• Changeling
    1.4k
    Is it made of something physical or not?
  • Sir2u
    3.2k
    Wind is not made from anything. It is the name of a movement of the air.
  • BC
    13.1k
    air moves when energy is imparted to it. Heat (more energy or less energy, depending) is the primary energy involved. There is also the force of gravity and the rotation of the planet. A hot desert imparts heat to the air above it, causing it to rise. air more distant from the rising warm air moves in to take its place. Cold air is heavier than warm air and tends to sink. By such mechanism air moves, becoming wind -- or maybe just a breeze.
  • Changeling
    1.4k

    I can't find any information about air particles :chin: at least online.
  • jorndoe
    3.2k
    I can't find any information about air particles :chin: at least online.The Opposite

    How about Nitrogen, Oxygen, water, and pollution?

    Atmosphere of Earth

    Wind is moving air. :D So, I guess it's "made from" air and motion?
  • Changeling
    1.4k
    but is wind similar to waves in the ocean (the water rising and falling to get out of the way of passing energy), and that neither of them exist?
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Is it made of something physical or not?The Opposite

    The consensus seems to be that what can be perceived through our senses (sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch) is regarded as physical/material. The way it is with perception and reality is that it ain't necessary that all the senses be activated to determine whether something is material/physical or not. So, we're happy to conclude that a microwave in our kitchen is material/physical even if we can't smell/taste the microwave because we can see it, feel it with our fingers, and hear it too. Similarly, a woman's perfume is considered physical even though no one in faer right mind ever tastes it; that we can see it inside a bottle, hear it slosh around, and can feel it on our skin is enough to infer that perfume is material/physical.

    Contrast the above rule of thumb for deciding the material/physical nature of things perceived through the senses with hallucinations. One simple test to determine whether what one is seeing with one's eyes is a hallucination or not would be to engage the other senses. We could for example try and touch whatever it is that we're seeing and if the result is negative i.e. we can't touch that which we're seeing, the chances are high that what we're seeing is a visual hallucination. A similar argument could be made for hallucinations in other sensory modalities - tactile hallucinations, auditory hallucinations, gustatory hallucinations, etc. One way, ergo, of ruling out hallucinations (perception without stimuli) is to bring into service senses other than the one whose perception is in question.

    Now, wind is felt by our integumentary sensors and even heard by our ears but no, it can't be seen or tasted or smelt i.e. wind excites only a part of our total sensory apparatus (skin and ears) and the other senses can't be pressed into service for they don't pick up anything. How do you know then whether wind is something material/physical and not a hallucination? Of course it's true that the physical effects of wind are well-documented: trees sometimes grow along the direction the wind blows, we can see objects like paper, plastic cups, sand, moving with the wind, geologists have studied wind erosion, to name a few. So, wind can't be a hallucination as it has an effect on objects that can be observed and confirmed, something that would've been impossible if wind were a hallucination.

    Last but not the least, I recall watching a horror flick where a ghost, a spirit, "touches" a living person and the latter "feels" it on her hand but, intriguingly, can't see (or smell or taste) anything. As far as our sensory system is concerned, there's no difference at all between wind and a ghostly "touch".
  • Changeling
    1.4k
    I once saw the spirit of a man in a rock in the Philippines, just out of the corner of my eye. Have you ever experienced anything like that?
  • fishfry
    2.6k
    Is it made of something physical or not?The Opposite

    Must be one of those "emergent" properties I keep hearing about. I think emergence is a murky concept and doesn't answer any of the questions people think it does. But wind is emergent. If you look at air molecules you can't see that they'd make wind. If you look at the air in a room you can't see that it would make wind. But when it moves a little, it's a breeze. When it moves a lot, it's wind. When it moves a lot a lot, it's a gale.

    Interesting that air has a different name depending on how fast it's moving. For example a car that moves is a moving car. There's not a different name for it.

    Well this is a puzzler alright.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    I once saw the spirit of a man in a rock in the Philippines, just out of the corner of my eye. Have you ever experienced anything like that?The Opposite

    For better or worse, I feel I lack the "ability" to see supernatural phenomena - I just don't have it in me, you know, that particular mindset that I suppose makes a person susceptible to experiences of such kind. I'm a skeptic with a capital S and it probably affects my mind in ways that prevent it from appreciating the very possibility of the supernatural let alone actually experiencing it.
  • Pfhorrest
    4.6k
    is wind similar to waves in the ocean (the water rising and falling to get out of the way of passing energy), and that neither of them existThe Opposite

    When you really get down to the physical bottom of things, everything is like waves in the ocean, patterns of energy density propagating through media (the media at the bottom here being quantum fields, and all other media being themselves already patterns in those fields).

    So if wind and waves don't exist, then by extension nothing exists.

    But things exist, thus so does wind.
  • counterpunch
    1.6k
    Differences of air pressure cause air to move from high pressure regions toward low pressure regions, creating further pressure differentials. The key scientific instrument is the barometer.
  • frank
    14.5k
    Is it made of something physical or not?The Opposite

    Wind is made of smaller winds, which in turn are made of smaller ones and so on ad infinitum. Some say this makes no sense, but to let understanding stop at what can not be understood is a high attainment.
  • baker
    5.6k
    Some ancient peoples thought of it as an element, not further analyzable, e.g. here from Pali:

    dhātu:
    Element; property, impersonal condition. The four physical elements or properties are earth (solidity), water (liquidity), wind (motion), and fire (heat). The six elements include the above four plus space and consciousness.
    https://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html
  • Mww
    4.5k


    The truth of that will be overshadowed by the effort required to direct anybody to it.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    Beans.
  • Pfhorrest
    4.6k
    Beans.Banno

    And broccoli, and... I remember there were two others in an old joke about the "four winds", but I can't find that joke on Google to refresh my memory.
  • jgill
    3.5k
    but is wind similar to waves in the oceanThe Opposite

    What happens at the altitude of the jet stream is highly influential on surface winds. There are wave patterns at that level, so that, for instance, a trough generates unsettled weather at the surface, with low pressure systems appearing. It's complicated trying to predict the behavior of the jet stream. Or it was many years ago when I was a meteorologist.
  • unenlightened
    8.7k
    Applied philosophy.
  • Sir2u
    3.2k
    The truth of that will be overshadowed by the effort required to direct anybody to it.Mww

    Can you explain a bit better please.
  • Changeling
    1.4k
    so you reduce everything to infinity rather than fundamental particles?
  • Banno
    23.1k
    ...and other forms of flatus.
  • Changeling
    1.4k
    are you a follower of quantum field theory?
  • Pfhorrest
    4.6k
    I don't know what you mean by "follower", but I know about the theory, yes.
  • Changeling
    1.4k
    what do you know about it?
  • Pfhorrest
    4.6k
    It would be quite a lot of typing to state everything I know about quantum field theory. Do you have a more specific question, or want a broad overview of it?
  • Mww
    4.5k


    Just agreeing with you. However we each come to our conclusions doesn't matter all that much.
  • frank
    14.5k
    so you reduce everything to infinity rather than fundamental particlesThe Opposite

    You can't beat fundamental particles for conceivability. Maybe little vibrating strings or

    *drumroll*

    consciousness packets. Little monads. Little blobs of awareness. Think about it.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.