Philosophy Discussion Forums

Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 17th, 2020, 3:44 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:I think that energy is a property of dynamic relations of matter. That's different than it just being a property of matter. But the matter is necessary.

Whatever. The point is that this is the reason why you consider it incoherent to propose the existence of energy without matter.

It simply makes no sense. What the F- would we even be talking about? I asked you what we'd be observing and the best you came up with was a suntan. Suntans are skin states. Saying that we're observing skin certainly isn't suggesting something we're observing that somehow exists without being dynamic relations of matter.

If the notion of it is coherent, why would it be like pulling teeth to try to get you to explain what the F we'd even be talking about?

Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 17th, 2020, 3:49 pm Okay. If I were to say: "One form of energy is a thing which travels from one piece of matter to another" would you regard that as stating that energy is a dynamic relation of matter? I think probably not. Would you regard it as incoherent?

I'd want to know just what sort of thing we're talking about. It's too vague to say whether it makes sense or not.

Ok. It's going the way of previous conversations. I'll leave it there for now.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 17th, 2020, 3:55 pm Ok. It's going the way of previous conversations. I'll leave it there for now.

Which suggests that you're simply not capable of presenting a simple coherent account of what we'd even be talking about.

And yeah, that's the way these conversations always go. Same exact thing when people try to claim that there can be nonphysical existents. They never get anywhere at all presenting how the idea of that would even make sense . . .which makes me wonder why anyone believes such things in the first place. If they can't present an account of how those notions make sense, in terms of positive attributes (so other than a list of "not-this", "not that" etc.)--whether I understand them or not--then why would people fall into believing the idea in the first place?

Consul wrote: ↑May 17th, 2020, 3:02 pm ... The physical standard model is a model of matter!
...

Prove it.

Physics correctly treats "energy" as something that is physical and can exist by itself btw.
Hand-waving it away by saying that it's "dynamic relations of matter", is just lazy thinking. We have one neat layer of thinking where we have matter, and we have one neat layer of thinking where we have the dynamic relations of matter.

But can we expect the natural world to correspond to lazy human thinking?

Atla wrote: ↑May 17th, 2020, 5:02 pm Physics correctly treats "energy" as something that is physical and can exist by itself btw.
Hand-waving it away by saying that it's "dynamic relations of matter", is just lazy thinking. We have one neat layer of thinking where we have matter, and we have one neat layer of thinking where we have the dynamic relations of matter.

But can we expect the natural world to correspond to lazy human thinking?

I'm sure you're about to non-lazily explain how energy existing by itself is coherent.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 17th, 2020, 6:00 pm

Atla wrote: ↑May 17th, 2020, 5:02 pm Physics correctly treats "energy" as something that is physical and can exist by itself btw.
Hand-waving it away by saying that it's "dynamic relations of matter", is just lazy thinking. We have one neat layer of thinking where we have matter, and we have one neat layer of thinking where we have the dynamic relations of matter.

But can we expect the natural world to correspond to lazy human thinking?

I'm sure you're about to non-lazily explain how energy existing by itself is coherent.

Maybe you should explain why it's incoherent to you. Is it because you can't imagine it the same way you can imagine a lump of matter?

Steve3007 wrote:If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail (my current favourite saying). If you're always on the lookout for people mistakenly reifying abstract concepts, you'll see them doing it everywhere.

Terrapin Station wrote:Same exact thing when people try to claim that there can be nonphysical existents.

Once again, you're looking for people who reify abstractions and finding them, whether or not they exist. There was a previous conversation in which I happened to use the word "concept", among other words. You fixated on that word and wouldn't consider anything in the rest of the post. I slightly re-worded the post. Too late. You'd already found the word which allowed you to find what you thought was a claim that abstracts are real.

---

Steve3007 wrote:Okay. If I were to say: "One form of energy is a thing which travels from one piece of matter to another" would you regard that as stating that energy is a dynamic relation of matter? I think probably not. Would you regard it as incoherent?

Terrapin Station wrote:I'd want to know just what sort of thing we're talking about. It's too vague to say whether it makes sense or not.

In this case, we're clearly talking about light, or more generally, EM radiation; photons. Given the conversation up to that point, and previous conversations, I think you probably knew that.

I propose that the reason why I and others have various sensations which have things in common is because those sensations have a common cause. I call the common cause objects. I say that those objects are made of a stuff called matter. I propose that the reason why I can see those objects from a distance is that something travels from the objects to my eyes. I call that something EM radiation. I also sometimes call it photons. I say that those photons are made of a stuff called energy. Tell me what is incoherent about the above. i.e. show me the inconsistency; the contradiction.

Note: I'm not asking you to repeat again that "energy is a property of dynamic relations of matter" and that therefore, on that basis, it is incoherent to propose that it exists as something other than that. We've already established that if that is what energy is then you are right about that.

If my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle. But she doesn't. So she isn't.

Atla wrote: ↑May 18th, 2020, 12:13 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 17th, 2020, 6:00 pm

I'm sure you're about to non-lazily explain how energy existing by itself is coherent.

Maybe you should explain why it's incoherent to you. Is it because you can't imagine it the same way you can imagine a lump of matter?

Incoherent=it literally doesn't make any sense, it's inconceivable, etc.

We'd be saying that something--well, only we can't use the word something, I don't know what word you'd want to use--exists that's somehow not a state of a thing or relation of things--basically so that it's "something" (or whatever) that's not something(s and their relations), yet we're still saying that it has a location, it has properties (that obtain via what?), etc.

The idea is just nonsense.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 18th, 2020, 2:01 am Once again, you're looking for people who reify abstractions and finding them, whether or not they exist.

I'm not talking about that at all. First, energy "by itself" or nonphysical existents wouldn't necessarily have to be abstractions (or if someone wants to claim that they would necessarily have to be abstractions, they'd need to actually present the argument for that), and if they exist as people claim they do, then it's not an issue of reifying anything.

I'm not doing anything in such conversations (where I'm asking folks to support what they're claiming) like assuming that energy "by itself" or nonphysical existents must be abstractions and therefore must be mental phenomena and therefore claiming something else is reifying abstracts, etc. I'm fine saying, "Okay, this isn't a reification of a concept (that's necessarily mental), etc." And then it's just a matter of the person claiming such things to support how the idea is coherent.

No one steps up to the plate and does this though. Usually the conversation doesn't even get started--that is, usually there's no attempt at all to try to show how the idea is coherent, beyond maybe some list of "nots" ("Well, a nonphysical existent is not physical, it does not have a location, etc.")

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 18th, 2020, 10:05 am

Atla wrote: ↑May 18th, 2020, 12:13 am
Maybe you should explain why it's incoherent to you. Is it because you can't imagine it the same way you can imagine a lump of matter?

Incoherent=it literally doesn't make any sense, it's inconceivable, etc.

We'd be saying that something--well, only we can't use the word something, I don't know what word you'd want to use--exists that's somehow not a state of a thing or relation of things--basically so that it's "something" (or whatever) that's not something(s and their relations), yet we're still saying that it has a location, it has properties (that obtain via what?), etc.

The idea is just nonsense.

To me that looks like the classical mistake where someone can't imagine something as a "thing" when it can't be imagined as a lump of matter.

Atla wrote: ↑May 18th, 2020, 10:51 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 18th, 2020, 10:05 am

Incoherent=it literally doesn't make any sense, it's inconceivable, etc.

We'd be saying that something--well, only we can't use the word something, I don't know what word you'd want to use--exists that's somehow not a state of a thing or relation of things--basically so that it's "something" (or whatever) that's not something(s and their relations), yet we're still saying that it has a location, it has properties (that obtain via what?), etc.

The idea is just nonsense.

To me that looks like the classical mistake where someone can't imagine something as a "thing" when it can't be imagined as a lump of matter.

So can you explain now how we have something that's not some thing?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 18th, 2020, 10:52 am

Atla wrote: ↑May 18th, 2020, 10:51 am
To me that looks like the classical mistake where someone can't imagine something as a "thing" when it can't be imagined as a lump of matter.

So can you explain now how we have something that's not some thing?

In which context? Energy can totally be seen as a "thing" in physics, the same way that matter can be seen as a "thing" in physics.

In fundamentaly ontology neither of them are things, because "thingness" is just an illusory way of thinking. (There's "no-thing-ness", "emptiness".)

The only really incoherent view here is that matter is a thing and energy isn't, because that doesn't make sense in physics, and doesn't make sense in philosophy.

Atla wrote: ↑May 18th, 2020, 10:59 am In fundamentaly ontology

Yes, in that context.

neither of them are things, because "thingness" is just an illusory way of thinking.

What in the world is that supposed to be saying?