- #1
RAD4921
- 347
- 1
e=mc^2=monism??
Doesn't Einstien's famous equation prove some sort of monism or at least strongly suggest it?
Doesn't Einstien's famous equation prove some sort of monism or at least strongly suggest it?
RAD4921 said:Doesn't Einstien's famous equation prove some sort of monism or at least strongly suggest it?
Les Sleeth said:Why should mass and energy have anything to do with light?
A possibility I've suggested is that mass is actually a concentration of some basic existential "stuff"; in the past I've termed it illumination. If you rearrange Einstien's equation a little you get: E/M = C^2. You can see the proportion of E to M has to be relatively huge to give C^2. So maybe mass is a concentration of illumination,
Tom Mattson said:They don't. At least not by virtue of Einstein's equation. The fact that we refer to 'c' as the speed of light is just an historical accident. The universal upper limit of speed really has nothing to do with light-ness.
Tom Mattson said:It doesn't prove or suggest monism at all. All it says is that objects have energy just by virtue of the fact that they have mass. If we merge SR with quantum theory, we see that the conjunction of the two theories implies that massive particles can annihilate with their antiparticles and produce photons. But all this is in the realm of physical objects (particles and fields). None of it can be extrapolated to the mind, and so it cannot rule out dualism
RAD4921 said:Doesn't Einstien's famous equation prove some sort of monism or at least strongly suggest it?
Les Sleeth said:Just that fact that most of what exists in this universe is matter and energy, and there's an = sign between them can be interpreted monistically can't it?
Tom Mattson said:But all this is in the realm of physical objects (particles and fields). None of it can be extrapolated to the mind, and so it cannot rule out dualism.
Tom Mattson said:In other words, what evidence do you have that E=mc2 has anything to say about consciousness? After all, doesn't the "monism-vs-dualism" issue center around the question, "Are matter and consciousness of the same nature or not?" So to imply (or suggest) a monism is to imply (or suggest) that dualism is wrong. Now you may be able to make a convincing case one way or the other on that question, but not with E=mc2.
Tom Mattson said:Boy oh boy, just look at us. Here you are saying that an equation that strictly pertains to material particles suggests a monism (and what other monism could that be other than a physicalist one?), and here I am pointing out that that equation does not rule out "something more". What's next, flying cows?
StatusX said:I don't think symmetry is anything special about nature, it just arises when we are looking at two things that are really aspects of the same thing.
StatusX said:For example, the laws governing electricity and magnetism are extremely symmetrical, but this isn't anything beautiful about nature, as some might suggest.
StatusX said:I would bet that the most fundamental law of nature will have no symmetry whatsoever, and in fact, that will be how we know we're at the end.
StatusX said:I don't think symmetry is anything special about nature, it just arises when we are looking at two things that are really aspects of the same thing. For example, the laws governing electricity and magnetism are extremely symmetrical, but this isn't anything beautiful about nature, as some might suggest. Once we discovered special relativity, we realized they were two aspects of the same thing. I would bet that the most fundamental law of nature will have no symmetry whatsoever, and in fact, that will be how we know we're at the end.
Tom Mattson said:Boy oh boy, just look at us. Here you are saying that an equation that strictly pertains to material particles suggests a monism (and what other monism could that be other than a physicalist one?), and here I am pointing out that that equation does not rule out "something more". What's next, flying cows?
derekmohammed said:Does 1+1=2 justify some sort of monism? Or Fg = GmM/r^2 does that justify some kind of monism?
The equation E=mc^2 is a famous equation developed by Albert Einstein that represents the relationship between energy (E) and mass (m) in the universe. It states that energy and mass are two different forms of the same thing and are interchangeable.
The equation E=mc^2 has been used by some philosophers and scientists to support the concept of monism, which is the belief that everything in the universe is ultimately made up of one fundamental substance. In this case, that substance is energy, which can manifest itself as both mass and light.
No, E=mc^2 is not the only evidence for monism. There are other scientific theories and experiments that support the idea of a fundamental substance underlying all matter and energy in the universe, such as quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity.
The equation E=mc^2 has had a profound impact on our understanding of the universe. It has helped us understand the relationship between mass and energy and has led to advancements in fields such as nuclear energy and astronomy. It has also challenged traditional notions of duality and has opened up new philosophical discussions about the nature of reality.
At this time, there is no evidence to suggest that E=mc^2 is incorrect. It has been extensively tested and has been proven to be a fundamental law of the universe. However, as with any scientific theory, it is always subject to further testing and revision as our understanding of the universe evolves.