a poem for matter.

5_senses_does_n...
Posts: 40
Joined: 2011-07-12
User is offlineOffline
a poem for matter.

matter, why do you matter?

my fingers never touch, and her arrow never hits the tree.

and when one plus one equals three.

shrink my head to the empty space, for i rely to much on taste.

it all seems like such a waste.

Time: a hawk masturbating on an omelet tomorrow, but omelet tastes so good today.

there has to be another way.

 

 

 

 

I don't know which I doubt more.
the existence of god, or an open minded atheist.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
'Matter' is that category of

'Matter' is that category of the components of reality which is capable of maintaining some persistent, stable structure, which is a basic requirement to support a complex, ordered process, such as thought.

That is why matter 'matters', and why the idea of an 'immaterial' mind is almost as incoherent and impossible as the idea of "one plus one equals three".

Hope that helps.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


5_senses_does_n...
Posts: 40
Joined: 2011-07-12
User is offlineOffline
don't you mean: So far

don't you mean:

 

So far science has led us to believe that 'Matter' is that category of the components of reality which is capable of maintaining some persistent, stable structure, and so far science has led us to believe that it is a basic requirement to support a complex, ordered process, such as thought.

 

I would be much more comfortable with that admission because even though that seems like the most logical explanation, there is a tiny chance that it is wrong.  Science has been wrong before, is that not the nature of the beast? I think that all scientific explanations should start with "so far science has led us to believe".  because so often science leads us to believe one thing, and then later as technology and our understanding evolves, it leads us to believe something all together different.

 

Just for instance, what is inside of the smallest of subatomic particles?

nothing?

is nothing something, or immaterial. and if something was made out of something that was really nothing, would it not also be nothing.  or would it be something that acts like nothing.  if that's the case, then we already live in an immaterial world.

 

what if that something that cannot be sensed as nothing in this universe because it doesn't need to be. but in another universe where the beginning ingredients were different, it was something. like the laws of physics.

 

 

 

I love science, and am willing to admit that there are certain things that I don't understand about it and am willing to learn.

but answer me this?

 

can science prove that anyone of us is not just a figment of each others imagination?

 

its sounds like I coming from way in the left field, because maybe there is no field, and I'm already here.

 

and maybe its not a battle between Rene DE carte's philosophy of I think therefore I am, compared to modern day science's findings that I am therefore I think.

 

maybe its our shortcomings, what i mean to say is, If our electrical impulses that travel through our neurons, were redesigned with particles that could travel the speed of light or faster. we would probably not be having this conversation.  teeheee!

 

but of course... this was just a poem, and i wish not to shroud myself in the Vail of artistic license, mainly because it was a crap poem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know which I doubt more.
the existence of god, or an open minded atheist.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
5_senses_does_not_reality_mak

5_senses_does_not_reality_make wrote:

don't you mean:

 

So far science has led us to believe that 'Matter' is that category of the components of reality which is capable of maintaining some persistent, stable structure, and so far science has led us to believe that it is a basic requirement to support a complex, ordered process, such as thought.

Matter , by definition, IS that category of fundamental elements of reality which provide any stable, persistent structure, as distinct from the 'particles' which convey or transmit forces and energy.

Quote:

I would be much more comfortable with that admission because even though that seems like the most logical explanation, there is a tiny chance that it is wrong.  Science has been wrong before, is that not the nature of the beast? I think that all scientific explanations should start with "so far science has led us to believe".  because so often science leads us to believe one thing, and then later as technology and our understanding evolves, it leads us to believe something all together different.

 

Just for instance, what is inside of the smallest of subatomic particles?

The smallest particles do not have an 'inside' for anything to be in. They are seen as geometric points, centers of a pattern of force or energy.

Quote:

nothing?

is nothing something, or immaterial. and if something was made out of something that was really nothing, would it not also be nothing.  or would it be something that acts like nothing.  if that's the case, then we already live in an immaterial world.

 

what if that something that cannot be sensed as nothing in this universe because it doesn't need to be. but in another universe where the beginning ingredients were different, it was something. like the laws of physics.

Reference to what can or cannot be 'sensed' is not relevant. What matters is what can be detected - ie measured by some instrument or other, by its effect on the state or position or velocity of a particle we can already detect. These are all way below or beyond the direct capabilities of our '5 senses'.

Science already considers the possibility of particles and forces which do not fully, or only partly, manifest in our universe. Or maybe only manifest in distant parts of our Universe, where the 'Laws of Physics' have formed from the Big Bang slightly differently.

Or are quite different in possible other Universes within a 'meta-universe'.

I think Science is ahead of you here.

Quote:

I love science, and am willing to admit that there are certain things that I don't understand about it and am willing to learn.

but answer me this?

can science prove that anyone of us is not just a figment of each others imagination?

First, science doesn't strictly 'prove' anything. All we do is try and find which theory or model of reality best matches our observations and measurements, and is the simplest, and makes fewest assumptions, that does so.

When we consider society as a whole, not just individuals one at a time, then the 'normal' hypothesis is the far simpler hypothesis. Otherwise our imaginations would have to contain a simulation of the minds of all the people we know, including their simulations of us, etc.

We do have structures in our brain which model the expected behaviour of people we are interacting with, but not remotely adequate to model a 'real' complete individual.

Quote:

its sounds like I coming from way in the left field, because maybe there is no field, and I'm already here.

 

and maybe its not a battle between Rene DE carte's philosophy of I think therefore I am, compared to modern day science's findings that I am therefore I think.

 

maybe its our shortcomings, what i mean to say is, If our electrical impulses that travel through our neurons, were redesigned with particles that could travel the speed of light or faster. we would probably not be having this conversation.  teeheee!

 

but of course... this was just a poem, and i wish not to shroud myself in the Vail of artistic license, mainly because it was a crap poem.

 

I don't see that science has 'found' that 'I am therefore I think'. That clearly is not a general truth, since not all individual creatures that exist, even humans, necessarily think...

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


5_senses_does_n...
Posts: 40
Joined: 2011-07-12
User is offlineOffline
"The smallest particles do

"The smallest particles do not have an 'inside' for anything to be in. They are seen as geometric points, centers of a pattern of force or energy."

 

 

yeah, until we find out that there IS something inside of them.  right?

Just wondering what your views on the infinite or infinity are. mainly just the possibility that anything can be infinite. and if our inability to fully conceive the infinite may or may not be a mental bias or tendency, given that we experience reality on a finite level.

btw, I learn a lot by talking with you, and I really appreciate our conversations.

just wanted you to know that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know which I doubt more.
the existence of god, or an open minded atheist.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
5_senses_does_not_reality_mak

5_senses_does_not_reality_make wrote:

"The smallest particles do not have an 'inside' for anything to be in. They are seen as geometric points, centers of a pattern of force or energy."

yeah, until we find out that there IS something inside of them.  right?

Just wondering what your views on the infinite or infinity are. mainly just the possibility that anything can be infinite. and if our inability to fully conceive the infinite may or may not be a mental bias or tendency, given that we experience reality on a finite level.

btw, I learn a lot by talking with you, and I really appreciate our conversations.

just wanted you to know that. 

It is unlikely that electrons have an 'inside', given the number of experiments that have been done with them, and the associated math. So the current working assumption, which is what scientific 'truths' can be honestly treated as, is that they are points, since that fits what we 'observe' of them currently.

It would be impossible for a finite mind to perceive 'infinity', as in observing an object of 'infinite' length. To us, it can only be a concept.

But Georg Cantor has convincingly argued that there are an infinite number of grades of infinity, when treated as mathematical concepts, what he preferred to call 'transfinite numbers', the 'smallest' being then number of integers.

I don't see how our Big Bang Universe can be infinite, since it has been expanding from a less than infinite-sized 'singularity' for a finite time at a finite rate.

This doesn't mean it has a boundary, if space is positively curved, just as the finite area of the earth's surface has no 'edge'.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
5_senses_does_not_reality_mak

5_senses_does_not_reality_make wrote:

"The smallest particles do not have an 'inside' for anything to be in. They are seen as geometric points, centers of a pattern of force or energy."

yeah, until we find out that there IS something inside of them.  right?

Just wondering what your views on the infinite or infinity are. mainly just the possibility that anything can be infinite. and if our inability to fully conceive the infinite may or may not be a mental bias or tendency, given that we experience reality on a finite level.

btw, I learn a lot by talking with you, and I really appreciate our conversations.

just wanted you to know that. 

It is unlikely that electrons have an 'inside', given the number of experiments that have been done with them, and the associated math. So the current working assumption, which is what scientific 'truths' can be honestly treated as, is that they are points, since that fits what we 'observe' of them currently.

You have to get used to assigning some level of relative likelihood to each side of a truth proposition, not just 50-50 to anything that we can't prove either way. That is the only way to make progress and avoid logical lock-ups in the empirical, inductive world of science.

It would be impossible for a finite mind to perceive 'infinity', as in observing an object of 'infinite' length. To us, it can only be a concept.

But Georg Cantor has convincingly argued that there are an infinite number of grades of infinity, when treated as mathematical concepts, what he preferred to call 'transfinite numbers', the 'smallest' being then number of integers.

I don't see how our Big Bang Universe can be infinite, since it has been expanding from a less than infinite-sized 'singularity' for a finite time at a finite rate.

This doesn't mean it has a boundary, if space is positively curved, just as the finite area of the earth's surface has no 'edge'.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


5_senses_does_n...
Posts: 40
Joined: 2011-07-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

5_senses_does_not_reality_make wrote:

"The smallest particles do not have an 'inside' for anything to be in. They are seen as geometric points, centers of a pattern of force or energy."

yeah, until we find out that there IS something inside of them.  right?

Just wondering what your views on the infinite or infinity are. mainly just the possibility that anything can be infinite. and if our inability to fully conceive the infinite may or may not be a mental bias or tendency, given that we experience reality on a finite level.

btw, I learn a lot by talking with you, and I really appreciate our conversations.

just wanted you to know that. 

It is unlikely that electrons have an 'inside', given the number of experiments that have been done with them, and the associated math. So the current working assumption, which is what scientific 'truths' can be honestly treated as, is that they are points, since that fits what we 'observe' of them currently.

You have to get used to assigning some level of relative likelihood to each side of a truth proposition, not just 50-50 to anything that we can't prove either way. That is the only way to make progress and avoid logical lock-ups in the empirical, inductive world of science.

It would be impossible for a finite mind to perceive 'infinity', as in observing an object of 'infinite' length. To us, it can only be a concept.

But Georg Cantor has convincingly argued that there are an infinite number of grades of infinity, when treated as mathematical concepts, what he preferred to call 'transfinite numbers', the 'smallest' being then number of integers.

I don't see how our Big Bang Universe can be infinite, since it has been expanding from a less than infinite-sized 'singularity' for a finite time at a finite rate.

This doesn't mean it has a boundary, if space is positively curved, just as the finite area of the earth's surface has no 'edge'.

 

interesting, I wonder if PI (3.14 etc.) is one of those transfinite numbers?  Also I've been reading up a little on the multi-verse theory, just wondering what you thought on the subject?

I don't know which I doubt more.
the existence of god, or an open minded atheist.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
'PI' is not a 'transfinite'

'PI' is not a 'transfinite' number. It is very definitely finite.

It is classified as an 'irrational' number, which here has nothing to do with 'reason', but simply means it cannot be expressed as a ratio (hence irrational) of two finite whole numbers.

There is no obvious reason (to me) that multiple universes are impossible. It is not clear if we could ever detect them, except very indirectly as the best explanation we can think of some possible observations or measurements, perhaps.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology