Do physical objects truly exist or are they just illusions?

[daisey]

My question is: Does Matter Really Exist?

First of all, because I am not a physics student, my use of the term "Matter" in the above question might not be correct. By "Matter", I mean something that is physically real, has size and shape (three dimensions), and is solid.

I enjoy reading books on Quantum physics, and I have the impression that the answer to my question is "No". It appears that Atoms are composed of Electrons, Protons, and Neutrons, all held together by forces (Strong and Electromagnetic). The Protons and Neutrons are apparently composed of Quarks, and the Electrons and Quarks are (theoretically) composed of vibrating Strings, which are point particles (or maybe one-dimensional) of the Plank length (very small).

So, to me this means the asphalt road that my dog and I just got through walking on was not really there. I was really walking on force fields. If there is "anything" else there, I guess it could be those tiny "Strings", but they really don't have size either.

Am I missing something? I have to be. How can something composed of concrete or steel be so strong, but really "not there"?

Thanks in advance, Daisey

 

[Count Iblis]

It may be the case that what we call physical reality is nothing more than a purely mathematical reality, http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646"

Then, you inevitably end up with a multiverse of all possible mathematical worlds. It could be that our universe described by quantum mechanics happens to be a particular member of the set of all these possible worlds. Or perhaps quantum mechanics arises as a consequence of the fact that the same observer lives in many different mathematical universes.

 

[daisey]

Count,

Thanks. I have read about those theories. It would seem the ultimate truth about reality must be something similar what you suggest if matter is in fact not real.

Can you suggest any good books on the subject? Preferably one written for the layperson (not a textbook)?

 

[Fredrik]

Does Matter Really Exist?

Can you define what it means for something to "exist"? It doesn't seem to be a scientific concept to me. I mean, science is about finding theories (which are sets of statements that make predictions about results of experiments), and about doing experiments to find out how accurate those predictions are. "Existence" doesn't seem to fit into that. You need a theory just to define the relevant concept properly. (Example: The concept "photon" is defined by QED). Now what would a proof of existence be? An experiment that verifies some prediction of the theory? Why should we interpret such an experiment as evidence of existence, when the theory that defines the relevant concept is wrong? All theories are known to be wrong: QED says there's no gravity, and GR says that matter behaves in a way that's completely inconsistent with quantum physics experiments.

 

[jalalmalo]

whatever there is is in the form of potenials. These potentials manifest into reality when an observer is observing. Which means that whatever u percieve as reality is just and just a subjective reality that depends on the observer. The "objective reality", if there is such a thing, exists beyond any observer and is unreachable to the mind of man. On the other hand can an subhective reality even exist if there wouldn't be any objective reality behind the curtains. The answer to that depends on whether u ask a hindue or a buddhist. The buddhist will say that there is no need to an objective reality and all is an illusion, while the hindue will say that the illusion is the manifestation of God which is the reality behind the curtain.

Physically we say that the electron is a point in space with properties. A point by definition has no extension in space. Our study of the electron comes from its interaction with it surrounding (duality). So the electron doesn't take any space, but u cannot say its not there, because u experience it when it interacts with it surrounding...

 

[Vanadium 50]

Of course matter exists. However, it sounds like your definition of "matter" may include properties inconsistent with observation. Of course that doesn't exist.

 

[jalalmalo]

Of course matter exists. However, it sounds like your definition of "matter" may include properties inconsistent with observation. Of course that doesn't exist.

first
for me its the word existence that is relevant, do u exist because I can see your tracks on this forum or do u exist without me interacting with you, objectively?

Does matter have proberties, strange enough extension in space is not included on the fundamental level, or is matter just properties of space. Take an electron for instance, does it have mass and charge or, is it such as that there is charge and mass coexisting in a certain point in space with no extension?

And would those proberties even be there in the first place if no one or nothing would interact with them.

I don't say I know the answers?

 

[Vanadium 50]

I think this has passed science and gone over to philosophy. Bad philosophy at that - you are about an inch from the old, tired "brain in a vat" idea. That was stale in 1641, and it hasn't improved with time.

Objects can be touched, probed, felt and measured. If you want to argue that this doesn't make them real, what is? If you want to then argue "nothing is", this is Solipsism.

Now, if you want to discuss whether the properties of various objects are as you expect - that's science.

 

[QuantumBend]

I think this has passed science and gone over to philosophy. Bad philosophy at that - you are about an inch from the old, tired "brain in a vat" idea. That was stale in 1641, and it hasn't improved with time.

Objects can be touched, probed, felt and measured. If you want to argue that this doesn't make them real, what is? If you want to then argue "nothing is", this is Solipsism.

Now, if you want to discuss whether the properties of various objects are as you expect - that's science.

No, no, question is GOOD, you no good. You not knowing answer this good question.

 

[delplace]

I agree question is good ! and it is not because you don't know that you have to reject the question

 

[jalalmalo]

I think this has passed science and gone over to philosophy. Bad philosophy at that - you are about an inch from the old, tired "brain in a vat" idea. That was stale in 1641, and it hasn't improved with time.

Objects can be touched, probed, felt and measured. If you want to argue that this doesn't make them real, what is? If you want to then argue "nothing is", this is Solipsism.

Now, if you want to discuss whether the properties of various objects are as you expect - that's science.

I would never make the misstake of arguing that nothing is real, if that would the fact then there is no point in discussing anything, cause nothing would be real.

And the philosophy you are referring to I have no clue. I've been thinking about the double split experiment. I'm not the one who came up with the words potential of possibilities. How come the math describing the particle ( the wave function) is not real valued, which means that it doesn't have a physical measurable quantitie, while on the other hand the absolute value of the function is real and even if it doesn't always gives us a difnite value, but instead a mean value its still real.

We observe the particle first when it interacts with our detectors. Before that we have no knowledge about the particles position, how can u say that it existed as a particle before you detected it, you can't.

I'm not saying I know anything, I'm just wondering about all these phenomenas and thinking, maybe our ansestors knew more then we give them credit for.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
what if the truth does not appeal to your mental attitudes, would you accept it or would you kling to your beliefes where you feel safe and secure?

 

[daisey]

Objects can be touched, probed, felt and measured. If you want to argue that this doesn't make them real, what is?

Exactly what my question is about. What are we in reality "feeling" when we touch a rock? Are we touching the atoms and molecules? Do these things have extension in space? Or does our hand have the illusion of "touching' something when in reality the is simply a force pushing back on our hand (the electromagnetic forces generated by all the atoms and molecules)? Because in reality, are not all those atoms and molecules composed of things which themselves have no extension in space?

I read that in the beginning everything in the universe was compacted into a single point in space (the big bang). I fail to understand how this could be physically possible unless all this mass we are talking about has no extension in space to begin with.

 

[delplace]

In my opinion and following GR equation, space and matter (atoms and molecules) are linked. You are living in a fluid called space-time like electrons, molecules... and of course you can have interactions with them.

 

[JoeDawg]

I read that in the beginning everything in the universe was compacted into a single point in space (the big bang).

No, matter does not exist.
With science we can observe and describe our experience to such a degree that prediction and manipulation of our existence is possible. But that just means our 'theory of matter' is useful. It doesn't mean that physicality exists beyond the fact that its a useful model of our experience.

I fail to understand how this could be physically possible unless all this mass we are talking about has no extension in space to begin with.

The big bang isn't just about matter. Its about space itself. When we talk of a bang, its not like an explosion, where rocks and debris go flying through space. Its about space, itself, expanding. So the 'matter' we see is just changing its state to conform with a change in space. You seem to be hung up on the idea that what we experience is 'matter' in its natural or pure form. But really, assuming a big bang model is reasonably accurate, this is just the way matter is, at this time, its a property of space/time.

Space/time as we conceive it, doesn't really exist either, but it is a useful description of what we experience.

What causes our experiences is the harder question.
Some say its all mind.
Other claim it all comes from god.
And physics seems to point in the direction of energy fields.

Regardless, the real nature of the universe is nothing like the 'matter' we experience.
That's just a convenient way of thinking about the world.

 

[Count Iblis]

I'm not sure about any popular books that write about the multiverse in the way Tegmark has argued. I'm sure that Paul Davies has written one or more books about the multiverse. Also, Alexender Vilenkin has written a popular book on the multiverse, but this is based on eternal inflation as explained in this article:

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0102010

I don't think that there are any books written by physicists yet who promote the view taken by Tegmark.

 

[debra]

maybe our ansestors knew more then we give them credit for.

Our ancestors were as intelligent as we are and a lot can be done with logical thinking. Plato thought that substances were made with triangles (made into 3D figures) as the atomic building blocks. Newton thought the universe was made with numbers. Possibly Vedics knew a lot more. But let's not say that they had magic powers just because it was a long time in the past. If you got into a time machine and went back there you would not find gods and angels walking around rather a smelly place with a lot of disease and you would want to come back here quite quickly.

But those two in particular were suspicious about matter being made of tangible 'particles' because the whole idea about indivisible particles of 'substance' is intrinsically illogical it stinks so to say. No science needed to know that, just clear thinking.

So in my view the thread question is that matter consists of something mathematical or informational in nature as does space itself and not particles as in String Theory (what are they made of?)

 

[Count Iblis]

Exactly what my question is about. What are we in reality "feeling" when we touch a rock?

That's a interseting question. Clearly, whatever we feel is always a computation performed by the brain. As long as we are not dreaming or hallucinating, this computation is based on information obtained from the external world. So, we can say that the brain generates a virtual reality that is modeled after the real world. What we experience is always this virtual reality and not the real world.


Actualy, it may be the case that we exist one level deeper still. The brain takes information from the real world and represents this in some way and then reacts to this input. The way the information is represented defines a virtual world. Now, this also happens in organisms such as insects that are hardly conscious. In more complex brains, information is proceesed further.


By taking the processed information (in the virtual world) as input, the brain simulates a deeper virtual world. This then allows the brain to simulate what would happen if a certain action is taken as a response to a certain input from the real world without actually acting that out in the real world. The brain then selects the best action. So, this suggests that we exist at least one level deeper: in a virtual world located inside a virtual world based on information from the real world.


Now, if the real world is fundamentally purely mathematical in nature, then the virtual world we inhabit is no less fundamental than the "real world" it is embedded in. The question is then why our world happens to be simulated inside another world. If all mathematical models are universes in their own right, then so is the "virtual" universe we live in, so there should be a copy of us living in such a world that is then not embedded in the "real" universe (i.e. the one described by the Standard Model and General Relativity).


The answer maybe that any consistent theory of this type needs to have defined a probability measure which favors worlds that can be specified using less information. This also makes it possible for observers living inside a universe to do physics at all.


Now, the copy of me who lives in the non-embedded virtual universe would have to be specified using a huge amount of information. This cannot be reduced any further unless you choose the state exactly as it is in the embedded version (but in the non-embedded version, there is no reason why you would constrain the evolution so that it exactly follws what could have been obtained in the embedded version).


The embedded version of me that lives in "this universe", could presumably be specified using very little information (initial conditions plus the fundamental laws of pysics). Then, that would mean that the embedded copies of me have a much larger probability than the non-embedded copies.

 

[daisey]

No, matter does not exist.

With science we can observe and describe our experience to such a degree that prediction and manipulation of our existence is possible. But that just means our 'theory of matter' is useful. It doesn't mean that physicality exists beyond the fact that its a useful model of our experience.

JoeDawg - Wow. Now that makes sense, and confirms my suspicions. I find it very interesting (in fact, unbelievable) this concept is not taught in basic physics classes. It appears to me the reality we experience is in fact closer to being something from a science-fiction movie (like 'The Matrix'). And 99% of people live their lives not realizing this.

This is an exciting subject. I have my answer. Thanks to everyone that replied.

 

[jalalmalo]

Our ancestors were as intelligent as we are and a lot can be done with logical thinking. Plato thought that substances were made with triangles (made into 3D figures) as the atomic building blocks. Newton thought the universe was made with numbers. Possibly Vedics knew a lot more. But let's not say that they had magic powers just because it was a long time in the past. If you got into a time machine and went back there you would not find gods and angels walking around rather a smelly place with a lot of disease and you would want to come back here quite quickly.

But those two in particular were suspicious about matter being made of tangible 'particles' because the whole idea about indivisible particles of 'substance' is intrinsically illogical it stinks so to say. No science needed to know that, just clear thinking.

So in my view the thread question is that matter consists of something mathematical or informational in nature as does space itself and not particles as in String Theory (what are they made of?)

I'm not saying that angels and gods were walking the Earth then and now nor am I saying that they are not. Scientists laugh about the idea, still we are capable of accepting the fact that everything is made of string of the 10 to the power of -34 and it vibrates on different levels of existence or dimensions. The same people who laugh about any idea that doesen't fit the frame of mind. On the other hand you must agree with me that how we percieve reality differs from person to person. And we don't even have to take into consideration the psychological facts. I have bad sight so I see things more blurr on a distance then others do. A child have a different perception of reality then an adult. Animals don't see the world as we do. There are frequencies that no human can see, yet you accept them because you we able to create a machine to detect them.

A God wanted to play a trick on a know it all people so he smashed them into flatlanders, shrinking their brain and perception. The flatlanders soon forgot that there were something outside there world. There were few people who still remembered what it is to be three dimentional, and they knew that, that is the way should be. Nothing magical about it. But the flatlanders put their fingers in their ears and screamed plasphemy, nonsence, there is no such thing as magic.

No there is no such thing as magic, but live a lie for too long then you wouldn't realize the truth even if it hit u in the face.

Thanks for your patience

 

[russ_watters]

That's a interseting question. Clearly, whatever we feel is always a computation performed by the brain. As long as we are not dreaming or hallucinating, this computation is based on information obtained from the external world. So, we can say that the brain generates a virtual reality that is modeled after the real world. What we experience is always this virtual reality and not the real world.

The word "virtual" means not real. Our brains provide their own interpretation of what our senses detect, but that interpretation is of a real reality, not a reality invented by your brain.

Ie, a person who is color blind and a person who is not have brains that interpret their sight sense differently (or have eyes with different capabilities). Does that make what they are looking at different? The difference is merely in the perception of the real.

Important caveat: a halucination is, by definition, something you see that isn't really there.

 

[russ_watters]

JoeDawg - Wow. Now that makes sense, and confirms my suspicions. I find it very interesting (in fact, unbelievable) this concept is not taught in basic physics classes. It appears to me the reality we experience is in fact closer to being something from a science-fiction movie (like 'The Matrix'). And 99% of people live their lives not realizing this.

This is an exciting subject. I have my answer. Thanks to everyone that replied.

I hope you didn't leave too soon because the reason JoeDawg's answer isn't taught in science class is it is 100% pure nonsense.

With science we can observe and describe our experience to such a degree that prediction and manipulation of our existence is possible. But that just means our 'theory of matter' is useful. It doesn't mean that physicality exists beyond the fact that its a useful model of our experience.

Well the first sentence quite obviously contradicts the third because you used the word "existence" in it.

daisey, yes, it is possible that we are just living in the Matrix, just like it is possible that there is a god who created the universe and doesn't want you to know anything about it. These extremely improbable possibilities don't have any effect on how our theories work, so they are empty possibilities - you could invent an infinite number of similar ones and they wouldn't mean anything more than just idle speculation.

A scientific theory, by definition, is a description of reality. It presupposes that the universe exists and obeys certain set rules. A theory is an attempt to find those rules and is useful precisely because it is a description of reality. No theory can ever prove anything to 100% certainty, but every time a theory succeeds in predicting something, the odds of it being wrong get a little bit smaller. Thus each time a theory works, it strengthens our understanding of reality and decreases the possibility that what we think is reality is in reality a cruel joke by a despotic creator.

Now the despotic creator thing is possible, but that also is a little bit misleading because it doesn't mean that what we experience isn't reality, it just means that there is more to reality than we can currently see. Whether we eventually learn what else there is to reality is, of course, the entire purpose of science.

 

[russ_watters]

By the way, in The Matrix, Morpheus defines "real" as "electrical signals interpreted by your brain". Later when they go back into The Matrix, neo says "I had all these experiences - none of them happened". Didn't they? Did he eat noodles at that restaurant or not?

 

[daisey]

A scientific theory, by definition, is a description of reality. It presupposes that the universe exists and obeys certain set rules.

OK. That also makes sense. So, based on the most widely accepted and taught scientific theories, when we "feel" a rock, what are we feeling? Apparently it is NOT anything in our world that has extension in three-dimensional space, right? I realize now we have no way of determining what it "really" might be, only how our minds interpret it. But in the three-dimensional world we all exist in, there is still nothing three-dimensional there, right?

 

[daisey]

I guess what I'm wanting to confirm from you, Russ, is that when we feel a rock, we interpret it to be a "solid" object. But what we are really feeling, based on accepted scientific theory, is not anything that is "solid", but is just the manifestation of the forces of nature. Right?

 

[Count Iblis]

The word "virtual" means not real. Our brains provide their own interpretation of what our senses detect, but that interpretation is of a real reality, not a reality invented by your brain.

Ie, a person who is color blind and a person who is not have brains that interpret their sight sense differently (or have eyes with different capabilities). Does that make what they are looking at different? The difference is merely in the perception of the real.

Important caveat: a halucination is, by definition, something you see that isn't really there.

You can say that the interpretation of reality defines the virtual reality, or a (simplified) model of reality. My point is simply that what we experience is not the real world but whatever the brain is computing. There are people who have phantom pain in a amputated leg. This is caused by the brain still modeling the their body with the leg still there (and presumably in bad shape). Now phantom pain isn't necessarily any less painful that pain in a real leg...

Of course, you can say that "whatever the brain is computing", also is grounded in the real world, in the sense that it is generated by whatever the neurons in the brain are doing. But what matters is then what it is that is computed, not whether the computation is accurately modeling the real world.

 

[daisey]

My point is simply that what we experience is not the real world but whatever the brain is computing.

When you and I feel a rock, we experience the same reality. Our brains compute the same image and feel. But what is there in our reality that is making it feel solid? What is it called? It's not atoms, because they are not solid. It is not protons and neutrons, because they are not solid. I don't believe what I am saying is at all speculation, but accepted fact, based on the theories developed by humans to explain what is real in our world.

 

[disregardthat]

One can think of what we call physical objects in various ways. If one base the term 'matter' to be what we percieve and would consider as 'matter', then matter must necessarily exist. We can by synthetically based propositions expand the term 'matter', but not claim to know something a priori about its properties. If matter is not similar in all perspectives, then we are still talking about the same thing by the very definition of matter. Indeed 'what we percieve as matter'.

Another way is to invent the term 'matter', and define its properties based upon our experience with what we could define as 'matter', which is 'what we percieve'. This way the 'matter' is purely a concept which we apply to nature. We can expand our knowledge a priori about matter with analytic propositions, but 'matter' in this perspective is not capable of existing any more than the concept of 'distance', or 'volume'. In this sense saying that matter exists or does not exist is meaningless, because its origin is a defined concept.

 

[Count Iblis]

When you and I feel a rock, we experience the same reality. Our brains compute the same image and feel. But what is there in our reality that is making it feel solid? What is it called? It's not atoms, because they are not solid. It is not protons and neutrons, because they are not solid. I don't believe what I am saying is at all speculation, but accepted fact, based on the theories developed by humans to explain what is real in our world.

You have a real rock in your hands. And then there is model of reality running in your head that is updated very frequently to match the real world in almost real time. There are algorithms in your brain that will cause you not to squeeze the rock too hard so as to prevent the skin in your hand from being damaged. This is controlled by feedback from the nerves in your hands.


But you have the power to slightly overrule the default algorithms. If you do that and decide to squeeze harder, then the brain will receive stronger signals from the nerves and modify the simulation. Your hand will be simulated to be in a different state. This is what we experience as pain.

So, if you feel that the rock is hard, then that's ultimately a consequence of how the brain represents the rock and your hand sqeezing it. In the model of reality that your brain is using, the rock is simply assigned a certain value for some "hardness variable".

So, the hardness of the rock is presumably a fundamental thing in the virtual reality generated by the brain, while in the real world it is not.

 

[debra]

1) I think I agree with most of that except I do not quite know what you mean by a copy?

2) I can add that 'nesting' virtual worlds (one inside another) works perfectly for a Von Neumann-like machines (ie the universe, our brains). It seems they can be nested to any level and still run 'perfectly'.

3) IMO the philosphers (and of course, computer programmers) rather than physicists seem to grasp the ideas better of particles existing in information and mathematics. Physicists mainly still believe particles to be small indestructible lumps of something material -like, they believe the material is somehow exotic or quantumly bizarre - but nontheless substances. Resulting in string theory that employs even smaller lumps of something, but what are they made from?

4) The hardness of rock I would take to mean that mathemaically induced behaviors of particles and fields act to produce what we think of as force. It would be true in any observer using the 3D world model that the information uses.

But the underlying reality is simply a flow of information (that creates what we think of as the Universe in 3d) but there is no force as such because its simply data being processed.All that is really going on is a gigantic flow of data and instructions held in data. The whole thing is massless and occupies no 3D space.

5) IMO time is used in the underlying information processing but of course not 3D space - that is all in information only.

 

[daisey]

...if you feel that the rock is hard, then that's ultimately a consequence of how the brain represents the rock and your hand sqeezing it. In the model of reality that your brain is using, the rock is simply assigned a certain value for some "hardness variable".

Not sure I believe this. I think that rocks are intrinsically hard. If I had never met a rock before, nor a stick of butter, and squeezed both, chances are after squeezing the butter I would have mess in my hands, but my hand would only hurt after squeezing the rock.

Now it might be true there is some aspect of the rock that makes it feel hard that is outside our reality. But inside our reality, there is something intrinsically different about the rock and butter that shape our reality. I thought those were called atoms and molecules, and forces of nature.

 

[WaveJumper]

When you and I feel a rock, we experience the same reality. Our brains compute the same image and feel. But what is there in our reality that is making it feel solid? What is it called? It's not atoms, because they are not solid. It is not protons and neutrons, because they are not solid. I don't believe what I am saying is at all speculation, but accepted fact, based on the theories developed by humans to explain what is real in our world.

The following link is relatively good description of the phenomena you are interested in. And it's layman friendly.

http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/touch/touch.html


You shouldn't be asking if the electron takes up space or not. It's the emission of photons by excited electrons that gives the sensation of 3D.


BTW, I'll let you in on a little secret - no one has ever touched anything. In fact you have been flying/floating over the "surface" all your life at 10^-8m. And this is not a joke.

 

[daisey]

http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/touch/touch.html


BTW, I'll let you in on a little secret - no one has ever touched anything. In fact you have been flying/floating over the "surface" all your life at 10^-8m. And this is not a joke.

Very simple and understandable explanation on that site. It said exactly what I suspected, that as we walk along the street, we are not actually "touching" the street at all, but are being held slightly above it by electromagnetic forces. Even when we slam a hammer against a rock, atoms from each object never touch. But even further, and to the point of my question, none of the components of the atoms in the hammer or rock have any physical "size". So in our reality, I have concluded they are not there, only the forces created by whatever these components are. It appears there is no evidence to refute this.

Now some have suggested the forces are really not there either. And who knows, maybe we are not here either. That may be the case, but isn't that outside the realm of my question?

 

[disregardthat]

Perhaps we havn't touched any surface in the sense of atoms colliding into each other, but isn't this really making the term 'touch' (in nature) useless? Wouldn't a more proper definition of 'touch' be when the we sense/observe the magnitude of the electrostatic force between two surfaces being sufficiently high? (where "sufficiently" can be defined further)

 

[JoeDawg]

I hope you didn't leave too soon because the reason JoeDawg's answer isn't taught in science class is it is 100% pure nonsense.

Its not taught in science class because its taught in philosophy classes.

Philosophy is the foundation on which science is built. Science is no more, no less an extension of empirical and rational philosophy. Understanding where science comes from, what the assumptions of science are, is important to understanding science.

The fact you don't understand the philosophy doesn't make it nonesense.

 

[JoeDawg]

JoeDawg - Wow. Now that makes sense, and confirms my suspicions. I find it very interesting (in fact, unbelievable) this concept is not taught in basic physics classes. It appears to me the reality we experience is in fact closer to being something from a science-fiction movie (like 'The Matrix'). And 99% of people live their lives not realizing this.

While "The Matrix" does touch on certain aspects of philosophy, its not a good benchmark, its mostly pseudo-philosophical mysticism.

If you are interested in radical Empiricism, Berkeley is a good place to start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley

 

[debra]

Perhaps we havn't touched any surface in the sense of atoms colliding into each other, but isn't this really making the term 'touch' (in nature) useless? Wouldn't a more proper definition of 'touch' be when the we sense/observe the magnitude of the electrostatic force between two surfaces being sufficiently high? (where "sufficiently" can be defined further)

Yes, that is exactly it. But also think of a 3D video game and ask yourself where it is really taking place. If you switch off the monitor it still keeps going in a stream of 0s and 1s passing through the processor register. Which can be thought of as a river of numbers at a very simple level - no forces at all.
That's where the jumping bot is in reality (nowhere). The bot collides with a wall - the 'force' is algorithmically mathematical in nature. You can also program into the game 'physics' and the game now begins to look like our universe. You would also need to program in special relativity if you don't want things happening instantly all over a big scene -it would have to obey cause and effect too - an information rule. You could use a field model for that...

Our universe is running something like that - a Von Neumann-like machine using quantum levels as ideal lightning fast data stores.

 

[daisey]

While "The Matrix" does touch on certain aspects of philosophy, its not a good benchmark...

JoeDawg,

I did not mean to imply that I believe the Matrix to be an actual representation of our reality. I was instead trying to make the point that while some probably consider the concepts in the movie to be ridiculous, from what I've learned of Physics lately, it's probably not too far off.

Thanks!

Daisey

 

[daisey]

But also think of a 3D video game and ask yourself where it is really taking place. If you switch off the monitor it still keeps going in a stream of 0s and 1s passing through the processor register. Which can be thought of as a river of numbers at a very simple level - no forces at all.

Debra,

That is a very interesting analogy. I really enjoy it when someone can take a concept that is difficult to understand, and put it into terms someone like I can relate to.

Thanks, Daisey

 

[ThomasT]

Daisey,
It's true that matter exists due to how we use the words 'matter' and 'exists'.

Your question is, imho, better put as something like 'What is the deep nature of reality?', or the deep reality of Nature, etc., as some other posters have suggested.

debra mentioned, "string theory that employs even smaller lumps of something, but what are they made from?"
Which is a question for the string theory people. I don't know much about string theory except a very little bit about the mathematical connections that led to it's development. I don't know if it has what could be called a conceptual basis. Nevertheless, taking the idea of some sort of 'fundamental' vibrational phenomenon ...

If, for example, deep reality is a complex of vibrational phenomena, a hierarchy of waves (disturbances) in a hierarchy of 'particulate' media emerging from some fundamental (perhaps structureless as far as we can be concerned) medium within which our universe (and maybe countless others) exists, then the more or less 'fundamental' particles are, presumably, rather more simple manifestations of the same fundamental wave dynamic(s) that constrains the behavior of phenomena at all scales of size and complexity.

Composite particles, molecules, proteins, cells, organs, dogs, cats, trees, cars, humans, planets, stars, solar systems, galaxies, and individual universes can be considered as bounded, more or less complex, wave structures. Maybe the puzzles surrounding the behavior of the more 'fundamental' (ie., 'structureless') particles will eventually be resolved via a theory that doesn't treat them as particles per se. And, of course, maybe not.

Anyway, this is just one approach.** But no matter what approach you might take in speculating about the fundamental nature of things, the stuff of our experience is 'real', it exists in some 'material' manifestation, because that's how we use the word(s). Our objective or objectified experience (publicly verifiable records of one sort or another, repeatable experiments, etc.) is the criterion by which competing statements about the world are evaluated -- it's the final arbiter regarding what reality, as far as can be unambiguously communicated, is.

So, matter exists. There's no question about that. The problem is getting at its 'fundamental' nature so as to more closely approach an understanding of the basis for the emergence of, and thereby unify, the apparently scale-specific or scale-dependent organizing principles that are observed.

**Note: the 'waves/vibrations in media' approach would not include 'forces' per se. These would be replaced by a fundamental wave dynamic(s), which via countless iterations produces, a hierarchy of 'particulate' media, and, eventually, universes that are more or less like the one we observe.

Think, '3D cellular automata' (the 'cellular' part referring to the 'persistence' of atomic-scale, and up, bounded wave structures) on a grand scale with all sorts of weird and wonderful emergent phenomena (ranging from the very fleeting to the very persistent) that could not be predicted from the fundamental dynamic(s), but which ultimately trace back to, and which are constrained by this behavioral archetype(s).

 

[debra]

Daisey,
It's true that matter exists due to how we use the words 'matter' and 'exists'.

Your question is, imho, better put as something like 'What is the deep nature of reality?', or the deep reality of Nature, etc., as some other posters have suggested.

You mentioned, "string theory that employs even smaller lumps of something, but what are they made from?"
Which is a question for the string theory people. I don't know much about string theory except a very little bit about the mathematical connections that led to it's development. I don't know if it has what could be called a conceptual basis. Nevertheless, taking the idea of some sort of 'fundamental' vibrational phenomenon ...

If, for example, deep reality is a complex of vibrational phenomena, a hierarchy of waves (disturbances) in a hierarchy of 'particulate' media emerging from some fundamental (perhaps structureless as far as we can be concerned) medium within which our universe (and maybe countless others) exists, then the more or less 'fundamental' particles are, presumably, rather more simple manifestations of the same fundamental wave dynamic(s) that constrains the behavior of phenomena at all scales of size and complexity.

Composite particles, molecules, proteins, cells, organs, dogs, cats, trees, cars, humans, planets, stars, solar systems, galaxies, and individual universes can be considered as bounded, more or less complex, wave structures. Maybe the puzzles surrounding the behavior of the more 'fundamental' (ie., 'structureless') particles will eventually be resolved via a theory that doesn't treat them as particles per se. And, of course, maybe not.

Anyway, this is just one approach. But no matter what approach you might take in speculating about the fundamental nature of things, the stuff of our experience is 'real', it exists in some 'material' manifestation, because that's how we use the word(s). Our objective or objectified experience (publicly verifiable records of one sort or another, repeatable experiments, etc.) is the criterion by which competing statements about the world are evaluated -- it's the final arbiter regarding what reality, as far as can be unambiguously communicated, is.

So, matter exists. There's no question about that. The problem is getting at its 'fundamental' nature so as to more closely approach an understanding of the basis for the emergence of, and thereby unify, the apparently scale-specific or scale-dependent organizing principles that are observed.

Hi Thomas - nice to see you here.
What do you think of the posit that matter is made of numbers? (not a lot I imagine)

 

[ThomasT]

Hi Thomas - nice to see you here.
What do you think of the posit that matter is made of numbers? (not a lot I imagine)

Hi debra, I was just editing my post.

For what it's worth, my two cents is that numbers are made of matter , and matter is made of waves in a hierarchy of media, and there are a few, maybe just one, fundamental dynamic(s) that gave rise to the complexity that we call our Universe.

Resonances, harmonics, standing wave structures, etc.

If I'm not mistaken, I think all of our sensory faculties are understood as fundamentally vibrational.

Anyway, I'm a musician, of sorts, so I like the idea.

 

[daisey]

Daisey,

It's true that matter exists due to how we use the words 'matter' and 'exists'.

It appears my use of the word "matter" was incorrect. What I really wanted to know is when I hold a rock in my hand, what am I holding? In High-School physics, they would say "matter", composed of atoms and molecules. But to go deeper, its really electrons and quarks, and some would say vibrating strings. Whichever of these latter approaches you take, they are all point particles which have no extension in space. And what causes strings (numbers, etc.) is interesting, but I think goes beyond my question. Since these basic particles have no shape, what I am feeling is simply electromagnetic forces pressing against my hand. There is really nothing there in my hand that takes up "space". So using that definition of "matter", it really is not there and does not "exist" in our world of space-time.

That is what I wanted to confirm.

 

[ThomasT]

What I really wanted to know is when I hold a rock in my hand, what am I holding?

YOU would be holding a rock. If you want to think of the rock in some other, more fundamental way, then you have to think of you in that other, more fundamental way also.

The thing is, nobody knows what 'deep' reality is, or what the fundamental dynamic(s) of deep reality is. It's an open question, a matter of some speculation.

In High-School physics, they would say "matter", composed of atoms and molecules. But to go deeper, its really electrons and quarks, and some would say vibrating strings. Whichever of these latter approaches you take, they are all point particles which have no extension in space.

Whatever deep reality is, experiments tell us, unequivicably, that it's real. Point particles are mathematical conveniences. That's all.

Since these basic particles have no shape, what I am feeling is simply electromagnetic forces pressing against my hand. There is really nothing there in my hand that takes up "space". So using that definition of "matter", it really is not there and does not "exist" in our world of space-time.

That is what I wanted to confirm.

Electromagnetic forces, nuclear forces, point particles, vibrating strings with no spatial extension -- these all refer to mathematical modeling constructs. They're calculational conventions and conveniences, not necessarily meant to correspond to what deep reality actually is.

Nobody knows what deep reality actually is. But whatever it is, it is, by definition, real.

Did you read what I wrote in the other post? One speculation is that deep reality is waves in a hierarchy of media. 'You' and 'I' are bounded wave complexes, emerging from and constrained by the same fundamental wave dynamic(s) that produced every other ponderable 'object' (persistent, bounded wave complex) in our Universe from the subatomic to the super galactic scale.

Your hand holding or touching a rock is the reality that our sensory faculties reveal to us. It follows that whatever underlies this is also real. It's just that it's not amenable to our sensory apprehension.

 

[daisey]

Whatever deep reality is, experiments tell us, unequivicably, that it's real. Point particles are mathematical conveniences. That's all.

Hey, Thomas.

Maybe I am not grasping the concept your are trying to convey. Let's try it this way.

1. We know experimentally that atoms exist in our reality.
2. We know experimentally that atoms are mostly empty "space". Very tiny electrons swarming at (sometimes) relatively great distances around a nucleus.
3. We know experimentally the nucleus is also mostly empty space, with protons and neutrons circling each other in a perpetual dance.
4. We know experimentally that protons and neutrons are also mostly empty space, composed of very tiny quarks doing this same dance

Let's stop here. This is what I believe is the limit of what we know experimentally. Now, based on what we know experimentally, most of everything we know of is composed of empty space. So, by extension, a rock is mostly empty space, no?

Did you read what I wrote in the other post? One speculation is that deep reality is waves in a hierarchy of media. 'You' and 'I' are bounded wave complexes, emerging from and constrained by the same fundamental wave dynamic(s) that produced every other ponderable 'object' (persistent, bounded wave complex) in our Universe from the subatomic to the super galactic scale.

Yes, but I didn't understand it.

Thanks for your patience

 

[apeiron]

A rock is mostly empty space. And yet the presence of that rock fills all space - if you consider the way it "reaches out" with its gravity field, its radiation, and other non-constrained aspects of its "existence".

The case is even more extreme with point particles if you view them through the lens of quantum theory (rather than Newtonian physics as you are tending to do).

A particle is spread out as a wave of energy as much as it is located as a dimensionless point.

So you can see why we should not get too attached to concrete mental pictures. They can serve as a guide - a convenient figment that first guided the formulation of the equations, and now helps to keep those equations palatable.

Strings and loops are two more recent guiding images. Vibrations or resonances are still more.

 

[daisey]

A rock is mostly empty space. And yet the presence of that rock fills all space - if you consider the way it "reaches out" with its gravity field, its radiation, and other non-constrained aspects of its "existence".

Thank you! That is exactly what I wanted to confirm.

 

[Pythagorean]

yes, matter and time both exist, just not exactly as you thought they did and much more than you'll ever understand.

We can consistently interact with it and measure it and it doesn't fail our expectations that it exists. That's good enough.

 

[Zdenka]

Answer: Perception IS reality. There may be other forms of REALITY, and life itself may be an immense simulation, but it's still a form of reality because we are able to perceive it.

 

[JoeDawg]

We can consistently interact with it and measure it and it doesn't fail our expectations that it exists. That's good enough.

Matter is essentially just a placeholder, a variable, in an evolving equation. The matter Newton talked about is not the matter Einstein talked about. Fact is, both are just models, they don't exist 'out there'. What does exist 'out there' is something different. And if it were 'good enough', physicists would all be teaching, not researching.

I think this is an important distinction, not because science sucks or scientists have gone horribly wrong, but because science is not definitive, its tentative. Overstating the case for matter can lead people to treat a useful and well grounded assumption as truth. And that's a dangerous game.

 

[Pythagorean]

Matter is essentially just a placeholder, a variable, in an evolving equation. The matter Newton talked about is not the matter Einstein talked about. Fact is, both are just models, they don't exist 'out there'. What does exist 'out there' is something different. And if it were 'good enough', physicists would all be teaching, not researching.

I think this is an important distinction, not because science sucks or scientists have gone horribly wrong, but because science is not definitive, its tentative. Overstating the case for matter can lead people to treat a useful and well grounded assumption as truth. And that's a dangerous game.

It is 'good enough' to state that it actually exists. Those physicists doing the research on it aren't trying to prove that it exists, just discover more about it.

Everything else you're saying I already said in the part of my post that you didn't quote.