What's a "Matter"

[_Dantana]

It's really never a good idea to pick a fight with a materialist/naturalist, especially when it's clear to them that you really don't know your ass from your hat when it comes to physics... but here goes.
Maybe it would assuage their ire a bit if I were to point out that I don't believe in deities, or even separate souls for that matter.
I do however cling to the hope that existence is consciousness based, and so I look to logically deduce how this can be proven.
About the only evidence for consciousness can be found in the work of Dean Radin and Co.
Aside from that though, about the only avenue guys like me have is to try to twist quantum physics to suit our agenda. So in an effort to do that, my question to the materialist has to do with the nature of matter.
It's been read, by me, somewhere, that all the matter/mass/substance of the universe was compressed to occupy the area of a grain of sand at the big bang. That seems incredible.....that science has the ability to measure this infintesimal bit of mass that a particle has.

What I really can't seem to get my head around is, there are a handful of elementary particles that make up all substance. Particles that can't be broken down any further and have no substructure. They are just a point and have no structure. Yet they behave differently, they have different qualities. Why is that? How can something with no structure or mechanical system behave differently and have different qualities when acted upon by the same force?


Curt

[_Cardinal Biggles]

Nothing... what's a matter you?

[_Dantana]

Nutten. I couldn't remember if it's a Bugs bunny or Billy Joel tune I had in mind though....for the title.

[_Tarski]

It's really never a good idea to pick a fight with a materialist/naturalist, especially when it's clear to them that you really don't know your ass from your hat when it comes to physics... but here goes.
Maybe it would assuage their ire a bit if I were to point out that I don't believe in deities, or even separate souls for that matter.
I do however cling to the hope that existence is consciousness based, and so I look to logically deduce how this can be proven.
About the only evidence for consciousness can be found in the work of Dean Radin and Co.
Aside from that though, about the only avenue guys like me have is to try to twist quantum physics to suit our agenda. So in an effort to do that, my question to the materialist has to do with the nature of matter.
It's been read, by me, somewhere, that all the matter/mass/substance of the universe was compressed to occupy the area of a grain of sand at the big bang. That seems incredible.....that science has the ability to measure this infintesimal bit of mass that a particle has.

What I really can't seem to get my head around is, there are a handful of elementary particles that make up all substance. Particles that can't be broken down any further and have no substructure. They are just a point and have no structure. Yet they behave differently, they have different qualities. Why is that? How can something with no structure or mechanical system behave differently and have different qualities when acted upon by the same force?


Curt

I know what you mean and I think this is a good question. I think a partial answer has something to do with irreducible representations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_p ... ion_theory

Also, it might Old Testament be a good idea to necessarily think of elementary particles as just geometric points.

[_Dantana]

Jeez Tarski, I sure wish I had a math base in my intellect so I could go further with you on these subjects. The only thing I see in this site you referred, that I can utilize at this time is to point out the originator of this theory, Eugene Wigner. The author of "Wigner's friend", and advocate for consciousness based existence.

From the wiki on Eugene Wigner - In his collection of essays Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays, he commented "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness."

[_Tarski]

Jeez Tarski, I sure wish I had a math base in my intellect so I could go further with you on these subjects. The only thing I see in this site you referred, that I can utilize at this time is to point out the originator of this theory, Eugene Wigner. The author of "Wigner's friend", and advocate for consciousness based existence.

That kind of thinking was just in the air back in those days. It is far less prevalent now and I think the cognitive revolution has made people less mystical about consciousness

Scientific Essays, he commented "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness."

Well, I don't believe it except in the trivial sense that it is pretty hard to talk about anything without mentioning the humans that are doing the experiments and formualting theories in terms of human concepts etc. But what would be different if we were ultimately machines? Can't sufficiently complex and intelligent machines carry out procedures and measurements sufficient to make sense of quantum mechanics?


The problem for me is that when people talk about consciousness they think they know what they are talking about --presumably because they feel they are in direct contact with "it". But I deny this. For example, we think consciousness has a certain continuity to it. But this is just due to the fact that when we are unconscious of breaks and detailed nonuniformities, then we interpret that as perception of something continuous and simple. But it is really a lack of something not a presence. Think about how a blue wall looks despite the fact that we all have a blind spot--maybe a black stain is in the blind spot but we see nothing but smooth blue wall--it isn't a filling in with "figment" but just the judgement of continuity in the absence of evidence of a break. We don't see a gap or hole.

So it is with our intuitions about consciousness--indeed maybe even the concept itself--it is due to what we are not in contact with rather than what we are in contact with. We can't see what is going on and this creates the illusion of a magical presence. Like the blind spot, it is more about absense. Not seeing breaks, the brain assumes a positive presence of something continuous.

[Guest]

I understand what you're saying about the blind spot in the center of the eye, and how our brain fills in the blanks to create our experience. We exist in a form of virtual reality.




In reference to your previous post, perhaps existence is all about *symbols*. Particles are symbols?

Then how can there not be something other than a - disassociated from substance, consciousness - to collapse the wave? I'm sure you have answered this before but, how can matter collapse itself?

[_bcspace]

Mind? No matter. Matter? Nevermind.