The Problem of Dualism

[Fool]

the problem of dualism is basically matter and energy.


basically matter appears as varying rates of energy. the faster something vibrates in relationship to something that vibrates slower appears to be denser in matter, or has more mass?

basically energy appears as more/less mass, vibratory giving the appearance of density. the more energy dense the more mass, the more dense?

 

[ratiocinator]

the problem of dualism is basically matter and energy.


basically matter appears as varying rates of energy. the faster something vibrates in relationship to something that vibrates slower appears to be denser in matter, or has more mass?

basically energy appears as more/less mass, vibratory giving the appearance of density. the more energy dense the more mass, the more dense?

Eh?

 

[Polymath257]

the problem of dualism is basically matter and energy.


basically matter appears as varying rates of energy. the faster something vibrates in relationship to something that vibrates slower appears to be denser in matter, or has more mass?

basically energy appears as more/less mass, vibratory giving the appearance of density. the more energy dense the more mass, the more dense?

Um, no. That's not how it works. Matter (substance) is different from mass (a property of matter related to its total energy). Matter can *have* energy. But it can also have momentum, spin, charge, and other properties. These are all different.

Dualism is *usually* a question of matter vs mind: are they the same 'substance' or not? Dualists would say no. Monists would say yes.

 

[`mud]

Add to your discovery the `resonance of dis-connected materials`,

nothing to with Mass or Size: A large bell chimes, and an inflated balloon resonates.
In space, or on Earth, energy travels, resonance happens.
In my mind ! The void needs filling !

 

[Fool]

Um, no. That's not how it works. Matter (substance) is different from mass (a property of matter related to its total energy). Matter can *have* energy. But it can also have momentum, spin, charge, and other properties. These are all different.

Dualism is *usually* a question of matter vs mind: are they the same 'substance' or not? Dualists would say no. Monists would say yes.

momentum, spin, and charge are all types of kinetic energy vs potential energy in matter? energy is more like something that is active vs something that appears inactive, or inert?


isn't there a dualistic type view of things either being energy or matter?

 

[Polymath257]

momentum, spin, and charge are all types of kinetic energy vs potential energy in matter?

No, they are not. They are all different than energy.

So, for example, a 2 kilogram mass moving at 4 meters per second has the same momentum as a 4 kilogram mass moving at 2 meters per second, but it has twice as much kinetic energy.

Spin is a completely different thing than energy. And charge is something very different than any of the others.

energy is more like something that is active vs something that appears inactive, or inert?

Nope. Energy is a very specific property that can be measured. We can say how much energy something has. And that determination is different than measuring the momentum or the charge or the spin.

isn't there a dualistic type view of things either being energy or matter?

I'm sure someone has come up with such, but it isn't the usual distinction made in the definition of dualism.

 

[Fool]

No, they are not. They are all different than energy.

So, for example, a 2 kilogram mass moving at 4 meters per second has the same momentum as a 4 kilogram mass moving at 2 meters per second, but it has twice as much kinetic energy.

Spin is a completely different thing than energy. And charge is something very different than any of the others.



Nope. Energy is a very specific property that can be measured. We can say how much energy something has. And that determination is different than measuring the momentum or the charge or the spin.



I'm sure someone has come up with such, but it isn't the usual distinction made in the definition of dualism.

here we go


Wave-particle duality

 

[Polymath257]

here we go

Wave-particle duality

Not the matter/energy duality you were looking for, though. It is, again, a very different thing.

 

[Fool]

Not the matter/energy duality you were looking for, though. It is, again, a very different thing.

understood. but i like the idea that in science they just didn't dismiss it and claim that particle and waves were absolutely two different thing but simply the fact that light can and does behave as two different things. it can be a form and a function

 

[Polymath257]

understood. but i like the idea that in science they just didn't dismiss it and claim that particle and waves were absolutely two different thing but simply the fact that light can and does behave as two different things. it can be a form and a function

Yes, it is an observational fact that light has both 'particle' properties and 'wave' properties.

In fact, ALL quantum particles have both properties. This is part of what it means to be a 'quantum particle'. The classical division between 'particle' and 'wave' simply no longer holds at this level.

 

[PureX]

Um, no. That's not how it works. Matter (substance) is different from mass (a property of matter related to its total energy). Matter can *have* energy. But it can also have momentum, spin, charge, and other properties. These are all different.

These are all just the different perceived effects of expressed energy. Also mass, space, time, and so on.

It's all 'energy expressed'.

 

[Nakosis]

the problem of dualism is basically matter and energy.


basically matter appears as varying rates of energy. the faster something vibrates in relationship to something that vibrates slower appears to be denser in matter, or has more mass?

basically energy appears as more/less mass, vibratory giving the appearance of density. the more energy dense the more mass, the more dense?

Even if correct, I don't understand what this has to do with dualism.

 

[ratiocinator]

These are all just the different perceived effects of expressed energy. Also mass, space, time, and so on.

It's all 'energy expressed'.

No, it isn't. You really don't get to decide on these things. Energy, momentum, spin, charge, etc. are are properties that are defined by science. It's not a subject that's up for debate or a question of personal belief.

If you have a personal belief that all these properties, and space and time are all something 'expressed', then fine, you're free to have that belief, but it is simply factually incorrect to identify that something with energy, which already has a definition that makes your statement wrong.

 

[Fool]

No, it isn't. You really don't get to decide on these things. Energy, momentum, spin, charge, etc. are are properties that are defined by science. It's not a subject that's up for debate or a question of personal belief.

If you have a personal belief that all these properties, and space and time are all something 'expressed', then fine, you're free to have that belief, but it is simply factually incorrect to identify that something with energy, which already has a definition that makes your statement wrong.

so light energy, light matter, dark energy, and dark matter aren't the basic stuff of the universe?


Dark Energy, Dark Matter | Science Mission Directorate

 

[PureX]

No, it isn't. You really don't get to decide on these things. Energy, momentum, spin, charge, etc. are are properties that are defined by science. It's not a subject that's up for debate or a question of personal belief.

You really don't understand science, then. Because it's ALL up for debate.

If you have a personal belief that all these properties, and space and time are all something 'expressed', then fine, you're free to have that belief, but it is simply factually incorrect to identify that something with energy, which already has a definition that makes your statement wrong.

We have no idea what energy is. All we know of it is what we see it do. And it's reasonable to assume that it does far more than we see. But as to what it is; that's a complete mystery. And yet is is the foundation of existence, itself; physical and metaphysical (conceptual).

 

[ratiocinator]

so light energy, light matter, dark energy, and dark matter aren't the basic stuff of the universe?

Are you using "light energy" and "light matter" to mean as opposed "dark energy" and "dark matter"?

Matter is rather a vague term, it refers to some subset of the "stuff" that's in the universe but exactly what subset depends on the context. Energy, as has already been pointed out, is a property of matter (and other stuff). Dark matter is matter we cannot detect (so far) except by its gravitational effects on visible matter and may consist of particles we don't know about. Dark energy is still a bit of a mystery but it isn't just energy.

Perhaps have a look at this, if you're interested: Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy

If anything is the "basic stuff of the universe" it would be quantum fields.

 

[ratiocinator]

You really don't understand science, then. Because it's ALL up for debate.

The theories of science always are, but we are talking about well defined, measurable quantities. Energy isn't suddenly going to mean something other than a physical quantity measured in kilogram square meters per second squared (joules) and momentum isn't going to suddenly change from a quantity measured in kilogram meters per second, into "energy expressed", neither is electric charge, which is measured in ampere seconds (coulombs).

We have no idea what energy is. All we know of it is what we see it do. And it's reasonable to assume that it does far more than we see. But as to what it is; that's a complete mystery. And yet is is the foundation of existence, itself; physical and metaphysical (conceptual).

Nonsense.

 

[crossfire]

so light energy, light matter, dark energy, and dark matter aren't the basic stuff of the universe?


Dark Energy, Dark Matter | Science Mission Directorate

Matter and energy are both rupa (form--physical.)

 

[`mud]

The Cosmos is just a perpetually large section of the bowl of photons that we all exist in.
I love the inactive ones, don't you

 

[PureX]

The theories of science always are, but we are talking about well defined, measurable quantities. Energy isn't suddenly going to mean something other than a physical quantity ...

A quantity of WHAT? All we know of 'energy' is that it 'happens'. We have no idea what it actually IS. Measuring what it's doing does not tell us anything about what it IS.