There's no such thing as matter

a reply to: prevenge

Wrong!

Language is sometimes just a description of an underlying reality.

For instance, the word matter doesn't mean any material substance called matter exists.

This is why we have spent 5 pages on this thread and not 1 shred of scientific evidence from anyone that supports the existence of this mythical material substance.

WHERE'S THE SCIENCE FROM ANYONE WHO SAYS MATTER EXISTS?

To put it simply:

We're a collection of data points that we perceive as "real" objects in a simulated reality.

Sounds like it's out of my hands.

If it's a hologram, what is it inscribed on?
If it's a simulation, what is it being simulated on, or in?

You build a hologram that doesn't need any material parts, and I'll believe you.

You build a simulation without simulating it on, or within anything, and I'll believe you.

a reply to: jjsr420

Have you ever heard of quantum mechanics?

You don't need anything material. In fact, atheist Physicist Lawrence Krauss wrote a book called "A Universe From NOTHING."

We're now looking at things like spacetime as an error correcting code, the connection between entanglement and spacetime geometry and the recent discovery of vast amounts of data found in microwaves from the early universe. This data correlates to quantum theory. We don't need a magical material substance called matter to explain anything.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: jjsr420

Have you ever heard of quantum mechanics?

You don't need anything material. In fact, atheist Physicist Lawrence Krauss wrote a book called "A Universe From NOTHING."

We're now looking at things like spacetime as an error correcting code, the connection between entanglement and spacetime geometry and the recent discovery of vast amounts of data found in microwaves from the early universe. This data correlates to quantum theory. We don't need a magical material substance called matter to explain anything.

you keep insisting that data is the only thing that exists...and yet, without the process of human thought, data wouldn't exist

a reply to: jimmyx

The universe is rather larger than just humanity through, possibly better to say that "data would not exist without thought" considering it more than lightly accommodates more than just our own species.

One possible interpretation may be that our universe, holographic or otherwise, exists to facilitate consciousness.

Might seem a tad arrogant but consider that we are only just beginning to understand what constitutes life on our own world and as of yet are not exactly in possession of all the fact as to where or how consciousness emerges or where it resides in relation to ourselves.

What about that stuff in your head they refer to as grey matter

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: EvilAxis

Did you even read Heisenberg's quote or did you just blindly respond?

He said "the smallest units of matter are not physical objects IN THE ORDINARY SENSE."

I read, understood and quoted it.

The reason I don't provide any scientific evidence to prove that matter is an objective material substance is that I'm not suggesting it is. I'm not debating the science, l'm objecting to your misuse of language in discussing it.

I fully accept that the old concept of matter dissolved years ago under the scrutiny of particle physics. What appeared solid and substantial turned out to be made of something non-solid and completely insubstantial, more akin to information.

But scientists in order to refer to things in the macroscopic world of appearances and meta phenomena have to make use of words like matter (without attributing to it any of its former connotations). For clarity they might have invented a new scientific word for a conglomeration of atoms, like 'unsubstantium'.

Then they might have said, "what non-scientists call matter doesn't actually exist - it's unsubstantium." But they didn't, and I doubt anyone would have been impressed if they had.

They would certainly have been met with ridicule, and rightly so, if they'd announced that matter doesn't exist (and by implication, everything in the universe made of matter doesn't either).

originally posted by: neoholographic
Forms and ideas don't require any mythical material substance.

And yet you accept that they exist!

originally posted by: neoholographic
[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


NOT REAL!

Now you seem to be flagging Heisenberg's comment, "the particles themselves are not real" as evidence that he thinks they do not exist. That of course is not what he said. How could he study them if they do not exist?

Besides, earlier you told me they do exist:

originally posted by: neoholographic
There's evidence light, mass, electrons, protons and more exists. These things have been measured.

Do they exist or not?

I know you consider yourself a genius who knows more than the rest of us, but you might make some time to listen to these lectures on condensed matter physics. You never answer questions or comments. You're a conceited ass as far as I'm concerned. But you may benefit from these lectures. There's always hope for the hopeless.

sitp.stanford.edu...



BTW, what about that wallet????

Scroll to 15:48 for the crux of the lecture - but if you have time, listen to 1 and 2 -

a reply to: EvilAxis

Most of what you posted has nothing to do with anything that has been said. It's obvious you don't understand the basics of quantum mechanics. You said


Now you seem to be flagging Heisenberg's comment, "the particles themselves are not real" as evidence that he thinks they do not exist. That of course is not what he said. How could he study them if they do not exist? 

You study quantum states of the wave function. Heisenberg was saying they're not real in the physical sense. When you hear particle you think of a particle of sand or salt. Heisenberg was saying this isn't the case and
you have to talk about these things in terms of potentialities and possibilities instead of things and facts.

It's clear that elementary particles aren't real because the state of say spin down doesn't exist until measured.

I suggest you at least watch a few Dr. Quantum videos on You Tube so you can get a basic grasp of these things. This is why you're posts are devoid of any science.

a reply to: Phantom423

Did you even watch the video you posted? It supports what I'm saying.

This is probably why you posted an 80 minute video without any commentary LOL!!!

You don't know what you're talking about.

In the video he goes out of his way to talk about the BUILDING BLOCKS of matter. He neber shows that matter exists or is some magical material substance.

He talks about the same building blocks that Heisenberg said are not real. He says this is a talk about chemistry and therefore you just need to know about chemistry to explain some things.

He was just saying the BUILDING BLOCKS are important but for that lecture you don't need to learn about the BUILDING BLOCKS or the math of quantum mechanics to understand how chemistry works.

Did you even watch the video?

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Phantom423

Did you even watch the video you posted? It supports what I'm saying.

This is probably why you posted an 80 minute video without any commentary LOL!!!

You don't know what you're talking about.

In the video he goes out of his way to talk about the BUILDING BLOCKS of matter. He neber shows that matter exists or is some magical material substance.

He talks about the same building blocks that Heisenberg said are not real. He says this is a talk about chemistry and therefore you just need to know about chemistry to explain some things.

He was just saying the BUILDING BLOCKS are important but for that lecture you don't need to learn about the BUILDING BLOCKS or the math of quantum mechanics to understand how chemistry works.

Did you even watch the video?

The first lecture is 1 hr 20 minutes. I posted at 7:37 PM PST. You posted at at 8:40 PM PST. Who didn't listen to the lecture?? You're a phony and lack credibility as well as integrity.

a reply to: Phantom423

First off, I'm in an Eastern time zone but that's not the point.

The fact that you couldn't dispute that the video supports what I'm saying makes you look horrible.

You have to quibble about when I posted instead of what I posted. It's obvious you don't understand what you're watching and that's why you didn't even attempt a response.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: EvilAxis
When you hear particle you think of a particle of sand or salt.

Not when we're talking particle physics I don't.

If you think that, you clearly haven't bothered to read my replies.

Your frankly bizarre statement that matter does not exist is entirely predicated upon misinterpreting the word 'exist' as synonymous with 'physical', 'substantial', 'material', 'solid', 'objective' etc.

As I said before, I don't know why you limit your claim to matter. Nothing can exist by your definition of 'exist'.

Does green exist? Look at grass closely enough and there's no green to be found. No colour at all, just photons (which we can't actually see). Ergo grass is not green because colour does not exist!

a reply to: EvilAxis

You said:

As I said before, I don't know why you limit your claim to matter. Nothing can exist by your definition of 'exist'. 

You would understand why if you actually read the thread.

Science can explain why we see color and it can explain something simple like why water can freeze and turn into ice.

What it can't explain or show is that matter is this magical material substance.

We have spent 6 pages on this thread and still not an INKLING of science from you and your matter buddies.

The broad definition is matter is anything with mass and it takes up space.

There's no evidence that anything called matter exists. This is why you nor any of your matter buddies haven't presented any evidence that supports this.

Local realism is dead and there's no evidence that materialism is nothing more than a belief system.

Quantum physics: Death by experiment for local realism

A fundamental scientific assumption called local realism conflicts with certain predictions of quantum mechanics. Those predictions have now been verified, with none of the loopholes that have compromised earlier tests.



local realism dead

So, your problem is, you support a fantasy and this is why all of your posts have been devoid of any science.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: EvilAxis

You said:

As I said before, I don't know why you limit your claim to matter. Nothing can exist by your definition of 'exist'. 

You would understand why if you actually read the thread.

Science can explain why we see color and it can explain something simple like why water can freeze and turn into ice.

What it can't explain or show is that matter is this magical material substance.

We have spent 6 pages on this thread and still not an INKLING of science from you and your matter buddies.

The broad definition is matter is anything with mass and it takes up space.

There's no evidence that anything called matter exists. This is why you nor any of your matter buddies haven't presented any evidence that supports this.

Local realism is dead and there's no evidence that materialism is nothing more than a belief system.

Quantum physics: Death by experiment for local realism

A fundamental scientific assumption called local realism conflicts with certain predictions of quantum mechanics. Those predictions have now been verified, with none of the loopholes that have compromised earlier tests.



local realism dead

So, your problem is, you support a fantasy and this is why all of your posts have been devoid of any science.

Could you please describe how this paper supports your claims. Please include illustrations from the paper.

www.nature.com...

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: EvilAxis

Science can explain why we see color and it can explain something simple like why water can freeze and turn into ice.

What it can't explain or show is that matter is this magical material substance.

Scentists know it isn't a magical material substance, so they're not trying to show it is! Nor is anyone else in this thread.

Local realism is dead - we all know that. But it's irrelevant to your argument.

I'm curious to know, when you want to refer to conglomerations of atoms in the everyday macroscopic world which everyone else (including scientists) calls matter - how do you go about it?

Do you have another name for it or do you proclaim it doesn't exist?

You got to wonder about this world of ours. There is a lot that we haven't figured out yet.

A very thought provoking thread

a reply to: Phantom423

Sometimes I think some of you guys are just one person. You guys pop up with the same posts devoid of any logic or science.

Do you even know what local realism means?

The fact is the death of local realism destroys any notion of separation. This is what Heisenberg was talking about when he said we're looking at potentialities and possibilities instead of things and facts.

If there's no things just the illusion of separation, then how can a material thing exist?