Does Matter Really Exist?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Oh, you don't find Thought to be self-evident. Hi, whatever-you-are. How do you find matter self-evident?

What is self-evident, if anything, are certain properties of the world. It doesn't matter what you call them.

~~ Paul

 

[Iacchus]

Now, just because we may choose the path of least resistence (bound by the laws of gravity no doubt), does not mean we've done anything to identify a source. For example, how did the apple get up in the tree before it fell?

In other words, the fact that apples fall from trees is not the source of gravity.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

IMO, the best one can do is strive for the least number of logical inconsistencies in one's worldview.

That is a reasonable goal. I think if you managed to strive hard enough, harder than any philosopher so far, you'd end up with a set of consistent properties of the world. Then you could make up any name you liked for those properties. I'm afraid consciglop doesn't really do it for me, though.

~~ Paul

 

[RandFan]

For those who choose to masturbate, yes. You do realize that masturbation is a "physical act" don't you?

You do know what a metaphor is don't you?

If not then you might want to avoid the bible and literature in general until you do.

So, what's the difference between this and saying you choose to believe the world is flat? Obviously Occam's Razor would have been completely useless at the time people believed this now wouldn't it? So, how is it possible to justify anything with respect to Occam's Razor then?

Now, just because we may choose the path of least resistence (bound by the laws of gravity no doubt), does not mean we've done anything to identify a source. For example, how did the apple get up in the tree before it fell?

I don't know what you are saying. You seem to be making my point. Why should we assume that which we don't know? There is no reason for me to assume god has anything to do with my existence therefore I don't think god has anything to do with my existence. I DON'T make my assumptions any more complicated than they need be. Imagining an all thinking dragon who breathed fire and thus started my existence is fun and perhaps when I die I will become a fire breathing dragon but what REASON to I have to suppose that I might become a fire breathing dragon when I die?

 

[Iacchus]

They are studying the properties. They are not trying to decide what it actually is.

What "is," is the fact that they are studying, and that's it.

 

[CFLarsen]

Which, of course is just a round about what way of asking what "is" matter? If it is not the basis of all that exists, as the materialists seem to suggest, then it doesn't really exist in "that sense" now does it?

Yes, but who am I -- or, what is it? -- that these "things" are speaking to? If there was no sense of "I," there would be no discussion here.

 

[Iacchus]

Well, if it is "all" comprised of the same thing, then it must be consciouness, because consciousness is the only "thing" that will speak to us about it.

 

[hammegk]

I'm afraid consciglop doesn't really do it for me, though.

~~ Paul

Me either, yet I await your defense of your standpoint that thought does not exist.

 

[Iacchus]

God is no more relevant or likely than any of the others.

Yes, and the earth is flat.

So, I ask again, is there any reason why any of us should accept this theory?

Beyond your ability to reason about it I would say none.

 

[Roboramma]

Yes, and the earth is flat.

Iacchus, the point about the earth being flat better supports Randfan's point than yours. Well, this is how I see it anyway:

There was a time when people didn't know much about the world. They only had so much data to go on. That data being their immediate surroundings. Their experience through their life.

The earth is a very large sphere. Any local measurement will not be precise enough to discover the curvature, especially amidst all the noise of hills and valleys.

So, from the data that they collected they could say something - the curvature of their local area, when factoring out the noise, was within certain bounds. By extension it could be hypothesized that the rest of the planet followed a similar curvature.

But the hypothesis that the earth is flat goes further. It says - our observational evidence is accurate only to this degree X, but we go beyond that and suppose that it is actually flat, rather than simply saying what the evidence can tell us, that the curvature falls within certain bounds.
The fallacy comes about from an unwillingness to admit ignorance. That some fact must be given, in spite of the fact that none is supported.

And that is exactly what you are doing with God. The evidence says that any number of things could be true. You take that to mean that God exists. It's no different from the evidence saying that curvature could fall anywhere along a spectrum and taking that to mean that it is flat, rather than simply near-flat.

 

[Iacchus]

That is evidence about the behavior of the mind. It is not evidence about what actually exists. Anyway, I can support material as the fundamental existent using the same sort of clever statement: You mean like the fact that the universe continues on even when I'm not paying attention?

According to Mr. Planck, consciousness encourages a state of vibration, which is a state of "on" versus "off," and a state of "on" again, etc., etc. Which is to say, it's capable of accompanying a state of awareness versus the lack thereof at the same time.

 

[Roboramma]

You still haven't shown that Plank actually said that.

Until that's been shown, why not stop assuming that he actually did say it?

 

[Iacchus]

Iacchus, the point about the earth being flat better supports Randfan's point than yours. Well, this is how I see it anyway:

There was a time when people didn't know much about the world. They only had so much data to go on. That data being their immediate surroundings. Their experience through their life.

Yes, and there was a time (I'm speaking about currently) when people didn't know much about God. Now, how does this differ from what you're saying? Are saying that it's already been established that God does not exist? This I'm afraid, is the only way that I can take it to mean.

 

[Roboramma]

No, what I'm saying is that we neither know that God exists nor that God does not exist.
This does not support making the assumption that God does exist.

We also no absolutely nothing about what attributes said God would have if it did exist. So we should not make any assumption about those either, until we have evidence for them.

Occam's razor is a way of choosing between viewpoints that have equal explanatory power on a provisional basis. It doesn't offer truth. It offers a basis for provisional belief.
I would suggest that there is evidence for the no-god-hypothesis, but I don't feel like getting into that right now, and it's not what I'm arguing.

This is: suggesting that because there is no evidence, we should assume God, or even worse, assume a God with certain qualities, is like saying that people should have assumed that the earth was a giant pyramid balanced on a dolphin's nose until they had evidence to the contrary.

 

[Cosmo]

I'm going to attempt to do this once more, and hopefully I won't get into trouble this time.

Now, these are the words of the Nobel prize winning physicist and, father of quantum physics, Max Planck ...

Now, I can understand why the mods chose to move the other thread to the Science and Technology forum, however, please understand that Max Planck was a deeply religious man and, that the notion of the "matrix of all matter" has its religious implications as well. Which, is what I really wished to discuss.

In fact if anyone saw the "woo program," The Power of Intention, on Public TV the other night (which quoted Max Planck in full here), it might help bring it all into perspective.

Thanks!

Because no one has said it yet...

...argument from authority?

 

[Iacchus]

You still haven't shown that Plank actually said that.

Yes, but according to Occam's Razor, it's much easier to accept the fact that he did. And no, I don't mean at his Nobel acceptance speach which, at this time, there doesn't seem to be any evidence for. I have already conceded this much. While it's rather plain to me why people would stretch things a bit to make such an association. It's not plain to you? Or, does this give you the excuse to say they made up the whole thing for the same reason?

But then again, we must also remember it's not so much a matter of who's saying it, as what's being said. Which has clearly been my point in starting this thread.

Until that's been shown, why not stop assuming that he actually did say it?

So, how do you know that Christopher Columbus actually discovered America? Because you read about it in a book somewhere? This is the only evidence that I'm aware or, because of what my teahcers have told me. So, why don't we stop assuming Christopher Columbus discovered America? The history books could be wrong you know.

 

[Iacchus]

This is: suggesting that because there is no evidence, we should assume God, or even worse, assume a God with certain qualities, is like saying that people should have assumed that the earth was a giant pyramid balanced on a dolphin's nose until they had evidence to the contrary.

And what you and other folks around here fail to realize -- or, so it would seem -- is that "evidence" is in the mind of the beholder. For example, do you think a plumber, based upon what is "evident" to him (in his mind), could tell a brain surgeon how to perform brain surgery? Yet there is nothing about a plumber's experience (what he knows to be true) that is any less valid than a brain surgeon's experience is there?

 

[CFLarsen]

So, how do you know that Christopher Columbus actually discovered America? Because you read about it in a book somewhere? This is the only evidence that I'm aware or, because of what my teahcers have told me. So, why don't we stop assuming Christopher Columbus discovered America? The history books could be wrong you know.

It's not the only source we have.

People actually live there. I've lived there. Lots of people from this board visit (at least) once a year. We have books written about America, written in America. We have movies from America. Audio recordings. Photos. You can go there, if you like.

Are you suggesting that all this evidence is merely a phantom? Just yes or no.

Now, listen to me: I don't want to hear you redefine terms. I don't want to hear your excuses. I don't want to hear anything else but a "Yes" or a "No".

 

[CFLarsen]

And what you and other folks around here fail to realize -- or, so it would seem -- is that "evidence" is in the mind of the beholder. For example, do you think a plumber, based upon what is "evident" to him (in his mind), could tell a brain surgeon how to perform brain surgery? Yet there is nothing about a plumber's experience (what he knows to be true) that is any less valid than a brain surgeon's experience is there?

Have you ever flown in an aeroplane?

Or driven a car?

 

[Iacchus]

It's not the only source we have.

People actually live there. I've lived there. Lots of people from this board visit (at least) once a year. We have books written about America, written in America. We have movies from America. Audio recordings. Photos. You can go there, if you like.

Yes, I do in fact live here in America. So, what does that have to do with whether Christopher Columbus discovered it or not?

Are you suggesting that all this evidence is merely a phantom? Just yes or no.

No.

Now, listen to me: I don't want to hear you redefine terms. I don't want to hear your excuses. I don't want to hear anything else but a "Yes" or a "No".

Exactly.