Does Matter Really Exist?

[Mercutio]

Once again, the alleged words of Max Planck ...

Extra points to you if you can list 5 reasons this quote is useless. I'll make it easy--you are even allowed to go back to the other 10 times you posted it, to see what the responses were.

 

[Iacchus]

Which says nothing about it at all... X = X is all well and good, but does not define X.

What does X = X mean without the awareness that X = X? ... Not a whole lot.

No. Quite arguably, it is our experience with dimensions that gives rise to awareness in the first place. And whether experience with dimensions introduces us to awareness or awareness introduces us to dimensions, the abstract concept of dimension is wholly independent of awareness. We may be aware without knowing the first thing about dimensions (I do assume you are aware, after all), or we may be unaware, but the things that lead us to form an abstraction we call dimension would still exist.

And yes, there is very much the experience of X = X which, is why I define it as the sixth element.

Have you run this past any particle physicists? Could you cite any peer-reviewed physics journal articles which agree with you?

Didn't think so.

And did you know that there are six elements that go into the marriage relationship which, in effect is the seventh?

 

[Mercutio]

What does X = X mean without the awareness that X = X? ... Not a whole lot.

So, you did not read my post. Ok.

And yes, there is very much the experience of X = X which, is why I define it as the sixth element.

And yes, you have no clue about the things you talk about.

And did you know that there are six elements that go into the marriage relationship which, in effect is the seventh?

And yes, it is fun to make things up!

 

[Iacchus]

Have you run this past any particle physicists? Could you cite any peer-reviewed physics journal articles which agree with you?

Didn't think so.

Would it suffice to say that the whole Universe is interactive?

 

[Mercutio]

Would it suffice to say that the whole Universe is interactive?

Gee..."article from peer-reviewed physics journal"..."the whole Universe is interactive".

It seems to me that I am asking for a much much simpler thing. I don't require information about the whole Universe, merely a few pages from a tiny part of it.

No, Iacchus. It is not the same thing. An assertion you cannot understand, let alone support, is not the same thing as evidence.

Try again.

 

[Iacchus]

Gee..."article from peer-reviewed physics journal"..."the whole Universe is interactive".

It seems to me that I am asking for a much much simpler thing. I don't require information about the whole Universe, merely a few pages from a tiny part of it.

No, Iacchus. It is not the same thing. An assertion you cannot understand, let alone support, is not the same thing as evidence.

Try again.

Indeed, how do atoms know how to communicate with each other, without some rudimentary form of awareness?

 

[Mercutio]

Indeed, how do atoms know how to communicate with each other, without some rudimentary form of awareness?

So, not only do you not know the answers, you don't even really know the questions.

Iacchus, please. Start small. Find a physics journal article. You are not equipped yet to understand the questions, let alone the answers.

 

[Bone_Vulture]

Indeed, how do atoms know how to communicate with each other, without some rudimentary form of awareness?

When will the lunacy ever stop?

 

[bruto]

Each dimension contributes to the picture as a whole. Hence the greater the dimension, the greater the understanding you have towards the whole. This in fact is what the fifth dimension, sentience, entails ... the observation of the whole and/or spacetime.

Iacchus, that has to be one of the silliest things you've ever written here, and that's saying a lot!

So when I draw a two dimensional picture, does the width contain the height, or does the height contain the width? Oh great sentient master of dimensions, please tell me which is the greater!

 

[bruto]

X = X is all well and good, but does not define X.

Well, it would be a small victory if we could get Iacchus actually to acknowledge that X does equal X, if he could only manage to grasp the corollary concept (Sorry, I haven't take time to figure out the fancy notation) that if X=X, then X cannot equal not-X! A long way to go from there, but it would at least be a start.

 

[Belz...]

And we don't know anything other than we might be brains sitting in vats. Hence we have the first four dimensions that are perceived, and the fifth and sixth dimensions which are the perception of and, interaction with the first four. I mean what's the point in defining something which we don't ultimately participate in ... when, in fact we do? The fifth and sixth dimensions entail the presence of being in other words.

You didn't even READ what I said, AGAIN. You're just answering the same thing over and over, like a broken record.

Dimensions are just that: Dimensions. They're not "properties of awareness", whatever that is. Again, pick a damn dictionary and READ.

The property of awarenes is the property of awareness, regardless. And it is the property which introduces us to the first four. In fact, this is the very thing that holds the whole shebang together, the property of awareness ... beginning at the sub-atomic level that is.

Insisting on something does not make it true, Iacchus.

Once again, the alleged words of Max Planck ...

Damn, man. You're like the Terminator without his chip activated. You can't learn anything.

 

[Belz...]

When will the lunacy ever stop?

Thanks, Bone. Wonderful intro to my post!

What does X = X mean without the awareness that X = X? ... Not a whole lot.

Why would it have to "mean" anything ?

And yes, there is very much the experience of X = X which, is why I define it as the sixth element.

Didn't you say that was the fifth dimension ? "Element" now ? Why do you keep using different terms ?

And did you know that there are six elements that go into the marriage relationship which, in effect is the seventh?

... WHAT ?

Would it suffice to say that the whole Universe is interactive?

Not so. Virtual particles may or may not interact with the rest of the universe.

Indeed, how do atoms know how to communicate with each other, without some rudimentary form of awareness?

That's a ridiculous and completely baseless assumption. You're basically saying that, when I throw a ball at a wall, both objects are "aware" of each other in a way. You've been told this before, Iacchus. Diluting definitions so they can fit ANYTHING simply removes any meaning they have.

 

[Belz...]

Well, it would be a small victory if we could get Iacchus actually to acknowledge that X does equal X, if he could only manage to grasp the corollary concept (Sorry, I haven't take time to figure out the fancy notation) that if X=X, then X cannot equal not-X! A long way to go from there, but it would at least be a start.

You, sir, are living on hope.

 

[SirPhilip]

The world is full of "stuff" that has various properties and attributes. It doesn't matter what you call the stuff. It doesn't even matter if you divide the stuff in two or more classes. The taxonomy of the stuff has no bearing on its properties and attributes.

I'll take a third stab at this and suggest perhaps he means thought, having a linear quality, is likened to (finite) matter, and in other dimensions, "mind" is primary to it. Of course, this results in the chicken and egg paradox: if mind is primary to matter, because matter is primary to mind also, which came first?

The obvious is that mind and matter just (a)rise together because of conditions, with seperate but inseperable qualities, and no original cause, and transcedental states of matter and space result in transcedental states of the product: "mind"...

 

[SirPhilip]

Indeed, how do atoms know how to communicate with each other, without some rudimentary form of awareness?

Not only that, get this, smaller subatomic particles can also talk at a distance: maybe they have cell phones?!

 

[Iacchus]

What a silly thing it is, to know.

 

[Belz...]

What an even sillier thing it is, to assume.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

Once again, the alleged words of Max Planck ...

Matter is clumps of atoms. The ability of atoms to clump together requires forces (electromagnetic, gravitational). The ability of the atom to exist itself requires forces (strong and weak nuclear).

Max says we must assume that there is an intelligent mind behind these forces. I say let's assume there is a Pink unicorn behind these forces, and it is quite intelligent. Assume assume assume.

Okay, we assume, then what. This mind is what holds matter together? No, it's the freaking forces! What's behind the forces? An intelligent mind?

Okay, this time, let's assume it's the pink unicorn. Then the pink unicorn is what holds matter together? No, it's the freaking forces? What's behind the forces? A pink unicorn?

No, let's assume there is an intelligent mind behind these forces . . . .

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

Indeed, how do atoms know how to communicate with each other, without some rudimentary form of awareness?

Communication implies sending and receiving information. Atoms don't do that.

Atoms respond to each other through forces. They react and interact by moving in response to the electric field produced by the electrons circling the atom. That's it. No communication. No awareness.

 

[Iacchus]

Yes, life and death is a great mystery, and so it would seem, all was an invocation to Iacchus.