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.

 

The Truth About Matter and the Material World

page: 1
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   
This isn't a philosophical exercise. This is the way reality is, and why you perceive it the way you perceive it. I'm posting this so that I can refer to it whenever I get into a debate concerning reality and the issue of perception versus objective reality.

The Unitary Basis

In 1900, Max Planck discovered that physical action could not take on any indiscriminate value. Instead, the action must be some multiple of a very small quantity (later to be named the "quantum of action" and now called Planck's constant). excerpt - en.wikipedia.org... While this observation proved to be true, the idea was pretty hard to conceptualize since the "quantum of action" was necessarily smaller than what exists as a result of its organized structure. And yet, the notion of Planck's constant is reflected in the fact that everyday objects and systems are also made of a large number of things. In fact, when one examines anything that exists, it reveals itself to be composed of a large number of lesser things regardless of what it is. And each of those lesser things is revealed to also be composed of smaller things. We know this already, but no one has ever been able to identify the smallest and most primordial unit of material existence.

Back to Max Planck and his theory of action. While Planck was focusing on a sub-structure to explain the consistency of action, suggesting that it is the result of identical, indivisible units of action, his theory revealed a much more fundamental truth about the nature of progressive organization that seems to be obvious at higher levels of expression - structure requires consistency, and structure fails if consistency is absent - but that is generally overlooked at the primordial level of expression.

Consistency is what establishes the dependability displayed in Planck's "quantum of action", and we can see that it also provides the dependability in atoms, molecules, cells, and literally every other expression of material existence. Consistency is ubiquitous, and let's face it, the only free-wheeling, inconsistent thing in existence is the human perception of what does and doesn't exist as real. The rest - including the brain that allows the human being to perceive at all - is relentlessly consistent, and regardless of how far down you pick something apart, you'll find structure, structure and more structure. This suggests that at the very bottom, you'll find the identical, indivisible unit - just like Planck did when he took action all the way down. After all, it was the identical, indivisible unit itself that caused Planck's Constant to be constant. It's inescapable. Consistency of unit size and quality is how structural consistency is accomplished, and it was proven with Planck's "quantum of action" theory. The material world, therefore, is clearly based on the identical, indivisible unit as well.

But, What Is Material Existence?

Here is where the truth about reality starts shifting from traditional notions, and yet, it retains quite a bit of what we just went over. In fact, it retains a lot more of what we just went over than you might expect, and that's where the novelty concerning material existence starts revealing itself.

You see, Max Planck established more than he'll likely ever be credited with, and more than he actually understood with his theory. In establishing the consistency of action, he also established the sub-structure of material existence, even though he'd have rejected such a claim if presented with it. But then Max never took the impact of human perception, the actual generation process that creates human perception, and applied how that impact and that process affect the fact that humanity is the sole definer of material existence - at least when it comes to how humans define material existence (which seems terribly obvious when you put it that way). In essence, what human beings perceive is a direct result of how they perceive, and how they perceive is directly related to how they perceive themselves to be. All perception is compared to what the human being knows or assumes to be true. We know this, but here's how it affects our definition of material existence.

We know that we're material in nature. We're as solid and physically dependable as everything around us. And while that's true, we also know that we are a composition of cells that are a composition of molecules that are a composition of atoms that are 99.9% open space between particles that are also composed of lesser particles. And the particle smashers know that these particles are composed of many lesser particles and quarks and stuff they haven't even named yet. And it's this fact of how we are structured that brings us back to Max Planck and his theory concerning the consistency of structure involving the "quantum of action".

But, now we're dealing with particles...right? Not necessarily. Yes, they're called particles, but humans are the ones who named them particles. Humans, who are themselves compositions of particles spinning and changing relative to one another from instant to instant - and apparently (since all that particle activity is action) occurring at the consistent "quantum of action" rate, along with everything else that's happening. And all in sync at the quantum level, according to Max Planck. After all, the "quantum of action" is indivisible and all action is built from this identical unit. Therefore, we (as enormous, complicated gatherings of lesser, yet still enormous, gatherings) can only be gathering together as whole gatherings at the same exact identical rate of action as everything else is gathering into whatever they've become. Consistency of action, with all those atoms and molecules and cells and the entire structure of it all morphing and reconfiguring at the exact rate of action (or change, if you will) that Max Planck suggested 112 years ago.

We Perceive

I call it the Unit Rate of Change (URC), and it's also the rate that our brains fire their synapse triggers which many scientists believe is where our perceptions launch in response to what we perceive with our eyes, ears, noses, mouths and nerve endings. All in perfect sync with everything else that's happening.

If you want to experience weightlessness within our atmosphere, they fly you in a large open bay cargo plane until you reach a height where they can then dive the plane at the exact rate you'd fall if you jumped out (32 ft per second), and for that brief period, you feel weightless within the confines of that cargo bay. That's because you're in descent sync with the plane itself. The plane around you is motionless, even though you and the plane are dropping at 32 ft per second. Perception has you weightless, even though you're literally dropping like a stone.

Perception tells us we're material, but we're not. We're activity that's in perfect sync with the rate of our own perception generation. I call us matrixed event trajectories. Matrixed layers of linear and orbital trajectories that combine to form the overall linear event trajectory that is our own event trajectory of physical existence - our life span. And literally everything that is physical is also a composition in the same exact manner. We see ourselves as solid, so we see it all as solid. And it is because we're perceiving in sync with all of it.

And that's what material existence is. It's structured action.




posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
So do you think us humans are the be all and end all? Are we existance?



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grifter81
So do you think us humans are the be all and end all? Are we existance?


No. I don't believe that I suggested it either. We are the ones who define things for ourselves. We translate what we perceive for each other. We invented the concept of the particle as being solid material, so we smash particles to find out what they're made of. Particles are matrixed event trajectories, and all material existence is composed of particles. Pretty simple actually.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
So, its like if i were to throw a wrench in huge mass of moving gears that move perfectly in sync with each other?Screw up one gear and the whole gear system falls apart.

Humans are the wrench?
edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus because: (no reason given)

edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus because: (no reason given)

edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 

What I find fun about what you have posted is considering our relationships and societies. For, I suppose, most of our existence we have thought of ourselves as physical things. Part of a physical world. A world of solids within which we were solid. All of our actions in developing tribes and societies and belief systems and governments etc, were based on our perceptions that all was solid.

Now however as you so fluidly point out, we have come to understand that we are not physical substance but rather action in sync with all the rest of the action going on. This understanding which has come about only in the last small space of time, fundamentally alters the manner in which we do our perceiving. What manner of existential change this might bode in our further development as people, tribes, societies and so forth .



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


How do you suppose existence came into 'being' NE?



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   
I believe our existence is a mistake,because if everything was perfect there would be nothing. I believe it was an imperfection that caused the big bang.
edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Another question...

Do you consider in any way that conscious beings like us...have any more effect or purpose or even cause...then any other 'form' of life and being in all of this?

Im beginning to wonder, is there really a purpose, besides just 'being'. Before us, here on Earth...life surely was just fine just 'being'.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lichter daraus
I believe our existence is a mistake,because if everything was perfect there would be nothing. I believe it was an imperfection that caused the big bang.
edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus because: (no reason given)


Really...you think the big bang was a mistake because things are not perfect? Am I not following what you are trying to say?



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


So we create what is by thinking this way? But what of before Planck and the Planck length. Anything smaller is supposed to make no physical sense but we just don't know?



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


You are one smatr cookie Il give you that.Anything else you can take if you can get it to stop for an instannt.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Lichter daraus
 


Alos, another comment to that...how can there ever be nothing? There always is something-



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeoVirgo

Originally posted by Lichter daraus
I believe our existence is a mistake,because if everything was perfect there would be nothing. I believe it was an imperfection that caused the big bang.
edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus because: (no reason given)


Really...you think the big bang was a mistake because things are not perfect? Am I not following what you are trying to say?



I'm not trying to make it sound like a bad thing, i'm just saying that's what i believe caused our existence. Now what was there before the imperfection occurred? i have no idea. i understand just because you see nothing there doesn't mean nothing is there.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Lichter daraus
 


I just dont understand how something could come from nothing...thats all.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lichter daraus
So, its like if i were to throw a wrench in huge mass of moving gears that move perfectly in sync with each other?Screw up one gear and the whole gear system falls apart.

Humans are the wrench?
edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus because: (no reason given)

edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus because: (no reason given)

edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus because: (no reason given)


I'm sorry that this is what you got from that explanation. Then again, that's not my fault or my problem. I didn't expect very many of you to grasp it, and I won't expend any more effort in what I've already presented. It's not anyone's right or requirement to understand the nature of reality. If you really don't care enough to put in the effort, then no one's required to teach you anything.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by TerryMcGuire
reply to post by NorEaster
 

What I find fun about what you have posted is considering our relationships and societies. For, I suppose, most of our existence we have thought of ourselves as physical things. Part of a physical world. A world of solids within which we were solid. All of our actions in developing tribes and societies and belief systems and governments etc, were based on our perceptions that all was solid.

Now however as you so fluidly point out, we have come to understand that we are not physical substance but rather action in sync with all the rest of the action going on. This understanding which has come about only in the last small space of time, fundamentally alters the manner in which we do our perceiving. What manner of existential change this might bode in our further development as people, tribes, societies and so forth .


It might make a big difference if it was ever widely understood and embraced, but too many professional careers depend on chasing solids down to some sort of indivisible particle unit. The religionists and the scientists set the intellectual tone on both ends of the mainstream public interpretation of what's real, and both of them have no reason to upset the firmly established narrative, even if it doesn't answer any of the most important questions about reality.

Most people don't care about what's real anyway. Even most people who claim to be desperately searching for the truth concerning reality. Most just want to get people to agree with them.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
reply to post by NorEaster
 


How do you suppose existence came into 'being' NE?


I'll be posting that overview in a few days. I'm getting tired of not having links to drop into debates, and that one is pretty fundamental to the stuff I get involved in here too. It involves non-physical qualifiers and the fact that even an absence of anything requires qualification as being what it is.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
Another question...

Do you consider in any way that conscious beings like us...have any more effect or purpose or even cause...then any other 'form' of life and being in all of this?


Human beings are capable of subjectivity and subjective interpretation, and only human beings are capable of this unique information production. Now, I need to explain that in my own definition of "human being" we are the Homo Sapien "edition" of corporeal human being, and not the only "edition" of corporeal human being. Human beings can have a very important "purpose" depending on the nature of the reality confine that contains those human beings, but the progressive development process that brings the human being into existence doesn't require "purpose".


I'm beginning to wonder, is there really a purpose, besides just 'being'. Before us, here on Earth...life surely was just fine just 'being'.


From what I've learned, Earth's Homo Sapien human being does exist as a being that has a definite purpose that was considered when this reality confine (the one we're all existing within) was intentionally initiated by a conscious being. This is the one reason why the concept of God and eternal human life exists as a visceral certainty and why the concept exists at all. Nothing just happens in a vacuum, and the bizarrely counter-intuitive notion (for any corporeal brain) of a conscious and deliberate creator doesn't either.

It actually takes a lot to prove this, but it can be done.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   
People throw the word truth around like its nothing. The title should be THEORY About Matter and the Material World.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Idk just a thought. ill just stick to reading rather than posting.

Peace



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join