My argument against materialism

[Mashuna]

I have a third question;

What is time?

Just after half past one.

 

[Aepervius]

Fine, we have two things

atoms

energy

and x

if a materialist would give me one more thing 'x', maybe we could get onto the next subject. From your last post(1696), it sounds as though we might be getting around to consciousness for 'x'.

Why do you need x ?

All you need to explain the universe is particle (sub atomic, exotic, weakly interacting, and even massless), and that's about it. Energy is actually only an added on human concept, not a separate physical entity.

 

[punshhh]

I dont understand - what is your need for 'x'?

it would round things off a bit.

You see at the moment we have just energy somehow doing something in space, which results in our known existence.

We don't know what energy is other than it is not a thing.

Energy can "become" a thing by changing state into an atom.

So we have things in space fine, science can tell us the rest.

But wait a minute how can "something" energy which is not a thing occupy/perform actions in space. Presumably only things have any kind of presence in space and consequently perform actions.

This looks like a chicken and egg scenario, which came first energy or atoms.

I am quite happy to accept that energy and atoms came into being more or less simultaniously during the BBE event and how this occured. But no one has offered an explanation.

 

[punshhh]

Why do you need x ?

All you need to explain the universe is particle (sub atomic, exotic, weakly interacting, and even massless), and that's about it. Energy is actually only an added on human concept, not a separate physical entity.

Thanyou, we have particle physics, at last.

Presumably these particles have from our perspective the higher dimensions "rolled" up inside their boundary, during the "precipitation"/formation of matter, during the initial cooling.

Or something like this, you have the terminology, I don't

Why do I need x, well there must presumably be some fabric of some sort, we know there is something rather than nothing.

 

[dlorde]

What is time?

Try 'Time'. Feel free to ask for clarification of anything you don't understand.

 

[devnull]

I think perhaps the best answer I can offer as to what 'x' might be is "local rules".

To get some perspective on how powerful a few simple local rules can be, witness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life

Play around with http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/ for a while and see what i mean.

 

[Mashuna]

This looks like a chicken and egg scenario, which came first energy or atoms.

I am quite happy to accept that energy and atoms came into being more or less simultaniously during the BBE event and how this occured. But no one has offered an explanation.

From wiki, on the timeline of the Big Bang:

NucleosynthesisBetween 3 minutes and 20 minutes after the Big Bang[5]
Main article: Big Bang nucleosynthesis
During the photon epoch the temperature of the universe falls to the point where atomic nuclei can begin to form. Protons (hydrogen ions) and neutrons begin to combine into atomic nuclei in the process of nuclear fusion. However, nucleosynthesis only lasts for about seventeen minutes, after which time the temperature and density of the universe has fallen to the point where nuclear fusion cannot continue. At this time, there is about three times more hydrogen than helium-4 (by mass) and only trace quantities of other nuclei.

Although there were sub-atomic particle prior to this.

 

[dafydd]

Fine, we have two things

atoms

energy

and x

if a materialist would give me one more thing 'x', maybe we could get onto the next subject. From your last post(1696), it sounds as though we might be getting around to consciousness for 'x'.

Why do you need x? That need is the root of all your ignorance of physics and cosmology.

 

[dafydd]

I'm quite happy to consider that there is no thing and no meaning to all this existence around us and that there is only what has been revealed to use by scientific enquiry. In fact this is what I have been doing in this thread and I have no difficulty in understanding the answers, its all straight forward.

I did know all that before I asked my two questions. Questions begging in the revealed wisdom of science.

My two questions remain unanswered, apart from "we don't Know", which sounds like a good answer to me.

I have a third question;

What is time?

Time flies like an arrow,fruit flies like a banana.

 

[punshhh]

But you always avoid the point I make here.

Suppose you have your answer - spacetime is constituted of X. Then you only have another question "of what is X constituted?". Thence you have your next answer "X is constituted of XX" - then the question "of what is XX constituted?". Your next answer "XX is constituted of XXX" ... and so ad infinitum.

So answer the question this time - do you think that it goes on ad infinitum like this?

Or do you think there will be a final answer? An XXX that just is whatever it is?

Either way your question will never be answered.

So why ask a question when you know that it can never, even in principle, have an answer?

It is like asking the name of the wife of a bachelor, or how to calculate the angle between the fifth and sixth sides of a triangle.

If you know the properties of something and it's behaviours then what more is there to know about it?

I understand your argument and I agree to a point in a theoretical situation.

However in this case though we have a quite simple physical system, which appears to have come out of nowhere. it makes sense to me that it requires a "fabric" out of which its forms arise, it is this fabric I am looking for.

 

[dlorde]

We don't know what energy is other than it is not a thing.

You don't know.

This looks like a chicken and egg scenario, which came first energy or atoms.

I am quite happy to accept that energy and atoms came into being more or less simultaniously during the BBE event and how this occured. But no one has offered an explanation.

Timeline of the Big Bang.

You really should learn how to use internet search facilities - or just find a link to Wikipedia. That you can't be bothered speaks volumes.

 

[dafydd]

What is time?

I thought that your ancient Hindu philosophers had nailed that one. You still haven't explained the easily explained mystery.

 

[punshhh]

From wiki, on the timeline of the Big Bang:



Although there were sub-atomic particle prior to this.

Thankyou, this high temperature refered to, what was hot?

 

[punshhh]

You don't know.


Timeline of the Big Bang.

You really should learn how to use internet search facilities - or just find a link to Wikipedia. That you can't be bothered speaks volumes.

I have already studied these things, I am following a line of enquiry in a debate. If we all went home and studied wiki, we wouldn't get much debating done would we.

 

[devnull]

no, but the threads would be much shorter

 

[dlorde]

I have already studied these things, I am following a line of enquiry in a debate. If we all went home and studied wiki, we wouldn't get much debating done would we.

Your claimed studies appear to have taught you nothing. Debating is not asking simple questions like 'what is time?'

Please explain your 'line of enquiry'.

 

[Mashuna]

Thankyou, this high temperature refered to, what was hot?

A quark-gluon plasma. It's tasty with crutons.

 

[dlorde]

Thankyou, this high temperature refered to, what was hot?

The universe; more specifically, the quark-gluon plasma.

 

[Mashuna]

I understand your argument and I agree to a point in a theoretical situation.

However in this case though we have a quite simple physical system, which appears to have come out of nowhere. it makes sense to me that it requires a "fabric" out of which its forms arise, it is this fabric I am looking for.

What did this fabric come from?

 

[dafydd]

What did this fabric come from?

The Loom Of Time. That is suitably vague and mysterious.