(July 28, 2019 at 4:37 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:(July 28, 2019 at 10:53 am)comet Wrote: good stuff ... I get ya. But I think you are looking at an end game that I am not really looking for. I am only interested in how the universe works. you got one thing right, if you give me a mechanism I will certainly entertain it for more than I will the statement that energy is a vector competent in special relativity, four-momentum.
yes, I agree to everything else you said. I was only pointing out your statement about what energy is being wrong. At best, its a property that allows us to do work. Its not fundamental in that it based on the properties of other "volumes of space/time". That being potential differences due to the states of those volumes. for example: Like + or - charges
It (energy) looks like its just a way to describe the different volumes relative to each other. But I am no particle physicist and I haven't done a lerneze transformation in over 25 years. lol, 10 years has long past me by.
I also feel that "time" as a demission is just a useful trick. Time is just repeating states changes that we can call a tick. I think they close the gap (very big and very small) when they remove dt.
ps: I know, I should say very fast vs very small, but thats a story for another day.
It seems to me that you would only consider something to be understood if a cause and effect mechanism for its operations can be discerned. If no cause and effect mechanism is there because the concept is inconsistent with observation, then you would insist on postulating there must be something at finer granularity there we do not yet know, and not that there may indeed be nothing there for us to know and what is seen is in fact the most granular level of reality. Is that a fair description?
And it goes even deeper. What is a 'cause and effect mechanism'? Is gravity itself such a mechanism? Is the fact that we have causal laws in classical mechanics to define and use energy enough to say we have such laws? And what about situations where 'cause and effect' is *known* to be problematic in and of itself?
