There is no such 'thing' as energy.

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by ColinT, May 29, 2018.

  1. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    I guess this just shows we don't understand straightforward English sentences in the same way.
    I guess my avatar's picture says it all. "I think, therefore I am" is as good as saying "I think, therefore I know I think, therefore I know I am".
    So, I certainly know green whenever I experience green. I could also say, using the same "I" as Descartes, i.e. as referring to my mind rather than me, I am green whenever I experience green. I fail to see how that could possibly be untrue.
    Sorry, not "can be moved". It's just one possibility and one that seems vacuous to me.
    I'm making a hard claim?! You just quoted me saying "I'm not claiming to know space-time can't be moved" and now you say I'm making a hard claim?! Whoa. We seem to not speak the same kind of Queen's English.
    Sorry, I guess you just lost me here.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Then please explain what you meant.

    Also, if there's room for ambiguity, they're clearly not straightforward English sentences.

    How do you know you're looking at something green? You only have the experience to go by, it seems; how do you know that that experience is trustworthy? How can you be sure that your experience of green reflects anything that's not part of your mind?

    Are you saying black holes are immovable?

    Even one possibility is enough to make something possible, not matter how vacuous.

    You said:
    I gave a possibility, and yet you claim we don't know whether it's possible. That means you are dismissing my given possibility as invalid, which is a hard claim in my book.

    We may indeed be having trouble communicating, and I'm trying to understand your exact position. I'm fully willing to accept that your seeming contradictions come from misunderstandings on my side.

    So you only have some vague gut-feeling to go by to dismiss my scenario. That's an awfully weak counter...
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    You are not the same age as your twin.
    That does not mean time doesn't exist. It means time is variable. And we can measure that variance.

    Either of us can measure the distance to Andromeda and objectively figure out unambiguously what each of our times are.
    Anyone who knows the same figures (distance and travel speed) will be able to do so.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    The sentence you misunderstood was: "As a matter of logic, the impossibility of sending qualia by post rules out just that and nothing else".
    This could be rephrased as: "As a matter of logic, if we assume it is impossible to send qualia by post, the impossibility of sending qualia by post rules out sending qualia by post and nothing else".
    It's apparent you completely fail to understand the notion of qualia. The question of whether a quale of green can be trusted to represent something green outside our mind is totally irrelevant.
    Qualia are whatever we experience subjectively, irrespective of what they might represent or stand for out there in the so-called material world. As such, we cannot not know what we experience. Either we experience nothing at all or we do. If we do, what could it possibly mean to say that we don't know what we experience? What would it possibly mean to say we know something if we didn't know what we experience. Could you possibly have any knowledge that wouldn't come through our subjective experience?
    I obviously don't know there's something green out there in the material world just because I appear to be looking at something that seems green to me. What I have to know, though, is my subjective experience of green.
    Also, it isn't necessary for me to know how I come to know X to know it. And if I know it, that must be good enough for me to know that I know it.
    You don't have to believe me when I say that I know my qualia but that's already what I said previously that I think we can only judge for ourselves so we shouldn't need to go back there again.
    No. More of your not my English, I guess.
    I only meant that we don't know that Black Holes can be moved.
    You said: "Such a bubble of space-time would be trapped inside the black hole's event horizon, and thus can be moved around by moving the black hole around". So you started your sentence with a conditional "would" and finished it with an imperative "can". Sorry, not my kind of English. And I shouldn't have to go through that sort of explanation. You should be able to figure it out by yourself.
    Me, I accept that for all I know it might be possible to send space-time by post but I certainly wouldn't want to make a point out of it. That would be arguing from ignorance. And I think that's just what you're doing here.
    You gave a possibility? Haven't seen any.
    You merely mentioned your view that it was possible to send space and time by post and claimed it was what GR says ("That's why (sic) GR says happens"), which I'm sure isn't true. You also provided a link to a web page that didn't in fact say that at all.
    You'd have to be a bit more specific as to what GR actually says that makes you think you can say "That's why (sic) GR says happens".
    I think I've been very specific and very clear as to why I think general relativity doesn't actually says anything clearly suggesting space-time could be moved around. You haven't provided any evidence to the contrary.
  8. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Ah, understood. I didn't think to read it as a tautology.

    I fully agree with this. I guess in this whole discussion about the color green, an objective color green and the quale of the color green have been confused with each other. (I'm also guilty of doing this.)

    This personally I disagree with. The source of the knowledge is important to understand the trustworthiness of said knowledge. Knowledge gained from experience is (to me) more valuable/trustworthy than knowledge gained by hallucination while high on drugs. Both are knowledge to the person, but one has a higher chance (in my opinion) of being of value. There are many people that hear voices, telling them all sorts of things. Is the knowledge these voices provides them with of "equal value/trustworthiness" as knowledge gained through the senses?

    I do believe you; I have no reason to assume you're lying about that. And since my experiences seem to match yours, that's corroborating evidence.

    But we do know that: black holes are moved all the time! They are affected by gravity, and we can produce gravity ourselves (albeit indirectly).

    I proposed a potential possibility, not a definite possibility. But as long as you cannot prove that possibility wrong/impossible, you cannot assume space-time cannot be moved. It's plain logic, not English.

    Another misunderstanding perhaps? I'm only saying you cannot assume space-time cannot be moved, if you cannot exclude the possibility that space-time can be moved. Not an argument from ignorance, just basic logic.

    You just read the entire "bubble of space-time" thing. How is that not a possibility, if it hasn't been proven impossible?

    You just made the hard claim that my scenario isn't possible according to GR; prove it.

    (And apologies for the grammatical error.)

    That page indicates that isolated regions of space-time might be possible inside black holes; if you read it differently, please enlighten me.

    Hmm, come to think of it, perhaps this is a definition problem. What do you understand as "moving space-time"? Can you please describe in detail what you think is impossible about it, and why?

    I'll have to do the same. I can already sense I'll find just two options (as I've encountered these kinds of issues before): either the concept of "moving space-time" is a (logical?) contradiction, or it's possible per definition.

    I don't remember seeing statements of the kind; can you please point me to them?

    Not evidence, just the possibility. But the possibility is enough.
  9. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    How not to read it like this?
    There's just one sense to the word "quale". Just look it up in a dictionary.
    This is entirely irrelevant to what I said.
    Let me repeat: "It isn't necessary for me to know how I come to know X to know it. And if I know it, that must be good enough for me to know that I know it".
    So, you should try a bit harder to understand what is actually said and to make reply that are relevant if you want to reply at all.

    Sorry I'm not motivated to search the whole literature on general relativity for something that most likely doesn't exist. If general relativity contained any explicit suggestion that space-time itself, as opposed to the geometric deformations of space-time, could be moved in any way, I am in no doubt we would all know of it because it would be an absolutely extraordinary result, more important even than the twin story or the existence of Black Holes themselves. And I have never heard of anything of the sort.
  10. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    I didn't expect such a simplistic argument, so I misinterpreted the grammar; I thought the first part of the sentence was meant as support for the impossibility-part. Obviously, I was wrong.

    But there's multiple interpretations of the term "the color green", which is what we were originally talking about.

    Seems we have another misunderstanding on our hands: what did you mean when you said "good enough"? I interpreted it as "I'm satisfied with this situation". I'm not satisfied with merely knowing things; I want to know why I know them, so I can judge the value/trustworthiness of the knowledge. Merely knowing things (that may be false) isn't "good enough for me".

    Wait, I said you were sure?

    Why would it be? GR allows traveling back in time (which, admittedly, is better known), yet that doesn't mean that's worth making a big deal about. This feels like some weird inverted argumentum ad populum to me...

    Also, I never said "explicit suggestion", so... "you should try a bit harder to understand what is actually said and to make reply that are relevant if you want to reply at all."
  11. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    A mathematical way to define perception?

  12. river

    Energy in and of its self , as time , in/and of its self does not exist .

    Both are are based on a object or a thing doing its thing .

    Energy is based on movement by objects , whether plasma physics or molecules of life .

    From the sub-atomic , to sub-sub -sub - atomic . There is no energy without objects .
  13. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Proof of that?
    Me, I absolutely don't know of any object at all and I doubt very much you would.
    I'm sure we all believe in the existence of objects, essentially as per our default perception of the world around us. Yet, that doesn't amount to any knowledge that any object exist as such. All we have are our impressions that our perceptions are real "material" objects.
    So, any proof of your claim?
  14. Hayden Registered Senior Member

    There is. I can feel it when I take my energy drink.
  15. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Well, you'd better stop this stuff.
  16. Hayden Registered Senior Member

    The other day my house chandelier fell from ceiling and it broke. I think it was energy which did it.
  17. river

    or it was bound to give way eventually .
  18. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


Share This Page