Entities and attributes in science

[James R]

I see nowhere in any of Baldeee's posts in this thread where he asserts any such thing.

Baldeee: Was it not David Hume who arrived at the "Bundle theory", whereby nothing exists other than a bundle of attributes.

Baldeee went on to expand on and to explain this point in more detail in subsequent posts.

It doesn't surprise me that his argument went over your head in the same way mine did.

You are a dishonest man. You are pretty much full of shit, bro.

Yet another pointless ad hominem from a man who is unable to muster any subtantive objection to the argument that has been patiently put to him many times.

This simply confirms, again, your lack of moral character. I have come to expect no better from you.

 

[James R]

Just a general comment, in case there's confusion:

James R seems to have one view, that mass didn't exist prior to human conceptualisation of mass, ...

Please don't assume that the argument I have put here represents my personal "view" on things. I am flexible on this topic of philosophical exploration. I am wedded to no particular view, although I certainly have a greater affinity for some philosophical stances over others. I am always open to being persuaded I am wrong.

As a matter of record, I have already admitted several times in this thread that the argument I have put is a blunt one that skips over nuances and complications. I believe I stated that the argument I have put here is Ontology 101, not Advanced Ontology for Masters of Philsophy or similar.

My tag line used to say something along the lines of: the mark of an enlightened person is that s/he is able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

It would be a mistake to assume that I must be deeply personally invested in one view or another, just because I argue that position in some thread on this forum at some particular time.

Part of being a critical thinker lies in gathering knowledge about all sides of an argument, not just the ones that appeal to your own personal sensibilities the most. One's own arguments become more robust when you're able to anticipate what the "other side" will argue in response, and good practice is to try to understand what the typical objections are to one's own argument, preferably before you make it.

In the distant past, in another place on the internet, I argued stridently that the colour orange could be found intrinsically in the fruit we call "an orange". In this current thread, I have been arguing, essentially, the opposite position. Now, it could be that I've changed my mind over the years, or it could be that both arguments are defensible to greater or lesser extents, or it could be some combination of both of these things. Point is: it doesn't much matter what my personal opinion on this might be. If you were to ask me, I'd probably tell you; in fact, I have dropped a few hints already in this thread.

What puzzles me is why certain people, who clearly haven't followed (or else haven't understood) the argument that has been put to them, have got themselves all overheated about this, to the extent where the best they can manage at this point is to lash out with personal attacks, and who now apparently labor under the false belief that that sort of behaviour somehow makes them look clever, or right.

 

[arfa brane]

James R:

Baldeee:

You are asserting that the description of a thing is the thing. My stance in this thread has been the opposite: that the description of a thing is a not the thing itself.

In fact, you go further, saying that a thing is nothing but its description. Take the description away and presumably the thing itself vanishes, for some reason.

That view doesn't appeal to me.

What Baldeee posted: Was it not David Hume who arrived at the "Bundle theory", whereby nothing exists other than a bundle of attributes.

James R appears to want you and me to believe that an attribute is a description. I wonder why?

 

[arfa brane]

Can you show me a field in a bottle?

God knows why I keep doing this.

James, an ordinary glass wine bottle is a field. Its a field of matter or a matter field.

 

[James R]

arfa:

What Baldeee posted: Was it not David Hume who arrived at the "Bundle theory", whereby nothing exists other than a bundle of attributes.

Did you read any of his subsequent posts? Did you understand them?

Look, I think you're better off leaving Baldeee to speak for himself, rather than trying to speak for him. I'm not sure he'll particularly welcome having you as his spokesperson.

James R appears to want you and me to believe that an attribute is a description. I wonder why?

Because that's what it is, perhaps?

James, an ordinary glass wine bottle is a field. Its a field of matter or a matter field.

The problem there is that you're now trying to use the word "field" in Sense #1 rather than Sense #2 (as previously described by me), in the same way that you have tried on multiple occasions to conflate the two different usages of the word "mass".

This is a clever move on your part and I'll give you a little credit for having a good try, for a change.

Although, having said that, maybe I'm being hasty and you're not really aware of what you've done - in which case this might just be accidental cleverness, like a broken clock being right twice a day.

Consider a barbell.

If you refer to the barbell as "a mass" and you say things like "Watch me lift this heavy mass", then you're using "mass" to refer to an entity.

If you say "This barbell has a mass of 150 kilograms" then you're using "mass" to refer to an attribute.

You don't get to cheat by substituting the word "field" for "mass" in the first context, then pretend that you've somehow turned a concept into an entity. "Watch me lift this heavy field" is no different from "watch me lift this heavy mass". You're just using the word "field" to refer to the entity, in the same way you used the word "mass" to refer to the entity previously.

When you say "I used some equipment to determined that the electric field in here is 100 Newton per Coulomb" you're using the word "field" to describe a concept. If you say "the electric field generated inside this vacuum chamber is 100 Newton per Coulomb" you're using the word "field" to describe an attribute of the vacuum-chamber and attached electrical apparatus.

So, yes, an ordinary wine bottle is "a mass" (using "mass" to identify an entity). An ordinary wine bottle is "a field" (using "field" in the same way to - somewhat obscurely - identify the same entity).

If you want to label "a mass" (entity) as "a matter field" (entity), you can go right ahead as far as I'm concerned. Neither description implies anything other than that "mass" or "field" are attributes (concepts) when used in their other, more technical, senses (which is the sense in which they are typically used in physics).

 

[James R]

arfa:

Are you going to own up to or correct your blatant error from your previous post? You know, the one where you claimed several times that "electromagnetic radiation is energy"?

Or are you hoping nobody will remember you wrote that? Are you going to try to pretend you didn't write it? Are you just going to completely fail to address where I pointed out to you the blatant error in your claim, and carefully and patiently explained it to you, for the umpteenth time?

Are you going to own your mistakes like an adult, or pretend you never made them? Are you going to keep trolling, or admit you were wrong, like an adult?

Just wondering.

 

[Baldeee]

You are asserting that the description of a thing is the thing.

No, I am offering up a view that there is no "thing" other than the attributes.
You are conflating the notion of attribute with that of description, are you not?
(You even subsequently confirm as much to arfa brane).
One can describe attributes, but that doesn't make attributes themselves merely descriptions, does it?
So when I use the term "attribute", that is what I am referring to: the attribute, not the description (of the attribute).

My stance in this thread has been the opposite: that the description of a thing is a not the thing itself.

Sure.
And I’d agree.
Description is to do with language, while the attribute is an aspect of the thing observed, and is what is being described.
I see them as different.
So you aren’t really taking an opposite position to “bundle theory”, as far as I can tell.
Sorry.

In fact, you go further, saying that a thing is nothing but its description. Take the description away and presumably the thing itself vanishes, for some reason.

Swap "description" for "attribute" and that is at least what bundle theory suggests, yes.

That view doesn't appeal to me.

Okay.

The reason I asked you whether you had read through the previous discussion was to save myself some time and effort in repeating the points I have made yet again, for yet another new participant in the thread who was apparently too lazy and too entitled to get himself up to speed with the discussion that went before, prior to jumping in with claims that things weren't explained satisfactorily, or were wrong.

It doesn't augur well for discussion when you start insulting people like that.
I asked you to point out where you have provided clear definitions as, being a philosophy discussion, such does get quite important, and, having read through the thread, could not, and still can not, find where you have clearly defined the terms.
Now, if you want start throwing out thinly veiled insults, rather than simply pointing out where you have previously provided, or, better yet, restate what was requested, then, as said, it doesn't augur well.

You ask whether I clearly defined the difference between my usage of the words "entity" and "attribute". As it happens, I proposed a very simple empirical test you could use to tell the difference.

An empirical test is not a definition.
But, well, whatever.
If your definition of an entity really is "anything that can be put in a bottle", then presumably your definition of an attribute is, what, "anything that can not be put in a bottle"?
Or is this not the empirical test that you're referring to?

If it is, then as a definition it has problems: you are assuming within "entity" the properties/attributes of "physical" and "existent", so doesn't really help distinguish between an entity and an attribute when one clearly contains examples of the other.
And more flippantly it doesn't augur well for when "bottles" weren't even a concept, and as per your argument wouldn't have existed, and thus no entities could have existed.

But then, what to speak of, as exampled previously, a football league?
Or a corporation?
Or a set?
Can you put them in bottles?

Rather than repeating myself for the third (or is it the fourth) time, for the latest person who is new to the thread, I suggest you do some homework at this point and get yourself up to speed. Once you've done that, you and I can talk some more, if you like.

Please can you cease the arrogance and self-righteousness.
It really isn't helpful.
If you don't want to have a discussion, that's up to you, but then don't reply to my posts.
If I feel you have not clearly and adequately defined something that I feel the discussion relies on, whether you think you have provided it or not, the decent thing would be for you to simply provide it, would it not?

But, sure, whatever.

 

[Baldeee]

Just a general comment, in case there's confusion:

Please don't assume that the argument I have put here represents my personal "view" on things.

If it helps, I honestly couldn’t care less if they are your personal views, those of my Grandma, those of a random person on the street, or anyone else’s.
All that matters to me is what is posted here, as that is what I am replying to.

Point is: it doesn't much matter what my personal opinion on this might be. If you were to ask me, I'd probably tell you; in fact, I have dropped a few hints already in this thread.

Note that literally no one is holding their breath, though, to find out what anyone's personal view is.
But, sure, whatever.
If you want to say what your personal opinion on this matter is, that’s up to you.
If you don’t, okay, sure, again that’s up to you.

What puzzles me … clever, or right.

Who are you referring to with this?

 

[Baldeee]

James R appears to want you and me to believe that an attribute is a description. I wonder why?

Misunderstanding, I guess.
People, myself included, will generally understand terms they see written as they would use them, not always as intended.
I find philosophy to be a hotbed of such misunderstandings, which is why I always push to find out what people mean by the terms they use.
In this case, in the view he is arguing there is probably no difference, and that he sees an attribute as a description.
The view I put forward does not.

Hence the misunderstanding.
And in the difference lies a rabbit hole all of its own, should one dare to go down.

 

[James R]

Baldeee:

No, I am offering up a view that there is no "thing" other than the attributes.
You are conflating the notion of attribute with that of description, are you not?

No, but I might well be working with different definitions of those words than you are.

(You even subsequently confirm as much to arfa brane).

I did no such thing.

One can describe attributes, but that doesn't make attributes themselves merely descriptions, does it?

It might help if you gave an example or two.

Consider a red rose. It sounds like you might be saying that "colour" is an attribute of the rose, and the "description" of that attribute would be "red", in this case. But I can't tell, unless you explain what you mean.

It also sounds like you think that "mere descriptions" are different from "attributes" in some significant way. But, again, unless you explain what you mean, I can only guess what you might mean.

You don't seem much interested in what I mean. You seem to have posted mostly to tell me that I must be wrong, without making much of an attempt to understand my claims first.

So when I use the term "attribute", that is what I am referring to: the attribute, not the description (of the attribute). ....

Description is to do with language, while the attribute is an aspect of the thing observed, and is what is being described.

The description is "red"; the attribute is "colour", in regards to the rose?

I see them as different.
So you aren’t really taking an opposite position to “bundle theory”, as far as I can tell.

As far as you can tell. Okay.

It doesn't augur well for discussion when you start insulting people like that.

It doesn't augur well for discussion when you presume to lecture somebody on something to tell them that they are wrong, before you understand what they are saying. That might well be perceived as an insult.

I asked you to point out where you have provided clear definitions as, being a philosophy discussion, such does get quite important, and, having read through the thread, could not, and still can not, find where you have clearly defined the terms.

For current purposes:

entity: an object that can be put in a bottle by itself and be empirically "detected" in some way as being in the bottle.
attribute: a property of an object that cannot be put in a bottle by itself and empirically detected as being in the bottle.

In addition, it might be useful to define the word "concept": an idea in somebody's head, which can't be put in a bottle by itself and empirically detected.

I have found that the word "description" is something I have managed to do without, up to this point, but I won't mind if somebody wants to try defining it.

Now, if you want start throwing out thinly veiled insults, rather than simply pointing out where you have previously provided, or, better yet, restate what was requested, then, as said, it doesn't augur well.

Now if you want to start off all snarky, in yet another conversation, that doesn't augur well. Nor does continuing to be snarky. You can decide how or whether you want to continue this conversation, naturally. I am content to follow your lead on the tone, as I have up to this point in this particular discussion with you.

An empirical test is not a definition.

In this case, I gave an operational definition: "The thing can be called this if it satisfies this test."

Do you accept that operational definitions are definitions, or not?

But, well, whatever.

Being dismissive - especially when you're wrong or haven't bothered to find out the other's position - does not augur well. See, it's the little rudenesses that give your game away, Baldeee.

If your definition of an entity really is "anything that can be put in a bottle", then presumably your definition of an attribute is, what, "anything that can not be put in a bottle"?

That will do, approximately, for now. See above.

If it is, then as a definition it has problems: you are assuming within "entity" the properties/attributes of "physical" and "existent", so doesn't really help distinguish between an entity and an attribute when one clearly contains examples of the other.

It is not my claim that attributes don't exist or that attributes "aren't physical".

How do you figure that attributes can contain examples of entities (as I have defined them)? Please explain. I think this is another error on your part.

And more flippantly it doesn't augur well for when "bottles" weren't even a concept, and as per your argument wouldn't have existed, and thus no entities could have existed.

I take it that the winking emoji indicates that you have grasped my meaning of "bottle", even while you're feigning that you do not. Let me know if I'm wrong about that.

But then, what to speak of, as exampled previously, a football league?
Or a corporation?
Or a set?
Can you put them in bottles?

If by "football league" you mean the people who play football, it seems obvious to me that you could put the football league in a suitably large bottle. If you mean something else when you say "football league", my answer might be different.

The word "corporation" runs into the same problem we have with a word like "mass". By "corporation", what do you mean? Do you mean the physical assets of a business, or something more along the lines of a conceptual legal structure? You can't show me a bottle full of (just) a conceptual legal structure, for instance.

I assume by "set" you mean something like the abstract mathematical concept of that name. It's not something I've ever seen in a bottle by itself. How about you?

Please can you cease the arrogance and self-righteousness.

I'll follow your lead on that.

It really isn't helpful.

I agree there are far better ways to have a civil discussion. I look forward to your setting a better example for me to follow in subsequent posts.

If you don't want to have a discussion, that's up to you, but then don't reply to my posts.

We're having a discussion, as far as I can tell. You can be confident that I'll stop replying to your posts if and when I no longer want to continue the discussion with you. I extend to you the same courtesy, obviously - if you won't want to have a discussion with me, don't feel pressured to reply to my posts. It would be polite to flag your intention to leave the discussion, however. This is how polite conversations typically end; one does not typically leave the other party waiting for a reply that one never intends to provide.

If I feel you have not clearly and adequately defined something that I feel the discussion relies on, whether you think you have provided it or not, the decent thing would be for you to simply provide it, would it not?

If you were the first person to ask me to define my terms in this thread, you'd be right. That would be the decent thing to do. If you were the second person to ask me to define my terms, after I'd already defined them once for somebody else, then again, you're probably right; it only takes a little effort to repeat oneself, and little gestures of consideration can smooth the social wheels.

In this case, though, you're at least the third person to request that I define my terms - something I have done previously in this thread for at least two other people, in one case far more times than just the once.

This thread has only 150 posts - 8 pages on my screen. There's also a search facility, which you could - if you wanted to - use to just read through the posts that I wrote in this thread, ignoring all others.

The question arises then: at what point does it stop being the "decent thing" to expect somebody else to do your legwork for you and to repeat himself for the n-th time for your benefit, and start becoming the "decent thing" to put in a little effort on your own to get yourself up to speed?

Granted, your assessment of what level of social niceties and courtesies you are entitled to, or deserve, might well differ from my assessment. One of us may end up having to adjust his expectations.

But sure, whatever.

 

[James R]

Baldeee:

If it helps, I honestly couldn’t care less if they are your personal views, those of my Grandma, those of a random person on the street, or anyone else’s.

I didn't think it would matter to you.

Note that literally no one is holding their breath, though, to find out what anyone's personal view is.

How do you know? Well, literally, I imagine you're right, of course.

If you want to say what your personal opinion on this matter is, that’s up to you.
If you don’t, okay, sure, again that’s up to you.

I'm so glad I have your permission on this.

Who are you referring to with this?

Sorry. I was just pondering out loud there. I was thinking specifically of arfa brane and Tiassa, as it happens.

Why do you ask?

Did you notice I started that post with "Just a general comment: ...."? That post wasn't directly addressed to you. It was meant for whoever might be laboring under the false impression that whatever I write here must always be an accurate reflection of my own convictions or beliefs. Probably, it would be fair to say that most of the time I write what I personally believe, but from time to time I think it's more useful - or sometimes just fun - to play devil's advocate.

 

[Baldeee]

No, but I might well be working with different definitions of those words than you are.

Then why did you exchange "attribute" for "description" if, as you now claim, you have not conflated them?

I did no such thing.

That seems to be the implication, even if worded as a question, of your response to arfa brane when he asked why you swapped the words: "Because that's what it is, perhaps?"

It might help if you gave an example or two.

Consider a red rose. It sounds like you might be saying that "colour" is an attribute of the rose, and the "description" of that attribute would be "red", in this case. But I can't tell, unless you explain what you mean.

"Colour" is an attribute, yes, but so is "red", it is an attribute of the "colour".
The "description" is merely the language we use for understanding, not what it is.
It is part of language, of semantics.
It is not the thing itself but the label.
An attribute is the thing that is being described.

It also sounds like you think that "mere descriptions" are different from "attributes" in some significant way. But, again, unless you explain what you mean, I can only guess what you might mean.

Sure, and you guessed wrong.
Which is why I've told you so.

You don't seem much interested in what I mean. You seem to have posted mostly to tell me that I must be wrong, without making much of an attempt to understand my claims first.

You've spent most of this thread explaining what you mean.
I do understand your claims.
They're not wrong, per se, as far as the philosophy you're espousing is concerned, but then things are rarely wrong in philosophy.
However, I have offered an alternative viewpoint, and I am explaining it, and correcting your interpretation of it, and your efforts at countering it, as they are wrong when, for example, you confuse "attribute" and "description".

The description is "red"; the attribute is "colour", in regards to the rose?

No.
Both "red" and "colour" are attributes.
"Red" is an attribute of "colour".
A description is something that we have put together, to help us understand what we observe.
It is not what we observe.
We observe the attributes.

As far as you can tell. Okay.

Of course.

It doesn't augur well for discussion when you presume to lecture somebody on something to tell them that they are wrong, before you understand what they are saying. That might well be perceived as an insult.

I'm not lecturing.
But you are wrong in how your use of language pertains to what I have put forward.

For current purposes:

entity: an object that can be put in a bottle by itself and be empirically "detected" in some way as being in the bottle.
attribute: a property of an object that cannot be put in a bottle by itself and empirically detected as being in the bottle.

In addition, it might be useful to define the word "concept": an idea in somebody's head, which can't be put in a bottle by itself and empirically detected.

I have found that the word "description" is something I have managed to do without, up to this point, but I won't mind if somebody wants to try defining it.

Sure, your concept of entity includes the attributes of "physical" and "existant".
Not a biggie, as you were, after all, discussing this matter in the context of science, which does just that, as I have already agreed.
"Concept", meh, why not.
"Description" is a semantic construct, the language we use to express our understanding of what we are observing etc.
The attribute can be described, therefore, but they are not the same thing.
[quoteIn this case, I gave an operational definition: "The thing can be called this if it satisfies this test."

Do you accept that operational definitions are definitions, or not?[/quote]In some contexts, sure.
Not here, though, as an empirical test begs the question with regard the type of philosophy it supports, or requires.
Further, operational definitions only provide for how they can be recognised, not what they actually are.
A duck can be defined by "it looks like..." but that doesn't really define what a duck is.
But maybe our expectations of definitions differ.

Being dismissive - especially when you're wrong or haven't bothered to find out the other's position - does not augur well. See, it's the little rudenesses that give your game away, Baldeee.

Not dismissive, just a linguistic shrug.
Apologies if you misunderstood.
But if you could point to where I have been wrong, or haven't bothered to find out the other's position, that might help.

It is not my claim that attributes don't exist or that attributes "aren't physical".

So you think attributes can be physical?
So you think attributes can be put in a bottle?
If so, doesn't that fly contrary to the idea that an attribute is "anything that can not be put in a bottle", or is there something physical that you think can't be put in a bottle?

How do you figure that attributes can contain examples of entities (as I have defined them)? Please explain. I think this is another error on your part.

No, it's not an error, because it's not something I figure.
My comment was following from the definitions I suggested you were making, and they do follow from that.
However, your definition now given (thank you), is slightly different, and you are criticising my comment as being wrong as if based on your definition, not the one I was working from.
Note the words I used did not include the notion of "by itself", rather an entity was anything that could be bottled, and an attribute was not.

I take it that the winking emoji indicates that you have grasped my meaning of "bottle", even while you're feigning that you do not. Let me know if I'm wrong about that.

You're not entirely wrong, but there is still the question of why you think attributes don't exist if there is noone there to observe, as you mentioned previously.
Descriptions wouldn't exist if there is noone to understand the language, but the attributes?
Maybe you want to unpack that one further, even using your own definition of "attribute".

If by "football league" you mean the people who play football, it seems obvious to me that you could put the football league in a suitably large bottle. If you mean something else when you say "football league", my answer might be different.

A football league is not just the players, though, is it.
It is the teams (a concept with no physical aspect beyond the players), the organisation, the idea of competition, etc.
I.e. an entity is anything that can be considered as a unit, a whole, whether real, conceptual etc.
So a fire-breathing dragon is an entity - you can count them.
A football league is similarly an entity - you have the English ones, the Spanish ones etc, and they are all identifiable in their own right.
Compare that to something like "happiness".
You can't point to something, even in your head, and call it happiness.
You can point to something that has the attribute of happiness, though.
It is similar, therefore, to your own understanding of the term, but does not need to include the properties of physical, or existent, etc.

The word "corporation" runs into the same problem we have with a word like "mass". By "corporation", what do you mean? Do you mean the physical assets of a business, or something more along the lines of a conceptual legal structure? You can't show me a bottle full of (just) a conceptual legal structure, for instance.

I mean the latter, and no, you can't, but it is an entity in the more widely accepted philosophical narrative.
Science, however, as mentioned, restricts the notion as you have done: to those entities with the attributes of "physical" and "existant".
If you were to swap your "entity" for "physical entity" then we'd be closer to a common ground, as you would at least be openly qualifying the nature of the entities under consideration.

I assume by "set" you mean something like the abstract mathematical concept of that name. It's not something I've ever seen in a bottle by itself. How about you?

No, I haven't, unsurprisingly, but I consider them entities.
Abstract entities, sure, but entities nonetheless.
You can talk about this set, or that set, etc.
Given that it can't be put in a bottle, in what way would you consider a set an attribute?

I'll follow your lead on that.
I agree there are far better ways to have a civil discussion. I look forward to your setting a better example for me to follow in subsequent posts.

You're a moderator, are you not?
You should be setting the example.
But, hey, whatever.

If you were the first person to ask me to define my terms in this thread, you'd be right. That would be the decent thing to do. If you were the second person to ask me to define my terms, after I'd already defined them once for somebody else, then again, you're probably right; it only takes a little effort to repeat oneself, and little gestures of consideration can smooth the social wheels.

And it took you all this time to carry out such little effort?
Was it not more effort to continue to complain that you had already defined them?

But sure, whatever.

Indeed.

 

[Baldeee]

How do you know? Well, literally, I imagine you're right, of course.

FYI - if I use "literally" then I do intend it meant in the correct sense.

Sorry. I was just pondering out loud there. I was thinking specifically of arfa brane and Tiassa, as it happens.

Why do you ask?

Because you quoted me.
It thus is reasonable to assume that it is, in some way, directed at me.

Did you notice I started that post with "Just a general comment: ...."? That post wasn't directly addressed to you. It was meant for whoever might be laboring under the false impression that whatever I write here must always be an accurate reflection of my own convictions or beliefs. Probably, it would be fair to say that most of the time I write what I personally believe, but from time to time I think it's more useful - or sometimes just fun - to play devil's advocate.

Sure, but then can I suggest that you don't quote a specific person when you want to address everyone.
That you said "Just a general comment: ..." isn't itself all that helpful, either, as it might have meant that you were still replying to me but on a more general comment rather than the topic per se.
Had you not quoted me, it would have been clearer that it was addressed openly.

 

[arfa brane]

arfa:

Are you going to own up to or correct your blatant error from your previous post? You know, the one where you claimed several times that "electromagnetic radiation is energy"?

Are you going to recognize that I posted several quotes from different sources, including NASA, NOAA and an American university?
They all say electromagnetic radiation is a form of energy. I say that a few times too.

So is NASA making a blatant error, or the university? Or, wait, maybe you're doing that.
Not that anyone really cares.

I typed "is electromagnetic radiation a form of energy" into the search bar and got the usual millions of hits.
To me it isn't at all surprising that they all say more or less, "yes, it is".
But according to the book of James, they're all wrong . . .

Yeah. right.

p.s. another thing that gets said a lot is, energy can be converted from one form to another.
How do you convert a concept into another concept--if energy is a concept; what kind of machine can be built that does this?

 

[arfa brane]

The problem there is that you're now trying to use the word "field" in Sense #1 rather than Sense #2 (as previously described by me), in the same way that you have tried on multiple occasions to conflate the two different usages of the word "mass".

James, the term "matter field" in physics has been around for quite a while. It's well understood, except by some people.

 

[arfa brane]

'sigh'

from my lecture notes: energy has different forms. How many are there? We aren't sure yet, maybe we never will be.
Energy, conceptually, is a more general term than work, or heat, or any of the others that identify the different forms energy "has", or "takes".

Is it real? does it ever exist? Well, Heisenberg's famous uncertainty relation, says something about energy in fields.
How do you turn Heisenberg's relation into a concept? It appears to qualify, philosophically speaking, as an attribute of the universe; it depends on the existence of the universe, with SM particles.

How is it that the quantum particles are not also attributes of the universe? Or that as entities with their own attributes, they are then entities within an entity, if the universe is a bottle. By which I mean a general container. Where are the boundaries of this container, or are they also in a conceptual space, inside a human brain, if distance, or if "space between" isn't physical, as James tells us.
Actually I'm not at all sure what James was trying to tell us about space and distance. One is supposed to be real, the other a concept I think is what he said. I can't see it, literally.
I've drawn a pair of points on a 'plane' sheet of paper and tried to convince myself the space between them is in my head, and it's not happening.

 

[James R]

arfa brane:

Are you going to recognize that I posted several quotes from different sources, including NASA, NOAA and an American university?
They all say electromagnetic radiation is a form of energy. I say that a few times too.

You are wrong, and all the sources you used are wrong, on this, it seems.

Electromagnetic radiation is not a form of energy. It's a form of radiation.

There's a reason why we have two words ("energy", "radiation") and not just the one. They describe different things.

So is NASA making a blatant error, or the university?

Whoever claims that radiation is energy is making a blatant error.

Or, wait, maybe you're doing that.

No.

Not that anyone really cares.

You care.

I typed "is electromagnetic radiation a form of energy" into the search bar and got the usual millions of hits.

It's a common mistake.

To me it isn't at all surprising that they all say more or less, "yes, it is".

Is it more, or less?

But according to the book of James, they're all wrong . . .

According to all the people who are right, they're all wrong. I happen to be one of the people who is right.

p.s. another thing that gets said a lot is, energy can be converted from one form to another.
How do you convert a concept into another concept--if energy is a concept; what kind of machine can be built that does this?

Energy is never really "converted". It's all numbers.

What happens, in practice, is that the energy is reclassified as some other "type". Energy, remember, is an accounting system.

Can you agree that "rotational kinetic energy" and "linear kinetic energy" are both kinetic energy? Is it possible to "convert" one into the other? Does anything about the energy change if you do that? Hopefully, you're aware that the label "rotational kinetic energy" is just one way of hiving off part of the overall kinetic energy, for accounting reasons. "Rotational kinetic energy" is not in any way a required concept. We could, in principle, just account for it using regular old "linear kinetic energy". Do you agree?

Now consider some other "type" of energy: chemical energy, say. Can it be "converted" into kinetic energy? I think you'll agree that it can. But does anything about the energy change when that happens?

Here's a hint: energy, of whatever "type", can always be measured in Joules.

N.B. I am not saying that it isn't useful to classify energy into different "types" or "forms". But energy is energy is energy. And energy is a number, essentially.

'sigh'

from my lecture notes: energy has different forms.

See above.

Is it real? does it ever exist? Well, Heisenberg's famous uncertainty relation, says something about energy in fields.
How do you turn Heisenberg's relation into a concept?

It's a theory. It's already a concept.

It appears to qualify, philosophically speaking, as an attribute of the universe; it depends on the existence of the universe, with SM particles.

Define "attribute".

Please note that I have given one definition of "attribute" in this thread, which I have used consistently. In a post just above, Baldeee has made it clear that he is using a different definition of "attribute" than I am. So, that's two different choices of usage so far. You understanding of "attribute" might make three. Or you can agree with myself or Baldeee. Tell me where you stand on this.

How is it that the quantum particles are not also attributes of the universe?

You can put a quantum particle in a bottle. See my definitions, above.

Or that as entities with their own attributes, they are then entities within an entity, if the universe is a bottle.

"The universe" is made up of many things, some of which are entities, some of which are attributes and some of which are neither (using my definitions). Baldeee would partition the contents of the universe in a different way than I have in this thread. That's not wrong, and not a problem, unless we misunderstand one another.

By which I mean a general container. Where are the boundaries of this container, or are they also in a conceptual space, inside a human brain, if distance, or if "space between" isn't physical, as James tells us.

I have not claimed that the "space between" is not physical.

I think that we might each need to define "physical", at this point. Again, from Baldeee's post, above, it is clear that he is using that word differently from how I have used it in this thread. When I have said something is "physical", I have meant something like the thing is described by physics. But, if I understand correctly, Baldeee has used the word to refer, essentially, only to material objects - something similar to how I have used the word "entity". (And Baldeee's "entity" is also different from mine.)

Actually I'm not at all sure what James was trying to tell us about space and distance. One is supposed to be real, the other a concept I think is what he said. I can't see it, literally.

Space is real. Distance is in your mind. You can show me a bottle full of "space", but not a bottle full of "13 centimetres", for instance.

I've drawn a pair of points on a 'plane' sheet of paper and tried to convince myself the space between them is in my head, and it's not happening.

Space isn't in your head. Distance is. Like I said earlier.

 

[arfa brane]

You are wrong, and all the sources you used are wrong, on this, it seems.

Electromagnetic radiation is not a form of energy. It's a form of radiation.

James, think about what you are saying.

I said that I typed "is electromagnetic radiation a form of energy" into a search bar, in google search.
Have you tried doing this? It's easy. Anyone can do it.

If you ever get around to it, think about what all the hits have to say about electromagnetic radiation, and how it's a form of energy. I posted quotes from NASA and an American university (that's the second time I've mentioned that). And some other sites.

But you say NASA and this university have it wrong, and so do all the other sites. That's patently unbelievable. Are we supposed to think it's a conspiracy? Or maybe think you don't know what you're talking about? Can you think of another possibility?

Whoever claims that radiation is energy is making a blatant error.

No. Whoever claims, as you keep doing, that EM is not a form of energy is making a blatant error. One that disagrees with everyone else.

 

[arfa brane]

I think that we might each need to define "physical", at this point. Again, from Baldeee's post, above, it is clear that he is using that word differently from how I have used it in this thread. When I have said something is "physical", I have meant something like the thing is described by physics. But, if I understand correctly, Baldeee has used the word to refer, essentially, only to material objects - something similar to how I have used the word "entity". (And Baldeee's "entity" is also different from mine.)

Are you here saying that the word "physical" is a word people can define as they see fit?

Or what? It's just that, in science, words are preferred that do have a well-defined meaning. You know?
Perhaps you mean to point out that philosophy struggles with subjects like physics. A lot.

Space is real. Distance is in your mind. You can show me a bottle full of "space", but not a bottle full of "13 centimetres", for instance.

Insane. Just insane.

You invent some kind of mental separation between the concept of distance and the concept of space. Then you cling to it; you defend it. You don't question your own understanding (of anything). You're nowhere near as clever as you think you are.

The tactic you keep using, questioning what the definition of "attribute" is, or "physical", makes you look like someone who is flailing around, trying to find some kind of out.

 

[arfa brane]

Energy is never really "converted". It's all numbers.

What happens, in practice, is that the energy is reclassified as some other "type". Energy, remember, is an accounting system.

Perhaps that's a correct description of what happens in say, a combustion engine. But it doesn't explain how heat causes a piston to move.

You say the kinetic energy of the piston is a reclassification of the heat energy . . . ? I've never actually seen that, in any physics textbook.

Anyway, I already know that the concept of energy transfer is an abstraction, because momentum is transferred. Oh wait; you and exchemist believe that momentum isn't physically real either.
You will say:
Photons don't transfer their momentum, electrons don't. No particles do that because momentum is a concept. That mark a particle leaves on a detector screen is there because . . .