Does the universe have a cause?

[Kafka]

Correct. Within a closed system, matter can't be destroyed. So, within our universe, there will never be any more or less matter than exists now.

Even in a closed system matter can be destroyed, can it not? It can be converted into energy and vice versa.

 

[ZenMode]

Even in a closed system matter can be destroyed, can it not? It can be converted into energy and vice versa.

Converted? Yes. Destroyed? No.

 

[Cypress]

Converted? Yes. Destroyed? No.

As near as I can remember, the only time matter is converted into pure energy are matter-antimatter reactions.

Conventionally in reactions involving nuclei, some mass is converted to energy, but some mass is left behind as lighter nuclei, alpha particles, neutrinos, or other types of leptons

 

[Kafka]

As near as I can remember, the only time matter is converted into pure energy are matter-antimatter reactions.

Don't forget fission. During fission there's a "mass defect" that shows up.

 

[Cypress]

As near as I can remember, the only time matter is converted into pure energy are matter-antimatter reactions.

Conventionally in reactions involving nuclei, some mass is converted to energy, but some mass is left behind as lighter nuclei, alpha particles, neutrinos, or other types of leptons

Don't forget fission. During fission there's a "mass defect" that shows up.

I didn't forget.
Fission is a type of nuclear reaction, aka reactions involving nuclei, which release energy and which is exactly the type of thing I wrote about.

 

[Cypress]

To understand events, is ultimately to understand the reason behind it.

Reasons are not 'causes' by another name.

Causal connections are revealed in scientific and mechanistic laws. But the reason behind the laws are not understood by science, because reality is not empirical. It is rational.

A complete understanding of the physics of light and the electrochemistry of optical nerve impulses tells us nothing about what we actually see; or how we percieve aesthetic beauty.

I read that Hegel used to complain about Newton and the scientific mechanistic approach, which he seemed to think were just perceptual types of knowledge, summaries of cause and effect sequences, but which shunned any consideration of the deeper metaphysical reasons for observable reality

 

[BidenPresident]

I read that Hegel used to complain about Newton and the scientific mechanistic approach, which he seemed to think were just perceptual types of knowledge, summaries of cause and effect sequences, but which shunned any consideration of the deeper metaphysical reasons for observable reality

Hegel observed that science never explains its fundamental concepts. Bertrand Russell said "matter" is not defined in science.

 

[Cypress]

Hegel observed that science never explains its fundamental concepts. Bertrand Russell said "matter" is not defined in science.

Yes, that sounds right.

 

[Kafka]

I didn't forget.
Fission is a type of nuclear reaction, aka reactions involving nuclei, which release energy and which is exactly the type of thing I wrote about.

Fission is not an anti-matter/matter interaction.

 

[Kafka]

Hegel observed that science never explains its fundamental concepts. Bertrand Russell said "matter" is not defined in science.

Matter is defined.

 

[IBDaMann]

[matter] can be converted into energy and vice versa.

Hold on. Matter can be converted into energy, but not the reverse.

 

[BidenPresident]

Matter is defined.

As?

 

[Cypress]

Converted? Yes. Destroyed? No.

As near as I can remember, the only time matter is converted into pure energy are matter-antimatter reactions.

Conventionally in reactions involving nuclei, some mass is converted to energy, but some mass is left behind as lighter nuclei, alpha particles, neutrinos, or other types of leptons

Fission is not an anti-matter/matter interaction.

I didn't say it was.

A PhD in the physical sciences would recognize I wrote about two different kinds of energy matter conversion. Contrasting matter antimatter interactions with nuclear reactions involving nuclei

 

[Cypress]

Hegel observed that science never explains its fundamental concepts. Bertrand Russell said "matter" is not defined in science.

Even Newton openly admitted that he had established a mathmatical correlation describing a law of gravitation, but he couldn't provide any reason why the relationship existed.

 

[IBDaMann]

Hegel observed that science never explains its fundamental concepts.

Big deal. Hegel doesn't get any bonus points for noticing that science, math and logic all utilize assumptions and axioms.

Bertrand Russell said "matter" is not defined in science.

Why should anyone care what Bertrand Russel's opinions might have been?

Matter is thoroughly defined (chemistry) and detailed (periodic table of the elements).

 

[BidenPresident]

Big deal. Hegel doesn't get any bonus points for noticing that science, math and logic all utilize assumptions and axioms.


Why should anyone care what Bertrand Russel's opinions might have been?

Matter is thoroughly defined (chemistry) and detailed (periodic table of the elements).

Why should anyone care what you think?

 

[Kafka]

As near as I can remember, the only time matter is converted into pure energy are matter-antimatter reactions.

^^^^When you say "only time" that is usually an indicator that you think the ONLY instance is that.

I didn't say it was.

I was just going from your words when you said the ONLY time.

A PhD in the physical sciences would recognize I wrote about two different kinds of energy matter conversion. Contrasting matter antimatter interactions with nuclear reactions involving nuclei

Give it a rest, you fucking troll.

 

[Kafka]

As?

Look it up. I'm not here to do your bidding, troll.

 

[Kafka]

Why should anyone care what you think?

For the same reason anyone would give a flying FUCK about what YOU think, troll.

 

[BidenPresident]

L.

You are mentally ill. Tired of having to think of you to ban each time I start a thread.