What is Energy?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Messiah</i>
You seem to deny the idea that physical reality exists. Existence is basic. Change is derived from it.

My question is : Is 'energy' an existence per se or is it a derivative? There IS no in between.

Vague terms like metaphysical and hypothetical sound impressive, but they are a non-reply.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

They sound impressive to you but not to someone who is skilled in these fields.

What 'exists', how it exist and why it exist is a subject of metaphysics. Not a subject of physics. Physics deals with measured quantities, it is an empirical science.

Quantities used in physics are for the sole purpose of devising models to generate predictions. This question about energy of yours is simply not the subject of physics. You are confused to think this denies that physical reality exists. 'Reality' is not a term used by physicists but by philosophers.

I give you an example: take a look at an arrow in flight. What do you see? An arrow and its positions RELATIVE to some othe object changing.

Do you see anything you can call energy? Do you see anything you can call force or momentum? This is what is meant that these terms do not arise from the phenomena. They can be postulated as physical quantities for the purpose of establishing a model for predicting the motion of the arrow. However, that does not mean their 'existence' is asserted by any means. Nor that the non-assetions of existence denies physical reality. We just do not know what REALLY takes place and we may never know. We are happy enough to be able to predict the motion path of the arrow using these quantities, whether real or not.

Makis

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by makis</i>
<br />They sound impressive to you but not to someone who is skilled in these fields.

What 'exists', how it exist and <font color="red"><b>why</b></font id="red"> it exist is a subject of metaphysics. Not a subject of physics. Physics deals with measured quantities, it is an empirical science.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
If only this were so. At its essence, your definition is probably close, but measurement is not the only function of contemporary physics - it requires the application of valid logic and I see so much illogical conjecture arising from the discipline. Misinterpretation which is easily dispelled by the application of simple reasoning.

Numbers, themselves, have no physical realities. They are - in your terms - metaphysical, yet they are the heart and soul of physics. Don't try to tell me physics does not address the metaphysical.

The term <font color="red"><b>'why'</b></font id="red"> assumes a cause and effect relationship. 'Why does something (a tangible entity as opposed to a condition) exist' assumes existence is a function of cause and effect. That is not a logical assumption.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Quantities used in physics are for the sole purpose of devising models to generate predictions. This question about energy of yours is simply not the subject of physics. You are confused to think this denies that physical reality exists. 'Reality' is not a term used by physicists but by philosophers. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
If you wish to disconnect the two in your definition of physics, that is your privilege, unfortunately, in REALITY the two cannot be disconnected.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
I give you an example: take a look at an arrow in flight. What do you see? An arrow and its positions RELATIVE to some othe object changing.

Do you see anything you can call energy? Do you see anything you can call force or momentum? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If see = visually observe then no
If see = measure and quantify then yes
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This is what is meant that these terms do not arise from the phenomena. They can be postulated as physical quantities for the purpose of establishing a model for predicting the motion of the arrow. However, that does not mean their 'existence' is asserted by any means. Nor that the non-assetions of existence denies physical reality. We just do not know what REALLY takes place and we may never know. We are happy enough to be able to predict the motion path of the arrow using these quantities, whether real or not.

Makis
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Measurement in the absence of logic is not science - it is simply measurement. Logic is, by its nature, metaphysical. I posit that metaphysics is a necessary part of any science - including physics.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Messiah</i>
Measurement in the absence of logic is not science - it is simply measurement. Logic is, by its nature, metaphysical. I posit that metaphysics is a necessary part of any science - including physics.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Logic, numbers and math in general is not metaphysics. It becomes metaphysics when assumed to have real existence as part of the universe, like in Platonism.

But you hit the nail on its head. Unfortunately, the way things have turned out, not current physical theory is free of metaphysical assertions. But whether is must be necessarilly so, or whether it should not be that way, it's another big , really BIG issue.

And talking about the word "BIG", let's divert the discussion for a moment and consider the set BIG of all words that have more than 7 letters, let's say.

Unfortunatelly, BIG, the set itself, is not a part of the set it defines. This is called Heterollogy.

There is a lot of Heterollogy in science and part of the problem as to why logic, math and observations cannot lead to a positive, metaphysics-free science.

There is a lot of work to be done to answer your dillema, as to whether there can be a metaphysics-free science. Unfortunatelly, theories like Relativity have acted as a diversion away from that reasonable goal, something that in a way Mach hoped to be the pursuit of science.

At this point, the cleanup job required is tremendous and achieving it would also require a monumental change in human thinking and understanding.

Mike

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by makis</i>
<br />
<font color="red"><b>Logic,</b></font id="red"> numbers and math in general is not metaphysics. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Logic is the branch of philosophy concerned with the distinction between correct and incorrect reasoning derived from both deductive and inductive arguments. It is man's interpretation of what he observes. In my opinion, it is very much METAphysical.

While it is a useful tool, logic is limited. It requires definition and abstracts such as infinity are not defined. It is a derivative - a derivative of reality (at least VALID logic is) - and when you integrate a derivative, it generates an arbitrary constant '+C' the value of which must be resolved to arrive at the original equation.

[url] www.theory-of-reciprocity.com [/url]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Messiah</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by makis</i>
<br />
<font color="red"><b>Logic,</b></font id="red"> numbers and math in general is not metaphysics. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Logic is the branch of philosophy concerned with the distinction between correct and incorrect reasoning derived from both deductive and inductive arguments. It is man's interpretation of what he observes. In my opinion, it is very much METAphysical.

While it is a useful tool, logic is limited. It requires definition and abstracts such as infinity are not defined. It is a derivative - a derivative of reality (at least VALID logic is) - and when you integrate a derivative, it generates an arbitrary constant '+C' the value of which must be resolved to arrive at the original equation.

[url] www.theory-of-reciprocity.com [/url]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Tom Van Flandern gave you an excellent answer with several examples in the other thread you started so it is of no point for me to repeat it here because I would also argue along the same lines as he did.

Maybe, I recommend, you ought to review the literature, and try to get a grasp of some basic concepts before you start making extraordinary claims, some of which have already been rejected or are false from start.

An excellent reference is:

20th-Century Philosophy: The Analytic Tradition, Morris Weitz, ed.

Another good one is:

The Mathematical Experiece, By Philip J. Davis - Rueben Hersh, ISBN 0-395-32131

This second book explains the role of math and logic in science.

You are making a very elementary mistake often fresheman students in Math and Philosophy do but quickly fix: Logic does not deal with what is true or false but only with the Validity of inferences.

The fundamental theorem of Logic: Truth and Validity are independent.

If you do not know these basics it is only natural you'll be in a state of confusion regarding the role of Logic, Philosophy, Math and Physics in the ultimate pursuit of humans in understanding physical reality.

Mike

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by makis</i>
Tom Van Flandern gave you an excellent answer with several examples in the other thread you started so it is of no point for me to repeat it here because I would also argue along the same lines as he did.

Maybe, I recommend, you ought to review the literature, and try to get a grasp of some basic concepts before you start making extraordinary claims, some of which have already been rejected or are false from start.

An excellent reference is:

20th-Century Philosophy: The Analytic Tradition, Morris Weitz, ed.

Another good one is:

The Mathematical Experiece, By Philip J. Davis - Rueben Hersh, ISBN 0-395-32131

This second book explains the role of math and logic in science.

You are making a very elementary mistake often fresheman students in Math and Philosophy do but quickly fix: Logic does not deal with what is true or false but only with the Validity of inferences.

The fundamental theorem of Logic: Truth and Validity are independent.

If you do not know these basics it is only natural you'll be in a state of confusion regarding the role of Logic, Philosophy, Math and Physics in the ultimate pursuit of humans in understanding physical reality.

Mike
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
APPLAUSE ! ! ! []

I think you are beginning to understand my premise (actually the premise at the other thread).

Logic=tool and NOT logic=truth. Truth (if interpreted correctly) is always valid but validity can only infer truth.

Is logic not analogous to an equation which simultaneously solves for all known variables? If all the variables are not known, the truth can appear illogical (this is how the magician makes his living).

In reality, the only thing you will ever know is that which you experience as yourself - your own existence - and the changes you undergo due to external stimulus. To assume any 'knowledge' beyond that is subjective conjecture. Metaphysical.

I apologize if I violated the convention of your scholarly vernacular. Certainly it was over 35 years ago when I majored in math and physics, but the language CAN'T have changed that much. I must admit I have a lot of fun challenging the conventional wisdom - and even the contemporary definitions of concepts such as infinity, Universe, the nature of the entity (elemental particle) etc.