Its relevant only in that I am able to distinguish between a big force/explosion and a small one.
I can also use sensory info to be able to perceive quite a range between big and small, without having to employ actual measured, unitised, accuracy via formulae. I can therefore perceive and detect 'material' aspects of 'energy' or force using something as simplistic as my own sensory input and without application of formulae. — universeness

This is in no way a case of measuring energy.

So, if we can't detect every Planck sized unit of energy, to confirm that the original hot/cold area has the exact same amount of energy as the area now in thermal balance, then this does not mean we have to start to employ words like immaterial or dualism. — universeness

We can never detect all the energy. We never have and we know we never will, you seem to agree with this. And this effective disproves the law of conservation, as a falsity. If energy was actually conserved we'd be able to, at least in principle, detect it all. We cannot, and we know we cannot, so it is not even detectable in principle, therefore not even conserved in principle. We need dualism if we want to assume that the conservation law is true, to account for the energy which we know can never be detected by us.

To me, it's akin to the accuracy of pi or the speed of light in a Vaccuum. We will never get 100% accuracy, will we? That doesn't make pi or the speed of light or the conservation of energy laws, wrong in any way. — universeness

Right, it does not make these laws wrong, it makes them false. They can still be correct, as long as we invoke some sort of dualism or something like that, to account for the incommensurability between our principles for measuring the world, and the reality of the world.

...the law of conservation is not true...
— Metaphysician Undercover

We're still waiting for the disproof of Noether's theorem (e.g. a "perpetual motion machine") ... — 180 Proof

... or Newton's laws of motion. You claim there have been many experiments that falsify these "laws", so cite one. :chin:

Your thumbs upping and vague referencing doesn't always register unless I go deep into the comments...so what are you? A Hindu monist? None of us agree with Bartricks.

Usually, in the broadest terms, I'm a philosophical naturalist (i.e. property dualist, irrealist, actualist & disutilitarian).

Thanks, I've followed some of this. Seems like Batbrains mangled the OP so badly that it's become a free for all.

To quote a recent sage: Bratshitz is as Bratshitz does. :sparkle:

You do not need a standard for comparison that is universal with regard to speed and time. Everyone going at whatever velocity will have their own experience of time which differs from people going slower or faster then them. Just as there is no universal standard of size, there is none for time. An elephant is bigger than a mouse because of the environment it's in; if there was no space, but only an elephant next to a mouse, they would have the same size. As for moving in an instant, the instant represents the point that is covered which is yes zero. But these sum to a positive. This is something Aristotle never understood. Motion has a forward momentum. Air doesn't move an arrow as he thought. Motion is dynamic

Yoi claim there have been many experiments that falsify these "laws", so cite one. :chin: — 180 Proof

My claim is not that any particular experiment has falsified the law of conservation. My claim is that all experiments, each and every one of them has demonstrated that not all the energy conserved. There is always some lost. So the reasoning is inductive. Each and every experiment demonstrates that some energy is lost, and we believe that this will always be the case. Therefore the law which states that all the energy is conserved has been proven, through inductive reasoning, to be false. You might want to dispute the value of inductive logic, but then what would be the point to experimentation?

You do not need a standard for comparison that is universal with regard to speed and time. Everyone going at whatever velocity will have their own experience of time which differs from people going slower or faster then them. Just as there is no universal standard of size, there is none for time. An elephant is bigger than a mouse because of the environment it's in; if there was no space, but only an elephant next to a mouse, they would have the same size. As for moving in an instant, the instant represents the point that is covered which is yes zero. But these sum to a positive. This is something Aristotle never understood. Motion has a forward momentum. Air doesn't move an arrow as he thought. Motion is dynamic — Gregory

How is this relevant to determining a quantity of energy?

My claim is that all experiments, each and every one of them has demonstrated that not all the energy conserved. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay, then cite some of those "experiments" (or the relevant literature) to which you're referring.

I looked around Wikipedia and sort of agree with emergent materialism. Starting with physical matter as the fundamental seems reasonable but there is a need to explain mind also.

I generally run through question sets to see if this or that is a good position to take...or post things here to see what the response is. Often you get criticism from others you wouldn't think of yourself.

... there is a need to explain mind also. — Mark Nyquist

"Mind" is what sufficiently complex brains (i.e. central nervous systems) do – how they phenomenally-semiotically interact with their environments. "Mind" is actuaally mind-ing – a predicate rather than a thing – like digesting or dancing. That's only a simplistic conceptual description of "mind"(ing) – that's all philosophy (whether via a materialist/physicalist or immaterialist/non-physicalist paradigm) can provide; and it's early days yet for any testable, scientific "explanation".

I spoke too soon. Emergent materialism has no theory of information so is deficient in that area.
If you added a definition of information being brain state and brain state only it might be alright.
Any philosophy dealing with abstract concepts would be a red flag.

As I see it, philosophy only deals with "abstract concepts" (e.g. ideas, interpretations, criteria, formalisms, thought-experiments, etc) since it lacks any means of its own to examine or explain concrete objects (i.e. phenomena). Philosophy doesn't explain anything; ar best it questions and/or clarifies how we conceptualize – simplify, map – our ways of being in the world.

I was thinking abstract concepts can only exist in our brains but not externally. For example information is sometimes defined as an abstract concept and there is a common belief that information exists outside of our brains. There is a tendency to bestow "information" to physical objects when it really only exists in our brains/minds. A book has information, the internet has information, information desk, information booth, 411, information packets...we have externalized information in our language. But really what we are doing is encoding and decoding physical matter for brain to brain communication.

Right, it does not make these laws wrong, it makes them false. They can still be correct, as long as we invoke some sort of dualism or something like that, to account for the incommensurability between our principles for measuring the world, and the reality of the world. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think this is the main difference between us. I choose not to try to fill in gaps in our knowledge, with unnecessary terms like god(I am not suggesting YOU have employed this term), immaterial or dualism. The 'perfect' measure of the speed of light in unattainable. So is achieving human omniscience. To me, if we ever achieve the omnis, then our existence would become as ridiculous and pointless as any conception of god.
Let's continue to debate and confirm what we know and where we can go from here. Let's resist any temptation to plug gaps or incompletions in our scientific knowledge, with useless (imo) concepts, such as immaterialism, dualism or god. The conservation of energy is not false it is just imperfect.

In his book 'The Biggest Ideas In The Universe (space, time and motion,)' Sean Carroll writes about the conservation of energy.
"Both momentum and energy are conserved in classical mechanics, but kinetic energy by itself is not, since it can be converted into (or created from) other kinds of energy."
"Noether's theorem states that every smooth, continuous symmetry transformation of a system is associated with the conservation of some quantity."
"Our universe is expanding; faraway galaxies are gradually moving away from one another as time passes. Consequently, there is a sense in which energy is not conserved in an expanding universe."

I think Sean demonstrates some of the imperfection present in the conservation laws.

I was thinking abstract concepts can only exist in our brains but not externally. — Mark Nyquist

What do you call that type of art hung in galleries like the tate modern, you know, the paintings and sculptures with blobs and strange weird and obscure shapes and such?

Abstract things exist outside of any one individuals brain. Hence why they are interpretative. If art wasn't abstract it would be photography, and even photography can be abstract. So maybe even more extreme, it woukd be mathematics or binary code.

Just because something isn't consistent, universal, replicated, repeating, doesn't mean it's not important.

The PBS spacetime YouTube show also says in a couple episodes that conservation of energy doesn't always apply in physics

Okay, then cite some of those "experiments" (or the relevant literature) to which you're referring. — 180 Proof

Why are you so helpless 180?
https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Energy_loss#:~:text=When%20energy%20is%20transformed%20from,form%20of%20energy%2C%20like%20heat.

Notice, there is always energy loss, and "Energy losses are what prevent processes from ever being 100% efficient." Hence the inductive conclusion I made, the law of conservation has been proven to be false.

I think this is the main difference between us. I choose not to try to fill in gaps in our knowledge, with unnecessary terms like god(I am not suggesting YOU have employed this term), immaterial or dualism. The 'perfect' measure of the speed of light in unattainable. So is achieving human omniscience. To me, if we ever achieve the omnis, then our existence would become as ridiculous and pointless as any conception of god.
Let's continue to debate and confirm what we know and where we can go from here. Let's resist any temptation to plug gaps or incompletions in our scientific knowledge, with useless (imo) concepts, such as immaterialism, dualism or god. The conservation of energy is not false it is just imperfect. — universeness

I can't agree to this framework you've proposed here, because we cannot designate the law of conservation as "imperfect". The problem is that it is exactly opposite to this. The law is an ideal, a statement of perfection in the conservation of energy. In reality, in practise, there is no perfect or ideal conservation of energy. Yet we keep talking about this law, of a perfect or ideal conservation, as if it is a true representation, and we are led to believe that the reason why there is no perfect conservation in our practise is because we are no able to perfect our practise apparatus.

So here is the problem. Instead of recognizing that the principle itself is false (an ideal representation of an imperfect world), and recognizing that the world is simply not a type of world where "energy" as we conceive of it, is conserved, we delude ourselves into thinking that in the world energy actually is conserved, and our practises are just not capable of detecting what happens to all the energy. Therefore we are engaged in self-deception. We have a conception of "energy" whereby it is stipulated that in the world, energy is conserved, when we know that it is not conserved in the imperfect world. We then attribute this latter fact, that energy is actually not conserved, to our observational capacities and practises, as being "imperfect", rather than attributing the imperfection to the whole world itself.

So I suggest to you, that the imperfection here involves the way that our concept of "energy" corresponds with the reality of the world. And this type of imperfection (misrepresentation) is most properly called a falsity. We disguise this falsity, this fact that our conception of energy is false, with the self-deception described above, by saying that this ideal, perfect, conception really is a true representation, and only our practises are less than perfect. But in reality the conception is a perfect, ideal, and the whole world itself is less than perfect. There is no ideal conservation in the world. So the energy loss which is evidenced by the fact that we cannot obtain perfect efficiency is a real feature of the world, there is not one hundred percent conservation anywhere, and our conception of energy is simply a misunderstanding. But we delude ourselves by saying that the concept is true and only our practises are imperfect, while the rest of the universe behaves in that perfect ideal way.

Here's an example by analogy. In ancient philosophy, idealists like the Pythagoreans held on to the idea of a perfect circular motion. An object moving in a perfect circle retraces the same path over and over again without any wavering and therefore has no beginning or end, and this constitutes an eternal motion. This idea came to Aristotle through Plato, and it was used to justify the idea of an eternal immortal soul. Only a soul, or mind, could be said to be the cause of the eternal circular orbits of the planets, and so this soul was therefore itself eternal and immortal.

So Aristotle exposed the problem with this idea in his book "On the Heavens". Yes, he said that eternal circular motion is possible, and, it is true that if there is perfect circular motion it would be eternal. But, he said that the orbits of the planets are not like this, and the planets are not eternal in their motions. The planets are material and as such have a beginning and ending, therefore it is impossible that the orbits are eternal circular motions.

Please take note now, of the lesson to be learned here. It was only by determining the falsity of the principle, the ideal, eternal circular motion, that astronomers could move forward, and model the orbits as other than circular, which led to the modern understanding of the solar system. It was imperative for them to recognize the falsity of the principle, that the perfection of the ideal did not exist in the real universe, for them to be able to move toward a true understanding of these motions. Now we have a very similar situation with the concept of energy. We have a similar false principle, an ideal, eternal energy conservation. Only by recognizing that this perfect ideal is false, that energy is not actually conserved in reality, in the true motions of things, that we will be able to move forward with a true understanding of time, motion, and all the real things involved in the concept of energy.

In his book 'The Biggest Ideas In The Universe (space, time and motion,)' Sean Carroll writes about the conservation of energy.
"Both momentum and energy are conserved in classical mechanics, but kinetic energy by itself is not, since it can be converted into (or created from) other kinds of energy."
"Noether's theorem states that every smooth, continuous symmetry transformation of a system is associated with the conservation of some quantity."
"Our universe is expanding; faraway galaxies are gradually moving away from one another as time passes. Consequently, there is a sense in which energy is not conserved in an expanding universe."

I think Sean demonstrates some of the imperfection present in the conservation laws. — universeness

This is good example, as a starting place. But notice the mentioned "symmetry transformation". "Symmetry" is such a perfect ideal which is actually false. So we have a whole class of these ideals, which are actually false, which have emerged out of this false ideal of energy conservation, which are simply misunderstandings, but can be very misleading to undisciplined metaphysicians.

Notice, there is always energy loss, and "Energy losses are what prevent processes from ever being 100% efficient." Hence the inductive conclusion I made, the law of conservation has been proven to be false. — Metaphysician Undercover

I have no skin in this discussion, but am just pointing out that you have misinterpreted this article. Per your link:

Energy undergoes many conversions and takes on many different forms as it moves. Every conversion that it undergoes has some associated "loss" of energy. Although this energy doesn't actually disappear, some amount of the initial energy turns into forms that are not usable or we do not want to use.

In the context of your link, the term Energy Loss refers to the energy that "is converted to a different form".

I am not making any claim about the truth or falsehood of the Law of Conservation here. I am simply pointing out that your example does not lead to your conclusion.

Carry on.

I can't agree to this framework you've proposed here, because we cannot designate the law of conservation as "imperfect". — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes we can, especially if we accept that 'perfect has no existent.'

The law is an ideal, a statement of perfection in the conservation of energy. In reality, in practise, there is no perfect or ideal conservation of energy. Yet we keep talking about this law, of a perfect or ideal conservation, as if it is a true representation, and we are led to believe that the reason why there is no perfect conservation in our practise is because we are no able to perfect our practise apparatus. — Metaphysician Undercover

No measurement of a quantity is ever 100% correct. distance, time, density, none are 100% correct.
Is the distance actually 1cm or 0.999999999999999999999999912.......... cm.
You are over burdening the word LAW.

And this type of imperfection (misrepresentation) is most properly called a falsity. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, that's why science uses error bars! It is not a falsity, it just does not claim 100% accuracy.

there is not one hundred percent conservation anywhere, and our conception of energy is simply a misunderstanding. But we delude ourselves by saying that the concept is true and only our practises are imperfect, while the rest of the universe behaves in that perfect ideal way. — Metaphysician Undercover

We are OF the universe and FROM the universe. The fact that we are not perfect, to me, is probably because the universe is unable to produce perfection. I think our understanding of energy is spectacular, considering, we have achieved that understanding within a few seconds, on the cosmic calendar scale.

Please take note now, of the lesson to be learned here. It was only by determining the falsity of the principle, the ideal, eternal circular motion, that astronomers could move forward, and model the orbits as other than circular, which led to the modern understanding of the solar system. It was imperative for them to recognize the falsity of the principle, that the perfection of the ideal did not exist in the real universe, for them to be able to move toward a true understanding of these motions. — Metaphysician Undercover

The principle was not false, it was just that some of the assumptions and projections were wrong. Many planets do orbit on a path which is 'almost' circular. The motion is not eternal, or perpetual and there was no supernatural, immaterial, duality involved. They were correct about a circle, it has no beginning/end, unless you impose one.
So, correcting the flaws in the thinking of the ancients was not as hard, as trying to understand quantum mechanics, for example.

Now we have a very similar situation with the concept of energy. We have a similar false principle, an ideal, eternal energy conservation. Only by recognizing that this perfect ideal is false, that energy is not actually conserved in reality, in the true motions of things, that we will be able to move forward with a true understanding of time, motion, and all the real things involved in the concept of energy. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, physicists are fully aware, that the language used to describe the structure and workings of the universe is not IDEAL, not perfect. You seem to be bogged down with tiny 'error bar' imperfections made by formulae calculations, from a scenario such as:
A system has an energy equivalence of 50 joules. It then goes though energy transformations, and the resultant system has an energy equivalence of 50 joules, when IN REALITY its 49.999999999999921356 Joules and we can't yet account for the missing fraction.
We can still move forward to new discoveries in science, quite comfortably.
We can always keep an eye out or a detector running, in our search for that tiny missing energy fraction as we continue with our large hadron collider experiments.

So we have a whole class of these ideals, which are actually false, which have emerged out of this false ideal of energy conservation, which are simply misunderstandings, but can be very misleading to undisciplined metaphysicians. — Metaphysician Undercover

If physicists tried to use language and many, many exemplars, to explain every circumstance in which a particular law of physics might produce a solution which varies a little from that which the law exactly predicted, then a typical physics book would be as big as the entire encyclopaedia Britannica collection. I think the likes of Sean Carroll does the best he can. He can't afford to be overly concerned with the musings of undisciplined metaphysicians or even disciplined ones.

Physicists are burdened to explain the nuances/error margins, of incredibly complicated system, to lay people. A very difficult task indeed.

Nice try, but it won't help.

I don't see the conservation of energy as all that relevant. What is more interesting is the small amount of energy used in our brains can have a multiplier effect and direct great amounts of energy.

We shouldn't let Bartricks claim immaterial events in our minds consume no energy. They do use some fraction of our calorie intake.

The law of Conservation of Energy is bookkeeping.

By definition a closed system is one in which energy is conserved. If a system has a net increase or decrease in total energy, it is not closed.

Or alternately, a closed system is one that is symmetrical. Hence Noether's theorem. Such symmetrical systems elicit conservation laws.

Bookkeeping being mistaken for metaphysics.

In the context of your link, the term Energy Loss refers to the energy that "is converted to a different form". — EricH

Look at the first sentence in the article: "When energy is transformed from one form to another, or moved from one place to another, or from one system to another there is energy loss." So, any time there is an interaction of things (energy is moved from one place to another) there is a loss of energy. In other words there is a continual loss of energy.

I am not making any claim about the truth or falsehood of the Law of Conservation here. I am simply pointing out that your example does not lead to your conclusion. — EricH

I think it states exactly my conclusion, contrary to the law of conservation, there is always energy loss.

No measurement of a quantity is ever 100% correct. distance, time, density, none are 100% correct.
Is the distance actually 1cm or 0.999999999999999999999999912.......... cm.
You are over burdening the word LAW. — universeness

This is not a matter of .0000000000000000000001 per cent, or something miniscule like that. The energy loss in any transaction is significant. If you can show me a system with an efficiency which is considerably higher than ninety nine percent, I will take your point. I'm very confident you will not though. Efficiency rates are much lower.

The problem is that we tend to think a certain percentage is lost to friction, some to heat, some to this, some to that, but is we try to measure all the losses we can never measure it all. That would imply that we had a system which captured all the energy, one hundred percent efficiency. But we know this is impossible. So we just write off the losses as inefficiencies.

No, that's why science uses error bars! It is not a falsity, it just does not claim 100% accuracy. — universeness

Error bars are irrelevant. We are not talking about error in the measurements, we are talking about error in the law itself. The law of conservation is an ideal principle which does not correspond with reality. Therefore it is a false principle, just like my example, the ancient ideal that the planetary orbits are eternal circular motions. These are both equally false principles.

The principle was not false, it was just that some of the assumptions and projections were wrong. Many planets do orbit on a path which is 'almost' circular. — universeness

It is very obviously false. The planetary orbits are not perfect circles. Therefore they are not eternal. That ideal was false. Likewise, the ideal that energy is conserved as time passes is also false. And all that follows from this false premise is also unsound.

No, physicists are fully aware, that the language used to describe the structure and workings of the universe is not IDEAL, not perfect. — universeness

The law of conservation of energy is very clearly IDEAL. It states that energy cannot be destroyed, it only converts from one form to another. Therefore "energy", by this law exists in an eternal and unchanging quantity. That is a perfect, unchanging quantity. If this is not IDEAL, then what is IDEAL?

A system has an energy equivalence of 50 joules. It then goes though energy transformations, and the resultant system has an energy equivalence of 50 joules — universeness

Show me this system which has 50 joules, and maintains 50 joules after energy transformations. That's 100 percent efficiency. No system has 100 percent efficiency, according to the article I linked, so I think you are just making things up, to support what you believe.

By definition a closed system is one in which energy is conserved. — Banno

Yes, this is the Ideal, the closed system. In reality there is no such thing as a closed system, by this definition, there is no existing system in which energy is conserved.

We can look at the consequences, or conclusion, of this reality (that there is no such thing as a closed system) in two different ways. We can conclude that it is physically possible to have a closed system, therefore the definition actually describes something real, a situation in which energy would be conserved, accepting this as a real possibility, and this seems to be the way that everyone here, other than me looks at the law of conservation. They think that a system in which energy is conserved is a real possibility.

Or, we can conclude as I do, that it is physically impossible to have a closed system, a system in which energy is conserved, and look at this as a feature of the universe, that there is no such thing as a closed system, and there cannot be such a thing as a closed system, and energy is not ever conserved. With this comes the conclusion that the law of conservation is a falsity. This is just like my example of the ancients who believed in the Ideal, that the planetary orbits were eternal circular motions. It wasn't until Aristotle demonstrated that an eternal circular motion is physically impossible, due to the role of matter in any circular motion, that this ideal (eternal circular motion of the planets) was finally rejected. Likewise, we need to reject this idea of a closed system, to understand the true nature of the universe.

We shouldn't let Bartricks claim immaterial events in our minds consume no energy. — Mark Nyquist

I think it's more important to challenge the proposal that a 'mind event' is an 'immaterial event.'

Show me this system which has 50 joules, and maintains 50 joules after energy transformations. That's 100 percent efficiency. No system has 100 percent efficiency, according to the article I linked, so I think you are just making things up, to support what you believe. — Metaphysician Undercover

It might be better for you to start a new thread on a physics forum, which employs the detailed results, from an actual conservation of energy experiment. You can challenge physicists, based on your interpretation of the results from the experiment. There are some straight forward examples available online, such as:
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/physics/experiment-study-conservation-energy-8335.php
Results and Conclusion:

For task 1: we have found that total energy remains constant during the motion of the glider until the collision occurs. Thus law of conservation is verified and its limitation (inelastic collision) is found.
For task 2: By comparing the total energy before collision with the total energy after collision, we conclude that the collision is inelastic. Also, we showed that by using the arbitrariness of the value of PE we can set the total energy of a sliding object to be zero.
By varying two continuous parameters mass of the glider and initial height of the glider, we found that increasing any one of them leads to a decrease in the value of coefficient of restitution. Since smaller value of coefficient of restitution means greater loss of energy, we conclude that: by increasing height or by increasing mass, more energy is lost during the collision. The physical reasoning behind this conclusion can be understood. In both the cases, increasing height or increasing mass, the maximum PE (mgh) increases. This entire maximum PE becomes maximum KE just before the collision. Thus more energy is lost during the collision.

In his book 'The Biggest Ideas In The Universe (space, time and motion,)' Sean Carroll writes about the conservation of energy.
"Both momentum and energy are conserved in classical mechanics, but kinetic energy by itself is not, since it can be converted into (or created from) other kinds of energy."
"Noether's theorem states that every smooth, continuous symmetry transformation of a system is associated with the conservation of some quantity."
"Our universe is expanding; faraway galaxies are gradually moving away from one another as time passes. Consequently, there is a sense in which energy is not conserved in an expanding universe." — universeness

My understanding was that dark energy, which expands the universe, gains proportionally from other forms of energy within the universe, and the total energy within it will always be zero. In what sense is Sean saying energy is not conserved in an expanding universe?

I hold the view that our brains have the ability to hold and put parameters on things that don't exist, are immaterial, are physical impossibilities or just nonsense. These things must be totally supported by a functioning brain. So a mind event is always a brain event and the immaterial component should be acknowledged and considered.

You are right to question the immaterial and immaterial events. On their own they are non-existent and can not experience events.
But as they exist they are part of brain state and can experience events.