...would it be the end God because the reason for everything is found?

This mechanism is the physical proof of an immaterial realm beyond energy and matter.

What is "matter" in the quantum age?

What is the physical mechanism that allows thoughts to be shared?

---------- Post added 01-18-2010 at 12:28 AM ----------

But what about the mind stuff? Where does the mind stuff reside? Where is the mind?

Gradually, physicists began to realise that nature, at an atomic level does not appear as a mechanical universe composed of fundamental building blocks, but rather as a network of relations, and that, ulimately, there are no parts at all in this interconnected web. Whatever we call a part is merely a pattern that has some stability and therfore captures our attention................
The awareness of mutual unity and mutual interrealtions of all things and events, the experience of al phenomena as manifestations of basic oneness, is also the most important common charecteristics of Eastern worldviews. ......
All things are seen as interdependent, inseparable, and as transient patterns of the same ultimate reality.
.........In the old paradigm, it was thought that there were fundamental structures, and then there were forces and mechanisms through which these interacted, which gave rise to processes. In the new paradigm we think that process is primary, that every structure we observe is a manifestation of an underlying process.

I dont think Newton experienced the formula for gravity, or Einstein the equations of general relativity, I dont think Planck experienced the quanta and I do not think anyone experienced imaginary numbers. I do not deny that experience raises questions but the answers come from intuition, reason and imagination not from sense perception. Some types of theories we can empirically test and so they are truth by correspondence, other types of theories can not be tested and are only truth by coherence or consistency. Sense perception (experience) is found throughout nature but the rational and imaginative power of man is unique and the source of most of our "knowledge".

Self consciousness, I would suggest, requires a dialectic between the material realm and a human mind. As I have already mentioned, I believe this acts like putting 2 mirrors facing each other. Something special happens. Then you would get the knowledge that is unique to humans, not the awareness shared with animals.

Are we all agreed then that our western philosophical view is not equipped to deal with a question such as 'what is matter?'.

We should follow the Eastern mystics and meditate under a tree for several weeks, or take the short route with some peyote. Only when we defacilitate our left brain thinking will we be able to see the real picture. 'Cosmic consciousness' as Bucke described it.

Wikepedia

The common definition of matter is anything that has both mass and volume (occupies space). For example, a car would be said to be made of matter, as it occupies space, and has mass.

The observation that matter occupies space goes back to antiquity. However, an explanation for why matter occupies space is recent, and is argued to be a result of the Pauli exclusion principle.[22][23]

Two particular examples where the exclusion principle clearly relates matter to the occupation of space are white dwarf stars and neutron stars.

Not so sure about the peyote thing. Mind altering stuff was what got me here in this first place 35-odd years ago. (Ha Ha).

---------- Post added 01-18-2010 at 02:26 PM ----------


I have looked at the Pauli principle and, as with most other quantum stuff, I find it inpenetrable. Quantum physics is a fascinaton to me as I have stated previously, but I don't have the extreme mathematical capability to grasp it at more than a basic level. I would dearly love to find a book or internet site aimed at the layman, a kid of idiots guide to quantum physics. When I have found such a thing it has usually been a bit too basic and only tells me what I already know. Do others find the same thing? It seems as though it is a subject that can only go so far in plain English and then tips over into mathematical formula. There doesn't seem to be anything "gradual".

I agree with what you say here. Anything new has usually to be concieved before it is experienced. It is inherent in the human mind to be able to think of things that do not exist yet. My argument is that if we had no experience whatsoever how would we concieve of anything new because we would have no konwledge of anything outside of us (and thus probably no self-knowledge either - sorry covering old ground there). We can, I believe, only deal with things in the abstract when we have knowledge of the world around us. Doesn't this follow?

I seek the answers to many things and, if I were to keep a closed mind then I would learn nothing.

I can do one quote but not several in the same post (now there is a definite gap in my knowledge).

Exactly (and I won't mentionthe child again).

Are we all agreed then that our western philosophical view is not equipped to deal with a question such as 'what is matter?'.
We should follow the Eastern mystics and meditate under a tree for several weeks, or take the short route with some peyote. Only when we defacilitate our left brain thinking will we be able to see the real picture. 'Cosmic consciousness' as Bucke described it.

Not so sure about the peyote thing. Mind altering stuff was what got me here in this first place 35-odd years ago. (Ha Ha).

I have looked at the Pauli principle and, as with most other quantum stuff, I find it inpenetrable. Quantum physics is a fascinaton to me as I have stated previously, but I don't have the extreme mathematical capability to grasp it at more than a basic level. I would dearly love to find a book or internet site aimed at the layman, a kid of idiots guide to quantum physics. When I have found such a thing it has usually been a bit too basic and only tells me what I already know. Do others find the same thing? It seems as though it is a subject that can only go so far in plain English and then tips over into mathematical formula. There doesn't seem to be anything "gradual".

Anything new has usually to be concieved before it is experienced. It is inherent in the human mind to be able to think of things that do not exist yet. My argument is that if we had no experience whatsoever how would we concieve of anything new because we would have no konwledge of anything outside of us (and thus probably no self-knowledge either - sorry covering old ground there). We can, I believe, only deal with things in the abstract when we have knowledge of the world around us. Doesn't this follow?

The argument between rationalism and empiricism is ancient. In truth of course knowledge is the result of both and the real argument is the relative contributions of each in various areas of "knowing". One has to be alive and have a mind (experience) to reason. The argument I am trying to make is that it is not our sense experience or our sensory apparatus that makes man unique and gives us our "knowledge" of the world it is our reason and our imagination. Lots of life forms have sensory apparatus (often superior to our own) and have sense experience.
His take "imagination is more important than knowledge".
Matter is not what it "appears" to be.

What is 'quantum foam'?
The problem is that we have no evidence that 1) gravity is a quantum field and 2) that space-time has this type of structure at these scales.

[/COLOR]
Mind does matter, but Matter do exist.

The argument between rationalism and empiricism is ancient. In truth of course knowledge is the result of both and the real argument is the relative contributions of each in various areas of "knowing". One has to be alive and have a mind (experience) to reason. The argument I am trying to make is that it is not our sense experience or our sensory apparatus that makes man unique and gives us our "knowledge" of the world it is our reason and our imagination. Lots of life forms have sensory apparatus (often superior to our own) and have sense experience.

The most profound insight into the nature of the universe in the twentieth century was made a bored patent clerk (who because of his poor academic performance and teaching skills could not get a job at university) conducting thought experiments about riding on light waves and other nonsensical notions. His take "imagination is more important than knowledge".

Matter is not what it "appears" to be.

Kind of interesting, but a cop out in my view, as is the multiverse argument. I don't really entertain these ideas because they are probably impossible to prove or disprove, so they fail my 'what if?' test (in other words, what if they're true - does it make any difference?)

What is 'quantum foam'?


This is an idea that was originally proposed by Nobel physicist John Wheeler back in the early 1960's to describe what space-time 'looks like' at scales of 10^-33 centimeters.


The basic idea is that gravity is a field with many of the same fundamental properties as the other fundamental 'force' fields in Nature. This means that the state of this field is, at some level, uncertain and described by quantum mechanics. Since


Einstein's general theory of relativity requires that gravitational fields and space-time be one and the same mathematical objects, this means that space-time itself is also subject to the kinds of uncertainty required by quantum systems. This indeterminacy means that you cannot know with infinite precision BOTH the geometry of space-time, and the rate of change of the space-time geometry, in direct analogy with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle for quantum systems.


Wheeler imagined that this indeterminacy for space-time required that at the so-called Planck Scale of 10^-33 centimeters and 10^-43 seconds, space-time has a foaminess to it with sudden changes in its geometry into a wealth of complex shapes and textures.


You would have quantum black holes appear at 10^-33 centimeters, then evaporate in 10^-43 seconds. Wormholes would form and dissolve, and later theorists even postulated 'baby universe' production could happen under these conditions.

The problem is that we have no evidence that 1) gravity is a quantum field and 2) that space-time has this type of structure at these scales.

[/COLOR]
Experience is knowledge. Intuition is also knowledge. Logic and memory helps experience to formulate knowledge that was gained, Intellect helps mind to be sharp and intuitive. The idea that Education leads to wisdom is very wrong, Experience and Intuition gives out wisdom.

Power of Imagination, Creativity and Reasonings are the by-products of Experience and Intuitiveness. The idea that New Knowledge is created is wrong. New understandings are extracted, derived or deducted out of Nature. Mind-Intellect only processes the new information with the help of previous understandings and through what is known as thought process.
Mind does matter, but Matter do exist.

Well let me define matters of Mind, and the mind of Matters, in philosophical terms.


Matter:
1) Scientific or Physical Paradigms:
That which can be felt, seen, smelled, touched, tasted or heard.

2) Metaphysical; Spiritual :
That which changes

Mind:
1) Scientific or Physical Paradigms:
That which perceives, in other word that which feels, sees, smells, measures, tastes or hears.

2) Metaphysical; Spiritual :
That which remains the same.

I should say this is a simplistic version and quite broad in approach but hopefully useful.

There are four fundamental forces in modern physics (nuclear strong, nuclear weak, electromagnetism and gravity). Three of these forces already have been described in quantum terms and can be shown to fuse as a single force early in the history (big bang) of the universe. Gravity is the sole remaining force which has not yet been described in quantum terms although there are proposals for a quantum description of gravity. The unified field theory, Theory of everything (TOE), string theory and now M theory are attempts to unify the four fundamental forces in a single encompassing mathematical description which probably will be a quantum description.

M theory predicts the graviton and it has the properties necessary for a quantum system of gravity which were determined before the development of M theory. In short unless a major new revelation in physics is forthcoming, qravity too will receive a quantum description and be unifed in the final TOE. General relativity our current theory of gravity/space time requires point particles and continous space time (i.e. it is not a quantum description). The equations of general relativity break down on the scale of the very large and the very small and give nonsense (infinite) results. It is clear general relativity is not the final answer on a theory of gravity/space-time.

One needs to take quantum descriptions of gravity and space time seriously. Just as the image on your computer screen appears continous but is really composed of discrete dots, space time only appears continous when viewed from a distance and on certain scales. Of course the quantum nature of space time and qravity only appears at distances corresponding to the Planck dimensions but the implications of a quantum character to space time and gravity in philosophical terms are relatively profound. We all know about the strangeness of the quantum world and the disappearing atom now gravity and space time itself are subject to the same mysterious behaviors on small or large enough scales. One of the definitions of "matter" afterall is that which has mass and occupies space: so a profound change in "space" is a profound change in "matter".

---------- Post added 01-18-2010 at 03:44 PM ----------

Reminiscent of the old joke
Daddy "what is matter?" Father "Never mind."
Daddy "What is mind?" Father "No matter."

IN the various spiritual psychologies, mind, like reality, is heirarchical. So there is an aspect which is nothing but change. Then there is what Zen calls 'Big Mind' or the Advaitins call 'the unknown knower'.