LucidFlight wrote:What was the conclusion of that flame discussion, by the way?

SpeedOfSound wrote:

LucidFlight wrote:What was the conclusion of that flame discussion, by the way?

You mean LittleIdiot? The conclusion is that he is one of those sorts that will not give an inch on ANYTHING.

SpeedOfSound wrote:I find flames and collisions every bit as mysterious, or more so, than my neurons lending me consciousness. C is the easy problem. Flames are the true hard problem.

Little Idiot wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

LucidFlight wrote:What was the conclusion of that flame discussion, by the way?

You mean LittleIdiot? The conclusion is that he is one of those sorts that will not give an inch on ANYTHING.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:I find flames and collisions every bit as mysterious, or more so, than my neurons lending me consciousness. C is the easy problem. Flames are the true hard problem.

Then you will love this video of Richard Feynman...

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:
You mean LittleIdiot? The conclusion is that he is one of those sorts that will not give an inch on ANYTHING.

Heh! I knew you was lurking.

Teuton wrote:

Templeton wrote: Matter is energy…

No!

"Although it is far less common today, one still sometimes hears of Einstein's equation entailing that matter can be converted into energy. Strictly speaking, this constitutes an elementary category mistake. In relativistic physics, as in classical physics, mass and energy are both regarded as properties of physical systems or properties of the constituents of physical systems. If one wishes to talk about the physical stuff that is the bearer of such properties, then one typically talks about either 'matter' or 'fields'. The distinction between 'matter' and 'fields' in modern physics is itself rather subtle in no small part because of the equivalence of mass and energy. Nevertheless, we can assert that whatever sense of 'conversion' seems compelling between mass and energy, it will have to be a 'conversion' between mass and energy, and not between matter and energy. Finally, our observation obtains even in so-called 'annihilation' reactions where the entire mass of the incoming particles seems to 'disappear' (…). Of course, the older terminology of 'matter' and 'anti-matter' does not really help our philosophical understanding of mass-energy equivalence and is perhaps partly to blame for misconceptions surrounding E = mc2."

(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME)

Philosophers such as Torretti (1996) and physicists such as Eddington (1929) have adopted the same-property interpretation. For example, Eddington states that “it seems very probable that mass and energy are two ways of measuring what is essentially the same thing, in the same sense that the parallax and distance of a star are two ways of expressing the same property of location” (1929, p. 146). According to Eddington, the distinction between mass and energy is artificial. We treat mass and energy as different properties of physical systems because we routinely measure them using different units. However, one can measure mass and energy using the same units by choosing units in which c = 1, i.e., units in which distances are measured in units of time (e.g., light-years). Once we do this, Eddington claims, the distinction between mass and energy disappears.

DrWho wrote:
It depends upon one's interpertation...

Teuton wrote:

DrWho wrote:
It depends upon one's interpertation...

To say that mass and energy are the same physical property is not to say that matter is the same as energy.