[ExI] Energy in motion

[The Avantguardian]

--- On Fri, 1/16/09, ben <benboc at lineone.net> wrote:
 
> I think you're taking the term "materialism"
> the wrong way.  Materialism
> doesn't deny the existence of energy (matter is energy
> after all). It just asserts that there is no place for
> supernatural explanations for phenomena like minds.

Perhaps you are conflating materialism and broader physicalism.
According to Wikipedia: 

"The philosophy of materialism holds that the only thing that can be truly proven to exist is matter, and is considered a form of physicalism. Fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions; therefore, matter is the only substance."

My point is simply that by the current physical theories, the universe is almost totally immaterial. While matter is a form of energy, it is but one form of energy, and if the boffins are right, it is a very minor component of the universe. So the "substance" of existence is actually energy. And the philosophy should properly be called ergonism. This does not imply that minds are supernatural, but it does imply that reductionism won't be able to explain consciousness.

> Dark energy isn't supernatural.  It might or might not
> actually exist,
> but it's not outside of physics.

If dark energy doesn't actually exist, but it's still in physics then physics is wrong.

How do you define supernatural? Something can be epistemically supernatural and ontically natural. But nothing can be ontically supernatural. That is to say that one can always attribute lightning bolts to an angry Zeus if one wants but that doesn't really place them outside of nature. But if angels were somehow shown to exist, they would be perfectly natural and physics would need to account for them.

Stuart LaForge

"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo