Irrelevant. Nobody has seen or touched a neutrino either. But both are natural and detectable.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Materialism has officially become dangerous in my eyes.
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
Irrelevant. Nobody has seen or touched a neutrino either. But both are natural and detectable.
See posts #162 and #177.
Read it again. I didn't suggest this discussion is dangerous.
One can detect neutrinos. There is no instrument that detects the conserved quantity known as energy.
So, you can't state an argument for the thesis of "naturalism"--but just aren't honest enough to admit it. You've got virgin Mary written all over your posts.
Of course we detect energy! How do you think we figured out that it is conserved???
Energy is one aspect of the motion of physical things. That makes it standard to detect it. No, it cannot be seen or touched (well, photons can be seen and so their energy is also), but it is readily detectable.
Look up calorimeters sometime.
I just did. Look at the posts I mentioned. They give all the propositions required for the demonstration.
Like this:
P1: [. . . ]
P2: [. . . ]
C: Therefore, everything that exists is "natural".
Indagator
Member
Well I cant think of anything else but am open to suggestions....
Perhaps you are just deficient in information. Neutrinos have been detected:
Cosmic neutrinos
Raymond Davis, Jr. and Masatoshi Koshiba were jointly awarded the 2002 Nobel Prize in Physics. Both conducted pioneering work on solar neutrino detection, and Koshiba's work also resulted in the first real-time observation of neutrinos from the SN 1987A supernova. These efforts marked the beginning of neutrino astronomy.[28] As of today SN 1987A represents the only verified detection of neutrinos from a supernova.
Raymond Davis, Jr. and Masatoshi Koshiba were jointly awarded the 2002 Nobel Prize in Physics. Both conducted pioneering work on solar neutrino detection, and Koshiba's work also resulted in the first real-time observation of neutrinos from the SN 1987A supernova. These efforts marked the beginning of neutrino astronomy.[28] As of today SN 1987A represents the only verified detection of neutrinos from a supernova.
Neutrino - Wikipedia
Calorimeters detect heat, which is not a conserved quantity:
A calorimeter is an object used for calorimetry, or the process of measuring the heat of chemical reactions or physical changes as well as heat capacity. [. . .] A simple calorimeter just consists of a thermometer attached to a metal container full of water suspended above a combustion chamber.It is very helpful in the study of thermodynamics and the law of heat transfer but the value that comes from the calorimeter is always an approximated value because there is a slight loss or gain of heat during operation or through the wall of calorimeter.
Calorimeter - Wikipedia
BTW, we've been over all this before. You couldn't substantiate your claims then, and you still can't.
And how, precisely, were the neutrinos detected? If you do a bit of reading, you will find that what we *actually* detect is a flash of light from a positron annihilating an electron. In other experiments, we can detect the energy of the electrons or positrons and perhaps their paths.
The neutrino properties are *calculated* from the observations of the light and paths of the charged particles.
Now, I agree that this is a detection of the neutrinos. But in this case, we also detect the energy of reactions.
Heat is a form of energy. Or didn't you know that? So we detect the energy.
Also, when you say that we *calculate* energy, what we *actually* do is use the motions of matter (particles) to calculate such. We can do this because energy is a property of the motion of particles.
Your claim that energy is something separate from matter is shown to be wrong. In this, matter consists of anything made from fermions or bosons and their motion.
Jumi
Well-Known Member
Usually when we use calorimeters we give out the results in joules, calories being dated though still in popular use. Based on the energy content a sample gives out we can reach conclusions. We can accurately predict based on the material used what it's energy content will be when we measure it. Energy a certain compound gives out when burned is based on the chemical bonds and thus electrons. Same is with chemical reactions and such things as fission or fusion. We also know what a mass of water rolling down a hill, what energy it will have when it reaches the bottom. "Energy" is tied with "matter", there's no energy outside it that I've heard of.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
A person with nerve damage won't feel or see matter either, depending on which nerves.
Neutrinos have mass, and meet the definition of "matter". If you wish to argue that neutrinos are not "matter," it obviously won't help defend that thesis of materialism.
No one denies that photons can be detected.
Correct. That's how we know that energy is not reducible to heat. Energy is a conserved quantity; heat is not.
Quote what I've actually said.
Energy is a conserved quantity; "matter" is not. Right?
The fact that no one has seen or touched energy has nothing to do with nerve damage. Energy is a quantity.
I'm not sure that the question-begging error of the thesis of “naturalism” that has been proposed here has been made clear.
It's circular to claim that the scientific method (whatever that is supposed to be) can be used to determine that nothing exists but phenomena that can be discovered by the scientific method. That's like using the search function on my computer to conclude that every document ever written is in the files of my computer, because the search function never turns up any document that isn't on my computer.
But that is what has been described here as the metaphysical thesis of naturalism--the claim that one can inductively infer from what has been discovered by use of “the methods of the natural sciences” that everything that exists can be discovered by “the methods of the natural sciences”.
It's circular to claim that the scientific method (whatever that is supposed to be) can be used to determine that nothing exists but phenomena that can be discovered by the scientific method. That's like using the search function on my computer to conclude that every document ever written is in the files of my computer, because the search function never turns up any document that isn't on my computer.
But that is what has been described here as the metaphysical thesis of naturalism--the claim that one can inductively infer from what has been discovered by use of “the methods of the natural sciences” that everything that exists can be discovered by “the methods of the natural sciences”.
We know that at least one type of neutrino has mass. We do not know that all do. Also, like electrons, they are thought to be point particles: they have no volume.
I do NOT wish to argue that neutrinos are not 'matter'. But that means that the definition of 'matter' as 'having mass and volume' is incorrect.
Are they matter? Besides, the question was whether neutrinos can be.
From #124
"Energy is a quantity. It is not an object that has mass and volume (matter). If you believe that or anything else I've said here is erroneous, then prove it."
Materialism doesn't claim that everything *is* matter. It claims that everything is matter *or* reduces to the motion of matter.
Energy qualifies. So does potential energy (it reduces to the placement of matter).