What is "matter" in the quantum age?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Jackofalltrades phil
 
Reply Wed 20 Jan, 2010 03:32 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;121158 wrote:
yes that is what I meant. The gross mind is always changing, that is its nature. Mine is pretty gross and it changes constantly:-)


As for me, I don't know my real mind..... ha ha ha
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Wed 20 Jan, 2010 03:54 am
@prothero,
well if you meet it one day, say hello from me
 
housby
 
Reply Wed 20 Jan, 2010 07:32 am
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;121067 wrote:
Yes we have......... It is best to pose this question in another forum/sub-forum.

I have lot of observational thoughts on these things, as an average naturalist. But you can pose it on the language section.

I also got a brainwave - got a teaser or shall we say a puszzle for you. Is language, a matter?

I have begun a new thread on this (new being relative in this case) in language.
Is language matter????? Wow, that could fill a library. I think that will crop up very soon (in detail).
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
Reply Wed 20 Jan, 2010 12:06 pm
@prothero,
Well...... okay.........it seems, no one wants to discuss matter anymore,
May be a summation is in order, here is how i would put it -

The Latent Lament on States of Matter

O matter! O Matter!
Where have you Been
Just like wavy Water,
Not to be truly Seen

Stolen away by Heat,
Or by my gross Perception
Do you have no Seat?
Cry! why change your Position?

Or are you playing Games
To torment my Kinds,
We give you Names
To satisfy our Minds

On states, the wise do Know
For You are the Perceived Effect
O matter! Just like seasonal Snow
- A form of the Unperceived Perfect
 
QuinticNon
 
Reply Wed 20 Jan, 2010 06:59 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;120760 wrote:
This realm is also referred to as 'the causal realm'. It is called 'causal' because it is that by virtue of which things can come to exist. It is not within scope for scientific investigation, because it is subtle, hence known to the traditional philosophies as a subtle realm.


You speak of what I call the Immaterial Realm. I do not care for "causal realm" because that confuses the issue with the material realm of "cause/reaction". I feel that is best left to the domain of Chaos. Do you suggest Chaos can "cause"? Yes, I do. A cause does not need a mind. All it needs is Chaos. No code required.

I could accept "the Reasoned Realm"... in place of the Immaterial Realm. Reason requires a mind. Mind expresses itself by assembling matter into symbolic structure.

Asking what the Cause is, is different than asking what the Reason is.

As well, I'm not too keen on the term "Subtle Realm" either. If it is real, and if it consists of pure Information, and if this pool of Information is what comes together to form materialism, then there is absolutely nothing subtle about it whatsoever. It seems too highly important for everything physical to deserve a title of "Subtle".

jeeprs;120760 wrote:
Strictly speaking it does not exist at all, it 'informs' existence.


Yes, thus a pool of pure Information that Informs matter 'in-to-form'. But is it a pool, or is it a mind itself? What/Who authored this pool/mind of Info?

jeeprs;120760 wrote:
Therefore the use of the term 'immaterial realm' is in a sense metaphorical; not because it is not real, but it is beyond the scope of description.


Point taken. Out of habit promoting the Material/Immaterial Realms. I'd like to settle this and get my habits shifted as soon as possible. If not Material/Immaterial, what then? Physical/NonPhysical? Corporeal/NonCorporeal? Possible/Potential? Manifest/UnManifest?

What can we agree on?
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Wed 20 Jan, 2010 07:34 pm
@prothero,
All very fair points. The terms 'causal' and 'subtle' has been utilised elsewhere in a similar context. ( I am interested in mapping some of these discussions we are having against ideas I have encountered elsewhere.)

The meaning of 'causal' in this context refers to ontology, not 'causality' in the crude sense of cause-and-effect. It is more the sense of 'that which causes anything to be' or 'that by virtue of which anything exists'. This refers to the idea that the meaning of 'in the beginning' is not, strictly speaking, chronological. 'The beginning' is actually the source of all being, even now. It is not as if Deity 'created the world' 13.1 billion years ago and then retired to His ante-chamber to enjoy chess and occasionally help out with tricky design tasks or to answer the odd prayer. This perspective is in Jean Gebser's The Ever-Present Origin which is an epochal but little-known work.

Anyway I am not really taking issue with what is being said, just adding a footnote or commentary from a 'comparitive studies' viewpoint.
 
QuinticNon
 
Reply Wed 20 Jan, 2010 07:47 pm
@prothero,
Until we agree on a terminology, I'll have to stick with Material/Immaterial to describe two different realms that humans should be aware of.

I've heard others use the term Immaterial. Corporeal/NonCorporeal might do.

Yes, I understood the context of 'causal realm'. And I'm not ready to use the term Deity in any of this. Without the baggage, the word God would be usable. My chocolate donuts can be my God or my Satan... But they will never be my Deity.

A sentient entity would suffice. Would that by default make it a Deity? Once it is known, would it not be considered as simply Alien? Even if that Alien was Immaterial and happened to be our mother...Smile
 
prothero
 
Reply Wed 20 Jan, 2010 08:02 pm
@prothero,
Well in religious terms reality was often divided into the "spiritual realm" and the "material realm". In the "chain of being" reality divides matter,life,mind,soul and spirit with matter being the lowest level of "being". I think saying something must be "material" to be "real" or to "exist" is incorrect. In the religous view of the world, the material is impermanent, flux, change and illusion where the "spiritual" is eternal, perfect and "real".
In the religious view of the world, reality is perfused with and permeated by spirit, the world is actually alive and enchanted in a way that the materialist metaphysic and the mechanistic, deterministic universe as blind indifferent machine worldview does not allow.
 
QuinticNon
 
Reply Wed 20 Jan, 2010 08:15 pm
@prothero,
On Pauli Exclusion Principle and Planck Constant...

Mathematics confirms the existence of a physical substance... Matter.
"It has been shown that the Pauli exclusion principle is responsible for the fact that ordinary bulk matter is stable and occupies volume. The first suggestion in 1931 was by Paul Ehrenfest, who pointed out that the electrons of each atom cannot all fall into the lowest-energy orbital and must occupy successively larger shells. Atoms therefore occupy a volume and cannot be squeezed too close together."

Sounds like a clue to anti gravity or levitation!

"
A more rigorous proof was provided by Freeman Dyson and Andrew Lenard in 1967, who considered the balance of attractive (electron-nuclear) and repulsive (electron-electron and nuclear-nuclear) forces and showed that ordinary matter would collapse and occupy a much smaller volume without the Pauli principle. The consequence of the Pauli principle here is that electrons of the same spin are kept apart by a repulsive exchange interaction. This is a short-range force which is additional to the long-range electrostatic or coulombic force. This additional force is therefore responsible for the everyday observation in the macroscopic world that two solid objects cannot be in the same place in the same time."

Yep! It is a clue to anti gravity and levitation!

"
In 1995 Elliott Lieb and coworkers showed that the Pauli principle still leads to stability in intense magnetic fields as in neutron stars, although at much higher density than in ordinary matter. It is postulated that in sufficiently intense gravitational fields, matter collapses to form a black hole, in apparent contradiction to the exclusion principle."

Pauli exclusion principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note that "leads to stability" and "much higher density". That means "physical stuff".

Note also that in the presence of ultimate gravity of black hole that Pauli Principle breaks down. The more dense, the higher the gravity, causing the matter to compound upon itself into spaces that it previously could not, or spaces that were not there.

Could the Pauli Exclusion principle be the mathematical equation leading us right up to the doorstep of the Ouroboros or Uroborus. Ouroboros - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And now Planck Constant...

"Planck hypothesized (correctly, as it later turned out) that under certain conditions, energy could not take on any indiscriminate value: instead, the energy must be some multiple of a very small quantity (later to be named a "quantum"). This is counterintuitive in the everyday world, where it is possible to "make things a little bit hotter" or "move things a little bit faster", because the quanta of energy are very, very small in comparison to everyday human experience. Nevertheless, it is impossible, as Planck found out, to explain some phenomena without accepting that energy is discrete; that is, it exists only in integer multiples of some base value."

So it would seem that energy exists in reality alongside matter. As well, as some would point out that energy/matter are actually one essence in two different forms, why then would matter compress in ultimate gravity as noted by the Pauli Exclusion Principle, yet energy is simply non existent beyond its smallest quantum described by Planck?
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Wed 20 Jan, 2010 08:19 pm
@prothero,
I'm perfectly OK with material and immaterial.


(Mind you, I am ok with all of it. I have been studying this long enough to make out the outlines of what is important under all the various lexicons which are used to convey it. Hence my use of terminology such as 'deity'. I have made peace with the spiritual realities. I have gotten used to the idea that there really is the 'immaterial realm' or whatever other inevitably unsatisfactory term is used for it. But I really, really have to go back to work now.....)
 
prothero
 
Reply Wed 20 Jan, 2010 08:23 pm
@Jackofalltrades phil,
[QUOTE=Jackofalltrades;121154] According to this; "Matter" is that which has mass and occupies space. [/QUOTE]
Jackofalltrades;121154 wrote:

According to the current human ability to grasp the meaning of space, it can only do so by perceiving the three-dimensional space continuum.

The Cartesian notion was space was like a fixed rigid box independent of its contents.
The general relativity theory is space is more flexible and can be bent or warped by the presence of matter. Space is still continuous and matter is still point particle.


[QUOTE=Jackofalltrades;121154] So, can't we do away with time for a while, but concentrate on space. If space is continuous, than quantum matter also involves space. [/QUOTE] In a nutshell it is difficult to conceptually combine continuous space time with discontinuous quantitized matter. That is why there is no TOE it is the verbal equivalent of the inability to mathematically combine general relativity (our mathematical description of spacetime gravity) which is continuous and point particle with quantum mechanics (our mathematical description of the other three fundamental forces of nature) which is discontinuous and quantitized..

[QUOTE=Jackofalltrades;121154] Now, on mass, - if any matter occupies space, mass should also be present. But mass can have a value only if gravity exist. So gravity is the only force that allows mass. In which case, can we say, that mass is dependent on gravity. [/QUOTE] The old definition of matter (has mass and occupies space) was put forth when mass was a fixed property of objects and space time was a rigid box. It just does not hold up in general relativity and quantum mechanics. Mass is a variable property dependent on gravitational fields and acceleration. Space time is a flexible medium distorted by the presence of mass.

[QUOTE=Jackofalltrades;121154] As the star-trek author said, Space is the final frontier. It is difficult to comprehend space, unless we relate it with matter of some kind and describe it by its dimensions or distance. [/QUOTE] In the end space time does not exist without matter and energy and "nothing exists" except in its relationship to other things. Mass, space, time, gravity, energy are all concepts which do not really "exist" except in relationship to one another. There is no independent "being" or "existence" for matter at all. In fact in my view even the concept of "being" is wrong, reality is composed of events process"becoming" not "being".

[QUOTE=Jackofalltrades;121154] Therfore, Matter as an interconnected whole, at least in the quantum paradigm, is in a process of continous change, and so defines space due to the changeness of matter. The relation between two quantum events is therefore 'space'. [/QUOTE]
Jackofalltrades;121154 wrote:

Any thoughts?
Very close. Much closer to the "truth" than the dominant view of independent fixed space time and inert insensate point particles of matter having mass and occupying space. The dominant world view is still classical mechanics, inert point particle of Newton and the fixed rigid space time of Descartes. Reality is an interconnected whole and composed of events in relation not independent "being". We may not be able to adequately conceive of the world as it is. Our minds are structured for the world as we experience it.
 
QuinticNon
 
Reply Wed 20 Jan, 2010 08:26 pm
@prothero,
prothero;121420 wrote:
Well in religious terms reality was often divided into the "spiritual realm" and the "material realm".


Oh yeah, I'm well aware. Unfortunate the term "spiritual" is an automatic deal breaker, drawing lines in the sand and forming prejudices. That word seems to Churchy for the Metro Sexual Minds of Modernity. The word dare not be used when discussing Science of any sort... Including the Information Sciences. Too much baggage with "spiritual".

It also begs the question of sentient intelligence much more boldly than the term Immaterial Realm. If the materialist will just finally accept that there must be another realm beyond the physical, that would be a move in the right direction. If that realization ultimately led to authorship capable intelligent entities on the other side, well, if it truly be that way...
 
prothero
 
Reply Wed 20 Jan, 2010 08:52 pm
@QuinticNon,
QuinticNon;121426 wrote:
It also begs the question of sentient intelligence much more boldly than the term Immaterial Realm. If the materialist will just finally accept that there must be another realm beyond the physical, that would be a move in the right direction. If that realization ultimately led to authorship capable intelligent entities on the other side, well, if it truly be that way...
I quess for me the term "immaterial realm" gives too much status and independence to the notion of "material realm" materialism.
Of course in the end the language is never adequate for these matters because they contain inherent paradoxes about the objective/subjective, immanent/transcendence, becoming/being, interrelated whole/component parts aspects of things but I think materialism is the problem not the solution and I do not care for any terminology which enhances it status; just like materialists object to (mind,soul and spiritual) roughly in that order.
 
QuinticNon
 
Reply Wed 20 Jan, 2010 09:53 pm
@prothero,
prothero;121432 wrote:
I quess for me the term "immaterial realm" gives too much status and independence to the notion of "material realm" materialism.


Well, understood. But do you actually deny the existence of a material realm? Even with Pauli and Planck, do you really not think it deserves any attention at all?

There's a decent argument that this dualism of Material/Immaterial is the nature of our physical deceptions. I've even heard it put forth that when Even tasted the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that was the birth of dualism... Humans are thus aware of the dualism between Good and Evil. I propose written language as the mechanism that allowed that to happen. The very moment when Image/Object relationships were conceived. Material/Immaterial abstract reasoning was born.

Some would encourage us to completely reject the Materialism as flotsam and jetsam of the Immaterial.

prothero;121432 wrote:
Of course in the end the language is never adequate for these matters because they contain inherent paradoxes...


I have no problems agreeing that we need new words to describe these notions. But I cannot believe that language is insufficient to manifest Immaterial Thought into form of Material Structure.

Thought in-to-form... Information. We cannot know of Information without the Material structure of Code to make us aware of it. Code is a material lens that allows us to view the Immaterial Realm of Information. It is the only tool that allows us to do so. Language is our only physical link to the Immaterial Realm of Thought.
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 03:35 am
@prothero,
prothero;121425 wrote:

The Cartesian notion was space was like a fixed rigid box independent of its contents.
The general relativity theory is space is more flexible and can be bent or warped by the presence of matter. Space is still continuous and matter is still point particle.


In a nutshell it is difficult to conceptually combine continuous space time with discontinuous quantitized matter. That is why there is no TOE it is the verbal equivalent of the inability to mathematically combine general relativity (our mathematical description of spacetime gravity) which is continuous and point particle with quantum mechanics (our mathematical description of the other three fundamental forces of nature) which is discontinuous and quantitized..

The old definition of matter (has mass and occupies space) was put forth when mass was a fixed property of objects and space time was a rigid box. It just does not hold up in general relativity and quantum mechanics. Mass is a variable property dependent on gravitational fields and acceleration. Space time is a flexible medium distorted by the presence of mass.

In the end space time does not exist without matter and energy and "nothing exists" except in its relationship to other things. Mass, space, time, gravity, energy are all concepts which do not really "exist" except in relationship to one another. There is no independent "being" or "existence" for matter at all. In fact in my view even the concept of "being" is wrong, reality is composed of events process"becoming" not "being".

Very close. Much closer to the "truth" than the dominant view of independent fixed space time and inert insensate point particles of matter having mass and occupying space. The dominant world view is still classical mechanics, inert point particle of Newton and the fixed rigid space time of Descartes. Reality is an interconnected whole and composed of events in relation not independent "being". We may not be able to adequately conceive of the world as it is. Our minds are structured for the world as we experience it.



Well thank you for those explanations.
Quote:


In a nutshell it is difficult to conceptually combine continuous space time with discontinuous quantitized matter.


Bear with me for a while. What is "discontinuous quantitized matter"?
Conceptually, even if we take matter like energy..... it works or exists in a continuous field. Like energy fields or gravitational fields or electromagnetic fields. Why is it difficult for quantum mechanics to utilise the concept of dynamics of the field theory.

I may go overboard by my puerile sense of quantumisk/quantumical ? knowledge but at the risk of ridicule, and the deFace-ality of Internet, why should we not think of quantum fields as continous fields of matter.

If a quantum field or matter cannot be mathematically given a value, does it mean it does not exist. In which case, being by itself and uncomparable, it can't be the case that consciousness does not exist.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 03:43 am
@prothero,
QuinticNon;121443 wrote:

Thought in-to-form... Information. We cannot know of Information without the Material structure of Code to make us aware of it. Code is a material lens that allows us to view the Immaterial Realm of Information. It is the only tool that allows us to do so. Language is our only physical link to the Immaterial Realm of Thought.


I was with you up until the last paragraph. I think what we are all contemplating here is one or another form of the Integral or Perennial Philosophy. (Well I am anyway, which is what I usually do.) Within this context, the 'code of life' discovery is an important facet - but I don't think it provides the imagery or the lexicon to address the whole scope of the subject at hand.

One issue: this idea of 'immaterial realm of thought' - I would challenge that, on the basis that thought itself is material (as all the neural scientists say). It is understandable to say this, as the Western tradition has usually equated thought with the immaterial. However I believe conscious thought, the act of thinking, is definitely correlated with, if not reducible to, neural activity.

But when you start to consider the meaning of thought itself, or the totality of an act of conscious awareness, then already you are seeking a different level of explanation. To do that is to be 'choicelessly aware of every movement of thought' as Krishnamurti used to say.

Or you could say

If thought is a cognitive act, then being aware of the nature of thought is a meta-cognitive act.

Now perhaps this has only really been grasped by Wittgenstein in recent Western philosophy, with his analysis of the uses and limitations of language. However it is stock-in-trade for many schools of Indian philosophy because they have the perspective provided by 'samadhi' which is not explicitly part of Western philosophy at all (except for within the contemplative orders). But by its nature, this perspective is 'beyond thought', or 'trans-rational'. So it is in the context of 'the higher awareness' - not your plain old garden varieties of thinking - that consciousness can be identified with the immaterial.

I suppose I am getting at the idea that just has reality has levels, so to does cognition. The structure of consciousness, language, and therefore thinking itself, somehow reflects, or some would say is the nature of reality itself. (Which seems to be what Bhartihari is saying, whom QuinticNon referred to in his opening post, although it would take considerable study to understand him properly, and some knowledge of Sanskrit.)

Anyway I am just improvising as always, but the point I am getting at is that there is a way to orient this discussion in the context of various aspects of the perennial philosophy....plus also various aspects of philosophical linguistics and semiotics...fertile grounds for development in all that.
 
QuinticNon
 
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 11:51 am
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;121466 wrote:
What is "discontinuous quantitized matter"?


I believe he refers to the "quanta". The smallest measurable unit of matter. In this light, matter is discontinuous, like individual frames on a movie film strip. Played together they look continuous and fluid. But they can also be isolated as individual frames with no apparent connection to those before or after it.
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 12:24 pm
@prothero,
Oh,...... if that be the case, i can see it, i think, but i also believe that i can't get it though.
 
QuinticNon
 
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 01:21 pm
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;121586 wrote:
Oh,...... if that be the case, i can see it, i think, but i also believe that i can't get it though.


Bingo! Therein lies the rub. To see without belief is the deception. "Belief" is a property of mind. If we can see that matter is discontinuous, but nonetheless insist upon believing it is impenetrable, then have we not in some fashion deceived ourselves into claiming "matter over mind"?
 
prothero
 
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 08:24 pm
@QuinticNon,
QuinticNon;121616 wrote:
Bingo! Therein lies the rub. To see without belief is the deception. "Belief" is a property of mind. If we can see that matter is discontinuous, but nonetheless insist upon believing it is impenetrable, then have we not in some fashion deceived ourselves into claiming "matter over mind"?
I suppose I have a different take. We believe "know" matter is mostly empty space and discontinous despite its "solid" "impenetrable" continuous appearance "reality or perception" to us. So we "believe" what we cannot directly perceive. It is mind "knowing or belief" over matter "perception or direct experience". Also, it is only the first of many things which mind tells us are "true" despite our direct sensory appearance or perception telling us something different.
Space is fixed and rigid, it is not.
Matter is inert, insensate, and indivisible point particle, it is not.
Time is fixed, it is not.
Mass is fixed it is not.
Time and space are independent of gravity, they are not.
There may be many things which are "true" which neither our senses nor our instruments can reveal to us. Perhaps some "true" things are only revealed to reason and the mind. There goes my romantic idealism and rationalism again.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/23/2024 at 02:58:12