the things water does, would we say water is just a concept? Similarly, is energy "something" or is it really nothing? And if it is something, then what is it "like" as an extant substance or property.

Almost certainly. However, I'd like to wager a guess that when it is discovered, you'll find it to be an even more abstract and less "concrete" idea than whatever one(s) it replaces.

See, the problem isn't that energy is abstract, if by abstract you mean so general/simple in form that it can become/interact with everything. But our very substantial physical universe being composed of something that is merely an idea makes no sense. Ideas are the phantasms of the mind, hopefully meant (in the correspondence theory of truth anyway) to represent how reality actually is. To me, reality, and ideas about reality, are two different things. So is energy is real, or it is a merely an idea without a corresponding counterpart in reality?

 

[Locrian]

Regarding energy, if we were only going to discuss what is "useful," then I suppose one can ignore the paradox presented by the fact that work is being done by a concept!

Hah! Well put. I'm afraid the work done by ideas is a philosophical place I shall not dare to go

So is energy is real, or it is a merely an idea without a corresponding counterpart in reality?

Well, I would say energy is merely an idea with a corresponding concept in reality. However I would also say that we can never completely know the corresponding concept; we can merely come infinitely close.

We experience water all the time, and therefore the concept understandably seems very real. However, maybe try this experiment sometime. Put on a thin glove and then put your hand in water. If you are like me (which may not be the case!) after putting water on the glove, your hand honestly feels wet. However, removing it from the glove shows it to be dry. So when we say we "feel" water, are we really feeling it, or are we feeling the change in temperature on our skin? How can we say we know water is real because we feel it when our senses are so easily fooled?

Many things seem that way to me; perfectly natural until examined very closely.

If I were going to link the idea of energy to a concept in reality it would be this: that things can change, and that they do. This seems to me to describe everything that the concept of energy does. It quantitates the fact that things can happen around us, and then, when studied and placed in context of a system, allows us to predict things.

I had better stop before I expose myself as the pseudo-philosopher I am. If I've made any logical errors, I hope someone will step in and correct me.

 

[quantumdude]

But my realist streak can't get past the fact that we have attributed virtually all of existence to the presence of energy, yet we are not allowed to assign it any existential qualities.

So is energy is real, or it is a merely an idea without a corresponding counterpart in reality?

These are 2 different questions, with 2 different answers.

The answer to the first question is:

No, energy does not have any existential qualities.

Energy doesn't feel like anything, doesn't taste like anything, doesn't look like anything, doesn't sound like anything, and doesn't smell like anything. It is a mathematical abstraction that has no concrete existence of its own.

But that doesn't mean that the answer to the second question is also "No." In fact, it is:

Yes, there is a corresponding counterpart in reality. Energy is calculated from state variables that can be directly observed. Kinetic energy is calculated from the mass of a moving body and it's speed. Gravitational potential energy is calculated from the position of an object relative to a given mass distribution. The thermal energy of an object is calculated from its temperature, which is in turn related to particle motion, and so on.

So in short, while the existential question is answered negatively, the correspondence question question is answered affirmatively because there is a one-to-one mapping of energy forms into (observable) state variables. Since there is such a mapping, energy forms are often interchanged synonomously with their state variable counterparts for the sake of convenience.

"Look, that rocket ship has a lot of kinetic energy," might be said instead of, "Look, that massive body is moving fast."

"Close the door, you're wasting energy," might be said instead of, "Close the door, you're wasting the natural gas used to heat the apartment."

Get my drift?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Hah! Well put. I'm afraid the work done by ideas is a philosophical place I shall not dare to go

I posted this apparent contradiction here because I didn't want to get kicked out of any physics area for being too speculative. But I will now admit that my interest is mostly practical, and not philosophical.

Well, I would say energy is merely an idea with a corresponding concept in reality. However I would also say that we can never completely know the corresponding concept; we can merely come infinitely close.

Isn't energy a total blank (i.e., and not something we are “infinitely close” to understanding)? I'd love to hear someone knowledgeable think this out for me because I am hung up on it. I cannot see how anything can do things, but have no inherent characteristics/traits/nature which we can point to which accounts for how it does them.

We experience water all the time, and therefore the concept understandably seems very real. However, maybe try this experiment sometime. Put on a thin glove and then put your hand in water. If you are like me (which may not be the case!) after putting water on the glove, your hand honestly feels wet. However, removing it from the glove shows it to be dry. So when we say we "feel" water, are we really feeling it, or are we feeling the change in temperature on our skin? How can we say we know water is real because we feel it when our senses are so easily fooled?

True, but proof isn’t on the same level as theory. Why is there no mainstream theory about what energy is (i.e., as opposed to merely what it does)? Seems very strange to me, although I admit I am someone more interested in “isness” than “doesness.”

If I were going to link the idea of energy to a concept in reality it would be this: that things can change, and that they do. This seems to me to describe everything that the concept of energy does. It quantitates the fact that things can happen around us, and then, when studied and placed in context of a system, allows us to predict things.

Yes! But you’ve confirmed what I am saying is missing. What we now do is observe change, but resist talking about the nature of what is driving the change. I understand how useful it is to be able to characterize how things will/can change, but I don’t understand where our curiosity went about what energy is “like.”

 

[Les Sleeth]

These are 2 different questions, with 2 different answers.

The answer to the first question is:

No, energy does not have any existential qualities.

Energy doesn't feel like anything, doesn't taste like anything, doesn't look like anything, doesn't sound like anything, and doesn't smell like anything. It is a mathematical abstraction that doesn't feel like anything, doesn't taste like anything, doesn't look like anything, doesn't sound like anything, and doesn't smell like anything.

Thanks Tom for responding.

You’ve confirmed my assumptions, but not resolved the contradiction I’ve posited. If energy “doesn't feel like anything, doesn't taste like anything, doesn't look like anything, doesn't sound like anything, and doesn't smell like anything,” that does not necessarily mean energy “does not have any existential qualities.” That conclusion assumes only sense experience establishes existence, sort of like the question: if a tree falls in the woods, but nobody hears it . . . Isn’t it true that the most you can say is that we cannot not experience energy with our senses and so cannot empirically confirm whether or not energy has existential qualities?

But that doesn't mean that the answer to the second question is also "No." In fact, it is:

Yes, there is a corresponding counterpart in reality. Energy is calculated from state variables that can be directly observed. Kinetic energy is calculated from the mass of a moving body and it's speed. Gravitational potential energy is calculated from the position of an object relative to a given mass distribution. The thermal energy of an object is calculated from its temperature, which is in turn related to particle motion, and so on.

Yes, you are right to say there is a corresponding counterpart in reality, but (and here is where I think I am on target) . . . the reality counterpart is only effects! Are you willing to assert that something non-existent is having an effect? Is causing? If so, it seems to me that is against everything physics stands for. Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t every effect believed to have a cause? And isn’t every cause (in physics) believed to be something real?

So in short, while the existential question is answered negatively, the correspondence question is answered affirmatively because there is a one-to-one mapping of energy forms into (observable) state variables. Since there is such a mapping, energy forms are often interchanged synonymously with their state variable counterparts for the sake of convenience.

"Look, that rocket ship has a lot of kinetic energy," might be said instead of, "Look, that massive body is moving fast."

"Close the door, you're wasting energy," might be said instead of, "Close the door, you're wasting the natural gas used to heat the apartment."

Get my drift?

I do get your drift, but maybe I have missed your meaning. What I hear you saying is what I am saying: we can see what energy does, but we neither can see what energy IS nor are we willing to theorize about it.

Also, I am bothered that the answer to the existential question is “negative.” How is that acceptable? If I suggest God is driving the universe, wouldn’t the intelligent person want to know what it was in the nature of God that causes/allows that? Why the suspension of logic here? That's the drift I don’t get.

 

[Locrian]

Just a thought, but maybe the reason you find no satisfaction in the description, definition etc of energy is that it describes something exceedingly fundamental to our universe.

For a system to have energy, it must have properties. Mass, electric charge, etc. The energy of the system is derived from these properties; it suggests that, given those properties, things will change in certain ways. You could try to suggest a "force" is responsible, but I find that an unsatisfactory answer (and I think you would to) because a force is just a property based on the properties of the system, same as energy.

If the concept of energy is based on a truly fundamental part of our universe - that things change based on their properties - then science may have no further description of what it is. You are looking for a reason they change, but I'm not certain such a thing exists.

 

[quantumdude]

You’ve confirmed my assumptions, but not resolved the contradiction I’ve posited. If energy “doesn't feel like anything, doesn't taste like anything, doesn't look like anything, doesn't sound like anything, and doesn't smell like anything,” that does not necessarily mean energy “does not have any existential qualities.”

I didn't think that was the contradiction you posited. I thought the contradiction was that energy, which is purely abstract, is said to have causal efficacy in the real world, as though it were concrete. Now that contradiction I did resolve by pointing out that "energy" is often swapped with observable state variables in conversation, because of the 1-to-1 correspondence.

That conclusion assumes only sense experience establishes existence, sort of like the question: if a tree falls in the woods, but nobody hears it . . . Isn’t it true that the most you can say is that we cannot not experience energy with our senses and so cannot empirically confirm whether or not energy has existential qualities?

I was reasoning the other way:

Since energy has no existential qualities, it follows that you can't see, hear, smell, touch, or taste it.

Yes, you are right to say there is a corresponding counterpart in reality, but (and here is where I think I am on target) . . . the reality counterpart is only effects!

Right, but so? All I was trying to do there is clearly differentiate between the abstract and the concrete. I wasn't even attempting to identify the cause of those effects.

Are you willing to assert that something non-existent is having an effect? Is causing? If so, it seems to me that is against everything physics stands for.

No, I haven't said anything like that. Energy is simply a numerical label that we attach to the physical state of a system. It's just like attaching this thing called "age" to one's chronological state. Confusing energy for the physical state is like confusing a man's age for his state of physical and mental maturity.

Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t every effect believed to have a cause? And isn’t every cause (in physics) believed to be something real?

Yes, every effect has a cause by definition, and those causes must be real. When two like charges are brought together, we can observe them to repel each other. Why? From a calculational point of view, we might say that they repel because the system is tending to its lowest available energy state. But that's not really an explanation, that's a reduction under which we can bring all known physical phenomena. A better explanation would be that the charges are sources of a field, and that these charges push on each other via those fields, and at the quantum level, this force can be understood in terms of particle exchanges. We only say that it can be explained by energy exchanges because of that 1-to-1 correspondence: Each exchanged particle has precisely 1 energy.

I do get your drift, but maybe I have missed your meaning. What I hear you saying is what I am saying: we can see what energy does, but we neither can see what energy IS

We are not saying the same thing at all. Energy simply does not "do" anything! It is a mathematical object that is used in a powerful calculational formalism.

nor are we willing to theorize about it.

Why would one theorize about a defined quantity?

In any case, the whole subject of thermodynamics is a theory of energy. So are Lagrangian and Hamiltonian dynamics, and QM. But all of those theories simply make use of the concept of energy to derive predictions, so I gather that they are not what you are looking for.

Also, I am bothered that the answer to the existential question is “negative.” How is that acceptable?

It's acceptable for the same reason that saying "geometric figures have no existential qualities" is acceptable.

Energy is a mathematical, abstract object that was invented by human scientists. This is an historical fact. Prior to that first physicists conception of the idea of energy as it is used in physics, it simply did not exist.

If I suggest God is driving the universe, wouldn’t the intelligent person want to know what it was in the nature of God that causes/allows that?

I'd think the intelligent person would write that off as flim-flam unless there were some way to observe this "God". We simply cannot go around searching for existential qualities for each and every mathematical concept that people come up with. If you define a function of velocity to be K=(1/2)mv² and call it "kinetic energy", would you really feel compelled to scour the universe looking for it with full knowledge that it was invented by you to suit your needs?

Why the suspension of logic here? That's the drift I don’t get.

I think you don't get it because you seem to be adopting a strong stance of scientific realism that is just not called for. It is simply not the case that each and every abstract mathematical object used in physics is to be found in the concrete universe.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Just a thought, but maybe the reason you find no satisfaction in the description, definition etc of energy is that it describes something exceedingly fundamental to our universe.

For a system to have energy, it must have properties. Mass, electric charge, etc. The energy of the system is derived from these properties; it suggests that, given those properties, things will change in certain ways. You could try to suggest a "force" is responsible, but I find that an unsatisfactory answer (and I think you would to) because a force is just a property based on the properties of the system, same as energy.

If the concept of energy is based on a truly fundamental part of our universe - that things change based on their properties - then science may have no further description of what it is. You are looking for a reason they change, but I'm not certain such a thing exists.

I think Tom summed up well the view and attitude from the physics side; there is no point in questioning the proprietary energy concept so successfully used in actual, physical calculation and research. Of course, I wasn't questioning that anyway.

Possibly it wasn't the best idea to characterize what I see as an absurdity, yet I do think something fundamental, and unrecognized, is moving things which many science thinkers seem content with using only as a mathematical concept. I simply wonder what the underlying aspect of reality is like which allows the energy concept to work, and why there is what I perceive as resistance in some science thinkers to reflect on it. If it is too fundamental for science to consider, as you suggest, then obviously it won't be part of any scientific theory. But philosophically it could be meaningful.

 

[quantumdude]

I simply wonder what the underlying aspect of reality is like which allows the energy concept to work,

There is an underlying reason for the law of conservation of energy, and you might find it a bit more tangible than the concept of energy itself. Conservation of energy is a direct logical consequence of the invariance of physical laws with respect to time. In fact, every symmetry in physics necessarily implies a conservation law.

So, while we can not say that energy has any existential qualities, we can say why it is conserved. We just can't say why the laws of physics are invariant with respect to time. But the immutability of the laws of physics is among the most basic assumptions of science, and the fact that we can reduce energy conservation to that assumption is, IMO, quite profound.

and why there is what I perceive as resistance in some science thinkers to reflect on it.

The resistance you are perceiving from me is a result of my unwillingness to identify a mathematical function with anything concrete. This was the heart of all my disagreements with Alexander, if you recall. My position is that math simply does not make things happen in the real world. Wouldn't you agree?

If so, then my final response to your remark above is this:

When you ask me to reflect on what it is that drives the universe, you are not asking me to reflect on energy. You are asking me to reflect on something else.

 

[Les Sleeth]

The resistance you are perceiving from me is a result of my unwillingness to identify a mathematical function with anything concrete. This was the heart of all my disagreements with Alexander, if you recall.

You might be surprised to know I wasn’t referring to you with my remark, but rather I was just talking about my (often frustrating) experience with science thinkers in general. I assumed your response to me was you doing your job here at PF keeping things properly termed, defined, and on course. I assumed also you were letting me know this wasn’t a way you wanted energy discussed.

I didn’t address you directly because I felt you were going to maintain that stance, and it wasn’t what I wanted to discuss. If the conversation has to be as you reframed it, I’m afraid have nothing very interesting to say to people who know a lot more about how energy functions in physics than I do.

My position is that math simply does not make things happen in the real world. Wouldn't you agree?

Completely.

If so, then my final response to your remark above is this:

When you ask me to reflect on what it is that drives the universe, you are not asking me to reflect on energy. You are asking me to reflect on something else.

Okay, but there’s only so many terms to go around. Right now, in modern cultures where science has been studied in schools and there is respect and interest in it, energy is how people think of the “mover” in general. Do you remember that thread I did over a year ago entitiled “Whose Energy is it?”?

There I pointed out that “The word energy is derived from the Greek energeia . . . The term energy was not applied as a measure of the ability to do work until rather late in the development of the science of mechanics. Before anybody else, Aristotle used the term energeia to mean the operation or activity of anything as it changed (in contrast with its potentiality or capacity to change). . . . An actuality (energeia) is just the realization of one of these potentialities, which is most significant when it includes not merely the movement but also its purpose. Becoming, then, is the process in which the potentiality present in one individual substance is actualized through the agency of something else which is already actual. (Metaphysics IX) Thus, for Aristotle, change of any kind requires the actual existence of something which causes the change.”

In the past I have bowed to its formal use in physics, but this last posting in the philosophy area I was trying to point to what I see as an irony. That irony (I believe) is found the general view of energy as the foundation of all matter contrasted with the formal view for physics that energy is just a mathematical function. To someone like me, it seems strange that a person would only be interested in seeing the “mover” as a calculating tool. I myself am passionately interested in understanding what aspect(s) of reality is/are causing the change, particularly the organizating quality of change that brought about life and consciousness.

 

[quantumdude]

I assumed your response to me was you doing your job here at PF keeping things properly termed, defined, and on course. I assumed also you were letting me know this wasn’t a way you wanted energy discussed.

No, I had no intention of moderating this thread. I'm here as a member.

If the conversation has to be as you reframed it, I’m afraid have nothing very interesting to say to people who know a lot more about how energy functions in physics than I do.

No, the conversation about energy doesn't have to use the definition I use. But it is confusing when you refer to quotes from Hawking and Davies, and then talk about "energy". It would lead one to think that you are simply mixing up two different concepts, and that the resolution of the problem is straightforward.

Okay, but there’s only so many terms to go around. Right now, in modern cultures where science has been studied in schools and there is respect and interest in it, energy is how people think of the “mover” in general. Do you remember that thread I did over a year ago entitiled “Whose Energy is it?”?

I do remember it, and I remember responding to it. The main point to be taken away from my remarks in both threads is that if one is using a definition of the word "energy" that differs from the way physicists use it, then one must be very clear about it. If you are theorizing about "energy" as an animating influence, then it would be an equivocation to use statements from physical theories in that theory of energy.

The example I gave in your earlier thread was someone I know who said she believes in an afterlife, because of physics. Because, you see, a living person has life energy, and according to physics, energy can not be created or destroyed. Therefore, that is proof that we live after the body dies.

See the problem?

Click here for the original version. I was your first respondent.

There I pointed out that “The word energy is derived from the Greek energeia . . . The term energy was not applied as a measure of the ability to do work until rather late in the development of the science of mechanics. Before anybody else, Aristotle used the term energeia to mean the operation or activity of anything as it changed (in contrast with its potentiality or capacity to change). . . . An actuality (energeia) is just the realization of one of these potentialities, which is most significant when it includes not merely the movement but also its purpose. Becoming, then, is the process in which the potentiality present in one individual substance is actualized through the agency of something else which is already actual. (Metaphysics IX) Thus, for Aristotle, change of any kind requires the actual existence of something which causes the change.”

If that's what you want to discuss, then I'll take a back seat and read along with interest, probably drinking Harp.

In the past I have bowed to its formal use in physics, but this last posting in the philosophy area I was trying to point to what I see as an irony. That irony (I believe) is found the general view of energy as the foundation of all matter contrasted with the formal view for physics that energy is just a mathematical function. To someone like me, it seems strange that a person would only be interested in seeing the “mover” as a calculating tool. I myself am passionately interested in understanding what aspect(s) of reality is/are causing the change, particularly the organizating quality of change that brought about life and consciousness.

A-ha! Progress!

What you previously referred to as a contradiction, you now refer to as an irony. That's good! My main point is that there is only a contradiction if you hold the two views of energy side by side, believing that the word "energy" is supposed to mean the same thing in both of them.

 

[Les Sleeth]

If that's what you want to discuss, then I'll take a back seat and read along with interest, probably drinking Harp.

A-ha! Progress!

What you previously referred to as a contradiction, you now refer to as an irony. That's good! My main point is that there is only a contradiction if you hold the two views of energy side by side, believing that the word "energy" is supposed to mean the same thing in both of them.

Ambiguous use of terms acknowledged. And if you (or Nereid) are ever out West, let me know, I'd enjoy a one on one exchange over beers (or wine). In writing I can't seem to cover all the avenues that might prevent a discussion from heading in directions I don't intend them to go.

 

[Philocrat]

Supposing you had a life form called a 'HUMOID', completely visually disconnected from the external world from the very moment that it was created by whatever means. No eyes, no nose, no ears, no taste buds, nor any other internal and external corporeal senses that are usually attributed to, or associated with, the human perception of the external world (I don't know about science, but note that philosophy takes the perception of the external world to include sensing internal states of the body such as feeling pain, sensing the positions of our limbs, etc). Under this very circumstance, could a Humoid perceive concepts, let alone extrapolate from them? Equivalently, is it possible to form and extrapolate from concepts, let alone deduce objective facts from them, without any sensual contacts with the external world? Must that first but critical contact, or familiarisation, with the external world always be made before the formation of concepts in the perceiver?

 

[eighth man]

1) First reply to thread

At the center of any elementary particle, there can be no physical laws. How can any particle remain the same and know it ? how can any particle possibly exist ? This concludes that at their core, elementary particles have NO LOGIC, NO MATH, NO PHYSICAL LAWS.


2) Modified barains, modified neural circuits, minds connected to virtual reality chips, modified emotional circuits there is no end to how much a mind can be modified. Just changing how memory works and is organized you change every concept; changing emotional circuits there is no end. What would this mind be ? It would be a "SOLID STATE CIVILIZATION". After which nothing is knowable because it is too far from what we know.


3) Beware SETI (Search for extraterrestrial intelligence) researchers. Advanced civilizations may be undetectable.

Such a civilization would learn how to modify their neural circuits, therefore changing all their mind structures. How information is organized, processed
etc may be changed arbitrarily. This may create artificial emotions, sentiments mind states, superconsciousness etc.
This internal universe may end up being mind boggling complex and interesting. The combinations are huge, each neuron may be a particle accelerator, chip, virtualreality etc.

They would no longer communicate with the outside universe because they could be too busy exploring their internal "SOLID STATE CIVILIZATION".


TOBOR AN APE

 

[Les Sleeth]

Supposing you had a life form called a 'HUMOID', completely visually disconnected from the external world from the very moment that it was created by whatever means. No eyes, no nose, no ears, no taste buds, nor any other internal and external corporeal senses that are usually attributed to, or associated with, the human perception of the external world (I don't know about science, but note that philosophy takes the perception of the external world to include sensing internal states of the body such as feeling pain, sensing the positions of our limbs, etc). Under this very circumstance, could a Humoid perceive concepts, let alone extrapolate from them? Equivalently, is it possible to form and extrapolate from concepts, let alone deduce objective facts from them, without any sensual contacts with the external world? Must that first but critical contact, or familiarisation, with the external world always be made before the formation of concepts in the perceiver?

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the nature of the universe's "mover" but I'll give it a shot anyway.

As I've mentioned more than a few times, I actually do practice withdrawing from my senses to experience something purely subjective inside me, something one must achieve a still mind to experience (i.e., no thought). I don't know if I am as separated from sense experience as your example, but at times the withdrawal is quite complete. When this unified experience occurs ("unified" in the sense that my consciousness is whole), obviously I cannot think and have that unity at the same time. But I am perfectly capable of initiating thought processes if I choose.

So to answer your question, if a person were never exposed to the external world via the senses, I'd say he just wouldn't be able to think anything that correctly corresponds to external reality. But since he is still capable of being conscious of himself, I don't believe it would prevent him from formulating concepts derived from that experience.

 

[Nereid]

Supposing you had a life form called a 'HUMOID', completely visually disconnected from the external world from the very moment that it was created by whatever means. No eyes, no nose, no ears, no taste buds, nor any other internal and external corporeal senses that are usually attributed to, or associated with, the human perception of the external world (I don't know about science, but note that philosophy takes the perception of the external world to include sensing internal states of the body such as feeling pain, sensing the positions of our limbs, etc). Under this very circumstance, could a Humoid perceive concepts, let alone extrapolate from them? Equivalently, is it possible to form and extrapolate from concepts, let alone deduce objective facts from them, without any sensual contacts with the external world? Must that first but critical contact, or familiarisation, with the external world always be made before the formation of concepts in the perceiver?

I know this is the philosophy section, but it is that which has to do with science, so maybe my reaction to your post isn't too inappropriate ...

Surely no such Humoid could ever come into existence (except as the creation of a mad scientist)! And if it did, it would be quickly eaten by multitudes of living things that would perceive it as 'food'. And even if it didn't get eaten, it would starve, die of thirst, have a heart attack, suffocate, ... Before someone replies 'but just suppose ...', these are not trivial matters; for example, without some means of communicating with the external world, we could never know what Humoid was able to conceive, so would have no way to test any hypotheses on the topic. Further, trying to create a 'paper Humoid' is surely doomed to failure too ... we have no way of deciding which creative speculation about Humoid's thoughts are on the right track.

 

[Nereid]

1) First reply to thread

At the center of any elementary particle, there can be no physical laws. How can any particle remain the same and know it ? how can any particle possibly exist ? This concludes that at their core, elementary particles have NO LOGIC, NO MATH, NO PHYSICAL LAWS.

Er, with respect, this is nonsense. First, what we call an 'elementary particle' is a theoretical construct, and the ones you read about in physics papers (for example) are just the ones we think today are elementary ... who's to say that in 20,000 years future scientists won't shake their heads at how we in the early 21st century could be so off-track? Second, well, I don't have time now

2) Modified barains, modified neural circuits, minds connected to virtual reality chips, modified emotional circuits there is no end to how much a mind can be modified. Just changing how memory works and is organized you change every concept; changing emotional circuits there is no end. What would this mind be ? It would be a "SOLID STATE CIVILIZATION". After which nothing is knowable because it is too far from what we know.

You posted something similar elsewhere, and I replied that you really need to clarify your proposal ... however modified, brains would still be working with sensory inputs, and math is math is math, no matter what sort of brain thinks about it.

3) Beware SETI (Search for extraterrestrial intelligence) researchers. Advanced civilizations may be undetectable.

Such a civilization would learn how to modify their neural circuits, therefore changing all their mind structures. How information is organized, processed
etc may be changed arbitrarily. This may create artificial emotions, sentiments mind states, superconsciousness etc.

So? I could speculate that the universe is just a small bug in a 1234987934856-dimensional game, created by 987234985723984729834598263459872635-dimensional beings to keep their pets happy while they go hunt for snarks with their vorpal blades. In what way then could Les, Philocrat, Tom, or anyone else say which speculation is more realistic?

This internal universe may end up being mind boggling complex and interesting. The combinations are huge, each neuron may be a particle accelerator, chip, virtualreality etc.

They would no longer communicate with the outside universe because they could be too busy exploring their internal "SOLID STATE CIVILIZATION".

and along came Daughter of the KT asteroid (or Mt St Helens, or an especially fierce geomagnetic storm, or Eta Car goes supernova, or ...) bye bye "SOLID STATE CIVILIZATION"

 

[eighth man]

Science and Physcis is completely correct in that they have always analyzed everything keeping the mind "FIXED", that is not askng (or not too often) "is what I see real", is "what I think" really coherent; it is very practical in the end, just shut up and calcualte and they are 100% right because it works!

What I am thinking is what happens if mind is no longer a fixed entity ? A modified mind could develop a new and completely coherent set of rules; think if memory is no longer so linear but a mind with various fast forwards and backwards so time would no longer be linear...

AN 8 MAN

 

[quantumdude]

Let's stick to the topic, please.

 

[Philocrat]

Science and Physcis is completely correct in that they have always analyzed everything keeping the mind "FIXED", that is not askng (or not too often) "is what I see real", is "what I think" really coherent; it is very practical in the end, just shut up and calcualte and they are 100% right because it works!

What I am thinking is what happens if mind is no longer a fixed entity ? A modified mind could develop a new and completely coherent set of rules; think if memory is no longer so linear but a mind with various fast forwards and backwards so time would no longer be linear...

AN 8 MAN

A Random mind, right?

 

[Philocrat]

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the nature of the universe's "mover" but I'll give it a shot anyway.

As I've mentioned more than a few times, I actually do practice withdrawing from my senses to experience something purely subjective inside me, something one must achieve a still mind to experience (i.e., no thought). I don't know if I am as separated from sense experience as your example, but at times the withdrawal is quite complete. When this unified experience occurs ("unified" in the sense that my consciousness is whole), obviously I cannot think and have that unity at the same time. But I am perfectly capable of initiating thought processes if I choose.

So to answer your question, if a person were never exposed to the external world via the senses, I'd say he just wouldn't be able to think anything that correctly corresponds to external reality. But since he is still capable of being conscious of himself, I don't believe it would prevent him from formulating concepts derived from that experience.

Then this presupposes a mind that CAN exist totally independent of the material body? We are back to square one - DUALISM! perhaps the universe's "mover" is this independent consciousness itself? A self-conceptualising universe mover outside the realm of the physical? Is it? Why not the reverse?

 

[eighth man]

To stick to the original topic. At the center of an electron energy should tend to infinite, but that can't be. Physcis knows exactly how to calculate the way electrons benave but what is at the core is really no longer physics. Remeber shut up and calculate (and manipulate and don't ask too many philosophical questions) is the golden rule and it works.

What I say if you ask what is at the core all logic breaks down. How does the electron even know where it is ? How can it keep itself even toghether ? How can it possibly exist ? At the core there is no logic, no math and no physicla laws. There is probably an infinite - infinite universe (infinite both in extension and in every conceivable concept) where contradictions are allowed so everything is allowed.

TOBOR THE APE MAN

 

[Les Sleeth]

Then this presupposes a mind that CAN exist totally independent of the material body? We are back to square one - DUALISM!

If consciousness can exist independently of the body, that doesn't necessarily imply dualism. In a thread I started a few months ago on panpsychism, I offered a short contemplation on substance monism, where I labeled the "substance" I suggested was at the base of everything illumination (you can read that essay by following this link, and reading "part 2" of the post about halfway down the page: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=242231&highlight=monistic#post242231 ).

Anyway, the idea of substance monism is that everything is one substance, but simply existing in different forms. Using that idea to interpret we'd say matter is a "form" of the base substance, a very concentrated and fiercely oscillating form; and consciousness is also the base substance but in an evolved, non-concentrated condition and subtly oscillating. Of course, that doesn't tell us how matter and consciousness got in the condition we find them, but it does give us an avenue for explaining why they are able to interact (because they are the same base substance).

perhaps the universe's "mover" is this independent consciousness itself? A self-conceptualising universe mover outside the realm of the physical? Is it? Why not the reverse?

If I say the physical and consciousness share the same base substance, then I wouldn't say they are totally independent. But in this thread the "mover" I've been referring to is just the raw power behind change in the universe (i.e., I am not talking about the quality of change, as in evolution). What is powering movement is the question. If you look on page 4 (I think) of that thread I referenced above, I suggest that the universe gives the appearance of decompressing. Interpreted from the monistic point of view, we'd say to create the universe the base substance was concentrated, and the big bang deconcentration that followed created various densities of matter (an idea supported by the increasing mass on the elemental chart), and is driving all movement including eletron flow, radiation, universal expansion, etc. The nulear forces can be accounted for with that model too; gravity is a bit more complicated to explain.

In a way, my question about energy in this thread was an attempt to suggest we could explain a lot more about movement if there was an actual substance put in the model. If a base substance does exist, the reason it isn't in current models is because it is too subtle to be observed. Yet we can see its effects, which really do appear to be, in general, that of something decompressing. That's why it seems absurd to me (settling for ironic later) that we have an energy concept but energy itself has no existential qualities.

 

[Philocrat]

The Nightmares From Your Theories

In that case, it now becomes very immediately necessary to give a coherent account of the following nightmares that are the resulting consequences of your theses:

1) THE MIND-WORLD

How is a purely mind-world structured and functioned? For example, do minds in such a world see, feel and touch each other? Do they reproduce, fight wars, hate, love, commit suicide, dance, sing etc..etc.?

2) THE MIND-MATTER WORLD

How does a purely immaterial, invisiblbe, or non-physical mind interact with a physical material substance? Give a proper account without fiddling! On this, though not wholly exhaustive, the most sophisticated account that I have come across is still Aristotle's.

3) MATTER-WORLD

How are things functioned in a world full of only physical material things? Well, this is science forum, the various answers for this one question are obvious. They will rain down on you for as long as you are willing to wait and listen!

Your theses and arguments have deduced to these three nightmares...how are we to begin to decipher them? My own personal position with regards to their answers can be found in all the clues and hints that I dropped or left everywhere in and outside PF...and hope to leave them that way intil such times as when I am informed otherwise.

 

[Les Sleeth]

In that case, it now becomes very immediately necessary to give a coherent account of the following nightmares that are the resulting consequences of your theses:

You seem like a funny fellow. After reading your posts I wonder if you talk really loud.

But seriously, how does any of your concerns about "nightmares" follow from my propositions on substance monism? It seems you've ignored my explanation and dressed me in dualist garb despite my protests.

For example:

1) THE MIND-WORLD

How is a purely mind-world structured and functioned? For example, do minds in such a world see, feel and touch each other? Do they reproduce, fight wars, hate, love, commit suicide, dance, sing etc..etc.?

I did not claim reality is "purely" a mind-world. If consciousness is part of the fabric of our universe, according to substance monism theory, it too is subject to the potentials and limitations of the base substance. It seems you are saying I am proposing idealism, and I am DEFINATELY not.

2) THE MIND-MATTER WORLD

How does a purely immaterial, invisible, or non-physical mind interact with a physical material substance? Give a proper account without fiddling! On this, though not wholly exhaustive, the most sophisticated account that I have come across is still Aristotle's.

Again you seem not to understand substance monism. I haven't been fiddling, I think you've not been doing your homework! Forget about material-immaterial for a second. How does energy, invisible as can be, move things? It does (whatever the heck energy is) and most people aren't bothered by that. The problem is solved in physics by equating energy and matter. So what is wrong with saying some base substance is the foundation of everything, and in its "ground state" that absolute commonality is the basis for its interaction with all things. In this model, consciousness is merely a less concentrated and structured form of the base substance than matter is.

3) MATTER-WORLD

How are things functioned in a world full of only physical material things? Well, this is science forum, the various answers for this one question are obvious. They will rain down on you for as long as you are willing to wait and listen!

I can't even see a nightmare here. What did I say that implied a world "full of only physical material things"? In the physical world things are "functioned" quite obviously, far more obviously than anything non-material which might be present and part of the mix.

 

[Philocrat]

Sorry about my loudness... people continue to remind me of this. I just tend to colour-code and size up my opinions. I mean no harm. Anyway, I am only stating the current resulting positions from the leading arguments from everyone. I am not accusing you of taking any of these positions. I am only suggesting that any explanation of the world, if done via any of these three routes, must not only be relationally coherent but also logically consistent. I just tend to feel frustrated when a given issue stays persistently circular and irresolvable. By all means, please feel free to ignore any of my extrapolations you find off-putting!

 

[Les Sleeth]

Sorry about my loudness... people continue to remind me of this. I just tend to colour-code and size up my opinions. I mean no harm. Anyway, I am only stating the current resulting positions from the leading arguments from everyone. I am not accusing you of taking any of these positions. I am only suggesting that any explanation of the world, if done via any of these three routes, must not only be relationally coherent but also logically consistent. I just tend to feel frustrated when a given issue stays persistently circular and irresolvable. By all means, please feel free to ignore any of my extrapolations you find off-putting!

I was only teasing you, and smiling the whole time. I don't think you mean harm, and I don't find you off-putting. By all means, have some fun thinking about things!

If I were to point out anything, I might say you seem a bit intense. All the issues that you can't figure out don't have to be solved right away! It has been my experience that when using reason alone, issues remain circular and unresolvable. One can always think of some reason to undermine any intelletual position taken, one can always question assumptions.

To me, philosophy is something one lives, which means one seeks experience of what one thinks is true. I have been talking about substance monism, for example, and I like that idea because I and others have actually experienced something that seems behind all manifest creation. When I look at physics, it seems to me that a base substance could explain a lot of mysteries. But if I hadn't ever experienced anything along those lines, then I'd just be speculating. You could easily challenge my assumption and I wouldn't have a leg to stand on. I can't prove there is a base substance, but I am not without personal evidence either.

The great thing about science is the empirical part, which is why I like philosophizing at PF. Sure, you can hypothesize all you want, but your theory will never get far without confirming experience. To me it is the same with all propositions whether it is God, or universal truths, or morality, or any other philosophical issue. Why waste time debating about issues whose assumptions have no supporting evidence?

 

[Philocrat]

I know this is the philosophy section, but it is that which has to do with science, so maybe my reaction to your post isn't too inappropriate ...

Surely no such Humoid could ever come into existence (except as the creation of a mad scientist)! And if it did, it would be quickly eaten by multitudes of living things that would perceive it as 'food'. And even if it didn't get eaten, it would starve, die of thirst, have a heart attack, suffocate, ... Before someone replies 'but just suppose ...', these are not trivial matters; for example, without some means of communicating with the external world, we could never know what Humoid was able to conceive, so would have no way to test any hypotheses on the topic. Further, trying to create a 'paper Humoid' is surely doomed to failure too ... we have no way of deciding which creative speculation about Humoid's thoughts are on the right track.

Absolutely! You hit it right on the head. This is the BIG puzzle. And this is the fundamental question immediately invoked by your text:

----
If we will never know, why try to connect our world to the world of a Humoid as some people often attempt or pretend to do? Just becuase our world extend beyond what our eyes can see or what is observable, does that automatically connect us to the world of a humoid?
-----

Think Nature! May the 'Book of Nature' serve you well and bring you all that is good!

 

[reilly]

Is energy real? Of course it is. Can we feel it? Of course we can -- the feeling of heat on your skin is a direct consequence of energy -- if you want to get picky about secondary responses or reactions or whatever, that's OK. Are electric fields real? Of course they are. Does a BTU describe a physically based concept, or some mathematical formula?

Do recall that in physics, for the most part, the reality of the world perceived through our senses, enhanced or not, is taken as given. But physicists are smart enough to sense when such an assumption becomes problematical -- the assumption is fundamentally practical. So, what's wrong with claiming energy is real? Why not?
Regards, Reilly Atkinson

 

[Iraides Belandria]

Sleeth.
After I read this interesting discussion, I think that energy is not a concept, it is the esence of everything that exists in a continuous transformation through time and space, assuming different forms and manifestations. Thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, relativity, alchemy and sacred books suggest this assumption. What physics and philosophers have done is to elaborate formulae, concepts and symbols to try to describe the elusive nature of energy under different circunstances.

 

[babsyco]

Then this presupposes a mind that CAN exist totally independent of the material body? We are back to square one - DUALISM! perhaps the universe's "mover" is this independent consciousness itself? A self-conceptualising universe mover outside the realm of the physical? Is it? Why not the reverse?

I don't see how his experience implies that the mind can exist totally independent of the body. The mind is what the brain does, and the dualism debate I think has been resolved by the Computational Theory of Mind. Les Sleeth HAS had physical contact with the world, and that played a part in developing his mind, but even without that, the mind is the relationship of physical entities, namely, neurons and their charges. that is how it relates to the physical world.

Still to ambiguous for you? Information processing. That is what the mind does, it arranges physical entities that both represent something AND have physical properties that can be manipulated to create actions/reactions that correspond to the reationships to the concepts they represent. A neuron representing 'greeness' fires a charge down a synapse, activating another neuron representing 'sweetness' when we see a grape. The electrical charge between the neurons corresponds to the fact that when we see green grapes in the real world, their greeness predicts sweetness. That is how the mind is grounded in physical reality. It doesn't exist separate to its physical body, it's what it's physical body does. A great book on this (and you'll notice I mention in nearly every posting- I just can't get over it) is 'How The Mind Works' by Stephen Pinker.

I assume you posted your point in here because you see some link between the formless, tasteless, odorless and invisible entity of the mind and that of energy, and how they both interact with the physical world, but the mind depends on energy to operate. The mind is not a mystical entity with no physical substance, it is the clever arrangement of physical entities so that the energy exchanged between them (based on their physical properties) corresponds to the relationships of what they represent. It relies on energy to work. It is NOT 'outside the realm of the physical'. This theory (computaional theory of Mind) resolves the dualism paradox for the mind, but NOT for energy, so I don't believe that energy can in any way be equated with the mind.

I can see a reply coming on that a mind is much more than relationships between entities, eg, consciousness, etc, but all I'm going to say is read Pinker's book. I'm not saying you're ignorant and I'm trying to 'enlighten you' or anything, I'm merely trying to save myself typing time by directing you to a text that argues these points very convincingly, and it's just what I would be saying anyway.

Thanks, Babsyco.

 

[hypnagogue]

The mind is what the brain does, and the dualism debate I think has been resolved by the Computational Theory of Mind.

The topic of consciousness is still a controversial and ultimately unresolved one; an excellent overview of different philosophical outlooks on the problem can be found in David Chalmers' paper http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/papers/nature.html . (By the way, you might be interested to know that Pinker himself acknowledges the existence and 'hardness' of the hard problem of consciousness; I'm not sure he would be entirely comfortable with the dictum, 'the mind is what the brain does.')

 

[Iraides Belandria]

After I read all of this discussion, I think that energy is not a concept, it is the esence of everything that exists in a continuous transformation through time and space assuming different forms and manifestations. Thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, relativity, alchemy and sacred books sugget this possibility.