An Intellectual's Christian Narrative: A Non-Magical Alternative (reincarnation, quote, evolution)

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

It is not the physics terms is it your understanding of them ONLY as they are USED in physics, NOT what they signify about the composition of our reality.

Those terms are physics terms that I understand very well and in fact they are important terms used to explain the physical laws of the Universe.

Again, what terms would you use to philosophically understand the composition of our reality?

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Clearly, your erroneous belief that I do not know the physics or the science colored your reading of my post because you blew past the relevant discussion.

No I did not blow past it...I saw nothing that did not boil down to what I've read on this site. The Equivalence of Mass and Energy

Just as Gaylen pointed out: Practically anyone can call themselves a philosopher and/or write a philosophically-oriented essay and claim practically anything.

When a person makes the claim that matter does not exist or that Einstein's famous equation = everything is energy...I have to question their understanding of physics.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Some of my statements seem to have triggered your uncritical attempt to rebut things I did NOT say and miss what I DID say.

I addressed everything you said.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

QED. I covered the rest mass issue and completely justified the bound energy (bundled energy) assertion. [/b]

And I justified why this is only true for an object that is not moving (and therefore has zero momentum).

Here are scenarios where you can demonstrate that mass is not simply a bundle of energy.

1. Put some kinetic energy in a box and tell me how much it weighs.
2. Or better yet put a tightly coiled 1 kg spring (potential energy) in a box and compare this to an uncoiled spring of the same mass. Will they weigh the same?
3. Also explain to us why a mass-less particle (photon) possesses the property of energy and always travels at the speed of light (c)?...i.e. it has momentum.
4. Also explain what rest-energy is and where does it come from?

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Philosophy addresses the fundamental (hard) problems that science does NOT address that involve understanding the composition of our reality.

Interesting you keep stating this but I've yet to hear anything credible coming from you or any philosopher that explains the composition of our reality.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Science addresses HOW things seem to work based on our measurements NOT what that ultimately says about the underlying composition of our reality.

Science does a bit more than just addressing how things seem to work. Science is an entire exercise in finding what is true.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

You display a surprising lack of understanding about the role of Philosophy in using the knowledge derived from science to understand the composition of our reality.

Actually what I display is my understanding that Philosophy is merely a reflection on the knowledge that we learn, but it does not generate knowledge. As well as my understanding that Philosophy is incapable of addressing the truly fundamental questions about our existence.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

It saddens me to see intelligent people read so uncritically because they are triggered by seeming challenges to their understanding of the composition of reality.

I think I understand the composition of reality just fine.

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by Matadora

Science does a bit more than just addressing how things seem to work. Science is an entire exercise in finding what is true.

A bit of clarification is needed here. As soon as you start talking about "truth" in the type of context we are dealing with here, you are stepping into philosophical territory. The scientific method delivers empirical evidence confirming or disconfirming empirical theories, but being well-confirmed does not really imply that a theory is "true." Newtonian physics was extremely well-confirmed for many years, but was it "true"? Well, that depends on your philosophical perspective. It's way more complicated that most people want to think about. For the most part, non-philosophers tend to be blind to their own philosophical assumptions and commitments. Just as you can't really choose to not make a choice, you can't really adopt a "non-philosophical" perspective because the effort to adopt such a perspective is already grounded in a set of philosophical commitments that, for most people, are unconsciously held. Most science lovers realize that they are dealing with probabilities and finite domains of applicability wherein a give theory applies. If you adopt a pragmatic theory of truth, then you can say "it is highly probable that this theory is true within this given domain," but the pragmatic theory of truth is, itself, just one of many epistemological theories of truth.

Actually what I display is my understanding that Philosophy is merely a reflection on the knowledge that we learn, but it does not generate knowledge.

This is a questionable claim. Do mathematicians "generate knowledge" when they succeed in proving or disproving a theorem? If so, then a good case can be made for philosophers and/or philosophical methods of analysis sometimes "generating knowledge" by showing that certain arguments are good, or not. One quick example: John Bell was a physicist, but he was "wearing his philosopher's hat" when he came up with Bell's Theorem. Did Bell's Theorem generate knowledge? I would say yes.

BTW: Most of the most famous philosophical positions came from philosophers who were not just philosophers. Rene Descartes, Alfred North Whitehead, and Edmund Husserl were all mathematicians. David Bohm, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Eugene Wigner, Albert Einstein, and Erwin Schrodinger, to name a few, were physicists, but their philosophical preferences and commitments have generated tremendous philosophical controversies that go to the roots of "what is real".

Thus I would very much question this statement:

...Philosophy is incapable of addressing the truly fundamental questions about our existence.

Scientists, as such, don't generally dig into the truly fundamental questions about our existence unless they are wearing their philosophers' hats. Many scientists prefer to follow the motto: "Shut up and calculate." They can't really avoid having philosophical commitments but they can, to a great extent, simply refuse to consciously and explicitly identify and acknowledge them.

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

A bit of clarification is needed here. As soon as you start talking about "truth" in the type of context we are dealing with here, you are stepping into philosophical territory.

I should have instead said science is any entire experiment in finding what is objectively true.

Scientific objectivity is a characteristic of scientific claims, methods and results. It expresses the idea that the claims, methods and results of science are not, or should not be influenced by particular perspectives, value commitments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors. Objectivity is often considered as an ideal for scientific inquiry, as a good reason for valuing scientific knowledge, and as the basis of the authority of science in society.

Source: Scientific Objectivity

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

The scientific method delivers empirical evidence confirming or disconfirming empirical theories, but being well-confirmed does not really imply that a theory is "true."

I think you meant confirming or invalidating a hypothesis.

The Scientific Method is how emergent scientific object truths rise up and become established. The Scientific Method does it better than anything else we have come up with as human beings.

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

Newtonian physics was extremely well-confirmed for many years, but was it "true"? Well, that depends on your philosophical perspective. It's way more complicated that most people want to think about.

It's really not as complicated as you are making it sound. Most people who understand science get that science reports what fits the observations at a given time. However most also get that as more sensitive testing tools are developed that this leads to looking at an old concept in a new light. But you're right the folks who say "we can't rely on science because it's always changing" are the folks who don't get it.

Originally Posted by Matadora

Actually what I display is my understanding that Philosophy is merely a reflection on the knowledge that we learn, but it does not generate knowledge.

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

This is a questionable claim. Do mathematicians "generate knowledge" when they succeed in proving or disproving a theorem? If so, then a good case can be made for philosophers and/or philosophical methods of analysis sometimes "generating knowledge" by showing that certain arguments are good, or not. One quick example: John Bell was a physicist, but he was "wearing his philosopher's hat" when he came up with Bell's Theorem. Did Bell's Theorem generate knowledge? I would say yes.

What new knowledge in the area of understanding human consciousness has philosophy generated? What knowledge in the area of climate science has philosophy brought us? I can go on but I hope you can see where I'm coming from.

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

BTW: Most of the most famous philosophical positions came from philosophers who were not just philosophers. Rene Descartes, Alfred North Whitehead, and Edmund Husserl were all mathematicians. David Bohm, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Eugene Wigner, Albert Einstein, and Erwin Schrodinger, to name a few, were physicists, but their philosophical preferences and commitments have generated tremendous philosophical controversies that go to the roots of "what is real".

I did acknowledge that at one time science and philosophy were married. Even though they divorced they still have cordial visits with each other.

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

Thus I would very much question this statement:

Originally Posted by Matadora

Philosophy is incapable of addressing the truly fundamental questions about our existence.

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

Scientists, as such, don't generally dig into the truly fundamental questions about our existence unless they are wearing their philosophers' hats.

I disagree. I know that Astrophysicists and Evolutionary Biologists as well as non-science folks ponder the truly fundamental questions about our existence. Philosophy does not own this.

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

Many scientists prefer to follow the motto: "Shut up and calculate."

Interesting in that I've been exposed to the world of science and working with scientists my entire career and have never once come across a scientist who's motto is this. Philosophy enthusiasts certainly have some unfounded impressions about scientists...so do the anti-science folks.

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

They can't really avoid having philosophical commitments but they can, to a great extent, simply refuse to consciously and explicitly identify and acknowledge them.

I guess you will have to take this up with the person who's acting as you described.

What will it take for people to recognize that a community of scientists are learning objective truths about the natural world and that they themselves can benefit from knowing about it?

I think in moving forward with respect to any topic related to science is to first recognize what is scientifically objectively true > then have the debate.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

I would like to make some cautionary points:
Practically anyone can call themselves a philosopher and/or write a philosophically-oriented essay and claim practically anything. Within the halls of academic philosophy, there is a wide range of views on almost any topic, and if you add all of the people who take stands on philosophical issues with or without credible education in the relevant fields they are dealing with, you get a total mess. This is why I keep asking for source references. You are obviously putting together lots of ideas from lots of sources, which is perfectly fine, but for any specific claim - especially if it involves critical scientific terms - you really, really, really, really need to be able, upon demand, to reference respected professionals (even if they are just professional writers who explain science for popular audiences).

Of course, if you are making a claim that you thought of by yourself and, so far as you know, no one else has said any such thing - then clearly state that this is the case. The problem with so many of your posts is that you say "scientists say" or "philosophers say" and then you say something that I am skeptical about. That is where source references become import. Where are you getting these ideas from? If they are, in fact, respectable thinkers publishing in respectable formats, then I want to go to them to see what they are actually saying for myself. (Just to be clear: Certain types of logical claims or arguments can stand on their own merits without references, but specific claims involving science terms or technical philosophical terms need source references.)

Here, for example:
This sounds like something that some scientist or philosopher could more or less say, but I want to know exactly who you think is saying it.

And then there is this:
This is just plain and simply wrong. Maybe it's a couple of typos or a temporary brain spasm? If you really meant to say: "The symbol (m) represents the mass of the system as "measured" by an observer moving with zero velocity relative to the system," (aka "rest mass") then all is well. But if you want to stick to your formulation, then we have a problem. In any case, my point is that you are going to keep spinning your wheels until you can start referencing some respectable scientists and philosophers who you believe are supporting your specific claims.

Your suggested caution is well-taken. I should clarify my position here in the forum. It is not an academic one so your request for references is burdensome because over the several decades they would fill a book. I understand that my posts suffer from the varied backgrounds and perspectives brought to them. My original Synthesis was written in all of three weeks to summarize for a not necessarily science literate mass audience why I believe as I do. My initial use of plain language and simple analogies caused more confusion than they clarified because those who were more knowledgeable took them literally. By espousing my non-scientific beliefs and speculations, I further corrupted the responses to my views. The resultant inability or unwillingness of my critics to parse the science parts of my views from the belief parts just causes further confusion and unwarranted derision, as in Matadora's reference to my "religious" views, e.g., "It saddens me seeing intelligent people clinging so tightly to their religious/spiritual belief system that they try and distort or dismiss the discoveries that science has brought us. The unbiased knowledge of how the Universe works as well as what the composition of our reality is was brought to us by science, not philosophy or religion."

My posts are not designed to do anything but clarify why I believe as I do and defend my knowledge as necessary. Unfortunately, for most of my critics, my beliefs, mystical speculations, and spiritual conclusions overpower any objective analysis of my scientific views and generate much grief for me from all quarters - theist, atheist, or agnostic. I am too old to want to do anything other than what I provide here. My friend who originally requested the Synthesis seems more than satisfied with it and the rest is just fodder for those genuinely interested in why I believe as I do. I do my best to explain what people have difficulty with but I do not have your gift, Gaylen.

The responses from you and Matadora are especially frustrating because I respect you both and I really thought I explained the matter/field mass/energy implications clearly. My conclusion is valid but apparently seems counterintuitive to those steeped in the physics of our material world. Contrary to what intuition might tell us, the "forces" of the universe and the "stuff" of the universe are simply different manifestations of the unified field. I will try to parse my post more carefully to illustrate how I reach the inference I do about the nature of matter and, therefore, the composition of our reality. I actually covered the rest mass issue you raise, Gaylen, and completely justified the bound energy (bundled energy) assertion as the correct way to draw inferences about the nature of matter. The key is the "same properties" aspect of the mass/energy equivalence:

"When the observer and the system are in a relative state of rest, the mass is called the inertial rest mass or the tendency of the system to resist changes in velocity. The value of the energy in the rest state is the rest energy and is a measure of all of the energy (including the potential energy) of the constituents of the system. This is the form of Einstein's equation we are exploring the implications of for the nature of matter because at rest the Lorentz factor is 1 and disappears. (The basic "stuff" of matter (field) is revealed in this rest mass equivalence since there is nothing else to confuse the issue.)

The relationship between mass/energy equivalence and hypotheses concerning the nature of reality rest on assumptions concerning the nature of matter. The actual relation derived from special relativity is:

E = (m − q)c^2 + K,

K just fixes the zero-point of energy and is conventionally set to zero. However, unlike the convention to set K to zero, setting q = 0 involves a hypothesis concerning the nature of matter because q = 0 rules out the possibility that there exists matter that has some mass which can NOT be “converted” into energy (q NOT = 0).

(This is what you seem to have missed about drawing any inferences about the actual composition of our reality. If there exists ANY matter for which q is NOT equal to zero, the "same properties" aspect of mass/energy would NOT be true. The view that mass and energy ARE the same property of physical systems requires that q = 0.)

Mass and energy cannot be the same property if there exists matter that has ANY mass that cannot be “converted” into energy. This relates directly to the issue of conversion/transformation and physicists have no evidence whatsoever that there exists ANY matter for which q is NOT equal to zero. Bottom line: Rainville, et al. have empirically demonstrated the mass-energy equivalence directly as recently as 2005 with an accuracy for Einstein's equation of 0.00004%. Hence, q = 0 FAPP and mass IS bound energy (or Arach's bundled energy)."

If you want an authoritative source to confirm these assertions, I recommend a general reference, like the Stanford Encyclopedia.

Here is a relevant excerpt to whet your appetites:

2.2 The One-Stuff Interpretation of E = mc2

Interpretations in the second group establish a connection between the terms "mass" and "energy," which are again treated as terms designating properties, and the two basic constituents in the ontology of physics: matter and fields. The equivalence of mass and energy is then taken to show that we can no longer distinguish between matter and fields. Einstein and Infeld (1938) offer a clear articulation of this interpretation.

According to Einstein and Infeld, in pre-relativistic physics, one can distinguish matter from fields by their properties. Specifically, matter has energy and mass, whereas fields only have energy. Since mass and energy are distinct in pre-relativistic physics, there are physical criteria that allow us to distinguish matter from fields qualitatively. So it is reasonable to adopt an ontology that contains both matter and fields. However, in relativistic physics, the qualitative distinction between matter and fields is lost because of the equivalence of mass and energy. Consequently, Einstein and Infeld argue, the distinction between matter and fields is no longer a qualitative one in relativistic physics. Instead, it is merely a quantitative difference, since "matter is where the concentration of energy is great, field where the concentration of energy is small"(1938, p. 242). Thus, Einstein and Infeld conclude, mass-energy equivalence entails that we should adopt an ontology consisting only of fields.

Strictly speaking, Einstein and Infeld's conclusion concerning the ontology of modern physics does not follow from E = mc2 alone. As we have noted toward the end of Section 1, mass-energy equivalence by itself does not entail that a chunk of what we ordinarily regard as material can be completely converted into energy. Thus, even if E = mc2 is true, it is still logically possible that a theory whose basic ontology consists of both matter and fields might be required. What speaks against this option is a generalized hypothesis concerning the nature of matter based on the empirical observation that some sub-atomic particles can radiate all of their mass. Finally, the development of quantum field theories subsequent to Einstein and Infeld's interpretation lend further support to their view, since these empirically successful theories treat the basic constituents of matter (such as electrons) as quantizations of a field.

Among philosophers, Russell interprets mass-energy equivalence in a way that prima facie seems similar to Einstein and Infeld. According to Russell, "a unit of matter tends more and more to be something like an electromagnetic field filling all space, though having its intensity in a small region" (1915, p. 121). In his later work, Russell continues to hold this view. For example, in Human Knowledge, Its Scope and Limits, he points out that "atoms" are merely small regions in which there is a great deal of energy. Furthermore, these regions are precisely the regions where one would have said, in pre- relativistic physics, that there was matter. For Russell, these considerations suggest that "mass is only a form of energy, and there is no reason why matter should not be dissolved into other forms of energy. It is energy, not matter, that is fundamental in physics" (1948, p. 291). Russell is proposing that mass is reducible to energy in the sense that the world consists only of energy. Thus, for Russell, "mass" and "matter" are otiose in modern physics.

Several physicists have held a similar position, though this view is less common now. For example, after a discussion particle-antiparticle annihilation experiments in 1951, Wolfgang Pauli states: "Taking the existence of all these transmutations into account, what remains of the old idea of matter and of substance? The answer is energy. This is the true substance, that which is conserved; only the form in which it appears is changing" (1951, p. 31).

Russell and Pauli's interpretations are, despite the superficial similarity, importantly different from Einstein and Infeld's. Russell (in some places) and Pauli both treat the term "energy" as though it designates a substance, whereas Einstein and Infeld clearly regard energy as a property. This is an important difference. Treating energy as a term designating a substance is now widely regarded as a remnant of an untenable nineteenth century view. Nevertheless, some philosophers have continued to promulgate, albeit inadvertantly at times, the view that energy is a substance. A fairly recent example of this, which is part of an interpretation of mass-energy equivalence, is contained in Zahar's (1989) Einstein's Revolution: A Study in Heuristic.

According to Zahar, energy in pre-relativistic physics occupies a distinct "ontological level" from matter primarily because the former is regarded as dependent on the latter, but not vice versa. In relativistic physics, however, Einstein's famous equation shows that these two ontological levels are in fact identical. According to Zahar, Einstein showed "that ‘energy’ and ‘mass' could be treated as two names for the same basic entity. The stuff which appears to the senses as hard extended substance and the quantity of energy which characterises a process are in fact one and the same thing" (1989, p. 262). For Zahar, the apparent difference between mass and energy arises from the contingent fact that our senses perceive mass and energy differently. On this reading, mass-energy equivalence has the metaphysical implication that what is real, "is no longer the familiar hard substance but a new entity which can be interchangeably called matter or energy" (1989, p. 263). Thus, Zahar holds that the fundamental stuff of physics is a sort of "I- know-not-what" that we can call either "mass" or "energy."

Unfortunately, Zahar's interpretation suffers from a rather imprecise use of the terms "mass," "matter," and "energy." For example, Zahar uses both "mass" and "matter" to designate a substance, when he clearly seems to intend only for the latter to designate a substance and for the former to designate a property. This equivocation can be easily corrected. His use of the term "energy," however, is more difficult to repair unless we introduce the notion of a field. So, for example, when Zahar talks about energy occupying a different "ontological level" from matter, what he should be saying is that fields occupied such a different level. According to mature classical physics (without the aether), it is fields that are "produced" by matter. Consequently, Zahar would have to say that it is fields and matter that are on the same ontological level, and hence that as a result of E = mc2, we can no longer really distinguish between the two. Thus, a charitable interpretation of Zahar, which uses the terms "matter," "mass," "field," and "energy" a bit more carefully, reduces to Einstein and Infeld's position.

Despite the difference in the ontological claims made by the two leading interpretations, there is one significant similarity. Both interpretations implicitly claim that mass-energy equivalence changes our knowledge concerning the extensions of the terms "mass" and "energy." Whereas the terms "mass" and "energy" had different extensions and intensions in pre-relativistic physics, SR teaches us that the extension of the two terms is actually the same. This is analogous to the discovery that the referents of "the morning star" and "the evening star" are the same. We can push the analogy a bit further. Just as it is possible to verify empirically that the planet Venus is the referent of both "the morning star" and "the evening star," it is possible to verify empirically that the extensions of "mass" and "energy" are the same. (See Section 4, Experimental Verification of Mass- Energy Equivalence.) Thus, the one-stuff interpretation merely goes farther than the same-property interpretation by drawing a conclusion concerning not just the properties of physical systems, but also about their very constituents.

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by Matadora

...What new knowledge in the area of understanding human consciousness has philosophy generated? ....I know that Astrophysicists and Evolutionary Biologists as well as non-science folks ponder the truly fundamental questions about our existence. Philosophy does not own this. ...

This is the religion and spirituality forum Mat. What are your religious and spiritual beliefs, views, and philosophy with regards to the soul, reincarnation, and your relationship with the Divine? No links to articles please just your own words describing your own spiritual and religious beliefs, and the theology that you align with.

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

If you want an authoritative source to confirm these assertions, I recommend a general reference, like the Stanford Encyclopedia.

Thank you! This is exactly the sort of thing I wanted. I believe the article (for me, at least) creates some unnecessary confusion by using the term "relativistic mass" where, I think, it should have just said "mass". This is a wide-scale confusion that would mislead physics students if they took it literally but, I can't see where this hic-up makes any significant difference to the philosophical points that are being developed in the article, nor to the core concept that you are proposing. (BTW: Apparently even some classic physics textbooks get the terminology a bit confused (check out the conclusion of this brief article: http://www.stat.physik.uni-potsdam.d...stein_okun.pdf ) so I'm not going to worry about it for the moment. If I ever see it having some significance for a particular interpretation, I will revisit it at that point.)

My own intuitions lean slightly toward the "same property" interpretation, but I would point out that even if mass and energy are different properties, they are probably still different properties of "the same stuff," so I'm not sure that this particular issue of competing interpretations necessarily has to be of major significance to either of us.

The key question of "same property, or not" is whether or not there is any ontological significance to the mass/energy "conversion" - i.e., is this conversion an actual physical "process" or is this conversion just a change of perspective on our part? This seems like an empirical question. If it is a physical process then, in principle, we ought to be able to investigate the deeper physical properties of the process itself. If it is just an abstract issue of bookkeeping, then there is the question of how best to characterize the "one property" - i.e., is it "really just mass?" or "really just energy?" or really some property that has dual-aspects that comes to light, depending on how we measure it? Of course there are also a truckload of philosophical questions concerning what is a "property" - but that's a whole nuther complicated issue.

When all is said and done, this latter question of how to characterize the "one property" (assuming we settle on the idea that mass/energy is, indeed, one property) could be a "merely philosophical" question in the worst sense - i.e., a difference that doesn't really make any difference to anything we could ever care about in a practical sense. You seem to be committed to the idea that it is all really just energy. I'm not so sure it really matters. I'd need to see some arguments for why it is better to think of the "one property" as mass, or as energy, or as some unknown that is not reducible to either mass or energy because both concepts are just differences in our choice of how to measure something. As I look into it more, I might develop a preference, but at the moment I have none (except for a slight preference for the "one property" interpretation itself).

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

Thank you! This is exactly the sort of thing I wanted. I believe the article (for me, at least) creates some unnecessary confusion by using the term "relativistic mass" where, I think, it should have just said "mass". This is a wide-scale confusion that would mislead physics students if they took it literally but, I can't see where this hic-up makes any significant difference to the philosophical points that are being developed in the article, nor to the core concept that you are proposing. (BTW: Apparently even some classic physics textbooks get the terminology a bit confused (check out the conclusion of this brief article: http://www.stat.physik.uni-potsdam.d...stein_okun.pdf ) so I'm not going to worry about it for the moment. If I ever see it having some significance for a particular interpretation, I will revisit it at that point.)

Yes there is massive confusion over the term mass. Einstein (accidentally) left us with 2 very conflicting interpretations of mass that are found in first-year college texts.

**Particle Physicists only use the first interpretation**

Interpretation 1. E = mc² is true only for an object that isn’t moving. For an object that is moving, E is greater than mc². Energy and mass are not at all the same thing; an object’s energy can change when its motion changes, but its mass never changes. This notion of mass is sometimes called “rest mass” (since it’s related to the energy stored in the object when it is “at rest”) or “invariant mass” (since it doesn’t change when it is moving.)

Interpretation 2. E = mc² is always true, for both stationary and moving objects. This can be viewed as saying energy and mass are essentially the same thing. [Recall that in interpretation 1, they are not at all the same thing.] Since the energy of a moving object is larger than when it is stationary, that means, similarly, that its mass is larger when it is moving than when it is stationary. This notion of mass is sometimes called “relativistic mass”, in honor of Einstein’s revolutionary notions of relativity. "Relativistic mass" is simply energy in disguise. E/c2. "Relativistic mass" depends upon how fast an object is moving; however invariant mass/rest mass is the same whether an object is moving or not. Invariant mass does not change with the speed of an object and it's what particle physicists call mass.

Source: Mass-ive Source of Confusion

To clear up the confusion surrounding the conflicting definitions please take the time to read the link I posted. (Mass-ive Source of Confusion) This guy is a Particle Physicists who's research was working with the Large Hadron Collider and he has selfishly dedicated his time to construct a website to help non-experts with this physics concepts.

Therefore not everything is energy and matter does exist. There are a lot of mass-less particles that possess the property of Energy.

Mass quantifies an objects resistance to changes in motion. Energy also has the property of inertia.

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

My own intuitions lean slightly toward the "same property" interpretation, but I would point out that even if mass and energy are different properties, they are probably still different properties of "the same stuff," so I'm not sure that this particular issue of competing interpretations necessarily has to be of major significance to either of us.

If they are the same "stuff" then why do they need to be converted from one to the other? Why is there a conversion factor if indeed they are the same?

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

The key question of "same property, or not" is whether or not there is any ontological significance to the mass/energy "conversion" - i.e., is this conversion an actual physical "process" or is this conversion just a change of perspective on our part? This seems like an empirical question. If it is a physical process then, in principle, we ought to be able to investigate the deeper physical properties of the process itself.

We have investigated it deeper and it's exactly what we see occurring in nuclear reactions. During the process of nuclear reactions Energy is released.

Ex: Uranium decays to Thorium and Helium with energy being released in the process. Thus we still have matter (Thorium and Helium) and Energy.

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

If it is just an abstract issue of bookkeeping, then there is the question of how best to characterize the "one property" - i.e., is it "really just mass?" or "really just energy?" or really some property that has dual-aspects that comes to light, depending on how we measure it?

It's not abstract since mass is what quantifies an objects resistance to change. All energy resists changes in motion and we are able to calculate this resistance based on the mass.

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

When all is said and done, this latter question of how to characterize the "one property" (assuming we settle on the idea that mass/energy is, indeed, one property) could be a "merely philosophical" question in the worst sense - i.e., a difference that doesn't really make any difference to anything we could ever care about in a practical sense. You seem to be committed to the idea that it is all really just energy. I'm not so sure it really matters.

It matters for particle physicists and nucular physicists and astronomers who need to be more precise. For science to be accurately discussed it needs to be precise and specific.

From the link I posted:

Fortunately, in daily life, these two concepts are almost identical, because most objects we observe in daily life much more slowly than c, in which case their rest mass and relativistic mass are nearly identical, as you can see in the figure. But particle physicists and nuclear physicists and astronomers, among others, often have to be more precise. And when you’re reading an article or book about particles or nuclei or astronomy in which “mass” plays an important role, you will often need to know which of these two interpretations is being used by the author!

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

I'd need to see some arguments for why it is better to think of the "one property" as mass, or as energy, or as some unknown that is not reducible to either mass or energy because both concepts are just differences in our choice of how to measure something. As I look into it more, I might develop a preference, but at the moment I have none (except for a slight preference for the "one property" interpretation itself).

In that link he provides the arguments for why it is accurate to think of mas and energy separately and why ALL particle physicists today use Interpretation 1.

He points out that with the second interpretation, you can’t even say which types of particles have larger masses than other types, and it is impossible for any type of particle to be massless. This is very inconvenient — one might even say, ridiculous — for doing particle physics.

He concludes with:

Additional subtle but profound mathematical reasons [having to do with the “hyperbolic geometry of space-time”, if you must know] support the first interpretation, as hinted at in this article on mass and energy, which shows how energy, momentum and mass are related by elegant equations if you use the first interpretation

[gabfest]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

This is the religion and spirituality forum Mat. What are your religious and spiritual beliefs, views, and philosophy with regards to the soul, reincarnation, and your relationship with the Divine? No links to articles please just your own words describing your own spiritual and religious beliefs, and the theology that you align with.

Not all who post are interested in the diversity of world religions, some are calling for the eradication of such beliefs.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

Thank you! This is exactly the sort of thing I wanted. I believe the article (for me, at least) creates some unnecessary confusion by using the term "relativistic mass" where, I think, it should have just said "mass". This is a wide-scale confusion that would mislead physics students if they took it literally but, I can't see where this hic-up makes any significant difference to the philosophical points that are being developed in the article, nor to the core concept that you are proposing. (BTW: Apparently even some classic physics textbooks get the terminology a bit confused (check out the conclusion of this brief article: http://www.stat.physik.uni-potsdam.d...stein_okun.pdf ) so I'm not going to worry about it for the moment. If I ever see it having some significance for a particular interpretation, I will revisit it at that point.)

My own intuitions lean slightly toward the "same property" interpretation, but I would point out that even if mass and energy are different properties, they are probably still different properties of "the same stuff," so I'm not sure that this particular issue of competing interpretations necessarily has to be of major significance to either of us.

The key question of "same property, or not" is whether or not there is any ontological significance to the mass/energy "conversion" - i.e., is this conversion an actual physical "process" or is this conversion just a change of perspective on our part? This seems like an empirical question. If it is a physical process then, in principle, we ought to be able to investigate the deeper physical properties of the process itself. If it is just an abstract issue of bookkeeping, then there is the question of how best to characterize the "one property" - i.e., is it "really just mass?" or "really just energy?" or really some property that has dual-aspects that comes to light, depending on how we measure it? Of course, there are also a truckload of philosophical questions concerning what is a "property" - but that's a whole nuther complicated issue.

When all is said and done, this latter question of how to characterize the "one property" (assuming we settle on the idea that mass/energy is, indeed, one property) could be a "merely philosophical" question in the worst sense - i.e., a difference that doesn't really make any difference to anything we could ever care about in a practical sense. You seem to be committed to the idea that it is all really just energy. I'm not so sure it really matters. I'd need to see some arguments for why it is better to think of the "one property" as mass, or as energy, or as some unknown that is not reducible to either mass or energy because both concepts are just differences in our choice of how to measure something. As I look into it more, I might develop a preference, but at the moment I have none (except for a slight preference for the "one property" interpretation itself).

The ontological implications are the core issues to answer what is the composition of our reality. I have described in detail in my Synthesis and intimated elsewhere many times that measurement is the hidden "stumbling block" to understanding our reality. Your "just differences in our choice of how to measure something" remark reveals that you may be impeded by that very "stumbling block." When the measurement impediment is combined with our ubiquitous tendency to treat the math as if that is how our reality actually works because of things that are "given in the inner consciousness" through conditioned association over time, serious ontological misunderstandings about the composition of our reality remain unanswered. Mass is one of those measurement-confounded phenomena leading to the creation of ancillary terms - Quanta and Massless - which is why I default to energy. The only real difference in the many "particles" of particle physics is the level of energy involved.

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by Matadora

...
Source: Mass-ive Source of Confusion

You, and the various articles, have convinced me to lean heavily toward the two-properties view. I will need to re-visit the arguments for the one-property view before I jump in with both feet.

Mass quantifies an objects resistance to changes in motion. Energy also has the property of inertia.
If they are the same "stuff" then why do they need to be converted from one to the other? Why is there a conversion factor if indeed they are the same?

I still suspect that the "one stuff" view is true, even if we are dealing with two very different properties. By rough analogy, ice, liquid water, and water vapor are all H20, but obviously there are very different properties at work.

In the case of mass/energy, we could be dealing with "phases" of some underlying "stuff" that exhibits mass-like properties in some situations and energy-like properties in other situations. (I put "phases" in scare quotes because phases and phase shifts of various sorts have precise meanings in physics and chemistry, and I don't want to suggest that the "phases" of mass and energy necessarily boil down to any of the currently defined phases or phase-shifting processes. Maybe yes, maybe no. I'm not in a position to say at the moment, but I'm certainly happy to entertain arguments and explanations for various options.)

Given the equivalence of mass/energy, I'm inclined to think that we are dealing with different "phases" of "one stuff" just because it seems like the most intuitive "Occam-friendly" option. Why would two "completely different kinds of stuff" be equivalent and inter-convertible? It could be just a contingent brute-fact correlation but, more often that not, correlations tend to end up being signs of an underlying unity. If we ever come up with a genuine TOE, the unity underlying the 4 major forces will probably be the "one basic stuff" that I'm vaguely referring to.

One consideration: Thinking of the Big Bang singularity, the general idea is that the 4 forces "coalesced" or "condensed" out of the unified stuff of the singularity. I think the BB singularity is essentially what MPhD means by "pure energy" that is, in some sense, more primordial than mass, or any of the "lower temperature" forms of energy that we are familiar with today. Presumably, given the conservations laws, the "mass+energy totality" of the BB singularity should be the same as the mass+energy totality of the current physical universe. But does the term "mass" even apply to the BB singularity? If so, how does that work? If not, then it seems reasonable to characterize the BB singularity as either "pure energy" or as the "unified stuff" - whatever it is - that can exhibit mass-like or energy-like properties.