Philosophy Now Forum

Matter is high-entropy, entangled energy. Think of it as an eddy in a river. For a time it stabalizes and forms a coherent pattern at a higher level of analysis (ie. emergence). The more stable that pattern is, the more solid the matter.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 6:28 pm Matter is high-entropy, entangled energy. Think of it as an eddy in a river. For a time it stabalizes and forms a coherent pattern at a higher level of analysis (ie. emergence). The more stable that pattern is, the more solid the matter.

Again quite dubious. Though it's quite reasonable to think that matter and energy are somehow one and the same thing fundamentally, there are some more specific details added here that look like educated guesses.

For example why would the stability of 'patterns' have to do with the solidity of matter? What does that mean? Why would there be any 'patterns' in nature?

Funny that on one hand, you seem to stick to 'actionable certainty', and metaphysical speculations are cut where we usually do them. But on the other hand, you do metaphysical speculation on gravity and matter (presented as fact), even though here it's arguably useless or less than useless.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 6:28 pm Matter is high-entropy, entangled energy. Think of it as an eddy in a river. For a time it stabalizes and forms a coherent pattern at a higher level of analysis (ie. emergence). The more stable that pattern is, the more solid the matter.

Matter is generally considered lower in entropy than energy. Gases higher entropy than solids. Planets and stars settling out of the higher entropy more energy-based 'stuff' that came before solar systems and stars.

[quote=Atla post_id=677676 time=1699045896 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=586999 time=1659202081 user_id=15238]
Matter is high-entropy, entangled energy. Think of it as an eddy in a river. For a time it stabalizes and forms a coherent pattern at a higher level of analysis (ie. emergence). The more stable that pattern is, the more solid the matter.
[/quote]
Again quite dubious. Though it's quite reasonable to think that matter and energy are somehow one and the same thing fundamentally, there are some more specific details added here that look like educated guesses.

For example why would the stability of 'patterns' have to do with the solidity of matter? What does that mean? Why would there be any 'patterns' in nature?

Funny that on one hand, you seem to stick to 'actionable certainty', and metaphysical speculations are cut where we usually do them. But on the other hand, you do metaphysical speculation on gravity and matter (presented as fact), even though here it's arguably useless or less than useless.
[/quote]

The cutting edge of science is always speculation, and when scientific speculation isn't sufficient to develop answers, metaphysical speculation is necessary, besides which there are metaphysical truths that science must accept, such as that the universe is infinite in all three physical dimensions (time, space, and scale).

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2023 7:08 pm The cutting edge of science is always speculation, and when scientific speculation isn't sufficient to develop answers, metaphysical speculation is necessary, besides which there are metaphysical truths that science must accept, such as that the universe is infinite in all three physical dimensions (time, space, and scale).

lol..

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2023 7:08 pm The cutting edge of science is always speculation, and when scientific speculation isn't sufficient to develop answers, metaphysical speculation is necessary, besides which there are metaphysical truths that science must accept, such as that the universe is infinite in all three physical dimensions (time, space, and scale).

There is so much wrong with this it is hard to know where to start.

There is no "necessity" to accept metaphysical "Truths" as if there was such a thing.

The last sentence has no basis in truth.