It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

There's no such thing as matter

page: 8
19
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: WorShip

The fact is you're acting lazy. You want to pop up on page 7 of a thread and debate without reading the thread?

Why should I repeat 7 pages of evidence because you're too lazy to actually read the thread you're trying to debate.

In fact, I recently ran an algorithm with a data set of 10 million data points.

Scientist recently found vast amounts of data hidden in the microwaves from the early universe.

The researchers, from the University of Southampton (UK), University of Waterloo (Canada), Perimeter Institute (Canada), INFN, Lecce (Italy) and the University of Salento (Italy), have published findings in the journal Physical Review Letters.

In recent decades, advances in telescopes and sensing equipment have allowed scientists to detect a vast amount of data hidden in the 'white noise' or microwaves (partly responsible for the random black and white dots you see on an un-tuned TV) left over from the moment the universe was created. Using this information, the team were able to make complex comparisons between networks of features in the data and quantum field theory. They found that some of the simplest quantum field theories could explain nearly all cosmological observations of the early universe.


phys.org...

So we know what data is and we know how to use data points to run algorithms.

WE DON'T HAVE A SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT THIS MAGICAL MATERIAL SUBSTANCE CALLED MATTER EXISTS.
edit on 4-10-2017 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-10-2017 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I'm not arguing that matter exists, I just want to know what you've added to this idea, what application of your theory is, also post your data and its peer-review, and also address my other questions.
edit on 4-10-2017 by WorShip because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: WorShip

What? You're not making much sense.

All of your questions have been asked and answered. This is an 8 page thread and I'm not going to go over all of the evidence I presented again because you don't want to take the time to read the thread you're trying to debate.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

A good point there.

I agree in some ways with the O.P that matter is merely an instance where a colection of particles will be in a certain place at a certain time, in Newtonian physics: a 'solid' or 'massive' object.

However, mass usually implies weight, i.e. the usual assumption is that all matter has a gravitational effect on it's surroundings, hence the weight thing.
But you can also have mass with no gravity, end then there's energy.
Electric charge for example is expressed in mass terms as so many Coulombs of charge on a metal plate, for example.

This implies so many electrons on that plate, and these electrons have mass.

Interestingly enough, it should be possible to make 2 plates of exactly equal mass, and then charge them, one + and the other -. There should then be a gravitational efect between them, as one is now theoretically heavier than the other. The effect won't be big, as an electron only weighs about 1/1700th of a proton.But it should be measurable.

To my knoweledge, the weight of both plates remain the same, yet there is not only an attraction between them, but also an electro-gravitational shift from the - to the + as observed by Brown & others.

The only explanation for this would be 'massless charge' a la Bearden.
So yes, there is something to all of this, but if you dismiss matter as not being real, then time & energy are not real either....Hmm more food for thought there.
Remember, Tesla said 'vibration is everything' i.e. frequency or information is what makes a thing a thing, the only question seems to be is, is info 'engraved' on something like a hologram/aether, and is the universe not only designed for conciousness, but is in fact a product of it?
In other words, is the universe around us here, because we (& other intelligence) wants it to be here?
Talking of time, mine is limited. See ya later!



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 05:42 PM
link   
No mind, no matter.
No matter, never mind.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: EvilAxis

I never said the word matter didn't exist.


And I never said you did.


originally posted by: neoholographic

I said there's no evidence that matter is a material substance


Again - nobody in this thread ever disputed that.

Returning to your analogy, which I'll quote so there's no confusion:


originally posted by: neoholographic

It's just like a friend of mine is named Thomas. Thomas is just a name used to identify my friend. The word Thomas doesn't explain how my friends heart pumps blood or how neurons work in his brain.

This is no different than matter. The word matter doesn't explain anything. It doesn't tell us about an electron cloud around a nucleus or quarks. It's just a word we use to identify an underlying reality.


So 'Thomas' and 'matter' are words (which we both agree exist) that refer to underlying realities (which I assume we both agree exist).

You say, "matter does not exist", which means (grammatically and logically) the underlying state to which it refers does not exist!

But you do not say, "Thomas does not exist".

Can you explain why?

Thomas after all, like matter, is not made of any magical material substance.


edit on 5-10-2017 by EvilAxis because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: EvilAxis

What???

You haven't brought any science to this thread.

Of course the underlying reality exists. In my OP I call this reality data points. I said there's no evidence that this underlying reality is some magical material substance and you or your friends haven't provided a shred of scientific evidence that supports this.

Is this really that hard to grasp?



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 04:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: EvilAxis

I said there's no evidence that this underlying reality is some magical material substance and you or your friends haven't provided a shred of scientific evidence that supports this.


Why should we provide 'a shred of scientific evidence' for something we don't claim?

And why do you continue to pretend we do?

You haven't explained why you insist matter doesn't exist but your friend Thomas does.

Neither are made of 'some magical material substance' so, by your logic, neither can exist.


edit on 6-10-2017 by EvilAxis because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: EvilAxis

I get it now, you're just being obtuse because a 7th grader could grasp this.

I never said matter doesn't exist as a description of an underlying reality that I called a collection of data points in the OP. DID YOU EVEN READ IT?

I said matter doesn't exist as a magical material substance.

The same with my friend Thomas. The word Thomas identifies and describes my friend. Thomas is reliable or Thomas is friendly.

The word Thomas just like the word matter doesn't describe how my friends heart pumps blood or how an electron cloud behaves around the nucleus.

None of these things needs a magical material substance. This is why we're 8 pages in and not a shred of scientific evidence that supports this magical material substance.

Is this really that hard to grasp?



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: EvilAxis

I get it now...


For a moment I thought you did, until I read on.


originally posted by: neoholographic

I never said matter doesn't exist as a description of an underlying reality that I called a collection of data points in the O.P.


No, you said, "matter does not exist".


originally posted by: neoholographic

I said matter doesn't exist as a magical material substance.


You said it in almost every post and nobody disagreed with you.

But you also said, and the title of your thread is, "There's no such thing as matter". Good luck finding a scientist who will agree with that statement.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: EvilAxis

You're not making any sense.

The title of the thread isn't the word matter doesn't exist. That would be asinine but that is what your post have been about.

It's titled,"There's no such THING as matter."

I then talked about the lack of any scientific evidence that supports this magical material substance.

8 pages in and still not a shred of evidence.

I even quoted Heisenberg who said we should look at elementary particles should be seen as potentialities and possibilities instead of THINGS and facts.

[T]he atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of THINGS or facts.

Werner Heisenberg


So, if you don't have any scientific evidence you want to debate, please move on. Nobody has said the word matter doesn't exist. This is about science and the fact that there's not a shred of scientific evidence that this magical material substance called matter exists.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
Of course you can call it matter as a description of an underlying reality. You can't say that means a magical material substance called matter exists.


I guess there has been something akin to progress made, we can agree that there this something real that we call matter, only there might be controversy over the nature of it? And now you are arguing there is no magical material substance called matter. It seems that no one in the thread has proposed that there is, but I'm going to analyze the idea anyway because we've hardly got anything better to do here, and I like semantics.

What is a 'material substance? This is synonymous with matter, no? If not, please provide your own definitions, because you're sort of throwing words around without any rhyme or reason here, the whole discussion is foundering.

'Material substance' is matter. 'Material' can be a noun, then it means matter. It can also be an adjective, then it is the opposite of psychic or spiritual (or just immaterial, but that's a tautology). And what does 'substance' mean? It means; material, matter, stuff. So here you are saying that there is no magical matter made out of matter, called matter. At this point, please keep in mind that everyone still agrees with you, I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm saying it's not relevant to the discussion. What a strange tautology. It's like some sort of metaphysical riddle, like a zen koan. That's why I like this thread.

Anyways, 'magical' is the key here; you're setting up a strawman. "There's no magical matter." You added the word 'magical' to imply that the idea of matter is fantastical, instead of providing proper arguments; it's unfortunate! This isn't the way forward in our debate. By putting words in the mouths of others you've only alienated them more.


Just a few questions to add to my earlier ones:

What's the difference between magical matter and non-magical matter?

If there's no matter, (and if, like you said, matter is what has mass and takes up space) then is there also no empty space? Or is there only empty space?

How do you define real and unreal?



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Cutepants

You guys must be the same person because you keep rehashing the same silly argument that has nothing to do with science.

You're just sounding silly. This is a scientific debate as to whether matter is a material substance.

These are the same questions asked by the last guy. This is why I say you're the same person. Both of your posts are devoid of any science. You said:


What's the difference between magical matter and non-magical matter?


This was answered in the first post. Matter as a material substance that can be measured is a fantasy. Matter as a word that identifies an underlying reality that I called data points is not.

IT'S IN THE FIRST POST!

Either you and your twin ate being obtuse or you really can't grasp basic logic.

You said:


If there's no matter, (and if, like you said, matter is what has mass and takes up space) then is there also no empty space? Or is there only empty space? 


Again, asked and answered. I think the reason you and your twin keep posting in a science forum but none of your posts include any science is because you don't understand these things. So you switch between accounts and ask the same silly questions.

I've said over and over again that space and time are scaled up simulations of information and entanglement. I talked about how the entropy of entanglement corresponds to spacetime geometry. I posted a video of scientists talking about the 3rd dimension as an illusion. I posted a video lecture by John Preskill asking is spacetime an error correcting code which again, connects to entanglement.

I posted some of these things in the first page of this thread yet here we are on page 8 and you and your twin keep asking the same questions.




posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 08:51 PM
link   
I assure you I'm not cutepants. Certainly she/he has made similar objections to your semantics (albeit more eloquently), as have several others. Does that not give you pause to weigh the probabilities? Are we all one person labouring under the delusion that matter exists, or could your thoughts need reframing?

The ideas you're exploring are fascinating but it's impossible to move on to the science with such an idiosyncratic and undisciplined use of language.

To make meaningful statements about matter, material, substance, objective, real, magical, mythical, existent etc. (all terms you employed) we have to understand and agree their meaning.

Take your statement from above:



This is a scientific debate as to whether matter is a material substance.


How can this be a scientific debate unless we have a scientific definition of at least the last two terms: 'material' and 'substance'?

Without that it has to be semantics.

We can look up the dictionary definition of material: "the matter from which a thing is or can be made". Or substance: "a particular kind of matter with uniform properties".

But then we see the pointlessness of the question.


edit on 7-10-2017 by EvilAxis because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: EvilAxis

Your post makes no sense.

You said:

TextHow can this be a scientific debate unless we have a scientific definition of at least the last two terms: 'material' and 'substance'? 

This is just an ASININE statement. We don't have to agree about there meaning. Everybody on this board except you knows what scientific materialism is.

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

So no, we don't have to agree as to what these terms mean because everyone on this forum knows what they mean.

Everyone except you and your twin.

This is why I keep asking you do you know your in a Science&Technology forum. You sound silly.

When I say materialism, everyone in this forum knows what that means.

When I say local realism everyone on this forum knows what that means.

When I say entropy, entanglement or data points everyone on this forum knows what that means.

Have you ever read a thread in this forum before? LOL

I just read a recent article debating the existence of matter and the Author talked about inflation and the multiverse.

Now, this was a science article do you think people had to agree about these terms used before they debated it? Do you think people who read a SCIENCE article are idiots and they have to all agree that when he says inflation he's not talking about economic inflation? LOL

You can't be serious. I think I remember debating you under a different name. I remember these same ASININE arguments. The truth is, you don't understand anything about science.

The debate about Scientific Materialism vs. Idealism is one of the oldest debates in science and philosophy.

So only an idiot would have to agree about the meaning of words like materialism before they debate it in a SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FORUM!



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 11:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: joelr

This post is like those old Starburst commercials about contradictions. You said:

You're picking on a word that is an ill-defined placeholder word as if it's a precise mathematical entity type word.
It's not a fundamental word at all.


You should have just ended it right there or said this is why I agree with you. OF COURSE matter is an ill-defined word and OF COURSE there's nothing fundamental or anthing that's material that deals with this ill-defined word as you describe it.

It's ill defined because there's no evidence that a material substance called matter exists.

You then went on to talk about matter as if it was fundamental or well defined LOL. You said:

In some cases you could measure matter, why not?

Why not? Let me quote you again, matter is "a word that is an ill-defined placeholder word."

What exactly are you measuring? Why is it ill defined if this mythical material substance called matter or as you say, it's not a fundamental word, whatever that means?


The reason you guys are making "ill-defined" posts that ramble at points because there's no evidence that this magical material called matter exists.


You're not getting it at all.

This is what happens when you try to dis-prove a word that doesn't need disproving. It's like trying to debunk the word "stuff".

Often "matter" simply means "something with mass".

You are arguing in circles. No measurement of matter is needed to prove it's real if the definition is "something with mass". All you need is mass, is there mass, yes, then that's it, done.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 12:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

You're also wrong about Max Planck. His thinking matches many of the pioneers of quantum mechanics. Here's a quote by Werner Heisenberg.

I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.

Werner Heisenberg .


THE SMALLEST UNITS OF MATTER ARE NOT PHYSICAL.

How can matter be a material substance when the basic building blocks are non physical?


Heisenberg and Pauli wrote some papers in 1929 that established the essential underlying reality was a set of fields and this was the beginning of quantum field theory. In it everything else is derived as a consequence of the quantum dynamics of these fields and energy.

We already know at the smallest levels there are just fields and energy/bound energy. Material substance can be an emergent property and still be real. At the macro scale it is real because there are levels to reality and to measurements. Choose a macro measurement and you can measure material substance.

If you try to break apart quarks the energy you use will create more quarks so enough energy added to the quark field will just bound up and create more quark. So the sense of "physical" begins showing up at a very small scale.

Anyway, you are abusing Heisenberg quotes.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 02:32 AM
link   
a reply to: joelr

Talk about gobbledygook!

You said:

 At the macro scale it is real because there are levels to reality and to measurements. Choose a macro measurement and you can measure material substance. 

Now I how they feel in a Charlie Brown classroom.

This is just a hodge podge of incoherent nonsense.

I will take a stab at it. If I deciphered this correctly, i think you're saying at a macro scale any measurement is a material substance. That can't be what you're saying because that's just asinine.

This is just worse. You said:


If you try to break apart quarks the energy you use will create more quarks so enough energy added to the quark field will just bound up and create more quark. So the sense of "physical" begins showing up at a very small scale. 


What's the sense of the physical? If we can sense the physical at small scales, why does the physical need to be physical?

People say they "sense" the energy from ghosts. Whose "sensing" the physical at small scales?

Were you sleeptyping? This was Yo Gabba Gabba level nonsense.

Come on people, this is a thread in the Science&Technology forum.

These are issues that have been discussed on this forum many times. Why are people feigning ignorance?



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 05:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: EvilAxis

The debate about Scientific Materialism vs. Idealism is one of the oldest debates in science and philosophy.

We could certainly have that debate, but the title of your thread is, "There's no such thing as matter". You then restated it as, "This is a scientific debate as to whether matter is a material substance."

If you wished to debate whether "matter is the funtamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions" - you needed to say so.

We cannot be accused of being obtuse because we fail to guess what you mean when you consistently fail to say what you mean.


originally posted by: neoholographic

I just read a recent article debating the existence of matter and the Author talked about inflation and the multiverse.


Can you link it please. Are you sure it was not debating the nature or underlying reality of matter? I've never come across anyone but you that thinks there's any merit in debating the existence of matter.


originally posted by: neoholographic

I think I remember debating you under a different name.

Again I suggest that's you trying to rationalize away the fact that nobody can make sense of your posts. As I said before, l've only had this name on ATS.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: EvilAxis

You said:

If you wished to debate whether "matter is the funtamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions" - you needed to say so. 

I said this in the OP.

The problem is, you're trying to debate in a Science forum and you don't understand science nor the debates that have been going on in science for decades. Here's a recent article:

The closer you look, the more the materialist position in physics appears to rest on shaky metaphysical ground

Adam Frank is professor of astronomy at the University of Rochester in New York and the co-founder of NPR's blog 13.7: Cosmos & Culture where he is also a regular contributor. He is the author of several books, the latest being About Time: Cosmology and Culture at the Twilight of the Big Bang (2011).

When I was a young physics student I once asked a professor: ‘What’s an electron?’ His answer stunned me. ‘An electron,’ he said, ‘is that to which we attribute the properties of the electron.’ That vague, circular response was a long way from the dream that drove me into physics, a dream of theories that perfectly described reality. Like almost every student over the past 100 years, I was shocked by quantum mechanics, the physics of the micro-world. In place of a clear vision of little bits of matter that explain all the big things around us, quantum physics gives us a powerful yet seemly paradoxical calculus. With its emphasis on probability waves, essential uncertainties and experimenters disturbing the reality they seek to measure, quantum mechanics made imagining the stuff of the world as classical bits of matter (or miniature billiard balls) all but impossible.


aeon.co...

Have you ever read a Scientific American? Do you even know what that is? I have been a Subscriber for the past 15 years and debates like this happen all the time.

If you had a clue about these scientific debates that have been going on for decades, you wouldn't have to ask the same silly questions over and over again.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join