Does Matter Really Exist?

[Iacchus]

The Tail Wags the Dog?

If matter is a subset of enegery, which it is, how does matter tell energy how to arrange itself?

 

[Complexity]

Everyone but Iacchus -

Do you think we can come up with an incantation or curse that Iacchus will fall for that will improve his relationship with reality?

Do you think we can come up with an incantation or curse that Iacchus won't fall for that will improve his relationship with reality?

 

[Belz...]

So, do you associate your "self" with your brain? Most people don't. When I speak, I certainly don't believe that I'm speaking from my brain. I believe that I'm speaking from "myself."

There is a veritable mountain of evidence against your belief, Iacchus. Grow up.

 

[Belz...]

I take that as a "no".


Care to try another ... "Do you only assume that thought exists?"

You've lost track, apparently. Or do you believe that everything has an inside, an outside, and a door ?

 

[kmortis]

Everyone but Iacchus -

Do you think we can come up with an incantation or curse that Iacchus will fall for that will improve his relationship with reality?

Do you think we can come up with an incantation or curse that Iacchus won't fall for that will improve his relationship with reality?

Well, in answer to this, you'd have to understand that Iacchus has no relationship with reality. He prefers his dreams to research; his own web-book to logic and monsters of the id to real people. I think it'd be easier to come up with a verifiable form of homeopathy....

 

[BeholdTheTruth]

PBS funds at their contributors' expense multiple three hour (as I remember it) Wayne Dwyer infomercials. Now -- That -- is what I call the power of intention!

 

[PixyMisa]

Or so you assume, and posit.

Well, there is the assumption of materialism (or naturalism), sure. But there is also the observation that this appears to be correct.

There are forms of idealism that predict the same observations, but they have the problem that the... predict the same observations. In other words, they are indistinguishable from materialism or naturalism.

Do you also only assume that thought exists?

Huh?

 

[Iacchus]

Count em'. Five posts, and not a single word to counter what I just said. So, what exactly is the difference between what I've said and what Max Planck has said? Can you prove Mr. Planck wrong? Why do you show so much disdain for me then?

 

[Mercutio]

Circular only if you are unwilling to accept that we are all a part of this greater process of rationalization. Is there a greater reality of rationalized thought than ours, thus including thought and matter? That is the question.

No. Circular by definition of the logical term "circular".

You are quite simply wrong.

 

[Mercutio]

If matter is a subset of enegery, which it is, how does matter tell energy how to arrange itself?

No. There is a relationship between matter and energy, described by Einstein's equation. Neither is a subset of the other.

You are quite simply wrong.

 

[Mercutio]

Count em'. Five posts, and not a single word to counter what I just said. So, what exactly is the difference between what I've said and what Max Planck has said? Can you prove Mr. Planck wrong? Why do you show so much disdain for me then?

Not a single need to counter what you said. When you say something of substance, you can expect substantive replies. When you say the tripe you do say, people will respond or not as they see fit. If your musings were as important as you seem to think they are, they would be well worth responding to. Sadly, they are not that important. They run counter to logic and evidence.

You are quite simply wrong.

 

[RandFan]

Because to every inside there is an outside ... and a door.

Vacuous. To every up there's a down. To every black there is white. To every John Lennon there is a Paul McCartney.

This is just a cliche and doesn't provide any useful information.

To every salt there is a pepper.

 

[RandFan]

The Universe is very much a part of what I experience ... just as it's very much a part of everyone else's experience. But, of what use would it be to us (besides none, of course ) if we were incapable of experiencing it? So, the key to understanding the Universe, is to understand how we are capable of experiencing it. However, in order to understand anything, we must first yield to the truth of that understanding, which is to say, the understanding must be paramount even before it's discussed. Which is, after all, really all we've discovered, something that already "is."

So, what could it mean? ... except that the understanding of the Universe (the truth thereof) has always existed. The only question is, where?

Empty rhetoric. Maybe an egg? Should I worship Pan-Gu?

 

[Tricky]

Vacuous. To every up there's a down. To every black there is white. To every John Lennon there is a Paul McCartney.

This is just a cliche and doesn't provide any useful information.

To every salt there is a pepper.

To every Rand fan there is a Vonnegut fan.

 

[RandFan]

To every Rand fan there is a Vonnegut fan.

To every Tricky there is s Treaty.

 

[Iacchus]

No. Circular by definition of the logical term "circular".

You are quite simply wrong.

And yet if what I were saying were true, it would not be cirular, correct?

 

[Iacchus]

No. There is a relationship between matter and energy, described by Einstein's equation. Neither is a subset of the other.

You are quite simply wrong.

So, what if you took a number, say the number 2, and divided it in half. You would get 1 + 1 = 2 or, 1 x 2 = 2, correct? So, doesn't this suggest that either half of 2, is a subset of the whole of 2? Sure it does, so long as each half is considered in context with the whole. Hence we can say, 2 = 1 + 1 or, 2 = 1 x 1, correct? So, in what way does this differ with respect to the letter "E," in the equation E = MC²? How does "E" not refer to the whole, and the rest of the equation to the constituent parts thereof? Even if you were to say M = E/C² or, C² = E/M, it still shows that both are properties of "E."

So, if you insist on saying I am "quite simply wrong," please tell us how I am wrong or, admit that you have no means of refuting it, please.

 

[Mojo]

So, what if you took a number, say the number 2, and divided it in half. You would get 1 + 1 = 2 or, 1 x 2 = 2, correct? So, doesn't this suggest that either half of 2, is a subset of the whole of 2? Sure it does, so long as each half is considered in context with the whole.

No, 1 is not a subset of 2. They are both members of the set "positive integers", for example, but one is not a subset of the other.

Hence we can say, 2 = 1 + 1 or, 2 = 1 x 1, correct?

Wrong. 2 does not equal 1 x 1 (and that was after you edited the post!).

So, in what way does this differ with respect to the letter "E," in the equation E = MC²? How does "E" not refer to the whole, and the rest of the equation to the constituent parts thereof? Even if you were to say M = E/C² or, C² = E/M, it still shows that both are properties of "E."

No. It does not imply that any of these is a subset of any of the others. It just states the relationship between them.

 

[Belz...]

And yet if what I were saying were true, it would not be cirular, correct?

Of course, there's a long way from here to there.

You are quite simply wrong.

 

[Belz...]

So, doesn't this suggest that either half of 2, is a subset of the whole of 2?

No.

Sure it does, so long as each half is considered in context with the whole.

Wow. You've steeped to a new low, this time in math.

Hence we can say, 2 = 1 + 1 or, 2 = 1 x 1, correct?

Oh, yes. One times one is two. Quite logical.

So, in what way does this differ with respect to the letter "E," in the equation E = MC²? How does "E" not refer to the whole, and the rest of the equation to the constituent parts thereof?

Er... no.

You are quite simply wrong.