The Universe Is Not Math; It’s Energy
September 13, 2018 at 9:07 pm #11342
got it Davis…crystal opaque…September 13, 2018 at 10:35 pm #11343September 13, 2018 at 10:50 pm #11345
But Dr. Bob…as I said before…energy is not a concept. The concept of energy is a concept..:-)
Oh for heavens sake, a construct is a construct, not to mention a construct of itself.
And it’s constructs all the way down.September 13, 2018 at 11:03 pm #11348
I burned some energy thinking about the concept of that fire.
I love the smell of burnt brain cells in the morning.
I live the sell of burnt brain smells in the morning.September 14, 2018 at 3:10 am #11355
So energy is a double concept. Energy AND matter only exist in our minds, TWO concepts, and it all depends on what centuries of appointed energy commentators have written on it (liberally borrowing better philosophers material)
That energy and matter are two different states of one thing is a fact. Concepts are not facts. That someone holds such and such a concept IS a fact, even if the concept is wrong.
September 14, 2018 at 3:31 am #11356
- This reply was modified 6 months ago by PopeBeanie. Reason: bq fix
That energy and matter are two different states of one thing is a fact.
Unseen my brother, the only thing in God’s great universe that can be two things in one is the Lord and his son as himself and a holy lord thrown in there plus his love for all the people he sent to his eternal torture chamber and his divine plan. Okay, that’s more like half a dozen things but it is still one. Now that is a fact. But then facts are concepts. But don’t consider facts and concepts one and the same thing, because facts being a concept is only a concept, not a fact while concepts being a fact are also concepts, not facts…but they aren’t in any of cases they same thing. Only God and the son and the spirit and the love and the plan and the spread of AIDS and child soldiery and bringing peace on Earth are all one and the same thing. And that is an undeniable FACT by which I mean a concept of a fact conceptualised as a hyper-concept within the realm of super-facts. You can read all about it in my new book:
Conceptual fact loops and the non-explanation of pseudo-factual conceptitude, a reading from Augustine to Aquinas to Benedict.
It’s illustrated with scenes from the bible including: Jonah and the Whale, the Tower of Babel, the mass genocide of God in the great flood, the slow emaciation and misery of Job, Jesus hanging out with lepers and prostitutes, Moses’s people dancing around golden statues, the snake in the Garden of Evil, the massacre of 1,000 children and women in Moab by God’s army, raining frogs, Daniel in the Lion den, David and Golaith, a priest telling women to shut up in Church, the horsemen of the appocolypse living out a crazy acid trip and more. Much much more. Get your copy in on Amazon or on the Vatican Website online store. There are only 1,000,000 copies left.
September 15, 2018 at 4:01 am #11359
- This reply was modified 6 months, 1 week ago by Davis.
Who said philosophers talk about stuff few understand in words few understand?
I said it.September 15, 2018 at 7:31 am #11361
I’ve been thinking about what people are posting about Energy. Is it real or is it a concept? Been reading up some Wikipedia stuff.
Is Energy something which we can experience in the real world? Through our senses? Like colour? Which is knowledge by acquaintance, or direct experiential knowledge through the senses.
Or is it a true concept & theory which explains & predicts physical phenomena. A social reality like currency? This is more like knowledge by description. knowledge that is indirect, mediated, and inferential.
I think this will be made clear if we look at the definition of Energy.
If we define Energy as a measurable quantity which is transferred to an object to perform work on it.
So loosely Energy is work. But what is work?
Work is Force applied over a given distance.
Force is further broken down into mass times acceleration. F=MA.
Measured in Newton’s. 1 newton is the force to accelerate a mass of 1 kg by acceleration of 1m per second per second.
The unit of energy transferred is the Joule.
Which is the work done to apply a force of 1 Newton over a distance of 1 metre.
Units of a joule kg m2 s−2
Can a person experience joules? Transferred? With units of Kg per meters sq per second per second?
I would say no. But you can understand the concept ( Knowledge by Description)
When people talk about energy in everyday life I think they are really talking about what it takes to do work.
What you can experience with your senses ( knowledge by acquaintance)
Are the components of the Concept of energy broken down into its 3 components.
Distance we have an intuitive notion of distance.
Mass we have an intuitive notion of a Mass of something. ( or less incorrect weight)
We have an intuitive notion of acceleration. (like acceleration in our cars for example)
But we don’t have a sense impressions, of Energy. Because it is Knowledge through description, a true and valuable concept.
For example if I went out in the world looking for a sense impression or experience of Energy in the world I would not find it.
I might find batteries, or fire, or sunlight. But I would not find “Energy”
In the same way if I went out looking to find Currency. Because currency is a concept.September 15, 2018 at 11:00 am #11362
Just so you know it’s all been a parody lampooning of a Christian who used to visit here. Of all his brilliant appologetics his greatest was that, like God, energy is just a concept. By the way, he was also a physicist…or so he claimed.
In other words, energy, God, they’re both just concepts, help you understand the world and yada yada yada. He even, at some point, claimed God was just a concept.
I wasn’t sciency enough to disagree with him but several users here did, as have you done quite well (in fact you hit on every argument that was made). Tom’s statement a few days ago hilariously puts it well:
Energy is just a concept until you get hit by a lightening boot.
It’s rather undeniable what happens when you are hit by lightening. I cannot say the same thing about being hit by God-rays.
To complement all of this, or to justify why the Christian God was a concept worth embracing, was the claim that Christianity (or at least Catholicism) has been so successful at transforming society. A claim that makes total sense if you just skip the decline of the Roman empire, the middle ages, the inquisition and pretty much every year until secularism emerged.
The absolute creme de la resistance, the ultimate most utterly spectacularifical claim was that: “the Catholic church is what stands behind the rights and freedoms we enjoy”. Yes, that’s right, the catholic church introduced the liberties we now take for granted.
So there you go. Energy is just a concept, the catholic church made the world a better more livable place and we owe freedom of speech, labor protections, gay rights and women’s equality to the Catholic church.
And energy is just a concept…just like God.
September 15, 2018 at 12:38 pm #11364
- This reply was modified 6 months ago by Davis.
Maybe God is a description of certain properties of the universe, like energy is.
Maybe God is our common humanity, which has properties of its own (e.g. maximising).September 15, 2018 at 12:53 pm #11365
Maybe God is a description of certain properties of the universe, like energy is. Maybe God is our common humanity, which has properties of its own (e.g. maximising).
Simon, again, you are projecting higher level abstract concepts, and highly culturally loaded ones, onto what needs no higher level abstract.
The properties of the universe, are the properties of the universe. Not God. There is no added value by calling it God and importing even a little of what comes with God.
Our common humanity, is our common humanity. Not God. There is no added value calling our common humanity God. It just adds confusion, centuries of religious ideas that fall well out of the scope of common humanity but instead points to a limited class of it.
God, much like with religion, when added to a topic that stands very well up on its own, just poisons it. Why on Earth would we want to carry all that enormously heavy and unwieldy God baggage onto stuff that’s already difficult enough to learn and understand? Even with some vague transitioning concept like “maximising”.
God is a supernatural entity. It is not shared humanity nor is it energy. It is a magical being overflowing with great powers, bizarre qualities and an enormous amount of very specifics depending on which variation it is. If everything in the universe is God…then we need not use the term God. Even in the most extreme case, if God were eveything in the universe…is quite simple to call everything in the universe: “everything in the universe” or all. The God label is absolutely useless, confusion generating, cultural baggage permeating toxicity.September 15, 2018 at 3:26 pm #11366
I see a parallel between apologists (for heck of it lets say Doctor Blobs) who are well educated, intelligent, and advocate for their nonsense no matter how lacking in factual support, far-fetched and illogical while being critical of atheism/anti-theism and racists who are historians, PHD’s, intelligent and have a veneer of respectability.
They know better. They have an agenda. And because they have a professional title and come across authoritatively they influence god-lovers and church lovers along with racists.
On other hand if a person is misguided but genuinely believes i have not the contempt for them that i do for the Blobs.September 16, 2018 at 3:03 am #11371
Maybe God is a description of certain properties of the universe, like energy is.
I don’t think God started off explicitly in people’s minds like that, but these days people could latch onto that. They’ve traditionally latched onto a myriad of metaphysical explanations to mysteries of all sorts.September 16, 2018 at 7:22 am #11372
For what reason do so many here capitalize the g-word?September 16, 2018 at 9:47 am #11393
Perhaps the picture that certain mystical or religious types have of God, is a confused mirage of a real thing, and that real thing is something we haven’t comprehended.
We capitalise the G-word because it refers to a certain type of god – a monotheistic one. There’s only one: THE God – capital G.
I think it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that certain properties of the natural world – based on the pressure to thrive – constitute those parts of the God concept that really exist.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.