Philosopher: As many prominent physicists have suggested, energy is merely a theoretical construct. Since the theory...

Emil-Kunkin on September 12, 2022

This is a tough argument. Our author notes that E is theoretical, and that since there is no essential distinction between E and M, M must also be theoretical, and since PO are just E and M, PO must also be theoretical.

I don't fully understand what it means to be theoretical, or that there is not essential distinction between those two things. This lack of specificity could be the source of the flaw. Does "no essential distinction" mean they are exactly the same thing, or that they share the same core features, but some other, lees important features are allowed to differ? I have no idea.

However there is another flaw here- that we are assuming that a thing has all of the qualities of the sum of its parts. Just because something is made up of two theoretical things, do we know for sure that it is also theoretical? I dont think so. This is a flaw that some up a fair amount, we cannot assume that each part of a whole has the same qualities as the whole, or that the whole has the same qualities as each of its parts.

A) does not really seem relevant to the argument. The argument eliminates this possibility, as we are told that POs are only M and E. I agree this is out of the scope of the argument.

B) Is the flaw we named, and looks quite promising.

C) Looks tempting. It tells us that the argument is flawed because it erroneously assumes that two things might be different even if they have the same features. However, this is the opposite of what we are looking for, the argument erroneously assumes that things cannot be different even if they have some essential similarities.

D) Is wrong as we are not discussing the attributes of theoretical constructs.

E) is wrong because it misrepresents the argument. The suggestion was not made by "a" physicist, but by many prominent physicists.