BW: ALL evidence establishes the fact that energy is matter in motion, even if the matter cannot be conveniently measured. There is no evidence of anything called "energy" that has no "carrier". Therefore, the former proposition must be an "unmitigated truth" and the latter an "unmitigated fallacy" of supernatural powers.
BW: Light of every frequency is, of course, matter in motion. It must be so, since it is demonstrably energetic. The actual dispute is whether light is particles (photons) in motion or a transfer of kinetic wave energy between (aether) particles. In UT , it is neither; it is a "linear stack" of fundamental particles in both rotary and translational motion, which gives it two energy components (necessarily related to frequency).
TSW: "In contrast, these same physicists hold a clear view of other types of motion. Sound, for instance, is not considered matter or matter-motion."
BW: ... but it is a transfer of kinetic energy between particles in a wave ... which is no longer "mysterious". I think the most critical mistake in modern physics is considering light to be equivalent to sound or water waves, even if that happens to be convenient to mathematical modeling. There is no "aether" in UT.
BW: I don't think that's the currently popular theory. It's either the quantum "something from nothing" theory, or a "collision" of immaterial energy "membranes" theory. Toss in the collapse of probabilistic "wavefunctions" in the "many-worlds" theory to round out the mystical set of immaterial propositions.
BW: Ooops. I think you just violated your own axiom. We never "see matter", we only sense the radiation it emits or reflects. We don't really "feel matter" either: we perceive a neuron stimulation. In other words, we can only sense *matter in motion*, not matter itself, nor motion itself. That's *inseparability*. You do get it right when you talk about "Thing-Events", though I would call it a literal collision, rather than mere "convergence", and "divergence" only occurs as a consequence of a collision.
TSW: "But, as noted before, the idea of existence applies only to matter. Only things exist; events do not."
BW: Ooops. Contradicting yourself. Earlier, you said matter *requires* motion and motion *requires* matter. If motion doesn't exist, by your assertion, then matter can't exist. I disagree with your earlier proposition, but here you're talking ontology.
TSW: "That the word 'structure' can be found so remote from the word 'function' betrays a rejection of inseparability and an indication that the language of indeterminism is being spoken."
BW: Well said. I agree.
TSW: "An 'object' surrounded by 'empty space' would have no mass just as it would have no velocity. Mass, like velocity, is dependent on the existence and motion of other things."
BW: Disagree. Mass is not *dependent* on motion, even if motion is *inseparable* from mass ... as explained above.
TSW: "Under materialism, we assumed that the universe consists of matter. As mentioned, matter is defined as an abstraction for 'all things.'
BW: I'd prefer "all objects", taking into account my view of motion as a "thing" with characteristics distinct (though inseparable) from matter. The abstraction for "all things" is "universe". Etymologically, the unity of everything we can converse about (whether observed or not) ... or: all things that exist.
Next: Inseparability Part 4 of 5