Does Matter Really Exist?

[RandFan]

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together.

So what?

We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.

It doesn't follow. This fails as a logical proof. Did Max Plank make an argument that would give us a reason to agree with him? Absent such an argument then this is at best just an argument from authority? One that apparently is not held by the vast majority of Max Plank's peers who are also in authority to speak on this subject.

At present the statement is mental masturbation. If you choose to stick god into the gap of understanding as Max is so clearly doing here (assuming Max even said it and even that has not been established) then that is your prerogative but understand you have not given anyone else a reason to agree that we still need god as a place holder for knowledge and discovery.

 

[Iacchus]

Just to be perfectly clear, you have no reliable source for the quote. I'll consider the matter dropped now.

Agreed. I think we should allow the other folks decide. However, I think it's only fair that I repost the original source from which I copied the quote.

You noticed? Basic algebra.

Yes, and there's no denying that it refers to Energy in terms of the whole.

 

[RandFan]

I love philosophy and I love mental exercises and to consider whether or not the table is actually there or whether or not a tree falling in a forest makes a sound. In the end as others have so pointed out it doesn't MATTER. It might change the way we as individuals perceive the world but it does not change the laws of physics or the underlying foundations of science.

 

[Donks]

Yes, and there's no denying that it refers to Energy in terms of the whole.

Uh, it refers to the conversion ratio between matter and energy in regards to conservation laws. There is no preferential treatment to mass or energy.

 

[Iacchus]

I love philosophy and I love mental exercises and to consider whether or not the table is actually there or whether or not a tree falling in a forest makes a sound. In the end as others have so pointed out it doesn't MATTER. It might change the way we as individuals perceive the world but it does not change the laws of physics or the underlying foundations of science.

Well, I beg to differ.

Indeed, it's a fun mental and intellectual excersise, but no matter what answer we finally arrive at, it doesn't change anything.

Yes it does. Because it allows for a change in our perception of reality in one fundamental way. If, in fact consciousness was the basis for all there is, then it opens up the possibility for an existence beyond the grave.

 

[RandFan]

Yes it does. Because it allows for a change in our perception of reality in one fundamental way. If, in fact consciousness was the basis for all there is, then it opens up the possibility for an existence beyond the grave.

The possibility exists regardless. The possibility exists that we are but electrical impulses on some kids computer in and advanced version of Sim Earth. Presumptive possibility is not a valid reason to cause most of us to change our behavior or to rethink anything because it doesn't change anything even IF it is true. Further there are many possibilities that could be made based on such assumptions. God is no more relevant or likely than any of the others.

So, I ask again, is there any reason why any of us should accept this theory?

 

[hammegk]

I love philosophy and I love mental exercises and to consider whether or not the table is actually there or whether or not a tree falling in a forest makes a sound. In the end as others have so pointed out it doesn't MATTER. It might change the way we as individuals perceive the world but it does not change the laws of physics or the underlying foundations of science.

I'd agree that the laws of physics or the underlying foundations of science cannot change. Any change occurs only in the way an individual interprets meaning from what is perceived.

 

[RandFan]

RandFan
...it does not change the laws of physics or the underlying foundations of science.

Well, I beg to differ.

You can beg to differ all you want. I have conceded that it could change our individual perceptions but it does not change the laws of physics or the underlying foundations of science.

I can assume all sorts of things but to what end?

 

[RandFan]

I'd agree that the laws of physics or the underlying foundations of science cannot change. Any change occurs only in the way an individual interprets meaning from what is perceived.

Agreed, and any belief in any diety or theory of existence that is metaphysical is as valid as anyother.

 

[Bob Klase]

Well, if God existed, and we understood this to be the case, it wouldn't be so much a matter of assuming anything would it? Granted, it would be for those who had yet to become "enlightened" but, then again that's the way it works for just about anything.

Well, if frogs had wings then we could assume they'd fly. But any answer that has so many 'if's' does not answer 'why must we assume'.

Apparently the answer is "if we assume this, and this and this, then we must assume that'. Which is much different than a standalone 'we must assume this'.

 

[Roboramma]

I read Randfan's comment not as, "would our knowing about it change the universe?", but as "would the universe be different in any meaningful way if X were true than if X were false?".

And of course his/her answer, "No."

(just trying to keep things clear - correct me if I read you wrong)

edited to clarify my own clarification

 

[RandFan]

...but it does not change the laws of physics or the underlying foundations of science.

Tautological. It happens.

 

[RandFan]

I read Randfan's comment not as, "would our knowing about it change the universe?", but as "would the universe be different in any meaningful way if X were true?".

And of course his/her answer, "No."

(just trying to keep things clear - correct me if I read you wrong)

No, that is exactly correct. Thank you.

 

[hammegk]

IMO, the best one can do is strive for the least number of logical inconsistencies in one's worldview.

 

[Iacchus]

So what?

It doesn't follow. This fails as a logical proof. Did Max Plank make an argument that would give us a reason to agree with him? Absent such an argument then this is at best just an argument from authority? One that apparently is not held by the vast majority of Max Plank's peers who are also in authority to speak on this subject.

Which, is probably why (as near as I can tell) we have such a hard time finding evidence that he even said such a thing. Sorry about that Donks.

At present the statement is mental masturbation.

For those who choose to masturbate, yes. You do realize that masturbation is a "physical act" don't you?

If you choose to stick god into the gap of understanding as Max is so clearly doing here (assuming Max even said it and even that has not been established) then that is your prerogative but understand you have not given anyone else a reason to agree that we still need god as a place holder for knowledge and discovery.

So, what's the difference between this and saying you choose to believe the world is flat? Obviously Occam's Razor would have been completely useless at the time people believed this now wouldn't it? So, how is it possible to justify anything with respect to Occam's Razor then?

Now, just because we may choose the path of least resistence (bound by the laws of gravity no doubt), does not mean we've done anything to identify a source. For example, how did the apple get up in the tree before it fell?

 

[CFLarsen]

No, pain comes from the conscious ability to experience pain. So, before we ask what rocks and bricks can do, perhaps we should ask about what consciousness can do ... and, moreover, where is its source?

But that wasn't the question. You asked if matter exists.

You think that your senses are not telling you if things exist or not?

 

[Iacchus]

So what's the point, Iacchus? Even if you were ever able to support this philosophical stance, the result would be, "Matter doesn't exist, but something else which has the exact same characteristics of matter does." You want to call matter something else? Fine. Have a good time trying to explain to others why you call it "conscioglop" or whatever you come up with. Has this philosophical exercise provided any useful insights on the real universe? A rose by any other name, Iacchus.

No, I believe Mr. Planck referred to it as the underlying matrix of which matter is comprised. In which case, yes, there is a lot more to it than just matter itself.

 

[Moochie]

Book Review: Gregg Braden, Awakening to Zero Point - The Collective Initiation, by Richard Rockley

Iacchus, if I hit you in the head with a brick, would that convince you that matter exists?

I was thinking of a hammer, but a brick will do -- a nice, thick one.

M.

 

[Iacchus]

But that wasn't the question. You asked if matter exists.

Which, of course is just a round about what way of asking what "is" matter? If it is not the basis of all that exists, as the materialists seem to suggest, then it doesn't really exist in "that sense" now does it?

You think that your senses are not telling you if things exist or not?

Yes, but who am I -- or, what is it? -- that these "things" are speaking to? If there was no sense of "I," there would be no discussion here.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What is stuff, other than the "stuff" that you are aware of? Thus far, we are only able to prove (to ourselves), that this is stuff is made up of consciousness.

All you can "prove" to yourself is that the world has a bunch of attributes, characteristics, and properties. If you want to call those consciousness, be my guest. But don't try to claim that your word is somehow more apt than material or consciglop.

So, why do we have all these physicists trying to study it?

They are studying the properties. They are not trying to decide what it actually is.

What, do you mean like dreams and visions and out of the body experiences and "stuff" like that?

That is evidence about the behavior of the mind. It is not evidence about what actually exists. Anyway, I can support material as the fundamental existent using the same sort of clever statement: You mean like the fact that the universe continues on even when I'm not paying attention?

Now was it the ice that caused the Titanic to sink or, whaterever the ice was comprised of that caused the Titanic to sink? You can't have ice without water can you?

Uh, no, because ice is water.

~~ Paul