Development of life is due to energy.

[Being_1925]

Even when on the Philosophy discussions any mention of energy seems preaching. I try to explain something. The equation mass equals energy is widely accepted. This also means every development is from energy. Without the development of a brain energy could not be conscious, but with the brain, energy is conscious in man. In every person this consciousness is tied down by its circumstances. But it is the energy that gives man the freedom to think about the unending mass of energy and what are the possibilities for any development, that since is the creation of stars.

Earth as a Planet in the solar system, where the sun with its great power of attraction of the energy has given earth the chance to develop organic life by cooling down the earth and with the sunshine, The energy had the chance to create cells out of the organic elements, for plants and animals. Why should energy not be mentioned when it is the only thing that exists?

[Mark_Lee]

In ancient Greece during the flourishing of culture in Athens, two opposing schools of thought on metaphysics appeared. We have atomism, which is the idea that we are all made in the same substance, what they called atoms or "atomos" (uncuttable). The second is the four elements: earth, wind, fire, water.

If we really are being as scientifically accurate as we can, atomism is the better worldview. But it's less poetic. And really, the four elements concept is not an inaccurate concept. And if you believe in the four elements, you'd be able to understand how we can't simply just say that "energy is the only thing that exists" because of the four different categories of substances of the cosmos.

[UniversalAlien]

Why should energy not be mentioned when it is the only thing that exists?

A direct and obvious observation - No way to question it.

BUT - When you say "Development of life is due to energy" - Yes, you would need energy,
but why would that force, evolve, or create the development of life

Evolutionists, to this day, have no solid explanation of why 'biological life' exists
- they imply random chance arrangement of chemicals in a universe which, up until that point,
was biologically dead - They have no real explanation for biological life - But as long as they can eliminate any supernatural cause, such as a creator, they are happy.

I'm not so happy - the paradigm of Atheists has no more validity than the paradigm of
the Theists, who keep imagining a supernatural creator.

And the truth is - Unknown - Insufficient data to answer this question

[Steve3007]

Even when on the Philosophy discussions any mention of energy seems preaching...

Why on Earth would there be anything specifically about discussions of the physical quantity, measured in SI units of joules, called energy which would "seem preaching"? Are there discussions about other physical quantities (mass, length, electric charge etc) that seem preaching? Or just energy?

[Steve3007]

Why should energy not be mentioned when it is the only thing that exists?

I wasn't aware that the word "energy" had been censored.

[Terrapin Station]

Even when on the Philosophy discussions any mention of energy seems preaching. I try to explain something. The equation mass equals energy is widely accepted. This also means every development is from energy. Without the development of a brain energy could not be conscious, but with the brain, energy is conscious in man. In every person this consciousness is tied down by its circumstances. But it is the energy that gives man the freedom to think about the unending mass of energy and what are the possibilities for any development, that since is the creation of stars.

Earth as a Planet in the solar system, where the sun with its great power of attraction of the energy has given earth the chance to develop organic life by cooling down the earth and with the sunshine, The energy had the chance to create cells out of the organic elements, for plants and animals. Why should energy not be mentioned when it is the only thing that exists?

Obviously developments are going to stem from energy, because energy is another term for motion, really. (The difference between energy and time connotatively is simply that energy is focused on motion's "ability to do things" and time is focused on relative motion--for our concerns, we especially concentrate on apparently regular, cyclical relative motion for time.) Motion is necessary for anything to develop, of course.

"Energy is the only thing that exists" is nonsense though. You can't have motion if you don't have something to move. You can't "just have motion" where it's not moving anything.

[Steve3007]

Obviously developments are going to stem from energy, because energy is another term for motion, really...

In a previous post in an unrelated topic we briefly started to discuss the concept of mass-less particles, like photons, and you expressed the view that such a concept is incoherent. I think you also expressed the view that kinetic energy is, in some sense, the only real kind of energy, as opposed to potential energy. We didn't pursue it there because it was way off topic.

So, according to physics, the photon is one particle (among others) with zero rest mass. Its energy is given by:

E = hf

where f is its frequency and h is Planck's constant.

Do you regard this idea as incoherent? On a sunny day, if you look up at the sky and feel warmth on your face, what do you think is the mechanism by which the Sun's energy reaches you? In your view, is it via the movement of something with mass?

[Terrapin Station]

Obviously developments are going to stem from energy, because energy is another term for motion, really...

In a previous post in an unrelated topic we briefly started to discuss the concept of mass-less particles, like photons, and you expressed the view that such a concept is incoherent. I think you also expressed the view that kinetic energy is, in some sense, the only real kind of energy, as opposed to potential energy. We didn't pursue it there because it was way off topic.

So, according to physics, the photon is one particle (among others) with zero rest mass. Its energy is given by:

E = hf

where f is its frequency and h is Planck's constant.

Do you regard this idea as incoherent?

Yes. Which doesn't imply that it has no utility as a mathematical statement, but ontologically, it's incoherent.

On a sunny day, if you look up at the sky and feel warmth on your face, what do you think is the mechanism by which the Sun's energy reaches you? In your view, is it via the movement of something with mass?

Yes.

[Steve3007]

Yes. Which doesn't imply that it has no utility as a mathematical statement, but ontologically, it's incoherent.

and:

Yes.

I don't see how you feel you can so cleanly separate that which you require in order to be, as you see it, ontologically coherent, and that which is descriptively/predicatively useful.

If, in order to be ontologically coherent, you need to think of something with mass transferring energy from the Sun to your face, then that proposition has implications for the descriptive/prescriptive utility of theories of physics. If there is mass involved then we have to ask questions about the nature of that mass, of its movements, and of the possible observed consequences. That is, unless there is some sense in which you can think of that energy as both being and not being transferred via the movements of mass, depending on your philosophical purposes today. That, to me, seems incoherent.

I think we've discussed this before, but I just don't see why the physical quantity called mass appears to you to be ontologically so different from the physical quantity called energy. They're both numbers in equations that we measure indirectly by measuring distances and times.

[Terrapin Station]

I don't see how you feel you can so cleanly separate that which you require in order to be, as you see it, ontologically coherent, and that which is descriptively/predicatively useful.

"The rains come when Joe, Pete and Betty do their rain dance and perform the right subsequent rituals to appease the rain gods. The times when they've not done this in the right way, we've had droughts."

It could very well be the case for an extended period of time that the rains come after Joe, Pete and Betty do their dance and perform the right subsequent rituals--which maybe go on for 3-7 days or whatever after the rain dance.

That doesn't imply that the rain dance has anything to do with why it really rains. And certainly there are no rain gods. But the dance/rituals could appear to work for an extended period of time.

Mathematics is a LANGUAGE that we've constructed to aid thinking about relations. That's all it is. It's no more what's really going on in the world than English is. Mathematics is simply a language that's more focused on thinking about relations in a complex, abstract way than English is.

Predicting things via English sentences--"The rains are going to come after Joe, Pete and Betty do their rain dance, etc." can work well enough, but it's not necessarily telling us much about what's really going on.

I think we've discussed this before, but I just don't see why the physical quantity called mass appears to you to be ontologically so different from the physical quantity called energy. They're both numbers in equations that we measure indirectly by measuring distances and times.

That's like saying that cats are just words in sentences. They're not though. We do have the word "cat" that we use in sentences, but that's not what cats are. The word "cat" is a representation of something that doesn't in any way depend on us to exist.

Energy, ontologically, is motion. You can't have motion without something to move. The something we're moving is matter.

[Steve3007]

"The rains come when Joe, Pete and Betty do their rain dance and perform the right subsequent rituals to appease the rain gods. The times when they've not done this in the right way, we've had droughts."

It could very well be the case for an extended period of time that the rains come after Joe, Pete and Betty do their dance and perform the right subsequent rituals--which maybe go on for 3-7 days or whatever after the rain dance.

That doesn't imply that the rain dance has anything to do with why it really rains. And certainly there are no rain gods. But the dance/rituals could appear to work for an extended period of time.

Your point here appears to be that correlation does not necessarily imply a causal relationship? If so, I agree. I don't see it as particularly relevant though.

Mathematics is a LANGUAGE that we've constructed to aid thinking about relations. That's all it is. It's no more what's really going on in the world than English is. Mathematics is simply a language that's more focused on thinking about relations in a complex, abstract way than English is.

I agree (and have told you before that I agree with this) and I still don't yet see the relevance.

Predicting things via English sentences--"The rains are going to come after Joe, Pete and Betty do their rain dance, etc." can work well enough, but it's not necessarily telling us much about what's really going on.

It depends what we're saying.

That's like saying that cats are just words in sentences. They're not though. We do have the word "cat" that we use in sentences, but that's not what cats are. The word "cat" is a representation of something that doesn't in any way depend on us to exist.

No, I disagree that it is like saying that. I don't deny that energy and mass exist independently of our descriptions of them in the same way that cats do. I was just making the point that we measure both of them indirectly by measurements of distances and times.

Energy, ontologically, is motion. You can't have motion without something to move. The something we're moving is matter.

Why do you say that energy, ontologically, is motion? You weren't born with that knowledge. If you'd never heard of the concept of energy you would still know about things moving but you wouldn't assign the concept of energy to that movement.

So how have you heard what energy is? If somebody tells you that there is a quantity called kinetic energy and that it is not the velocity of an object, but it is related to the velocity by this equation:

E = ¹/₂mv²

would you believe them?

If they then told you that there is a quantity called potential energy and it is not the height of an object but it is related to the height by this equation:

E = mgh

would you believe them?

If you'd never heard of energy before that, would you believe one of those things more than the other? If so, why? Why do you choose to believe that energy is motion? Who told you that?

[Terrapin Station]

Your point here appears to be that correlation does not necessarily imply a causal relationship? If so, I agree. I don't see it as particularly relevant though.

Just because the way we conceive/think/talk about something has utility, including for predictions, that doesn't imply that the way that we conceive/think or talk about something has any relation to the reality of the thing in question, how it really works, etc.

Nothing has anything to do with gods, because the notion of gods is nonsense. But lots of ways that we conceived, thought about, talked about and even made predictions about things had and unfortunately still have to do with gods.

People often make very similar mistakes with mathematics that they did with gods.

Why do you say that energy, ontologically, is motion?

Because I see it as my job as a philosopher to state facts.

Re the other comments, you mean how did I realize that's a fact? Via what I'd call "functional analysis" of common usage of the term relative to what really exists in the world/how it exists, etc.

[Steve3007]

Re the other comments, you mean how did I realize that's a fact?

I mean what I asked in my post. Why do you believe that energy is motion? Who told you that it is? Why did you believe them?

[Terrapin Station]

Re the other comments, you mean how did I realize that's a fact?

I mean what I asked in my post. Why do you believe that energy is motion? Who told you that it is? Why did you believe them?

As I wrote: "Via what I'd call 'functional analysis' of common usage of the term relative to what really exists in the world/how it exists, etc."

[Steve3007]

As I wrote: "Via what I'd call 'functional analysis' of common usage of the term relative to what really exists in the world/how it exists, etc."

So you look at how most people use that term and compare it to what really exists in the world. How do you find out what really exists in the world?