No, I haven't read any of Spinoza's writings. Most of what I know comes from books and articles about his life & philosophy. And the general impression I got was that his deus sive natura description was intended to avoid attributing any transcendent or super-natural characteristics to his nature-god, hence Pantheism or more accurately PanDeism.More panentheist than pantheist; I think Spinoza understood God to be both immanent to and transcendent of nature, and by that, I mean transcendent of nature as we know it; knowing which is exclusively under the attributes of extensa and cogitans. Spinoza believed those are just the two of God's infinite attributes that we humans can know. Have you read Spinoza's Ethics? — Janus
I agree that our subjective "mode of understanding" is suspect, but in the expression "natural fact", I was referring to the scientific evidence that Nature is inherently statistical (random chance) in its fundamental behaviors*1. Some might interpret the statistical nature of waveforms as a sign that coin-flipping Luck is a feature of natural processes. Hence, a smidgen of doubt smudged the surety of classical physics."Appears to be a natural fact", doesn't get us anywhere. it always appeared to be a natural fact, but that's irrelevant. The fact is that "uncertainty" is a property of the subject, not the object. And, it is always caused by the subject's mode of understanding not being properly suited to the reality of the object which it is attempting to apprehend. It makes no sense to blame the object here, therefore the subject's mode of understanding needs to be scrutinized. — Metaphysician Undercover
We have to be careful here. Saying that body and mind are different things (res) is more that making a conceptual distinction. The distinction pre-dates Descartes. Aristotle and Aquinas distinguished intellect from sense as "a bodily process." That does not divide[ them. It is just saying that one being can act in different ways. They also knew that we needed physical representations (phantasms) to think and Aquinas knew that brain trauma interfered with thinking.Descartes categorically "divided" Soul from Body ; which in more modern terms might translate to a conceptual distinction between Mind and Brain. — Gnomon
That would involve equivocating on "matter." In dialoging with such a person, I would ask for a clear definition. We can give words technical definitions to articulate our thought, but it is a sign of confusion to use common word with uncommon intent, and not define what we mean.A Monistic Materialist might assume that ultimately Mind is just a different kind of Matter, so the distinction is artificial, not natural. — Gnomon
I have explained why we cannot divide res cogitans from res extensa. The current use of substance is not one to which I subscribe. Instead I follow Aristotle in taking the primary realities (ousia = "substance"), to be ostensible unities (his tode ti = this something), like electrons, viruses, bacteria, cows and people. Different systems can have different sorts of unity so people, the earth, the solar system, our galaxy and so on are all unities, and so substances, in their own way.Apparently, you have either a different meaning of "divide", or a different Prime Substance, in mind. — Gnomon
Thus, materialists need to rethink their fundamental beliefs. For example, Daniel Dennett starts Consciousness Explained by saying he is a metaphysical naturalist. He then proves, to his own satisfaction, that there can be no physical reduction of consciousness. When I studied science, that was called the falsification of a hypothesis. For Dennett, it is a reason to discard data, for he concludes that there is no consciousness.Aristotle's "Self-Thinker" sounds like a dis-embodied Mind, and for a Materialist, would fall into the same nonsense category with Ghosts and Circular Logic. — Gnomon
As do I.I accept that all of the Minds in my sensory experience have been associated with meat Brains — Gnomon
It sounds like a kind of hylomorphism, which is conceiving of bodies in terms of matter (hyle) and form (morphos). Aristotle sees form, not as shape, but as a thing's actuality (energeia). Similarly he thinks of matter, not as extension, but as the potential to assume form.So, the question arises : what is the relationship between Math and Mind? My answer is that both are subvenient (dependent) forms of the universal Power-to-Enform (Energy + Information = EnFormAction). That unconventional notion is not a derivative of pure Idealism, but a conjugation of Idealism & Physicalism. Or, as I like to call it Enformationism. — Gnomon
Modernism is not modernity. It is a modern worldview, or some aspects of that view, that some find offensive. I do not understand exactly what they are offended by. Neither do I understand what you object to about liberal democracy.I have never understood what "modernism" means — Dfpolis
I understand modernity as the period between the publication of Newton's Principia and Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (or more precisely, the legendary 1927 Solvay Conference where quantum theory was introduced). — Wayfarer
The problem is that there is can be no more and less in comparing commensurates. That was the point of my question and is the fundamental flaw with utility theories. You cannot value a liter of oxygen against a liter of water. You need both, and no amount of one will meet your need for the other.I have to say I don't really know. I will choose that which motivates me more, and what motivates me more is a characteristic of my nature (my nature at the specified time, since it might change). So, for example, presuming that you were referring to someone of sexual interest, the choice I make might depend on the strength of my libido at the time. — Janus
No. There are no Ideal Beings. There are only real and imaginary beings. We have different ideas about things because they can act in different ways. Red apples can cause us to experience red qualia. Sweet apples can cause us to experience sweet qualia.So, how do thought and matter interact? They don't -- because the question is ill-formed. What we have is being, with different beings having different capabilities. — Dfpolis
Is that negation based on a distinction between Real Things and Ideal Beings? — Gnomon
Things are defined in terms of their operational capabilities. Acorns can sprout into oaks, non-acorns cannot. When a thing acts on us in a certain way, we learn that it can act in that way. When I was a child, I learned that the thing that caused the image of a bee in me could also sting. Thus, my knowledge of the operational capabilities (the essence) of bees increased, even though it remains imperfect to this day.Yet, you say that "thought and matter" have different (dual?) "capabilities". If "capability" is taken to mean the ability to affect other "beings", how would you characterize that innate power? — Gnomon
Bodies also also exchange momentum and angular momentum in interacting. Also, how much energy a body has depends on the frame of reference in which it is measured.Extended Matter interacts with other things via exchanges of Energy. Do you think that Thinking Beings interact via Intention? — Gnomon
Well, if you mean do think there is an ultimate cause, yes, I do. I am not a neutral monist, because I do not think in terms of substance as a "stuff" which is formed into experienced objects. That, view, even in Cartesian dualism, is fundamentally materialistic. It conceives of everything as "made of" one or more kinds of "stuff." Maybe that stuff is matter, or energy, or res cogitans, or a Spinozan substance than can become material or spiritual things.Apparently, your objection to the Dualistic (proximate appearance) aspect is based on a Monistic (ultimate Ideality) worldview, in which Mind & Matter can be traced back to some primordial Origin, with the potential for both Material things and Mental beings. Is that summary anywhere close to your understanding? — Gnomon
It cannot be. Things that are purely potential are not actual, and things that are not actual cannot act. Evolving is an action, and so requires something actual to effect it.In my thesis, the Ultimate Origin (First Cause) is neither Mind nor Matter, but the Potential for evolving a plethora of material Things & living Creatures & Thinking Beings in the Real world — Gnomon
Aristotle showed, in many ways, that Plato's concept of Ideas lead to many inconsistencies, and could play no role in becoming. So, these two pieces of the puzzle don't match.And I use physical Energy as a metaphor for the "interactions" between those offspring of Plato's hypothetical ideal FORM*2 (configuration ; manifestation ; design), and Aristotle's original Prime Mover (causation ; creation). — Gnomon
I am fine with this, except to say that the theory of evolution must be mute on consciousness because it explains adaptation physically, and physics has no intentional effects. No one has reduced intentional realities to a physical basis.From those different aspects of Monistic Potential, I can trace Cosmology from an initial Bang of omnidirectional Causation, which transformed into the dual aspects of Energy & Matter, and thence into the manifold Darwinian "forms most beautiful". Some of those sub-forms have material Properties and some have immaterial Qualities, such as Life & Mind. Does any of that conjecture make sense from your non-dual perspective? — Gnomon
This is an Augustinian insight I touch upon in my current paper.'m not mentioning that as an exhortation to a specifically Catholic philosophy, but as preserving what I think of as a kind of universalist insight. Firstly the idea that there's a kind of understanding which also requires a transformation in order for it to be meaningful. Secondly that this is not easy or painless. I don't see an equivalent of that in much of secular philosophy. — Wayfarer
This is not the place to argue this. Let's just say that my education puts me in a better position to judge.I don't agree with this. — Metaphysician Undercover
No, they do not. They generate the light pulses we call photons, which have a finite duration in order to have a well-defined frequency (because of the uncertainty principle). So, we can tell how long the transitions take. Further, the transitions are much better described as wave phenomena than as particle phenomena. The electrons in each level have a well-defined energy and so a well-defined frequency.But the actual jumps seem to occur almost instantaneously. — Gnomon
The way at this problem is to see what it is to be intentional, and then ask does being intentional require being physical.You seem to simply beg the question that intentionality can exist without physicality. The problem is that you can't provide any evidence of intentionality without physicality, so it seems you take the possibility of intentionality sans physicality on faith. — wonderer1
A "a physical interpretive context" begs the question. The interpretive context depends on the minds of human interpreters. Meaning is not physical. No application of physics will show that X means Y. So, the interpretive context is essentially intentional, not physical except incidentally.Meaning depends on a physical interpretive context. The fact that aababbab doesn't have any clear meaning outside a physical interpretive context isn't relevant to anything. — wonderer1
If you mean by "a physical interpretive context" that people with brains interpret, I agree. That does not mean that what they know is material.As far as I can tell there is no intelligibility outside a physically interpretive context so I think that you need to provide some reason to believe that there can be intelligibility outside a physically interpretive context. — wonderer1
My brain state also supervenes on the orbital motion of Halley's comment. Supervenience has absolutely no explanatory power. Tell me something that matters. Like what causes what.You seem to be getting inputs and outputs confused. Your retinal state supervenes on the physical effect of an apple reflecting light from a light source into your eye. Your brain state supervenes on your retinal state. — wonderer1
When you are thinking about the apple you see, you will have a different neural state than when contemplating light striking your retina. — wonderer1
Not alone. A human mind that understands the language is also required -- both for endoding and decoding. Without that intentional capability (the ability to transform marks into meaning and vice versa), there is no encoding. There are only weird ink stains.Physical ink arranged on physical paper serves just fine for encoding Godel's theorems. — wonderer1
How does it get decoded into a concept when required? We do not perceive the pulse rates or neurotransmitter concentrations. So, how do we know what is encoded?Neural states can encode the concept. — wonderer1
So, with that additional information, I have developed a PanEnDeistic worldview, that postulates some kind of Causal Power and Logical Laws that existed before the Big Bang beginning of our little bubble of space-time. — Gnomon
You can say that Jane (or John) excites you more than Mary (or Martin), but you cannot say that being with Jane or John is more valuable than 11 views of Yosemite Falls, but less than 12 views. To say that one is "more motivating" explains nothing. It just says the motive associated with the choice you actually make is more motivating -- rather like saying that this medicine makes you sleepy because it is a soporific. — Dfpolis
I have no problem with this, but it does not support determinism, because it does not point to a source of value beyond your own agency.Being with someone I am sufficiently attracted to may indeed be more valuable to me that any number of views of Yosemite Falls. If am more motivated by one than the other then, absent addiction, the more motivating one is more valuable to me. — Janus
Still, if there are no sound arguments, why should I try to escape responsibility for my decisions? — Dfpolis
Modernism is not modernity. It is a modern worldview, or some aspects of that view, that some find offensive. I do not understand exactly what they are offended by. Neither do I understand what you object to about liberal democracy. — Dfpolis
I see liberals as supporting the value of each individual, not their "sovereignty." And, I do not see materialism as a consensus view, although I do see it as a powerful intellectual and social thread.It's simply the emphasis on the sovereignty of self or ego, on the one hand, and the consensus view of philosophical or scientific materialism, that is associated with political liberalism on the other. — Wayfarer
I agree that our subjective "mode of understanding" is suspect, but in the expression "natural fact", I was referring to the scientific evidence that Nature is inherently statistical (random chance) in its fundamental behaviors*1. Some might interpret the statistical nature of waveforms as a sign that coin-flipping Luck is a feature of natural processes. Hence, a smidgen of doubt smudged the surety of classical physics. — Gnomon
So nobody is "blaming the object" ; merely accepting that statistical probabilistic uncertainty is inherent intrinsic immanent in physical Nature. — Gnomon
This is not the place to argue this. Let's just say that my education puts me in a better position to judge. — Dfpolis
No, they do not. They generate the light pulses we call photons, which have a finite duration in order to have a well-defined frequency (because of the uncertainty principle). So, we can tell how long the transitions take. Further, the transitions are much better described as wave phenomena than as particle phenomena. The electrons in each level have a well-defined energy and so a well-defined frequency. — Dfpolis
No, that is not the reason you are wrong. It is a reason to trust my views more. The reasons you are wrong are outside the scope of this thread.Instead of addressing the valid points I brought up, points which are very relevant to the subject, "interactionism", you retort with an implied 'you're wrong because I'm more highly educated than you'. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, I can, but I choose not to here.If you really have the education which you claim, you could very easily show me why you think I'm wrong. — Metaphysician Undercover
Philosophically, I agree that waves are modifications of something; however, saying that contributes nothing to the goal of physics, which is to describe the behavior, and not the ontology, of physical systems. For physics, it is enough that the waves can be described in space and time. If a hypothesis about what they modified, say that it was made of particles or strings, led to a better description, then it would be relevant to physics.The problem here is that without a medium (aether or whatever), a substance to support this so-called "wave phenomena", it is fundamentally immaterial. — Metaphysician Undercover
This misconceives measurement. The instruments are also wave structures.Clearly, what we have here is an interaction problem between the immaterial waves (with no material substance), and the material bodies (instruments of measurement). — Metaphysician Undercover
Quantum field theories, like all scientific theories, are hypotheses to explain observed facts. To the extent that they do so, they are adequate to reality and so true. Their truth is not absolute, but limited to how they actually reflect reality. So, it is open to refinement and revision.Quantum field theory and the standard model of particles are composed of immaterial ideals which have no direct correspondence in the physical world. If you have the education you claim, you know this. The truth of this is evidenced by the reality assigned to symmetry in the models, when such symmetries are simply not discovered in nature. Symmetries are ideals which may be artificially synthesized to an extent, in a lab, but have no true occurrence in the natural world. — Metaphysician Undercover
It does not because physical symmetries are not interacting things, but properties of interactions of things.And this manifests as the problem of how the ideal world of symmetries described by the standard model could interact with the world of material bodies which we live in. — Metaphysician Undercover
OK, but I was using the term "coin-flipping" metaphorically, not literally. Einstein used the similar metaphor of God playing dice, to ridicule the quantum evidence that Nature is inherently indeterminate*1*2. Also, I was not talking about un-natural Random Number Generators. Instead, I was referring to the innate Quantum Indeterminacy that provoked Heisenberg to define his Uncertainty Principle in terms of statistical Probability*3.The whole idea that coin-flipping is evidence of natural random chance is fundamentally flawed. The production of this random chance type of event is intentionally designed, as are all examples of such random chance generators, so these examples do nothing to support the claim of naturally occurring random chance events. — Metaphysician Undercover
Did you notice that I qualified "instantaneous" with "almost". We're talking about Planck Time here. I suppose your definition of "instantaneous" is more rigidly rigorous than mine. Do you have a good reason for picking nits about metaphors? :joke:But the actual jumps seem to occur almost instantaneously. — Gnomon
No, they do not. They generate the light pulses we call photons, which have a finite duration in order to have a well-defined frequency (because of the uncertainty principle). So, we can tell how long the transitions take. Further, the transitions are much better described as wave phenomena than as particle phenomena. The electrons in each level have a well-defined energy and so a well-defined frequency. — Dfpolis
No, the times are much longer than the Planck time. Different spectral lines have different frequency widths. The transition time is proportional to the inverse of the associated frequency width. See http://www-star.st-and.ac.uk/~kw25/teaching/nebulae/lecture08_linewidths.pdfDid you notice that I qualified "instantaneous" with "almost". We're talking about Planck Time here. — Gnomon
Yes, because the transition times can be calculated using the wave model.Do you have a good reason for picking nits about metaphors? — Gnomon
OK. I am duly chastened. I'm guilty of using physical concepts as philosophical metaphors . . . without doing the "calculations". :joke:Do you have a good reason for picking nits about metaphors? — Gnomon
Yes, because the transition times can be calculated using the wave model. — Dfpolis
Philosophically, I agree that waves are modifications of something; however, saying that contributes nothing to the goal of physics, which is to describe the behavior, and not the ontology, of physical systems. For physics, it is enough that the waves can be described in space and time. If a hypothesis about what they modified, say that it was made of particles or strings, led to a better description, then it would be relevant to physics. — Dfpolis
This misconceives measurement. The instruments are also wave structures. — Dfpolis
Symmetries are observed in nature. — Dfpolis
It does not because physical symmetries are not interacting things, but properties of interactions of things. — Dfpolis
OK, but I was using the term "coin-flipping" metaphorically, not literally. Einstein used the similar metaphor of God playing dice, to ridicule the quantum evidence that Nature is inherently indeterminate*1*2. Also, I was not talking about un-natural Random Number Generators. Instead, I was referring to the innate Quantum Indeterminacy that provoked Heisenberg to define his Uncertainty Principle in terms of statistical Probability*3. — Gnomon
Since you found my implication that Nature is not rigidly Deterministic problematic, are you a strict classical Determinist*4 like Einstein? — Gnomon
Again, this is blatantly wrong, and I'm sure you know it. Energy is not measured by waves structures, it is measured by electrical voltage. — Metaphysician Undercover
In physics, an electronvolt (symbol eV, also written electron-volt and electron volt) is the measure of an amount of kinetic energy gained by a single electron accelerating from rest through an electric potential difference of one volt in vacuum. When used as a unit of energy, the numerical value of 1 eV in joules (symbol J) is equivalent to the numerical value of the charge of an electron in coulombs (symbol C). Under the 2019 redefinition of the SI base units, this sets 1 eV equal to the exact value 1.602176634×10−19 J.[1]
I do not say "by," but "in" space and time.that waves cannot be described simply by space and time. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, but not the ontology of quantum waves.Furthermore, the subject of the thread is an ontological topic — Metaphysician Undercover
No, I know that material things are wave structures. I did not say what the units of energy are. They are not volts.This misconceives measurement. The instruments are also wave structures. — Dfpolis
Again, this is blatantly wrong, and I'm sure you know it. Energy is not measured by waves structures, it is measured by electrical voltage. — Metaphysician Undercover
Some are. Some are not.And calculations are done in terms of inertial frames and "rest mass" which is essential. — Metaphysician Undercover
Both electromagnetic and matter waves have energy and momentum.These are concepts of classical mechanics of bodies, not waves. — Metaphysician Undercover
Objectively, all physical instruments are wave structures. Subjectively, many people fail to understand this.What kind of instruments are understood to be wave structures? — Metaphysician Undercover
It makes perfect since once you realize that the electrons and nucleons composing atoms are waves.it doesn't make sense to claim that they are — Metaphysician Undercover
Once you realize that electrons are waves, you need to rethink your understanding of massive bodies.So the certainty of this understanding of light waves is dependent on the certainty of the theories which relate it to the foundation, the movement of massive bodies, and ultimately the foundation itself, our understanding of the movement of massive bodies. — Metaphysician Undercover
They underlie the classical understanding, not our quantum understanding. Now we understand that energy depends on the frequency at which elementary structures vibrate. E = h where h is Planck's constant and is the frequency.it's simple fact that these are the concepts which underly our understanding of energy. — Metaphysician Undercover
That is only a non-relativistic approximation. It was how the concept was first glimpsed, but it is not how it is understood now. Now we understand energy as the dynamic variable conjugate to time. To explain that, I would have to explain the conceptual framework of theoretical physics, and that is why I ask that you trust my opinion based on my education. If you wish to pursue this, look up Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formalism, and Emmy Noether's theoremThis is because "energy" as a concept is fundamentally a property of the momentum of mass (kinetic energy being 1/2mv2). — Metaphysician Undercover
All observations are imperfect. In observing you, I do not gain perfect knowledge of you. Nonetheless observation is the basis of all human knowledge. It may well be that energy is not perfectly conserved. Still, that is very approximately conserved is a real feature of nature and points to nearly perfect time-translation symmetry.Symmetries are not observed in nature. Each thing that we observe as a near-symmetry is not actually a symmetry, which is an ideal balance. — Metaphysician Undercover
No. They point to real features of nature. Omniscience is not a rational standard for human knowledge. We know as humans know -- incompletely and approximately in matters involving measurement.Laws are artificial, and created as universals so your examples are irrelevant. — Metaphysician Undercover
There are no universal beings to partake in. Aristotle rebutted Platonic Ideas in Metaphysics I, 9 and universal exemplars ideas are incompatible with the simplicity, omniscience and omnipotence of God.there is an interaction problem involved with trying to demonstrate how the particular partakes of the universal. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes. Symmetries are not observed, but deduced. Like constellations in the sky, the inferred patterns are mental, not material ; subjective, not objective. It's good to be aware of that distinction when engaged in metaphysical discussions. Symmetries are, however, handy tools for mathematical analysis of topological transformations. :smile:Symmetries are observed in nature. — Dfpolis
Symmetries are not observed in nature. — Metaphysician Undercover
Hmmm. What "method" was I using to reach the conclusion that Nature is not rigidly deterministic?? Actually, I'm not qualified to derive such a conclusion. I was just accepting the opinions of the scientists referenced in the quotesSince you found my implication that Nature is not rigidly Deterministic problematic, are you a strict classical Determinist*4 like Einstein? — Gnomon
No, I'm definitely not rigidly deterministic. I just find that the method you use to reach your conclusion is deeply flawed. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, but not the ontology of quantum waves. — Dfpolis
It makes perfect since once you realize that the electrons and nucleons composing atoms are waves. — Dfpolis
They underlie the classical understanding, not our quantum understanding. Now we understand that energy depends on the frequency at which elementary structures vibrate. E = h where h is Planck's constant and is the frequency. — Dfpolis
Now we understand energy as the dynamic variable conjugate to time. — Dfpolis
Nonetheless observation is the basis of all human knowledge. — Dfpolis
Still, that is very approximately conserved is a real feature of nature and points to nearly perfect time-translation symmetry. — Dfpolis
They point to real features of nature. — Dfpolis
That symmetries are properties does not mean that they do not exist. It only means that they do not have independent existence. — Dfpolis
es. Symmetries are not observed, but deduced. Like constellations in the sky, the inferred patterns are mental, not material ; subjective, not objective. It's good to be aware of that distinction when engaged in metaphysical discussions. Symmetries are, however, handy tools for mathematical analysis of topological transformations. — Gnomon
Quantum waves constitute matter. Wave functions are the mathematical functions describing these matter waves and their interactions. The concept is an ideal, but it is based on the observation of real wave properties, specifically, interference of the type demonstrated in Young's experiment.Quantum waves, or more properly called "wave functions" are ideals, mathematical constructs. They have no physical existence. We ought to start with this clearly stated. — Metaphysician Undercover
We do not represent the structures (they are not bodies in the classical sense) with mass. Rather, mass is a quantity associated with them.The problem is that physicists tend to represent these as bodies with mass. — Metaphysician Undercover
No. There are no bodies -- only waves and waves mischaracterized as "particles" because people apply Newtonian concepts without adequate justification.So, there is an interaction problem between the bodies with mass representation, and the ideal (immaterial) waves representation. — Metaphysician Undercover
We have learned a lot since Planck proposed his Black Body Radiation law 1900 and Einstein his explanation of the photoelectric effect in 1905.Nice try Df, but Planck's law is based in the emission of electromagnetic radiation from bodies (black-body radiation). — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, we use material instruments. That does not make the instruments classical bodies instead of quantum wave structures.The simple fact of the matter is that physicists do not have the required theories, or principles, to measure the energy of wave activity directly, without converting this energy to the activity of a physical body. — Metaphysician Undercover
There is no such interaction. The interactions observed are between the waves being measured and the wave structures (instruments) used to measure them. These interactions are purely physical. The representations are how we conceive of these physical structures and do not involved in the measurement interactions -- only in how we come to know the results.So, there is an interaction problem between the bodies with mass representation, and the ideal (immaterial) waves representation. — Metaphysician Undercover
You need to read the history of modern physics if you want to think about these things. It was assumed that we could measure different speeds of light as the earth passed through the either. In 1887 Albert A. Michelson and Edward Morley attempted to do so, and failed. They measure the same speed in each direction and at different orbital positions of the earth. So, we were forced, experimentally, to conclude that the measured speed of light is invariant. Contrary to popular belief, their experiment did not show that there is no aether, but that one aether theory was false.Instead, it dogmatically imposes unsubstantiated ideals, like the constant speed of light. — Metaphysician Undercover
No, it is not. Fourier transforms enter into the derivation of the uncertainty principle.I understand this, it is derived from the Fourier transform. — Metaphysician Undercover
Whether or not the energy is "high" is irrelevant.our inability to make measurements of high energy in a very short period of time is the reason for the uncertainty of the uncertainty principle, in general. — Metaphysician Undercover
It does. It is a definition in terms of more fundamental concepts.However, stating that energy is understood as "the dynamic variable conjugate to time", does not in any way state what energy is. — Metaphysician Undercover
By observation I mean fixing on or attending to experience, whether internal or external. I am not a physicalist. Read my January paper.This is the physicalist perspective — Metaphysician Undercover
Let me be more precise. I mean we have been unable to detect violations of conservation of energy.OK, you may call it "nearly perfect", but "nearly" is a subjective judgement. — Metaphysician Undercover
But, we can. That is what physics, chemistry, biology, etc. do.The material world which we represent with forms, formal models etc., is not actually as we represent it because we cannot represent the material aspect. — Metaphysician Undercover
That is not what anyone else means by "matter."All we have as representation is forms, and "matter" refers to those accidents which always escape the formal representation. — Metaphysician Undercover
We cannot say that. We can only say that in some cases, we are unable to observe possible imperfections, so, we have no reason to believe that the symmetries are imperfect.What they point to, is the fact that the real features of nature are not perfect symmetries, as modeled. — Metaphysician Undercover
You do not understand the meaning of "symmetry" in physics. It is not the kind of thing that can interact. Rather it is a property of the way things interact.Symmetries are perfectly ideal balances, just like the eternal circular motion described by Aristotle. If that perfect ideal has any interaction with anything else, then by that very interaction, it loses its status as a perfectly ideal balance. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is confused. We make observations and then deduce the consequences. As long as the logic is sound, the conclusions are justified by the observations. If the observations were objective, so are the conclusions.Yes. Symmetries are not observed, but deduced. Like constellations in the sky, the inferred patterns are mental, not material ; subjective, not objective. — Gnomon
that waves cannot be described simply by space and time.
— Metaphysician Undercover
I do not say "by," but "in" space and time. — Dfpolis
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.