dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (07/24/84)
<> Quoting ... >From: gwyn@brl-tgr.UUCP Mon Jul 23 23:17:02 1984 >...... In which case, if >their "energy" does not denote the same thing as the physicists', >indeed separate words are needed for these separate concepts. This sounds like a good idea, but a lot to ask from English. Consider the word "force." Are we going to do away with "armed force," "force of will," "force the door open," and so on, retaining only "time rate of change of momentum" as a definition? What about "integrate" and "differentiate"? Perhaps in an ideal language (like the one proposed by Descartes) such ambiguities would not arise. For me, I'm willing to say "I feel full of energy today" without a twinge of guilt. And I'm willing to concede to mystics the right to use these terms as they will, so long as it is made clear that their "energy" and the term as used in physics are really different concepts; i.e. if we avoid the error of equivocation. As you say (and I completely agree): >My original objection against Shirley Maclaine's use of the term was >that it smacks of an attempt to borrow legitimacy from a proper use >of the concept in order to enhance the prestige of her vague ideas. D Gary Grady Duke University Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-4146 USENET: {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
jso@edison.UUCP (07/24/84)
Physicists have come up with a precise definition of "work", "force", and
other words also, and this doesn't have any effect on their normal meanings.
What's the difference between this and "energy"?
John Owens
...!{ {duke mcnc}!ncsu!uvacs houxm brl-bmd scgvaxd }!edison!jsovjm@rabbit.UUCP (Victor Milenkovic) (07/25/84)
--- But Sunny, those with PSI don't *need* a news group. Victor Milenkovic
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/25/84)
> Ok, so if you can't measure it in your physics laboratory, and don't want to > apply the term "energy" to the phenomena when one mind communicates directly > with another across some "ether", what term would you offer us to describe > what otherwise might be called PSI energy? How about: Sheer speculation? Presumptive beliefs without evidence? Fraud? -- "Now, Benson, I'm going to have to turn you into a dog for a while." "Ohhhh, thank you, Master!!" Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
pdt@mhuxv.UUCP (tyma) (07/26/84)
sunny@sun.uucp sez: >Surely you can't propose that the communications is an energyless >phenomena [sic] (for anything which has a remote effect is doing >work, i.e. transferring energy). I'm not about to argue whether communications is an energyless phenomenon. For one thing, it doesn't sit well with the second law of thermodynamics. However, there is no truth to the rumor that "anything which has a remote effect is doing work, i.e. transferring energy." Consider gravity as a simple counterexample. The force due to gravity arises from the mass of an object. Suppose that there is a large mass; it produces a gravitational field. If a small test mass is suddenly introduced into this field at rest, it will be accelerated toward the large mass as a result of the force of gravity. The large mass is no less massive as a consequence of this, and it has no less energy. (It has not transferred any energy to the test mass.) The movement of the test mass, newly acquired kinetic energy, has come at the expense of the (gravitational) potential energy of the test mass, which has been concomitantly reduced. A remote effect has been effected (the masses were not in contact), but no energy has been "transferred"--it has been interconverted from potential to kinetic form. Never forget Fudd's First Law of Opposition: "If you push something hard enough, it will fall over."
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (07/26/84)
net.psi would be a good idea, so long as the postings are not duplicated to net.sci, net.physics, etc.
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (07/30/84)
All right, time to get a few things straight. I can see how if you believe that words and concepts denote nothing and are arbitrary constructs of the human mind then you would grant equal validity to anyone's use of a word. Or, if you believe that meaning comes from a process of social agreement, then you might decide that the usage with the most adherents wins the vote. However, if one believes that concepts are man's means of organizing his perceptions of an objective reality, then words (labels for concepts) must not be arbitrary. The concept of "energy" has been made precise by those who are tasked with investigating physical phenomena, the physicists. This is not to say that physics "has all the answers", or is infallible, or will not further refine its concepts. Indeed, regular readers of net.physics are aware that I am rather critical of many current trends in physics. However, knowledge is possible in spite of lack of absolute certainty; how this is possible is a central question of epistemology, to which only one philosopher has given a satisfactory answer so far as I am aware. (Most give up when they realize that absolute certainty about the physical world is unrealizable.) The important point with regard to the concept of "energy" is that the physicists have made its (originally fuzzy) meaning much more precise and powerful, while the mystics have contributed nothing of the sort to the concept. If one of the counter-arguers demonstrates that the mystical idea denoted by their use of the word "energy" has a strong enough meaning to be really useful in dealing with experience, then that will enhance the validity of their concept. In which case, if their "energy" does not denote the same thing as the physicists', indeed separate words are needed for these separate concepts. I strongly suspect, however, given the past dismal performance of the field of philosophy, that they really have nothing specific in mind when they talk about "spiritual energy", "psi energy", and so forth. My original objection against Shirley Maclaine's use of the term was that it smacks of an attempt to borrow legitimacy from a proper use of the concept in order to enhance the prestige of her vague ideas. Well, guys, you aren't getting away with it. Comes the revolution!