"Matter Cannot Be Created Nor Destroyed"

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » "Matter Cannot Be Created Nor Destroyed"

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Kroni
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 12:02 pm
Should we really rely on this principle as heavily as we do? I have good reason to think that this statement is incorrect. My first question I would like to ask is if matter cannot be created, how does it exist?
At this point, you will hear various responses. The most common one is that "Matter that exists has always existed, and was not created by anything because in order to have been created it must first have not existed." It's a fair point, but lacks any evidence to support. Why would we so readily accept the notion that all matter has always existed in some form, when we can not logically explain how something can exist without being created? While I do not deny the possibility that this statement is accurate, I cannot give it any more weight than I give to the theory that matter was created, but came from nothing. If we do not have any substantial evidence showing which of these theories is more plausible, than how we can so matter of factly state that matter cannot be created? I believe this is a serious scientific error that will eventually prevent us from making progress in knowledge unless we change our perspective. So I ask these forums for someone to attempt to provide me with a more convincing arguement to accept this principle of matter.
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 02:25 pm
@Kroni,
Kroni;111548 wrote:
Should we really rely on this principle as heavily as we do? I have good reason to think that this statement is incorrect. My first question I would like to ask is if matter cannot be created, how does it exist?
At this point, you will hear various responses. The most common one is that "Matter that exists has always existed, and was not created by anything because in order to have been created it must first have not existed." It's a fair point, but lacks any evidence to support. Why would we so readily accept the notion that all matter has always existed in some form, when we can not logically explain how something can exist without being created? While I do not deny the possibility that this statement is accurate, I cannot give it any more weight than I give to the theory that matter was created, but came from nothing. If we do not have any substantial evidence showing which of these theories is more plausible, than how we can so matter of factly state that matter cannot be created? I believe this is a serious scientific error that will eventually prevent us from making progress in knowledge unless we change our perspective. So I ask these forums for someone to attempt to provide me with a more convincing arguement to accept this principle of matter.

Good reason; then share it... Matter is energy and it can be converted, and energy is a form of matter, in movement... Yet, the principal of conservation is not only true of matter, but is a fact common to all forms... A is A as a statement of identity is also a statement of conservation...We can only use the principal of conservation of mass and conservation of motion because they do in general state an obvious fact that does not change in the normal course of events...But the meaning of all our forms is conserved, and that fact is an essential one to human reason... For example, if we would measure space with a line, no matter in what fashion the line is shortend or lengthened there is no effect on the definition of Line...We could talk about justice as a reality hours on end, but such talk does not effect the definition of justice....Just what does the statement you question mean to you???
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 03:05 pm
@Kroni,
I think this is a scientific question, not a philosophical one. I would rather hope that a scientifically trained contributor might answer it. I have been reading recently that the current thought is that immediately after the Creation, er, sorry, Big Bang, the whole universe was predominantly hydrogen (which it still is actually). But some of the early stars went through their cycle and collapsed, and all the other elements we see today were created in this period. But again, I will defer to a scientific analysis.
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 04:05 pm
@Kroni,
There are many processes by which matter (particles) can be created. Pair-creation involves a photon of radiation decaying into an electron or positron. Beta decay involves a proton or neutron turning into the other plus two more particles. The limit on particle creation is the conservation laws, e.g. conservation of energy, of spin, etc.

Bones
 
prothero
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 08:15 pm
@Kroni,
What we call "matter" is "created" and "destroyed" all the time. There is however some more fundamental reality which is not created or destroyed but sometimes "appears" to have properties we call "matter". "Matter" is really some kind of an energy field. The total amount of energy and certain other properties may be conserved in a system. Some of that energy apears as "matter" at least under certain conditions.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 08:27 pm
@prothero,
prothero;111648 wrote:
What we call "matter" is "created" and "destroyed" all the time. There is however some more fundamental reality which is not created or destroyed but sometimes "appears" to have properties we call "matter". "Matter" is really some kind of an energy field. The total amount of energy and certain other properties may be conserved in a system. Some of that energy apears as "matter" at least under certain conditions.



I would only add the possibility of that which transcends human perception or understanding completely.
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 10:19 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;111652 wrote:
I would only add the possibility of that which transcends human perception or understanding completely.

Well then; how would we know of it??? If we concentrate on what we can know we are bound to be in better shape at the end of the day...Science and technology take turns waiting on each other, and together they extend human perception far beyond what the past could imagine... So why imagine when for us it is fantasy... Let the geeks do their geeky things and report in triplicate later... learn what we already know...
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 02:42 am
@Fido,
Fido;111689 wrote:
Well then; how would we know of it??? If we concentrate on what we can know we are bound to be in better shape at the end of the day...Science and technology take turns waiting on each other, and together they extend human perception far beyond what the past could imagine... So why imagine when for us it is fantasy... Let the geeks do their geeky things and report in triplicate later... learn what we already know...


It's like Kant's thing-in-itself. It's the part of the map that refers away from the map, to what the map is not. "The map is not the territory." It's the map's self-negation. (We're the map, and we're alive...)

But, as I've said before, one could argue that the map is the territory, and that the thought that "the map is not the territory" is one more piece of the map. It's the artistic arrangement of metaphors, conceptual poetry.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » "Matter Cannot Be Created Nor Destroyed"
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 06/19/2019 at 12:06:45