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.

 

Can matter actually exist? Nope!

page: 9
45
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Robin Goodfellow
 


Hmmm, well if I perceive a chair in a room. I then leave that room I can still conceive that chair is there existing. Whether I can see or touch the chair matters little as long as I can conceive it is there. My conscious already knows (from memory) what the chair looks and feels like. That idea has long been planted and gives me the ability to conceive the chair existing, therefore it exist even if I am not looking at it. Because as I said before all matter is simply an idea in our consciousness.

I don't think the point of the theory is to say we live in a dream world. But to say that we have no reason to believe mind-independent (without the mind) objects exist. Our experience of color, taste, sound, heat, and smell involves pleasure or pain, qualities which do not exist in material objects. Like how do you experience intense heat? Pain of course. Can pain exist in an unsentient object? Pain cannot be in material objects; pain can only be in a mind.

So, I don't think we are talking about a dream world, rather a real world made up ideas (which come from God) and the minds who have them (spirits). In other words real things are just collections of sensations.




posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
I have read through the posts. It's an interesting thread. But I must conclude that it doesn't "matter".



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Robin Goodfellow
 


But that's just it Robin, that's where the theory of a conciousness at is always within everything, if nobody is looking at the moon, is it there? Ofcourse because something is always observing everything, the Universe is fully concious.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
I have read through the posts. It's an interesting thread. But I must conclude that it doesn't "matter".



hahahahaaha best answer I've heard the whole thread



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Death_Kron
 





To be honest I can't really be bothered engaging in your silly games, if you want to think your above the "rest of us"


do i need to say more?

really?

i think not



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Death_Kron
 


the question is clear?

can matter be real

yes it is...


what do you wish to argue?

matter is a description of a physical thing...

do you wish to deny logic?



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtinguish
 

This is an interesting post. I'm someone who has lurked here for a long time, but mostly had nothing new to contribute. Since I'm in the Philosophy field, I figured this is one topic I would have some expertise with.

One, OP, I think you should study John Locke. Locke discusses a whole lot about primary and secondary properties. Primary properties are things like length, mass, etc. Secondary properties are things like color, taste, smell, etc. Primary qualities are located at the object, but secondary qualities are only in our minds, according to such a philosopher.

I think that you need to think a lot about the appearance/reality distinction. Just because we experience something, it doesn't mean that the world is that way. It seems likely, however, that our experiences have something to do with the external world.

So, like Locke, I prefer to stay epistemically modest. Do I know the true color of my couch? No. Do I know what it's really made of? No. But, I've had a lot of experience interacting with couches, I know how they usually react to me, and I've figured out pretty well how to use them, and I'm Ok with that.

Furthermore, science seems to be telling us that all of this is made of energy. I recently attended an interesting physics lecture where the idea was discussed that the strings, which are an interesting area of research, though still much debated, might actually be based in vibrations in space itself. Space might be like a churning sea, giving rise to everything around us

As far as theories like that go, I am probably closest to the contemporary philosopher Bas van Fraassen. I, like he, am an anti-realist about things like electrons and other scientifically defined entities. While we can see the effects of an electron in a cloud chamber, we can never interact with them like we do our couches. We see the effects of these entities and infer to the best explanation, which itself is a very interesting process. Strings might be the best explanation for some things, and if it is, I think we should fully support it as a scientific theory, but I'm neutral as to whether it really exists.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
what you have to understand..is this

Humans were created by something

the method of learning is science and faith

faith in what?

what do faith and science have in common?

they both ask questions

to ask is the key so why keep asking??

well its the very nature of being here

you see.. to have all the answers would require no questions = you would be god

for you would be the one posing the question

matter is real and so is energy

let me show you

BODY = MATTER

MIND = ENERGY

why? well that is how it works

you are both answer and question

it has to be this way for it to work...

symmetry / yin yang



now do you understand?



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by FrostyPhilosopher
reply to post by Xtinguish
 

This is an interesting post. I'm someone who has lurked here for a long time, but mostly had nothing new to contribute. Since I'm in the Philosophy field, I figured this is one topic I would have some expertise with.

One, OP, I think you should study John Locke. Locke discusses a whole lot about primary and secondary properties. Primary properties are things like length, mass, etc. Secondary properties are things like color, taste, smell, etc. Primary qualities are located at the object, but secondary qualities are only in our minds, according to such a philosopher.

I think that you need to think a lot about the appearance/reality distinction. Just because we experience something, it doesn't mean that the world is that way. It seems likely, however, that our experiences have something to do with the external world.

So, like Locke, I prefer to stay epistemically modest. Do I know the true color of my couch? No. Do I know what it's really made of? No. But, I've had a lot of experience interacting with couches, I know how they usually react to me, and I've figured out pretty well how to use them, and I'm Ok with that.

Furthermore, science seems to be telling us that all of this is made of energy. I recently attended an interesting physics lecture where the idea was discussed that the strings, which are an interesting area of research, though still much debated, might actually be based in vibrations in space itself. Space might be like a churning sea, giving rise to everything around us

As far as theories like that go, I am probably closest to the contemporary philosopher Bas van Fraassen. I, like he, am an anti-realist about things like electrons and other scientifically defined entities. While we can see the effects of an electron in a cloud chamber, we can never interact with them like we do our couches. We see the effects of these entities and infer to the best explanation, which itself is a very interesting process. Strings might be the best explanation for some things, and if it is, I think we should fully support it as a scientific theory, but I'm neutral as to whether it really exists.


Great response!


Yes! John Locke is someone I have planned to start reading, as Berkley and Locke are both empiricist. Most of the Berkley writings I've read rarely even touch upon the rationalist options. He is normally targeting John Locke instead. My next read will probably be Essay Concerning Human Understanding by Locke., which I hear attacks rationalism pretty vividly.

As stated above the two are both empiricist, but they do differ on how we gain knowledge and ideas. In fact I had read somewhere that David Stove had said that Berkley believed that there were only two options: his own system and Locke's. So, proving Locke's system wrong amounted to proving his own system right. Such fascinating stuff!



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by symmetricAvenger
 





can matter be real yes it is... what do you wish to argue?


When have I stated otherwise?



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Death_Kron
 





To be honest I can't really be bothered engaging in your silly games, if you want to think your above the "rest of us" and believe you've come back to "inform" us then I shall let you believe that without argument.


what part am i missing? and not i do not think i am above anyone... that is just fear of smartness...

you know, like when you ring the cable guy to fix your cable because you cant??

i am the cable guy.. does that make me better than you? no.. it just means i have a better understanding of the subject than YOU..

some have better understanding of arranging flowers.../me rolls eyes



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtinguish
 


Great thread and a fascinating theory, I've often found myself wondering "what if it is all an illusion"... Much of reality does depend on perception...

But, as you stated, there are certain forms of light our human eyes cannot detect, however other animals can detect these quantities and/or forms of light which proves that they exist outside of human perception...

Still, it kind of makes you wonder...

What would the Universe be like if life had never evolved (or been created depending on your point of view)... What is life to begin with? Am I an illusion and the whole world real, is the world an illusion in which I am the only reality, or is nothing at all real... Honestly who could ever know? Is a such thing as knowledge even possible, after all its just a word we made up to describe an abstract...

Philosophy rocks




posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by symmetricAvenger
 


You don't know you have a better understanding than me, maybe you would like to think you do or even believe you do. However, you do not know you do.

If you can prove that your knowledge actually is greater by posting your a copy of your PhD in quantum mechanics then I'll happily believe you.

Just because you think you know more than others doesn't mean you do.

You talked about being arrogant in a previous post, well again thats exactly what YOUR doing - not me.

Your perception on the subject differs from other peoples and if you would like to believe it (which you obviously do) then that's fine, it just doesn't make it the truth.

I'm not scared and don't have a fear of knowledge or someones intelligence, actually I'm the opposite and enjoy embracing those two things.

But knowledge and opinion are not the same thing...


[edit on 28/6/09 by Death_Kron]



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtinguish
If someone travels three miles at one mile an hour, and another perceives the same speed as one mile three miles per hour, who would appear to whom is going faster?


Three miles at one mile an hour would take 3 hours to complete for 3 miles.
So, 1 MPH.

Then you say someone perceives it at one mile three miles per hour?
If I understand right, that would be 3 MPH.

So the second person would be going faster, unless I misread your post because is worded a bit weird.

Oh - matter exists. It is called perception. Matter is there, but how we put everything together is different for all of us.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
I'll like to add something without arguing with my friend ;-)

Matter is:


The term matter traditionally refers to the substance that objects are made of. One common way to identify this "substance" is through its properties: for example, matter is anything that has both mass and volume.


Link: en.wikipedia.org...

A quote that supports Quantum Mechanics is:


A more general view is that bodies are made of several substances, and the properties of matter (among them, mass and volume) are determined not only by the substances themselves, but by how they interact. In other words, matter is made up of interacting "building blocks", the so-called particulate theory of matter.


Another little fact:


The common definition of matter is anything that has both mass and volume (occupies space)


Without perception or interpretation matter cannot be defined.

I would seriously recommend reading the above wikki link.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Death_Kron
 


OK let me reply to both you posts but i just want to use this quote first if its ok..




I'm not scared and don't have a fear of knowledge or someones intelligence, actually I'm the opposite and enjoy embracing those two things. But knowledge and opinion are not the same thing...


now i shall use your other post as just a reffence since you have posted the logical arguments on it all ready

do you not see the underlying property ?




The term matter traditionally refers to the substance that objects are made of. One common way to identify this "substance" is through its properties: for example, matter is anything that has both mass and volume.


let me point out some words...

Term.
Traditionally
common
identify
substance
properties
mass
volume

do you know what they are?

Descriptions..of what?

well you being here is what.. lets move on shall we..




A more general view is that bodies are made of several substances, and the properties of matter (among them, mass and volume) are determined not only by the substances themselves, but by how they interact. In other words, matter is made up of interacting "building blocks", the so-called particulate theory of matter.


Bodies
substances
properties
Interact

that is the understand of matter transforming into energy

I suggest you read more books my friend

do not try to hit me with silly words more so when one does not understand the basics

the only reason you are debating this "matter" is the very word

correct?

seems silly does it not?

I mean lets look it this way shall we.. and yes im about to give you a science lesson and be arrogant


matter is a description as pointed out above of the physical reality of which you observe.

True and its not false..

Energy is the interaction of the force that creates and contributes to matter..

That is why they can no be destroyed they are BOTH the same thing..

so do not lecture me and post links when i know very well what i am talking about SIR.

i do not mind showing you how matter and energy are interconnected but if you wish to portray me as some idiot

you wont get far..


have a nice day



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Death_Kron
 





Without perception or interpretation matter cannot be defined.


The only reason why you are able to type is prescription... there for matter is real as you are the one observing matter..

you make it so just by being here in the first place

lesson 101 in quantum physics

you should know better... or did you not read that part?

to be the observer would inherently create the very thing you deny is real

you very life is the reason for everything mate

if you was not here, would you or could you argue the case?

is matter real? you bet..

and if its not? well i guess you and i are both pointless not needed and a figment of some guys imagination.

and what would be the point?

i do not see the logic in it..

matter is only a metaphore / description of physical life

is that hard to understand?

or do you want nothing to make any sens?

the world is square according to your logic in fact there is no world there is nothing.. just stupid words like e = mc 2

that just words

and gravity

and you using a pc ... get a grip please..you entire being is based upon matter as is the found principle of physics

why?

well your here are u not? .. jeez i do wonder sometimes i really do...



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
As the Great Masters say, all is illusion.

This the Greatest virtural Reality game in the universe, but stop I want get off, someone pull the plug.

And as all these scientist look into these things , they say nothing is there, it's all virtural. Everthing is made up of same thing but when get down to it nothing is there.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by googolplex
As the Great Masters say, all is illusion.

This the Greatest virtural Reality game in the universe, but stop I want get off, someone pull the plug.

And as all these scientist look into these things , they say nothing is there, it's all virtural. Everthing is made up of same thing but when get down to it nothing is there.


No, it is real, not a game, it feels unreal for you are existent from elsewhere.

The faster you understand the faster you will escape "The truth will set you free."



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by symmetricAvenger
 


Please show me where I have said matter is not real?




new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join