Is mass a number?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by arfa brane, Apr 14, 2022.

  1. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,713
    In physics there are quantities; numbers of particles, say.

    Everything is related, or relational. That includes "meaningful" relations. For instance the ones between those particles, whose number is known within some limit of measurement.

    Mass and charge are what they are. This is about as meaningful as you can get. You can ask why electrons have charge or mass or where it comes from, but asking what it is isn't really meaningful, it doesn't seem to go anywhere useful.

    Meaning is something abstract, right? Information by itself doesn't convey any meaning, it's "just a pattern" right?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,718
    But it is the particles that have inherently relational values or potential to do work.
    What is meaningful is how they interact and under what conditions.
    I agree, until you combine their inherent values and what you get is greater than the sum of the parts. Certain patterns acquire "emergent" properties that are not contained in the constituent parts.
    No, the information contained in the pattern determines its potential relational value or potential.

    The same number of H2O molecules can become expressed in 3 different states (vapor, liquid, solid) depending on the environmental temperature that is causal to the molecules rearranging into different patterns, each with a different "emergent" combinatory value.

    Water vapor you can breathe
    Liquid water you can drown in
    Solid ice you can skate on

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    The three physical states of water are water vapor, liquid water, and ice. In this picture we see both the liquid and solid states of water. We cannot see water vapor. What we see when we look at steam or clouds is tiny droplets of liquid water dispersed in the atmosphere.
    In a solid, the atoms or molecules are very tightly bound. But in a liquid the binding is not very strong. In gaseous state the binding is even weaker.

    https://simply.science/index.php/physics/thermal-physics/calorimetry/change-of-state

    And interestingly in the liquid state, water acquires another emergent property of "wetness", even as Hydrogen and Oxygen particles are "dry" objects.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2022
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,713
    Ok, So what determines the information "contained in" the pattern? Who says there is any information?

    What kind of information? Or is there only one kind?
    Maybe you're hinting at the three states of water being some kind of patterning? Some kind of structure, er, emerges?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,718
    I consider anything that has an eventual causal influence as being or containing information, such as potential, which according to Bohm is the enfolded Implicate order before it becomes unfolded in reality as the Explicated order.

    I use the term pattern as defined in Chaos Theory.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory#

    continued in thread "Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules.
    http://sciforums.com/threads/is-con...um-processes-in-microtubules.161187/page-124i
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2022
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,718
    • Please post on topic.
    I demonstrated the self-forming patterns of water molecules depending on temperature and the emergent properties as the molecules arrange themselves in specific density patterns.

    Can you explain how "wetness" emerges from a self-organizing molecular pattern forming a liquid.

    How about window frost. How do you make an ice fern?

    Window Ferns and Frost Flowers: The sublime beauty of winter

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    “The Kitchen Window,” photograph. Artist: Barry Lobdell. This work is on display as part of the solo exhibit “Ice Castles and Frozen Windows” at NorthWind Fine Arts Gallery in Saranac Lake, NY. Sample the exhibit

    Would you say that these emergent patterns contain information? I do!
    https://blogs.northcountrypublicrad...d-frost-flowers-the-sublime-beauty-of-winter/

    IMO, mass is an emergent property of atomic density patterns. The denser the greater the mass and the greater the distortion of the host spacetime geometry.

    The mass of a black hole singularity (a super-dense pattern) is causal to a radical gravitational distortion of spacetime itself.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2022
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,372
    Reported for thread hijacking. Yet again.
     
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,718
    You just don't understand the function of analogy in discussions, do you?

    I don't see your explanation if mass is a number or an emergent property.

    All I see from you is myopic obstruction.
    We are having a wonderful discussion. Why do you insist on dictating what is permissible?
    The actual participants in the discussion don't seem to object. You are just playing spoiler. Stop it!
     
  11. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,713
    Avogadro's number is . . . just a number. Well, it's just a number that just defines something about amounts of matter.

    But it's a number so it says the same thing about amounts of anything. These don't need to be physical, because . . . a number isn't a physical thing either.

    So why don't we know Avogadro's number beyond a limit of accuracy? Why don't the missing decimal places matter, in experimental physics?
    What, if any, connection could there be to information theories?
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,718
    Those are all human interpretive problems with trying to symbolize natural relational values.

    All these problems disappear by using the generic identifier as relational values, which humans have symbolized and codified into numbers and equations.

    All of those are abstractions.
    What remains true is the cognition that the universe consists of objects with relational values interacting and being processed via logical mathematical functions.

    input (value) --> function (logical process) --> output (value)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Schematic depiction of a function described metaphorically as a "machine" or "black box" that for each input yields a corresponding output

    Everything else is man-made.

    Is there more?
     
  13. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,713
    I would have said it's a counting problem, but whatever.
    Nope. You lost me. Avogadro's number isn't a relation, but it is based on a relation. It's like a computable number, except for a certain limitation on that computation. Maybe it's the same limitation for any computation.

    Moreover, how complex is the algorithm that computes the number? maybe the complexity has something to do with . . . whatever it is we're trying to discuss.
     
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,345
    Moderator note: Write4U has been warned for off-topic posting.

    Due to accumulated warning points, he will be taking a somewhat lengthy break from sciforums. This might seem excessive, but members should be aware of our warnings and bans policy, which is available in the Site Feedback subforum. Too many active warning points - which usually follow repeated warnings for similar actions - will inevitably result in longer automatic bans.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,345
    The difference between you and me is that I have given cogent reasons for my position, whereas all you have is a belief - a faith that I must be wrong, for some yet-to-be-specified reason (that I haven't already debunked but which you aren't able or willing to reveal).
    Like what? Do you have some new accusations about "mistakes" that I haven't already debunked at some length earlier in the thread?
    I know. That might be an ego problem.
    I don't much care what you believe, at this point. I have tried, mostly, to remain focused on the thread topic, rather than to consider vague questions like "what something physical is". That seems irrelevant to the status of mass in physics. You have so far proven incapable of giving any cogent definition of "physical".
    200+ posts into this thread and you're now going with that claim? After spending so much time insisting that you know what mass is (or what it isn't)? Really?
    It's a pity you can't or won't explain why I can't know.
    I can't say I'm surprised. You haven't really been paying attention to what I've said, throughout this thread. You've made no real effort to understand. You've spent your time looking for reasons to be angry, instead.
    Instead of just repeating your empty claims, you really ought to attempt to justify them.[/quote][/quote]
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2022
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,345
    What on earth is an "accumulative potential of atomic density patterns"?

    That's just something you made up, isn't it?
    ??
    You have never, on this forum, used the word "potential" in its technical, correct, physical sense, if I recall correctly. Whenever you use that word, the rest of what comes with it is almost invariably junk.
    Clearly, you're way out of your depth. Best to stay out of this thread, probably.
    There you go, off on a mystical excursion into your imagination. This has nothing to do with what we're talking about in this thread.
     
  17. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,713
    • Please do not flame other members. Mind your language.
    Because what you think we're talking about is up to you. You decide.

    Fuck off, you plonker.
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,345
    Moderator note: arfa brane has been warned for name calling, flaming another member and inappropriate language.
     
  19. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,372
    Whiew's the dickhid naow, eh? [Joss Ackland, Lethal Weapon 2]
     

Share This Page