Does Matter Really Exist?

[chipmunk stew]

Yes, we experiece the sense of a third and fourth dimension but, is that really what it is? When we begin to describe it in terms of two dimensions, might I suggest we're describing what is illusory?

You might, a la your "Hologram Theory". Unfortunately, your idea is just another silly What If that's neither original nor enlightening nor coherent in the slightest, and worse, does nothing to add to actual knowledge. It would make a neat basis for, say, a movie starring Keanu Reeves, but someone beat you to it.

 

[Solitaire]

Iacchus try this. You're floating in space and all of a sudden you start to shrink. It would appear to you that the universe expanded around you when really you'd be getting smaller. Likewise the big bang can be thought of as if everything in the universe shrinks but space stays the exactly same size.

 

[RandFan]

You think so?

Yes. It's not though.

Really? Define "we."

Would the defnition change anything? If so then how?

 

[Belz...]

Sorry, it all begins with self-awareness.

Again. How could you TELL the difference if it DIDN'T ?

Yes, but a two-dimensional plane in and of itself does not contain anything.

Why not ? It could, in theory, contain a two-dimensional object or a slice of a three-dimensional object.

However, if what you're saying is that everything exists within this two-dimensional plane, then it suggests that we are living in some sort of illusion and, that in fact somebody has pulled the wool over our eyes. Which, of course has been my contention all along.

Funny how everything seems, to you, to fit with your "theory", although debunked.

But then again, it might make more sense if we said everything existed relative to the observer.

How ? Why would it make more sense ? If the physical universe SEEMS to exist to everyone... SEEMS to be the same for everyone, and SEEMS to be the basis of the human mind, it SEEMS reasonable to assume that it is real.

Isn't this in fact something that Einstein said? Which of course makes even more sense when I say we are not to discount the observer. Not within the parameters of time and space anyway.

I don't care what Einstein said. He wasn't omniscient. How do the parameters of time and space factor into all this ?

Yes, we experiece the sense of a third and fourth dimension but, is that really what it is? When we begin to describe it in terms of two dimensions, might I suggest we're describing what is illusory?

Again with the illusion. The four dimensions are more like a logical framework from which we define our universe. I don't see how it could be an "illusion".

 

[Belz...]

You see, if we merely existed in a hologram, there in effect would be nothing defined outside of it, although it would appear to expand outward, within the parameters of the hologram that is.

So... what would be outside this hologram ?

While for the same reason, there would be nothing defined in its center, simply because the center is defined within the hologram.

There there, Iacchus. Contradictions aren't good for your credibility.

And, since the hologram doesn't really occupy time and space, but rather provides the illusion of time and space, there's no need for it occupy anything other than a single point

First off, I don't see how this is different than what we're saying, other than the fact that you claim it's not a physical thing.

Second, holograms are made of light particles and DO occupy time and space. Perhaps you'd care to rephrase that. If you think the balloon analogy doesn't work, try yours.

Hence we have the notion of everything exanding away from everything else, simply because it all originates precisely at the same point ... and yet, doesn't expand into anything.

Ha! You've unwittingly partially defined the universe, there.

I'm thinking more along the lines of the "invisible" signal that the TV recieves in order to display the picture on the screen. All the information that is ultimately displayed on the screen is contained within the signal itself. So the signal in effect would define the parameters (internally) of the hologram.

Sorry, Iacchus. The signal the TV receives is not invisible, per se, nor is it the entirety of what you see. In fact, the signal defines the image, but IT is not formed by the signal, but by the TV itself. Also, this analogy is rather awkward, because the "signal" is ALSO a physical thing.

 

[Iacchus]

The signal is also contained within time and space. Your analogy is another bad one.

Sorry, Iacchus, but you are doing nothing to alleviate the impression that you will indeed be watching the videos...and frankly, doing anything else...from the standpoint of being a fool.

If it exsts as some sort of energy grid on the other side of the speed of light, then no, I don't think so.

 

[Iacchus]

So... what would be outside this hologram ?

Well, who or whatever it was that created it of course.

 

[Belz...]

If it exsts as some sort of energy grid on the other side of the speed of light, then no, I don't think so.

Other side... of speed ? How does that work, Iacchus ? Or are you STILL making things up ?

Well, who or whatever it was that created it of course.

That doesn't follow. If I create a box, I can be inside... there may also be things outside of it.

Furthermore, since your analogy of the hologram is supposed to counter our analogy of the balloon, I still don't see why there'd be anything outside of it.

 

[chipmunk stew]

If it exsts as some sort of energy grid on the other side of the speed of light, then no, I don't think so.

...

 

[Iacchus]

So, where did time and space come from? It's just one of those things, huh?

 

[Mercutio]

If it exsts as some sort of energy grid on the other side of the speed of light, then no, I don't think so.

Um...Ok, so your analogy works only by ignoring the one Constant thing in our universe, according to Einstein and pretty much all available evidence.

I think that is what was meant by "your analogy is a bad one".

All analogies fall apart when pushed past their limits. Yours, though, has no utility to begin with. The thing you use to try to explain the time-space continuum cannot explain it without violating the very things you need to explain.

Rather than trotting out the hologram analogy yet one more time, maybe you should put a post-it note on your computer (we now know you can't trust your memory) saying "hologram metaphor is flawed: don't use!"

Hey, you won't be living in The Matrix, but you can at least pretend you are starring in Memento.

 

[bruto]

If it exsts as some sort of energy grid on the other side of the speed of light, then no, I don't think so.

If if if. But it doesn't. The signal is a knowable physical phenomenon. It is propagated across space at the speed of light, and is modulated at a frequency which by definition involves time. It is on this side. It is real. It is physical. It's here, not there. We can make the signals, we can transmit them, we can determine their content, we can measure them, we can receive them, we can amplify them, we can decode them, we can corrupt them, absorb them, demodulate them, reflect them, combine them, multiplex then and slice out their sidebands. We do not need to invent "some sort of energy grid."

 

[Iacchus]

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

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.

 

[bruto]

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

Why should we believe Planck?

 

[Mercutio]

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

Utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Why do you quote him (or what we may conditionally accept as his words, subject to verification) at this point? You do not explain; do you have a reason, or are you shooting wildly?

 

[Bone_Vulture]

Hey, you won't be living in The Matrix, but you can at least pretend you are starring in Memento.

I read this sentence roughly three hours ago. Here's the outcome of the inspiration it set off.

 

[Mercutio]

I read this sentence roughly three hours ago. Here's the outcome of the inspiration it set off.

I just scared the cat, laughing...

...still laughing, damn you...

 

[Iacchus]

Utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Why do you quote him (or what we may conditionally accept as his words, subject to verification) at this point? You do not explain; do you have a reason, or are you shooting wildly?

Aside from the fact that it's a widely held belief? Why do you try to make it sound like I'm the only one who maintains it?

 

[Mercutio]

Aside from the fact that it's a widely held belief? Why do you try to make it sound like I'm the only one who maintains it?

Um...because you have never shown more than two people who, even by your own criteria (which did not go unchallenged, but even if we ignore that), agree with you. Because when you survey the actual, legitimate experts in the field, you will not find people who agree with you.

If you can produce peer-reviewed articles by 5 or more people who maintain this belief (by even your loose standards), I will retract my statement.

You can't.

And frankly, even if sufficient articles existed, you won't. Because you don't know your way around a peer-reviewed literature. Because you have chosen to be actively, aggressively ignorant.

 

[RandFan]

Because you have chosen to be actively, aggressively ignorant.

--the song remains the same...