Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Post by owl of Minerva »

RCSaunders wrote:

No, that is not what it means. Energy is not a, "thing," or, "substance." Energy is the behavior matter accelerated by a force, energy equals (one half the mass time the velocity squared), so the energy in the E=mc2 is not, "stuff," it is the change in the mass of entities accelerated by the force component of that energy. If no mass is accelerated, there is no energy.

In special relativity, mass is not "converted" to energy, for all types of energy still retain their associated mass. Neither energy nor invariant mass can be destroyed in special relativity, and each is separately conserved over time in closed systems. Thus, a system's invariant mass may change only because invariant mass is allowed to escape, perhaps as light or heat. Thus, when reactions (whether chemical or nuclear) release energy in the form of heat and light, if the heat and light is not allowed to escape (the system is closed and isolated), the energy will continue to contribute to the system rest mass, and the system mass will not change. Only if the energy is released to the environment will the mass be lost; this is because the associated mass has been allowed out of the system, where it contributes to the mass of the surroundings. [E. F. Taylor; J. A. Wheeler (1992), Spacetime Physics, second edition, New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, pp. 248–249, ISBN 978-0-7167-2327-1]

That is just wrong. Photons have no, "rest mass," but there really is no such thing as a photon at rest, except potentially. Please see "Mass in special relativity."

.................................................................................................................................................................
owl of Minerva:

You may be confusing energy with charge which cannot exist without mass. You may also be thinking of energy, which does not exist independently, as not existing independently of mass. It is conserved in mass as well as in fields and in the electromagnetic field. Mass is not conserved. Energy is always conserved.

The mechanistic world views of Descartes and Newton have been discarded by science. That is not to say that at lower levels of function a more mechanistic model could still remain and be valid at the macro level, especially in relation to chemicals and charge.

Modern science has moved on and thinks of matter as coordinated forces. They describe all mineral, plant, and animal substance as made of 100 elements, which are further explained as nothing more than permutations and combinations of different atoms or wave-energies.

They are making inroads into philosophy's territory, thinking of the essence; the nature of things and their relationships to each other. Hence the relationship of energy to mass which has been described by Einstein "as two sides of the one coin" and elsewhere as "steps in the one ladder."
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Post by RCSaunders »

owl of Minerva wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 4:40 pm RCSaunders wrote:

No, that is not what it means. Energy is not a, "thing," or, "substance." Energy is the behavior matter accelerated by a force, energy equals (one half the mass time the velocity squared), so the energy in the E=mc2 is not, "stuff," it is the change in the mass of entities accelerated by the force component of that energy. If no mass is accelerated, there is no energy.

In special relativity, mass is not "converted" to energy, for all types of energy still retain their associated mass. Neither energy nor invariant mass can be destroyed in special relativity, and each is separately conserved over time in closed systems. Thus, a system's invariant mass may change only because invariant mass is allowed to escape, perhaps as light or heat. Thus, when reactions (whether chemical or nuclear) release energy in the form of heat and light, if the heat and light is not allowed to escape (the system is closed and isolated), the energy will continue to contribute to the system rest mass, and the system mass will not change. Only if the energy is released to the environment will the mass be lost; this is because the associated mass has been allowed out of the system, where it contributes to the mass of the surroundings. [E. F. Taylor; J. A. Wheeler (1992), Spacetime Physics, second edition, New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, pp. 248–249, ISBN 978-0-7167-2327-1]

That is just wrong. Photons have no, "rest mass," but there really is no such thing as a photon at rest, except potentially. Please see "Mass in special relativity."

.................................................................................................................................................................
owl of Minerva:

You may be confusing energy with charge which cannot exist without mass. You may also be thinking of energy, which does not exist independently, as not existing independently of mass. It is conserved in mass as well as in fields and in the electromagnetic field. Mass is not conserved. Energy is always conserved.

The mechanistic world views of Descartes and Newton have been discarded by science. That is not to say that at lower levels of function a more mechanistic model could still remain and be valid at the macro level, especially in relation to chemicals and charge.

Modern science has moved on and thinks of matter as coordinated forces. They describe all mineral, plant, and animal substance as made of 100 elements, which are further explained as nothing more than permutations and combinations of different atoms or wave-energies.

They are making inroads into philosophy's territory, thinking of the essence; the nature of things and their relationships to each other. Hence the relationship of energy to mass which has been described by Einstein "as two sides of the one coin" and elsewhere as "steps in the one ladder."
I provided a reference and the perfectly clear statement, "In special relativity, mass is not 'converted' to energy," which means they are not interchangeable. The reference clearly states, "for all types of energy still retain their associated mass. Neither energy nor invariant mass can be destroyed in special relativity, and each is separately conserved over time in closed systems.

As far as I can see, you've just taken your mistaken understanding of relativity and just made stuff up.
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Post by owl of Minerva »

RCSaunders wrote:

I provided a reference and the perfectly clear statement, "In special relativity, mass is not 'converted' to energy," which means they are not interchangeable. The reference clearly states, "for all types of energy still retain their associated mass. Neither energy nor invariant mass can be destroyed in special relativity, and each is separately conserved over time in closed systems.

As far as I can see, you've just taken your mistaken understanding of relativity and just made stuff up.

..............................................................................................................................................................................

owl of Minerva

So in your estimation the fuss over special relativity was 'much ado about nothing.' It was not revolutionary, it did not in any way shape or form shake up Newtonian physics? What was all the fuss about then?
seeds
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Post by seeds »

Lacewing wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 5:15 pm
uwot wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 8:43 am...
Thank you for your well-communicated explanation!...

...When I first heard about particle entanglement, I thought "Yes! We're discovering more about measurable connections!" There are connections/links at the smallest levels, and that potential measured there must surely be reflected throughout all. We're not just a bunch of isolated static lumps bumping into each other.
Lacewing wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 5:36 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 1:03 pm...
Thanks for your response. I'm clearly not using the right language for a scientific view. But I'm trying to communicate ideas despite that... :lol: ...as I just described in my response to uwot...

...In basic terms (since it's difficult for me to communicate sufficiently with scientific lingo), if everything we see in our physical reality is made up of moving particles and waves and fields, it does not seem far-fetched to consider that there is some kind of cooperative/coordinated sharing/exchange, which is demonstrated by all that we see.

My reference to an exchange of 'information' is pointing to that which can be shared/accessed through connection/interaction.
Lacewing, you are right on the money with your ideas. So don't let the "science boys" browbeat you with their responses in ways that make you question or doubt your logical thinking on these matters.

Furthermore, when it comes to the definition of the word "energy," according to Britannica...
Britannica wrote: energy, in physics, the capacity for doing work. It may exist in potential, kinetic, thermal, electrical, chemical, nuclear, or other various forms. There are, moreover, heat and work—i.e., energy in the process of transfer from one body to another. ... All forms of energy are associated with motion.
I think the problem is that some of us (myself included) tend to use the word "energy" to describe the infinitely malleable (informationally-based) "substance" from which all of (material) reality is created.

As an example of the "substance" I am referring to, let's look at the double slit experiment and try to picture the state of an electron (a piece of matter) as it momentarily resides in the interim space between the slitted wall and the phosphorescent screen.

Image

As the electron passes through the double slits and transitions from wall-to-screen, it seems to spread out into a wave of ?"something"? that, according to theory, appears to be a superpositioning of all possible positions and outcomes for the electron.

Well, it is the mysterious state of that dynamically moving, interpenetrating (entangled) "something" that some of us like to call "energy," which, again, is just another word (or synonym) we use to describe the infinitely malleable "substance" from which all of (material) reality is constructed.

I guess my point is that the sticklers to the standard definition of the word "energy" (as seen in the Britannica quote) need to realize that words sometimes have multiple uses and meanings.
_______
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Post by RCSaunders »

owl of Minerva wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 2:12 pm So in your estimation the fuss over special relativity was 'much ado about nothing.' It was not revolutionary, it did not in any way shape or form shake up Newtonian physics? What was all the fuss about then?
Not at all. The measureable relationships between energy phenomena were extremely important with many practical applications from nuclear energy to solid state electronics. Unfortunately, the metaphors and models of physics are often interpreted by others as reified facts (the way most people think sub-atomic particles are like little hard balls) and forget they are only ways of picturing or conceiving the mathematical relationships. The same thing happened with the so-called wave/particle duality of light and quantum theory (which is odd, because chemistry had already established the quantisization of physical matter as atoms).
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Post by Lacewing »

seeds wrote: Fri Oct 01, 2021 9:11 pm
Lacewing to uwot wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 5:15 pm ...When I first heard about particle entanglement, I thought "Yes! We're discovering more about measurable connections!" There are connections/links at the smallest levels, and that potential measured there must surely be reflected throughout all. We're not just a bunch of isolated static lumps bumping into each other.
Lacewing to RC wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 5:36 pm ...In basic terms (since it's difficult for me to communicate sufficiently with scientific lingo), if everything we see in our physical reality is made up of moving particles and waves and fields, it does not seem far-fetched to consider that there is some kind of cooperative/coordinated sharing/exchange, which is demonstrated by all that we see.
Lacewing, you are right on the money with your ideas. So don't let the "science boys" browbeat you with their responses in ways that make you question or doubt your logical thinking on these matters.

Furthermore, when it comes to the definition of the word "energy," according to Britannica...
Britannica wrote: energy, in physics, the capacity for doing work. It may exist in potential, kinetic, thermal, electrical, chemical, nuclear, or other various forms. There are, moreover, heat and work—i.e., energy in the process of transfer from one body to another. ... All forms of energy are associated with motion.
Thank you for your response and understanding, seeds.

Although difficult to describe, there can be a presence and quality of 'energy' that seems very noticeable to me... in all sorts of situations, and from all sorts of beings. It's not as if I'm expecting it or asking/looking for it at those times, it's just there and I seem to perceive it. I've also received 'instant clarity/direction' when I do 'send out' a request 'into the Universe' at times -- typically when I'm feeling really stumped or lost in regard to something (I do not feel compelled to request information in this way often). Further, through reflection and observance throughout life, I can see all sorts of connections happening. So, it appears to me that there is a network/web through which all is connected and accessible and informed and vibrating... whether or not it is perceived or accessed. :) And, for me, the word 'energy' can refer to the various forms and qualities of that.

The concept of 'entanglement' -- as in particle entanglement -- seems (to me) to be a complicated way of recognizing connection, which must surely therefore exist throughout all (since all is made up of these connected particles), and which must surely suggest fantastic implications and potential (as a result of such connection).

I would very much like to hear a science-minded person describe what they see as the implications (if any) of particle entanglement for the human/macro level? Does the micro level not reflect/repeat similarly on the macro level?

And then a few questions for anyone who thinks that all is ultimately connected as 'one' at some level: If that is so, how would/could anything be 'separate' or 'serious' beyond that which appears to play out on this Earth stage? Is it possible to embrace and engage in the experience on this stage, while not subscribing to extreme views of separateness and seriousness? And what might be possible while having such capability as that?
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Post by owl of Minerva »

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 8:12 am So in your estimation the fuss over special relativity was 'much ado about nothing.' It was not revolutionary, it did not in any way shape or form shake up Newtonian physics? What was all the fuss about then?
..........................................................................
RCSaunders wrote:
Not at all. The measureable relationships between energy phenomena were extremely important with many practical applications from nuclear energy to solid state electronics. Unfortunately, the metaphors and models of physics are often interpreted by others as reified facts (the way most people think sub-atomic particles are like little hard balls) and forget they are only ways of picturing or conceiving the mathematical relationships. The same thing happened with the so-called wave/particle duality of light and quantum theory (which is odd, because chemistry had already established the quantization of physical matter

______________________________________________________

The facts (not metaphors) are that Newton unified the cosmos through his discoveries and Einstein's discoveries built on that by further unifying, through his equation, which expressed the equivalence of mass and energy, two physical parameters previously believed to be completely separate. As for thinking that sub-atomic particles are thought of "as little hard balls." No comment.
seeds
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Post by seeds »

Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 04, 2021 1:56 pm The concept of 'entanglement' -- as in particle entanglement -- seems (to me) to be a complicated way of recognizing connection, which must surely therefore exist throughout all (since all is made up of these connected particles), and which must surely suggest fantastic implications and potential (as a result of such connection).
I don't see it so much as being a "...complicated way of recognizing connection...," but more of an actual scientific verification that everything is indeed connected at a deeper level of reality.

In other words, the concept of "oneness" is no longer some far-fetched notion professed by mystics.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 04, 2021 1:56 pm Although difficult to describe, there can be a presence and quality of 'energy' that seems very noticeable to me... in all sorts of situations, and from all sorts of beings. It's not as if I'm expecting it or asking/looking for it at those times, it's just there and I seem to perceive it. I've also received 'instant clarity/direction' when I do 'send out' a request 'into the Universe' at times...
What you have described sounds like a form of "prayer" to me, a form of prayer minus the silly expectation of there being a giant anthropomorphized entity, bent over with elbows on knees, somehow intently listening to billions of requests coming in simultaneously from all over the planet.

No, instead, as you are perhaps correctly intuiting, the possibility that everything is instantly connected via quantum entanglement, means that sometimes (definitely not always) our prayers can set the underlying informational underpinning of reality in motion in such a way that can bring-forth answers and solutions to whatever it is we are requesting.

I have often thought of it as being a scientific version (or parallel) of the Biblical notion of there being a ubiquitously present "holy spirit" through-which our prayers are sometimes answered (mechanistically) without the need for any direct involvement of God's central consciousness.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 04, 2021 1:56 pm I would very much like to hear a science-minded person describe what they see as the implications (if any) of particle entanglement for the human/macro level? Does the micro level not reflect/repeat similarly on the macro level?
Well, hopefully, the "science-minded" person you are hoping to hear from isn't your typical hardcore materialist who needs a proctologist to remove the corncob from his/her rectum when it comes to entertaining any sort of metaphysical notions. :D
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 04, 2021 1:56 pm And then a few questions for anyone who thinks that all is ultimately connected as 'one' at some level: If that is so, how would/could anything be 'separate' or 'serious' beyond that which appears to play out on this Earth stage? Is it possible to embrace and engage in the experience on this stage, while not subscribing to extreme views of separateness and seriousness? And what might be possible while having such capability as that?
I'm not sure of what you're getting at, especially your use of the word "seriousness."

Can you please clarify what you are trying to say in the above quote?
_______
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Post by owl of Minerva »

Reflecting on the discoveries of Newton and Einstein brought to mind how the discoveries were made, by thinking outside the linear trap; a straight line; cause and effect, that the mind holds us to. Instead they thought of dots or points and how to connect them, how they related to each other. Mathematicians have felt stymied and felt despair when their calculations brought them to the end of the line and they bumped up against infinity and could not calculate further.

In daily life we have to think in a linear fashion, past, present, and future and the brain is not inclined to think in points, to work at connecting the dots. Newton gave credit to those before him who assembled the dots. Not sure if Einstein did or if he gave credit to his first wife, if she made a contribution. Newton was a man of humility and character.

If we learn to think more as points in space, to be eventually connected through eventual discoveries, it is less limiting to the mind than the linear mode we use in daily life. Even if all ends in one point it is not limiting as is the end of the line. The one point and multiple points in space can co-exist. With the end of the line there is nothing else to explore. If all is connected there is still newness and change, so it should not be boring.

What philosopher's in the past and what current ones think outside the linear trap of cause and effect, of what leads to what and onto an eventual end of the line. Who instead thinks of what is connected, what not only relates but in what way are they similar?
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Post by Lacewing »

seeds wrote: Mon Oct 04, 2021 11:18 pm
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 04, 2021 1:56 pm The concept of 'entanglement' -- as in particle entanglement -- seems (to me) to be a complicated way of recognizing connection, which must surely therefore exist throughout all (since all is made up of these connected particles), and which must surely suggest fantastic implications and potential (as a result of such connection).
I don't see it so much as being a "...complicated way of recognizing connection...," but more of an actual scientific verification that everything is indeed connected at a deeper level of reality.
Yes, it is that.
seeds wrote: Mon Oct 04, 2021 11:18 pmIn other words, the concept of "oneness" is no longer some far-fetched notion professed by mystics.
Awesome! Now maybe people can talk about the implications and potential of that, and possibly see life with new eyes? :lol:
seeds wrote: Mon Oct 04, 2021 11:18 pm
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 04, 2021 1:56 pm Although difficult to describe, there can be a presence and quality of 'energy' that seems very noticeable to me... in all sorts of situations, and from all sorts of beings. It's not as if I'm expecting it or asking/looking for it at those times, it's just there and I seem to perceive it. I've also received 'instant clarity/direction' when I do 'send out' a request 'into the Universe' at times...
What you have described sounds like a form of "prayer" to me, a form of prayer minus the silly expectation of there being a giant anthropomorphized entity, bent over with elbows on knees, somehow intently listening to billions of requests coming in simultaneously from all over the planet.
I may go into it "asking", but then it feels like I've "accessed" something I'm innately part of. It's not something I want to "access" all the time -- else, I wouldn't be able to adventure through this human life of 'unknowns' as I do, and as I'm evidently here to experience.
seeds wrote: Mon Oct 04, 2021 11:18 pm I have often thought of it as being a scientific version (or parallel) of the Biblical notion of there being a ubiquitously present "holy spirit" through-which our prayers are sometimes answered (mechanistically) without the need for any direct involvement of God's central consciousness.
Yes... I can see that. One "spirit" of vast potential -- each particle reflecting/resonating the whole -- while manifested in magnificent displays of unique variation (as easily seen in the natural world, in the striking coloring of birds or the vibrancy of flowers.) It may be harder to see such brilliance in people from a typical human perspective... but when one's 'heart and mind are open' (perhaps?), one might see beauty radiating throughout all.
seeds wrote: Mon Oct 04, 2021 11:18 pm
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 04, 2021 1:56 pm I would very much like to hear a science-minded person describe what they see as the implications (if any) of particle entanglement for the human/macro level? Does the micro level not reflect/repeat similarly on the macro level?
Well, hopefully, the "science-minded" person you are hoping to hear from isn't your typical hardcore materialist who needs a proctologist to remove the corncob from his/her rectum when it comes to entertaining any sort of metaphysical notions. :D
:lol: :lol: I think it is a ridiculous mistake not to see how intertwined everything is, and to recognize the natural communication that happens within that, as can be seen (again) all throughout the natural world. It would make no sense that such organized/cooperative communication/exchange is not happening all throughout humans.

It's as if we (humans) are the example of what happens when beings pretend to split apart from all else to act like individual entities.
seeds wrote: Mon Oct 04, 2021 11:18 pm
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 04, 2021 1:56 pm And then a few questions for anyone who thinks that all is ultimately connected as 'one' at some level: If that is so, how would/could anything be 'separate' or 'serious' beyond that which appears to play out on this Earth stage? Is it possible to embrace and engage in the experience on this stage, while not subscribing to extreme views of separateness and seriousness? And what might be possible while having such capability as that?
I'm not sure of what you're getting at, especially your use of the word "seriousness."

Can you please clarify what you are trying to say in the above quote?
I will try! If all is one, then everything that happens is of the one. Any perceived battles between apparent separate entities, are battles within the one. Just as each of us may battle within ourselves at times, based on our varying perspectives or ideas -- there are no actual separate entities involved and it's not a serious matter. The same is surely true if all is one. Yet, we may tend to view everything as separate (instead of 'as one') and envision all sorts of seriousness associated with ourselves/life which we continually war/struggle with. Might we be more consciously empowered, however, if we were able to recognize oneness throughout all while acting out our temporary parts? How might that change the experience and potential of our lifetimes?
Post Reply