Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It’s the law of thermodynamics. Something you should have learned in high school or grade school. Google it.
Now you see, if you had googled it yourself you'd know that what you should've referred to was the law of conservation of energy. The first law of thermodynamics (that I can only assume you meant since you didn't indicate which law of thermodynamics I was supposed to have paid attention to at school) is just an adaptation of the general law of conservation of energy.
The problem with your reference, and for that matter Ltdumbear's assertion, is that neither work in the context of a whole universe, which is what we are discussing. The General Relativity puts spokes in the wheel of the law of conservation of energy because universe is not a clearly defined closed system but one where spacetime is subject to change - ergo, the energy is not conserved.
I'm not going to condescend to your level and suggest that you should've learned it at school, since General Relativity is not something that is taught there in any great detail. Nonetheless, the fact that the energy of the universe doesn't have to be conserved has been known for nearly a century.
So, do you see the problem with laypeople making assertions like "energy can't be destroyed", "thoughts are things", or "there is no such thing as "matter," only energy moving at certain frequency"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berteau
Philosophy is supposed to be an intelligent field, but I’ve found this is where the stupidest people flock on this forum to pretend to be smart and convince themselves they’re intelligent and have everything figured out. It’s not philosophy if it has a scientific explanation. Even if you are ignorant of the scientific explanation.
Now you see, if you had googled it yourself you'd know that what you should've referred to was the law of conservation of energy. The first law of thermodynamics (that I can only assume you meant since you didn't indicate which law of thermodynamics I was supposed to have paid attention to at school) is just an adaptation of the general law of conservation of energy.
The problem with your reference, and for that matter Ltdumbear's assertion, is that neither work in the context of a whole universe, which is what we are discussing. The General Relativity puts spokes in the wheel of the law of conservation of energy because universe is not a clearly defined closed system but one where spacetime is subject to change - ergo, the energy is not conserved.
I'm not going to condescend to your level and suggest that you should've learned it at school, since General Relativity is not something that is taught there in any great detail. Nonetheless, the fact that the energy of the universe doesn't have to be conserved has been known for nearly a century.
So, do you see the problem with laypeople making assertions like "energy can't be destroyed", "thoughts are things", or "there is no such thing as "matter," only energy moving at certain frequency"?
Need I point out the irony in your observation?
Energy cannot be created or destroyed in the total universe. That was a direct response to what he said.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed in the total universe. That was a direct response to what he said.
No. That was your direct response to my question of what Ltdumbear meant by the statement. I was trying to find out whether it was made with the same 'not "E.V.E.R."' certainty as Ltdumbear's first sentence, and point out that there is no such thing as 100% certainty when it comes to science. This has pretty much been my whole shtick in this thread 'how can people be that certain of their realisations?', 'How do we find out which one of said realisations is accurate?'.
You, on the other hand, decided to butt in with your half-arsed attempt at referencing a scientific law without providing the actual law, and then insult philosophy forum members by calling them not just stupid but 'THE STUPIDEST PEOPLE'. And you feel embarrassed for us? At least some of us are trying to have a discussion, instead of just leaving opportune insults.
No. That was your direct response to my question of what Ltdumbear meant by the statement. I was trying to find out whether it was made with the same 'not "E.V.E.R."' certainty as Ltdumbear's first sentence, and point out that there is no such thing as 100% certainty when it comes to science. This has pretty much been my whole shtick in this thread 'how can people be that certain of their realisations?', 'How do we find out which one of said realisations is accurate?'.
You, on the other hand, decided to butt in with your half-arsed attempt at referencing a scientific law without providing the actual law, and then insult philosophy forum members by calling them not just stupid but 'THE STUPIDEST PEOPLE'. And you feel embarrassed for us? At least some of us are trying to have a discussion, instead of just leaving opportune insults.
"realizations"
People shouldn't be making realizations. They should be learning from experts in the field (scientists and physicists) who perform studies for a living. Yes, things are proven in science all the time. Also, I said SOME of the philosophy forum members. Not ALL like you are implying. And I was "embarrassed" for the member I quoted, not everyone like you are again falsely saying.
[...] Also, I said SOME of the philosophy forum members. Not ALL like you are implying. And I was "embarrassed" for the member I quoted, not everyone like you are again falsely saying.
Check the British spelling, genius. Not everyone on this forum is from the US.
And no, you didn't say SOME nor did you quote anyone. Perhaps you should focus on what people are saying and not what your imagination tells you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berteau
Yes, things are proven in science all the time.
Proof is a property of mathematics. The best science can do is demonstrate something to a degree of accuracy/precision. Proof in science is a myth.
Reality. Everyone says it is real, everyone says, science studies it with keen instruments and minds.
Now, please, go to any book on human physiology.
Let's take sight, as the dominant information supplier for any human mind.
Visual stimulus passes via eye, optic nerve, into visual cortex, where it is processed by mind and definition is given to that stimulus. For example, mind defines a stimulus as "apple". Or, "red".
For entire process, it takes approximately 0.2 second. Hence, there is 0.2 second lag between stimulus origination and its final definition by mind as something that mind recognizes as familiar. Mind can not define anything mind never encountered before. Ask any psychologist. Mind operates only in known to it definitions.
Same goes for any other stimulus. Even if it's data from a much faster instrument, mental definition of such data will be lagged.
It is a simple fact, based on basic human physiology, that "reality", as such, is not "real" as, in 0.2 seconds lag, nothing is as it was or where it was before. Even a solid mountain is already different, as it emits radiation, weathers away its particles, moves with Earth and so on. Hence, "reality" one defines as "real" is actually a virtual reality created by mind, based on already outdated data. Add to this unique physiological aspects of any human, that will make his "reality" different from others realities, based on individual characteristics of perception and mental processes.
So far, this is not my frivolous assumption. It is simple fact. Not much spoken about yet, simple FACT. Backed by science, so much referred to by here esteemed posters.
In its philosophical nutshell, everyone lives in a mental construct, one believes to be reality. That mental construct is, pretty much, made out of the same matter, thoughts are made out of. Yet, no one is doubting that that construct is as real and tangible, as it may possibly be - yet, as shown above, it is made out of intangible matter of the mental structure.
How mind manages such unreal reality is different story, not to be discussed at this thread. I am simply pointing out that everyone who posted here and said "he is lunatic believing in ...." lives in mental construct believed to be as real, as the most real physical object.
You admit yourself that your education in quantum physics is cursory, but then you go on to lecture 'from a quantum physics perspective'. This isn't how quantum physics works.
"The verbal interpretation, on the other hand, i.e. the metaphysics of quantum physics, is on far less solid ground. In fact, in more than forty years physicists have not been able to provide a clear metaphysical model."
Erwin Schrodinger
Given Mr. Schrodinger's quote along with Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein and a multitude of others commenting on the unreality of what we think is real would you like to tutor us all on how quantum physics works?
I just can't resist loving the mystery, the impossibility, the cognitive dissonance.
"The verbal interpretation, on the other hand, i.e. the metaphysics of quantum physics, is on far less solid ground. In fact, in more than forty years physicists have not been able to provide a clear metaphysical model."
Erwin Schrodinger
Given Mr. Schrodinger's quote along with Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein and a multitude of others commenting on the unreality of what we think is real would you like to tutor us all on how quantum physics works?
I'm sure Matt can speak for himself but let me just point out that it's not the physicists' job to deal with metaphysics. It is the role usually assumed by the philosophers of science and Schrödinger was notably interested in philosophy and wrote quite a bit on the subject. His philosophical musings, however, say nothing on the subject of quantum physics as it stands today since he passed away nearly 60 years ago.
As for quantum physics tuition, surely the burden of showing how quantum physics works falls on those who relied on it in order to justify their theories in this thread. Would you not agree?
I think anyone who makes a statement "That's not how quantum physics works" should be able to explain how it works.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
