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: 9
19
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

It's really that hard to grasp because you're talking outright nonsense not because of anything in the last 8 pages.

You're throwing in crappy metaphysics too which is terrible form...

P.s... Real science people don't subscribe to new scientist and they mock the trashy absurdly reductionist pseudointellectualism both you and the HORRIBLE AUTHORS new scientist hires espouse....

But do tell us about how you're a real scientist because of a magazine subscription you've had for 15 years.... P.s. I've had subscriptions to pop sci and pop mechanics for 23 years now and even when i got my subscription23 years ago at age 12 i knew 2 things already.

1. Reading science magazines makes you no more a scientist than reading people magazine makes you famous...

2. Science rags available at the newsstand are pretty much one step above science porn... It's penthouse for geeks... Everybody poops and everybody wanks, it's a condition of the human existence.




posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: roguetechie

I knew a new post would pop up saying things that have nothing to do with the thread and nothing to do with Science.

HOW MANY ACCOUNTS DO YOU HAVE?

I have never been on a thread in the Science&Technology forum and seen so many post that have nothing to do with the thread or with science in any way.

Have you even read the thread? I was pointing out these debates have been going on for decades.

If I went to the Political Madness forum and talked about entropy, entanglement or materialism, I would get kicked out of the forum.

In the science forum, I don't have to explain what these things mean before they're debated. That's just ASININE!

This has to be the same guy with multiple accounts making the same arguments devoid of any science.

Let's get back to the thread.

THERE'S NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT MATTER IS MATERIAL IN ANY WAY.

Materialism is a philosophy and a blind belief.

I'm still waiting for any scientific evidence that shows the universe is made of a magical material substance called matter.

Please no more opinions devoid of any science.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
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.


You didn't. Your first sentence was, "Matter just doesn't exist" and consciousness isn't mentioned at all.


originally posted by: neoholographic

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.


I used to subscribe to Scientific American. It's not a peer reviewed academic journal - even so, you won't find any articles in it proposing that matter doesn't exist. You said, "I just read a recent article debating the existence of matter". I asked you to cite it.

edit on 8-10-2017 by EvilAxis because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: EvilAxis

Please


You said:


You didn't. Your first sentence was, "Matter just doesn't exist" and consciousness isn't mentioned at all. 


This is my whole point. You don't understand anything about science.

Nobody should have to walk you through these things in a science forum.

You would know when I say materialism in a scientific debate that also includes consciousness.

One of the main reason materialism is disputed is because of consciousness. This is just BASIC COMMON KNOWLEDGE.

The fact that you can't grasp something so basic speaks volumes.

It's not my job to educate you about the meaning of these things.

When someone makes a thread about entropy they don't have to explain what entropy is before others in the forum debate it.

So again I ask, is there a shred of scientific evidence that supports this magical material substance called matter?

I'm not going to educate you on what basic scientific terms mean or explain to you why these debates have been going on for decades.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: EvilAxis

Here's more:

Quantum physics: What is really real?

But then, says White, that is the ultimate challenge. Although no one knows how to do it yet, he says, “what would be really exciting is to devise a test for whether there is in fact any objective reality out there at all.”

www.nature.com...

It’s confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations

So if the LHC confirms that the Higgs exists, it will mean all reality is virtual. (This was before the Higgs discover)


New Scientist

One more:

Reality: Is matter real?

New Scientist

Like I said, these debates have been going on for decades. You just don't understand them and this is why you're posts are devoid of any science.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

You're joking, right?


...matter has never been measured.

What? One litre of water weighs one kilogram. There you got the threesome of existence: substance, volume, mass.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

Wrong!

In fact, there's no evidence that volume exists. Here's a video of Physicist from Brian Greene to Leonard Susskind asking is the third dimension as an illusion.

youtu.be...

The fact is there's no scientific evidence that water is a material substance. There's more evidence that water is a construct of information that we perceive as water.

Materialism is a belief and there's not a shred of scientific evidence that this magical material substance exists.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Seriously if you put abstract mathematical evidence above all other evidence, like chemical, biological: stuff that has actual real worth in the world, from washing clothes to watering plants then you need to take a break.
Sure it's fun, but it doesn't even have philosophical value in the one thing that matters (pun intended): life.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

Your post shows why materialism is just another ism.

You think because we water plants and wash clothes we should blindly accept that materialism is something more than a belief.

I'm holding my remote control in my hand. People will say it's material. What type of material exactly? Is it like wool or polyester? LOL!

Again, there's no scientific evidence that this magical material substance exists.

It makes more sense to say the universe is a simulation of information than some material that nobody can show exists.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: EvilAxis

When someone makes a thread about entropy they don't have to explain what entropy is before others in the forum debate it.

'Materialism' doesn't appear in the title of your thread and it's over half way down your OP that it crops up:

There's no materialism because matter has never been measured.

Putting aside the problem with that sentence which Peeple highlights, you don't explain what you mean by materialism.


originally posted by: neoholographic

I'm not going to educate you on what basic scientific terms mean


The trouble is materialism isn't a basic scientific term. Entropy, acceleration and magnetism etc. are. Treating it like a scientific term only causes confusion.

Materialism is a philosophical worldview, and as such its definition is contended. Scientific materialism is different from scientistic materialism. I think is was page 8 when you first used the term 'scientific materialism', so I'm guessing that was the 'materialism' you meant from the start.

Scientific materialism contends that everything is material, but as 'everything' can include vacuum fluctuations, and presumably information, it becomes an unfalsifiable position and not really worth arguing about.

If you would desist from the absurdism that it does not exist we could explore the more interesting scientific and philosophical questions about the underlying nature of matter.


edit on 8-10-2017 by EvilAxis because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

You don't realise the absurdity in it when you talk about belief, do you? I can smack you on the head with your remote control to prove that it's material causes your material to be bruised.
What can you do to prove that it's not real?



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: EvilAxis

You said:.


Putting aside the problem with that sentence which Peeple highlights, you don't explain what you mean by materialism. 
.

This makes no sense.

I don't have to explain to you what materialism means on a science forum. That's just idiotic.

Materialism has been debated on this forum since I've been a member and nobody has to explain the meaning of materialism before they debate it.

If you don't know what it means why are you on a science forum? You said:


'Materialism' doesn't appear in the title of your thread and it's over half way down your OP that it crops up: 


Again, another ASININE comment.

So what if it's in the first line of my OP or the last. It's in my OP.

There's no scientific evidence that this magical material substance called matter exists.

Look at your post there devoid of any Science. You have to have the meaning of materialism explained to you on a science forum LOL!



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
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.




So it's surely nonsense but you're not sure you deciphered it correctly? You're trying way too hard to sound right and saying literally nothing.
Material things or matter has a measurable reality at a macro scale but at it's most basic level is just bound energy.
This does not mean matter is not real.






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?


See, way too hard. Take an ativan.
When energy becomes bound up, like 3 quarks in a proton for example, then it become physical, it also enters into the time dimension. You can build objects that experience causality. There is a division there and it's considered "matter".
It also interacts with the Higgs field whereas non-matter like photons do not interact with the Higgs and do not experience any time, or space actually.

So the word can draw that distinction without having to explain all that. It might conflict with your Wu-wu "matter is not real, there is no spoon" agenda but that does happen a lot in science.



posted on Oct, 9 2017 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: joelr

You said:

Material things or matter has a measurable reality at a macro scale but at it's most basic level is just bound energy. 

What??

This makes no sense. Because it has a measurable reality at a macro scale that makes it material? LOL

This is meaningless. There's not a shred of scientific evidence that this magical material substance exists. Just saying it doesn't make it so Picard.


Let's look at matter as bound energy. This actually supports what I'm saying. There's no need for anything material just forces that bind the energy. You haven't provided a shred of scientific evidence that says this is material in any way.

In the classical physics observed in everyday life, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume. This includes atoms and anything made up of these, but not other energy phenomena or waves such as light or sound.[1][2] More generally, however, in (modern) physics, matter is not a fundamental concept because a universal definition of it is elusive; for example, the elementary constituents of atoms may be point particles, each having no volume individually.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

If the BUILDING BLOCKS of matter have no volume then how does matter have any volume? Where does volume originate?

Physics tells us that volume is an illusion. The information that can occupy a volume of space is proportional to a 2D surface area not it's volume.

So again I ask, why do you need a magical material substance?



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 11:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: joelr

You said:

Material things or matter has a measurable reality at a macro scale but at it's most basic level is just bound energy. 

What??

This makes no sense. Because it has a measurable reality at a macro scale that makes it material? LOL

This is meaningless. There's not a shred of scientific evidence that this magical material substance exists. Just saying it doesn't make it so Picard.


Let's look at matter as bound energy. This actually supports what I'm saying. There's no need for anything material just forces that bind the energy. You haven't provided a shred of scientific evidence that says this is material in any way.

In the classical physics observed in everyday life, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume. This includes atoms and anything made up of these, but not other energy phenomena or waves such as light or sound.[1][2] More generally, however, in (modern) physics, matter is not a fundamental concept because a universal definition of it is elusive; for example, the elementary constituents of atoms may be point particles, each having no volume individually.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

If the BUILDING BLOCKS of matter have no volume then how does matter have any volume? Where does volume originate?

Physics tells us that volume is an illusion. The information that can occupy a volume of space is proportional to a 2D surface area not it's volume.

So again I ask, why do you need a magical material substance?



No, people who want to support the Holographic Principle say physics tells us that volume is an illusion. "Point particle" is misused in articles all the time, even on Wiki.

In quantum field theory "pontlike particle" means states obtained by acting with a local field operator ϕ(x) on the vacuum. It's part of a mathematical model.
It means a particle that isn't made of more fundamental quantum particles.


But beyond that we still need a distinction between free and bound energy states. One can move at light speed and experiences no time and space from it's reference frame.
The other can never go light speed and is subject to time, space, causality and evolution. It also interacts with the Higgs field.



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: roguetechie

Accusing a user like me whose been around on ATS a long time, and periodically popping into your woo woo bs threads the entire time to call you an idiot mind you, who has authored threads on complex subject matters himself just makes you look even stupider!

My posting style is definitely my own and very unique in both its flavor, outlook, and it's curious balance of passive aggressive incoherent anger and benign and encouraging aspects often intertwined.

No wonder you think the matrix movie was anything but crAppy pop psychology b***shi*



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 02:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Peeple

The fact is there's no scientific evidence that water is a material substance. There's more evidence that water is a construct of information that we perceive as water.


What, specifically, is that evidence?




top topics



 
19
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join