My assertion was that the concept physicists are talking about when they use the word "energy" appears to be a different thing than the concept that most people appear to be talking about when they use the word "God" (and use the word "energy" as a synonym for it.)An interesting assertion... please offer a justification for such conclusion. How "energy" and "God" are different "concepts"? Beside of course the difference in the point of view.
In physics, energy is a numerical quantity, measured in Joules (in the MKS system of measurements) that is the left hand side of various mathematical equations, whose variable are measured quantities. For example, in classical mechanics, the kinetic energy of a moving body is given by the equation:
where m is the mass of the object, as measured with a mass measuring device like a spring balance, and v is the velocity of the object, as measured by noting the position of the object at two different points in time (using rulers and clocks).
I've never heard God described in anything like that way. It seems unlikely that God is another way of looking at 1/2mv2. It seems much more likely that it's a different thing.
-- Updated Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:57 pm to add the following --
OK, a bit more. Then I really must go.
Well, you didn't actually say that. You said this:What I said, was that the "actual" "reality" will always be "limited" to subjective individual human perception.
But anyway, you've said it now, and expanded on it with an example:In actuality, "reality" most likely or even certainly is NOT what we perceive it to be.
OK, that is clear to me. It is related to what I said in post #12. You clearly take the view that there is some objectively existing "law of gravity" which is independent of any observations and of which our successive laws of gravity are imperfect, but gradually improving, reflections. You also take the view that we will never stumble on this objectively existing law of gravity. We will only ever have imperfect reflections of it.Example: Gravity doesn't "care" how we describe or perceive gravity. It "exists" independently of human perception. However, "how" we describe gravity isn't "actually" the way gravity "is", and hence it's not understood very well. Our perception of gravity will improve with "time" but it will "never" be completely "accurate".
Careful. You're using slightly different senses of the word "practical" here. In the first sentence you're expressing the (Platonic?) view that there is a reality that is independent of perceptions. In the second sentence you're using the word "practical" in a more everyday sense.In fact, the "reality" is independent of human perception, the premise that this may not be "practical" doesn't change that fact. Particle accelerators or gravity wave detectors may not be "practical", yet it's a worth while human endeavor to spend billions to achieve new insights about our reality.
Particle accelerators are practical in the sense that, like any other instrument of experimental physics, their purpose is to make observations - to provide us with perceptions. So one can take the view that there is no reality independent of the practice of perceiving it, and still think particle accelerators useful. But one can still think them not useful, or not practical, in the more everyday sense that perhaps we should spend the money that they cost on housing the homeless, or whatever.