Energy doesn't exist

[k9b4]

I mean if we had things but no movement then they wouldn't exist either

If time suddenly stopped, if all cause and effect ceased to function, everything would still exist in space, but there would be no life, heat, movement, 'energy' and force.

Nothing would happen, but things would still exist in space.

Also, we might need to revise that "99% empty" to 100%.

Well, the charge exists at a point right? So when we say an atom is 99% empty, it means that 99% of the space inside an atom is not a charge source, and 1% of the space inside an atom is a charge source.

As for trusting one's senses- I have had dreams (or might be having one right now) that were more realistic than reality.

I don't believe you. I think it is impossible to imagine reality in the same amount of detail with which you can see it with your eyes. When you imagine something, can you honestly say that it looks exactly the same, every single tiny detail, as if you were looking at it with your eyes? If your answer is yes, perhaps you have a seriously underdeveloped sensing, or perhaps I have a seriously underdeveloped imagination. But I think the latter is unlikely.

 

[Reluctantly]

^ That's debatable. I've imagined before that matter is in relative movement with other matter and that its definition and form depends on this movement, a movement that we generally refer to as time (where time is something that is relative to a reference of movement). Stop time, then you have simply nothing because the movement created the form of all matter and you would have removed it.

 

[Cherry Cola]

With time stopped nothing would be interconnected, there would be no frame of reference for anything. For things to exist then, they could only do so at some undiscoverable subatomic level as base components, things in themselves; lonely monads - each its own universe. Our universe would cease to be as Reluctantly says.

I don't anything can be said to exist in itself though, without contrast how could anything exist? If everything we saw was blue we wouldn't consider blue a color.

Oh and I've done psychedelics and had close eye visuals which looked exactly like reality, the capacity is definitely there in the human mind to imagine things with such detail.

 

[nanook]

dreams can be detailed and can speak to all senses, touch, smell, sound and so on, but they can not be a stable as reality. what makes reality so convincing is how reliable it is. you can come to a piece of shit from many different angels, you can even come back a few hours later and it will still be the same, even if dried out a litte. that's a shitty example. you can focus on the sight outside of the window. then on the touching of your back and chair, then back to the window. in a dream this isn't happening, because you always make up a new perception every time you shift focus. reality is that which resembles your expectations the most. but life doesn't. the animated part of it. the shit you get from other people comes unexpected. so anima stands out of our concept of reality. when life surprises us we may call it unreal. living is transcending memory. dreaming is transcending memory. real=dead end. past manifestation.

 

[k9b4]

that's a shitty example..

hehe

kb94

hehe

With time stopped nothing would be interconnected, there would be no frame of reference for anything. For things to exist then, they could only do so at some undiscoverable subatomic level as base components, things in themselves; lonely monads - each its own universe. Our universe would cease to be as Reluctantly says.

^ That's debatable. I've imagined before that matter is in relative movement with other matter and that its definition and form depends on this movement, a movement that we generally refer to as time (where time is something that is relative to a reference of movement). Stop time, then you have simply nothing because the movement created the form of all matter and you would have removed it.

If exists = has an effect on reality, than you two are both correct. If time stopped, there would be no cause and effect, and thus nothing would affect anything.

This definition of exists is not what I mean.

I think in my mind exists = occupies space.

Now don't get me wrong, this doesn't mean that only things with mass exist. EM field exists because it travels through space. Neutrons, even through they have no charge and go straight through other matter, exist because they occupy space.

Going back to exists = has an effect on reality:

Energy itself does not have an effect on reality. The same way that a collision itself does not have an effect on reality. The particles involved in the collision have an effect on reality, but not the collision itself.

 

[TheScornedReflex]

If exists = has an effect on reality, than you two are both correct. If time stopped, there would be no cause and effect, and thus nothing would affect anything.

This definition of exists is not what I mean.

I think in my mind exists = occupies space.

Time is a measurement. It doesn't occupy space. Unless I'm missing something?

 

[Cherry Cola]

but space exists in relation to matter not independently

 

[k9b4]

but space exists in relation to matter not independently

Space doesn't exist - things exist in space.

Time is a measurement. It doesn't occupy space. Unless I'm missing something?

Correct - time does not exist.

Time is what allows cause and effect to function.

 

[Lot]

Space doesn't exist - things exist in space.

This is a logical fallacy. Not existing implies no attributes. A thing/concept that doesn't exist is nothing. Something can't act upon nothing; which has no attributes.

Don't be stupid.
A is A
A is not non-A
A can not be both A and non-A, at the same time, in the same respect
It just three simple rules

 

[k9b4]

This is a logical fallacy. Not existing implies no attributes. A thing/concept that doesn't exist is nothing. Something can't act upon nothing; which has no attributes.

Don't be stupid.
A is A
A is not non-A
A can not be both A and non-A, at the same time, in the same respect
It just three simple rules

Depends upon your definition of 'exists'.

 

[Grayman]

Depends upon your definition of 'exists'.

We are using my definition because yours doesn't exist because it doesn't occupy space.

 

[k9b4]

We are using my definition because yours doesn't exist because it doesn't occupy space.

Correct - if exists = occupies space then words do not exist.

If I had a gold star I would give it to you.

 

[Grayman]

Correct - if exists = occupies space then words do not exist.

If I had a gold star I would give it to you.

You would't have a reason to give me a gold star though. Our conversation does not actually exist because words don't exist.

 

[k9b4]

You would't have a reason to give me a gold star though. Our conversation does not actually exist because words don't exist.

Correct again - our conversation does not exist because a conversation consists of words which do not occupy space.

You're on a roll.

 

[Grayman]

Correct again - our conversation does not exist because a conversation consists of words which do not occupy space.

You're on a roll.

No, of course not. The spaces are in between the words.

 

[k9b4]

No, of course not. The spaces are in between the words.

Good point.

 

[scenefinale]

If you have netflix I would suggest checking out Neil deGrasse Tyson's, Inexplicable Universe. He gives a really great overview of the current state of physics in which he discusses how matter (and anti-matter) is just a manifestation of energy.