Do physical objects truly exist or are they just illusions?

[debra]

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.

We know that the Earth is spherical not flat - I suppose that is a 'model' and not the real truth. But I do think your attitude is "I don't understand it all, so that applies to you guys too, so let's just stick with the Earth is flat because we can never know the truth, I think there are vibration thingies doing it all woooo hoooo hooooo"

I believe you underestimate us as sources of 'intelligence' - we have (IMO) the same sort of intelligence as the Universe, because the Universe made us and we could make a Universe ourselves (Newton said the universe is straining towards intelligence) - we can already make a model 1 Universe in a computer, using physics etc. When we work out how all the fields and particles work then we can make a much better one. Until eventually... (you complete the sentence)

OK, so the Universe is made of numbers, and we know roughly how it does it. Who/what made all those numbers work? Well, it could have been something just like us, or something else that we don't yet know - but its not beyond question that we can never know due to some type of 'magic' at work. Often people who simply have no idea how stuff works say that. It is unprovable that we can never know.

 

[JoeDawg]

We know that the Earth is spherical not flat - I suppose that is a 'model' and not the real truth. But I do think your attitude is "I don't understand it all, so that applies to you guys too, so let's just stick with the Earth is flat because we can never know the truth, I think there are vibration thingies doing it all woooo hoooo hooooo"

You are, rather rudely, mischaracterizing my position in a fairly major way.
The Earth example is a good one though. It would simply be dishonest to say the Earth was flat when we have evidence to the contrary. Quite a lot of it.

But we can't honestly say is that the Earth is a sphere either. Science tells us this. Science tells us the 'earth' is a very irregular, vaguely spherical, ball. Calling it a sphere may be more accurate than calling it flat, but its not a sphere either.

Your contention that it is a sphere, despite the evidence that it is not is exactly the type of mistake that people make when they ignore science and think they know it all.

 

[Pythagorean]

To address JoeDawg's overall point, I think you're being somewhat stereotypical of scientists. In laymen books, we even use the word "stuff" instead of matter to signify the ambiguity of the idea. It's definition is based on physical existence, not on the properties that we've discovered since having the urge to study it in the first place.

Different scientists approach their work with different philosophies, but I think a large chunk of us tend to be somewhat Taoist in our philosophy. We use words with common working meanings (especially when speaking casually about science) with the full knowledge that it's not the end-all be-all and that it relies on several (currently safe) assumptions that could be shattered in any number of upcoming experiments.

But we still have to get somewhere in the mean time, so we use working terms like "matter". This attitude:

Overstating the case for matter can lead people to treat a useful and well grounded assumption as truth. And that's a dangerous game.

is just silly. Popular opinion isn't swayed by logic in the first place, but more to the point, we should be more pertinent about teaching people to come to conclusions for themselves rather than being careful about proudly proclaiming the existence of matter!

 

[JoeDawg]

is just silly.

Being precise about definitions may not be important to you, but its rather important in philosophy... and in science.

 

[Count Iblis]

There was a misunderstanding earlier in the thread about my position. Of course, there is the normal physics that explains the hardness of a rock. It's the fact that the electrons in the rock will be repelled by the electrons in your hand. And that, b.t.w., happens primarily because of the Pauli exclusion principle. The electrons in your hand cannot be just pushed into the rock without going to higher energy levels.

The Pauli exclusion principle explains why matter appears to be solid while in reality the particles don't occupy any space. The available space inside matter is all occupied at low energies. I.e., all the lowest quantum states are are already filled.


But if we are ultimately computations performed by the brain, then what you are experiencing is not the actual sqeezing of the rock, but the representaton of that event in the virtual world generated by the brain. Because if you hallucinate about sqeezing a rock, you'll still have the same experience, without the event happening in the real world.

 

[Pythagorean]

Being precise about definitions may not be important to you, but its rather important in philosophy... and in science.

yes... I loathe being precise about definitions. Tell me more, Dr. Phil.

Are you really paying attention to what you type and how it relates to the discussion or are you just looking at little sentences, taking them out of context, and replying for your own personal glee?

 

[JoeDawg]

little sentences

Pot... Kettle... Black

 

[ValenceE]

Hello to all,



There are all kinds of questions about our world, human nature and everything else, which just cannot yet be answered in total truth by our current knowledge, coming out of all fields of research.

All the best known, understood and working theories, along with the legion of promising pretenders, still fall short but certainly have been serving us humans with their findings, helping develop, shape and better our daily lives. Won’t go into how well or not this knowledge is used or distributed though, this is more related to Love than anything else.


Anyway, as far as the existence of matter, it’s my belief of the moment that, since all is about interaction, and that it can all be reduced to a one-on-one interaction, one or both can be called matter. So yes, matter can exist if you decide so.



Regards,

VE

 

[mrcoltrane]

I got onto this thread by typing into google 'what causes matter to exist'.

noticed that people are kind of going down the ontological route or talking about perception etc. I mean, I get that things aren't always what they appear to be on the surface.

I just wanted to get some clues on whether matter is caused, like the effect of gravity, by the curvature of space time. Not sure where I heard this, soem obscure lecture maybe.

I think the guy said something like 'matter was found to be following striaght lines in what was a curved space-time, but the really radical twaist was that matter itself was just space -time'.

anyone know what I am on about?

 

[magpies]

Yes. The cause of matter is probably as easy to find as the cause of your thoughts. Thoughts exist because we allow them to. So I would suspect matter exists because we allow it to. How could a thought exist if we did not allow it? How could a Earth exist if we did not allow it? :)

Isn't the mind of god amazing :)

 

[debra]

Matter, 3D space, and time are all in flat information (1s and 0s!) and we only percieve a 3D world with objects. I have so much supporting evidence I don't know where to begin.
Try this, just for one:
Dimensions: One dimension is a line with no thickness - you know this argument eh? They say the 'thickness' is the next dimension (x and y). And so its go on...
This is easy to explain because space is mapped out in information - a metric. There cannot be zero width because the metric needed to define it (eg 0101001110001010001) would need to be infinite - does not happen. So there is indeed a minimum thickness of a line! There is no mystery and no need to invoke analogue dimensions with infinity problems. Its just a simple digital 3D mapping - easy.

Objects? Well, QFT explains particles in terms of field peturbations. There are no 'solid objects' at the lowest level. Reason? Its all defined by information.

Information does not need a place to exist (how many numbers can you put in a tiny box?)
Information does not have mass (what is the mass of 1 million numbers?)
Information does step along, that's why the universe is in the present moment and does not know exactly where its going. Nor can it go in reverse - even a computer cannot go backwards.
Numbers are exactly what we need to make 3D space - they can exist in no place and at no time. Exactly what we need to make a universe. Its all so simple. Don't know what is the matter with most of you. I give up - delete me pls.

 

[WaveJumper]

There was a misunderstanding earlier in the thread about my position. Of course, there is the normal physics that explains the hardness of a rock. It's the fact that the electrons in the rock will be repelled by the electrons in your hand. And that, b.t.w., happens primarily because of the Pauli exclusion principle. The electrons in your hand cannot be just pushed into the rock without going to higher energy levels.

The Pauli exclusion principle explains why matter appears to be solid while in reality the particles don't occupy any space. The available space inside matter is all occupied at low energies. I.e., all the lowest quantum states are are already filled.

There is more. There couldn't be 3 dimensional matter without virtual particles. I'd say they are the main, fundamental ingredient of what we perceive as 3D reality. It's the exchange of virtual photons, that come and go at 10^-43sec., that makes up the Coulomb force. Which gives us the impression of solid 3D matter that exists 'out there'(whatever that really means). A smaller contribution should be assigned to virtual gluons, manifested as the strong nuclear force.

But if we are ultimately computations performed by the brain, then what you are experiencing is not the actual sqeezing of the rock, but the representaton of that event in the virtual world generated by the brain. Because if you hallucinate about sqeezing a rock, you'll still have the same experience, without the event happening in the real world.

It's the triumph of nature over our puny minds that teaches us how to circumvent the infinite regress of A is the property of B, which is a property of C, which is a property of D, which is a property of E, etc. ad infinitum. At some point you reach the zero-dimensional point-particles(electrons, quarks) which are 'bare' properties, and as it appears, you aren't allowed to inquire further as to why fields/point particles behave exactly the way they do(only probabilities can be exctracted). Many a leading physicist have 'seen' a profound mystery in this fact and it baffles me as well. I don't subscribe to the view that our macro reality can be recovered from the causal interactions of point particles. Our macro scale is too 'strange' for that.
But when you think about it, in this universe there is only a multitude of 'bare' properties of zero-dimensional point 'particles' manifested as matter by virtual particles. It's either that the human mind is not capable of describing and comprehending reality as it really is, or there is no reality beyond what we experience and we are related in a fairly major way with this cardboard universe.

 

[debra]

It's the triumph of nature over our puny minds that teaches us how to circumvent the infinite regress of A is the property of B, which is a property of C, which is a property of D, which is a property of E, etc. ad infinitum. At some point you reach the zero-dimensional point-particles(electrons, quarks) which are 'bare' properties, and as it appears, you aren't allowed to inquire further as to why fields/point particles behave exactly the way they do(only probabilities can be exctracted). Many a leading physicist have 'seen' a profound mystery in this fact and it baffles me as well.

Its not baffling at all - its the Pythagorean Monad - he understood what was going on, he just did not know how it was doing it.

It terms of your elementary particles (they are another abstraction of course) we could model each of those using mathematics and define their behaviors and properties within the mathematics. They then simply run in a program. The particles are not really there, its only the mathematics that defines them make them appear to us to be real physical objects. But they are not - they are 'made of' mathematics.

Pythagoras, Plato, Leibniz, Newton (and many many more) all guessed that.
It can be guessed using fairly simple logic.

These deep mysteries you mention are not deep or mysteries. We will probably
know 99.9% of everything fairly soon. Its certainly not a law of the universe
that we can never know. The opposite if anything is a law. i.e. we will know.

 

[WaveJumper]

Its not baffling at all - its the Pythagorean Monad - he understood what was going on, he just did not know how it was doing it.

It terms of your elementary particles (they are another abstraction of course) we could model each of those using mathematics and define their behaviors and properties within the mathematics. They then simply run in a program. The particles are not really there, its only the mathematics that defines them make them appear to us to be real physical objects. But they are not - they are 'made of' mathematics.

Pythagoras, Plato, Leibniz, Newton (and many many more) all guessed that.
It can be guessed using fairly simple logic.

These deep mysteries you mention are not deep or mysteries. We will probably
know 99.9% of everything fairly soon. Its certainly not a law of the universe
that we can never know. The opposite if anything is a law. i.e. we will know.

How would mathematics account for our personal experience?

The particles are not really there, its only the mathematics that defines them make them appear to us to be real physical objects.

What is "us"? Mathematics? Mathematics cannot model a human thought(at least not yet so certainty is unwarranted). I agree that reality is not what it seems(which is what most physicists agree upon), but that theory needs to make at least a few additional assumptions and i didn't see them stated.

 

[trogan]

As a software developer it seems very likely to me that we exist as a computer simulation (think Matrix). The fact that most things are describable by mathematics is a dead giveaway. We may in fact be a hologram and a lot of research is pointing in this direction. So what would the purpose of the simulation be ? Basically, I am guessing, to evolve into an entity that is more powerful than its creator. Why ? to eventually escape from eternity !

 

[debra]

How would mathematics account for our personal experience?



What is "us"? Mathematics? Mathematics cannot model a human thought(at least not yet so certainty is unwarranted). I agree that reality is not what it seems(which is what most physicists agree upon), but that theory needs to make at least a few additional assumptions and i didn't see them stated.

Personal experience: The brain is a type of von-neumann machine which has data and instructions and a processing area. It uses chemicals rather than transitor gates as a computer would.
There is NO THOUGHT that is not physically constructed by processing in the brain.
They can even be measured and moitored. Thoughts and experience are as real as a computers 'thoughts'. There is NOTHING etherial or mystical about thoughts in the brain.


Additional assumptions? Do not know which assumptions you want.
I, personally, would say the main assumption is of an 'information space' that exists 'behind the Heisenberg uncertainty window'. Its a guess that 'must be true'. Most advances are guessed to be true. eg Dirac admitted guessing his.

That information space has been proposed before, but wrongly dropped by the physics
community because they are not good information specialists and swim around in
integral maths trying doing things the hard way. They always hit infinity problems
and worm their way out of those using highly presumptious and debatable arguments.
e.g. cut off (the fact that 1/r forces cannot go to infinity - so they just use a cut off. Duh.

Information theory description of the universe must has a cut off anyway, so its included and must be there.

 

[debra]

As a software developer it seems very likely to me that we exist as a computer simulation (think Matrix). The fact that most things are describable by mathematics is a dead giveaway. We may in fact be a hologram and a lot of research is pointing in this direction. So what would the purpose of the simulation be ? Basically, I am guessing, to evolve into an entity that is more powerful than its creator. Why ? to eventually escape from eternity !

I agree with a lot of what you say except the computer is probably some natural type of von neumann machine. Maybe it self boots. Maybe it uses patterns and shapes instead of algorithms. But these are only interesting details.

Why? I am guessing that intelligence exists (e.g. we have it) and its a form of intelligence that that made everything 'work'. Maybe some clever person could even say why it did it.

Why should everything be a deep mystery?? I think not.

 

[WaveJumper]

Personal experience: The brain is a type of von-neumann machine which has data and instructions and a processing area. It uses chemicals rather than transitor gates as a computer would.
There is NO THOUGHT that is not physically constructed by processing in the brain.
They can even be measured and moitored. Thoughts and experience are as real as a computers 'thoughts'. There is NOTHING etherial or mystical about thoughts in the brain.

How does mathematics become a von neumann machine? The only way seems to be if we are living in a simulated reality. Or at least a projected reality off a real, objectively existing 2-D world. Ideas about mathematical universes speak to me more about God than of physics.

Additional assumptions? Do not know which assumptions you want.

There is all sorts of assumptions behind every single statement that a scientist makes. You already made one, a fundamental one i'd say - that the human mind is capable of comprehending reality. While claiming that space wasn't a real physical structure, you made a second assumption - that you had free-will and your conclusions were not pre-determined and hence their veracity questionable. There are others that are not as relevant to the discussion. The relevant assumptions are about how a mathematical structure(mathematical correlations) become 1 to 1 with our observsations.

I, personally, would say the main assumption is of an 'information space' that exists 'behind the Heisenberg uncertainty window'. Its a guess that 'must be true'. Most advances are guessed to be true. eg Dirac admitted guessing his.

That information space has been proposed before, but wrongly dropped by the physics
community because they are not good information specialists and swim around in
integral maths trying doing things the hard way. They always hit infinity problems
and worm their way out of those using highly presumptious and debatable arguments.
e.g. cut off (the fact that 1/r forces cannot go to infinity - so they just use a cut off. Duh.

Information theory description of the universe must has a cut off anyway, so its included and must be there.

I guess the physics community shies away from god, that's why similar ideas will likely never be readily embraced by the predominantly secular scientists. Though you might counter that a simulated universe is consistent with all the evidence - from the physical laws and constants through the initial conditions of the BB and maths applicability at all levels, to the seeming abscence of a creator. Then, we could be all brothers and sisters to our common mother - her name Pentium-ina Trillion Core.

 

[debra]

How does mathematics become a von neumann machine? The only way seems to be if we are living in a simulated reality. Or at least a projected reality off a real, objectively existing 2-D world. Ideas about mathematical universes speak to me more about God than of physics.

There is all sorts of assumptions behind every single statement that a scientist makes. You already made one, a fundamental one i'd say - that the human mind is capable of comprehending reality. While claiming that space wasn't a real physical structure, you made a second assumption - that you had free-will and your conclusions were not pre-determined and hence their veracity questionable. There are others that are not as relevant to the discussion. The relevant assumptions are about how a mathematical structure(mathematical correlations) become 1 to 1 with our observsations.

I guess the physics community shies away from god, that's why similar ideas will likely never be readily embraced by the predominantly secular scientists. Though you might counter that a simulated universe is consistent with all the evidence - from the physical laws and constants through the initial conditions of the BB and maths applicability at all levels, to the seeming abscence of a creator. Then, we could be all brothers and sisters to our common mother - her name Pentium-ina Trillion Core.

It makes it more interesting because a simulated reality is running on a type of intelligence if you believe that is what a program is. Even an alien life would be using the same sort of logical reasoning that we use - because its logical. A bouncing ball is following a simple program and we are thinking with a sophisticated intelligence that is able to produce its own tiny universe - our thoughts.

I cannot understand what the physicists are doing using integral mathematics to try to work it all out. Its like a Sims character trying to work out his world by analysing pixel motions.

But, if we were Sims characters ourselves, we should be able to work out that we were in a simulation. Its all about intelligence isn't it?

 

[rewebster]

The majority of this thread, to me, is the reason why hard core physicists hate, abhor, consistently avoid, immediately take notice of and 'point out', try to change the subject, and scowl at the word 'if' ; and, if 'if' is used, the whole conversation is almost immediately dumped into the world of 'philosophy' and their work isn't considered 'science'.




To avoid the word 'if' in most, if not all papers, monographs, etc. and articles created by those hard core physicists and work around being called a 'philosopher', they now use the word...


'consider'.

 

[debra]

The majority of this thread, to me, is the reason why hard core physicists hate, abhor, consistently avoid, immediately take notice of and 'point out', try to change the subject, and scowl at the word 'if' ; and, if 'if' is used, the whole conversation is almost immediately dumped into the world of 'philosophy' and their work isn't considered 'science'.




To avoid the word 'if' in most, if not all papers, monographs, etc. and articles created by those hard core physicists and work around being called a 'philosopher', they now use the word...


'consider'.

I cannot quite follow what you are saying about 'if' and 'consider'.
But, the physicists are always bumping into infinities problems, which
in information theories is no problem at all.

If a quantity varies as a/r then as r -> 0, the quantity tends to inifinity.
eg gravity etc etc.


This is their false view of an analogue world where things can go to zero
or infinity.

THEY CANNOT in information theory go to zero or infinity. That would
imply infinite sized metrics. It cuts off - of course it cuts off. So below
a plank length space is not defined at all. Between 01101 and 01100
is nothing at all - not defined - cannot be an action.

That is just one example of where the physicists are squirming with
their analogue mathematics.
Dimensions is another. And many more...

 

[WaveJumper]

But, if we were Sims characters ourselves, we should be able to work out that we were in a simulation. Its all about intelligence isn't it?

Yes, at the limits(at c, infinite gravity, boundery conditions, Planck scale), we should observe that what we call reality would fall apart or completely disappear.
In string theory, the hidden dimensions that are necessary for the theory to work, make sense and be consistent with observations and experiments, are assumed to be hidden within our universe. This assumption might be wrong and the extra dimensions that we don't observe, could well lie outside the "universe". It might be our first hint at the hardware underlying our personal experience(the so-called reality). What is the difference between an unknowable dimensions that are “in the world” and one that is “outside the world”? Since both are untestable science should favour neither view. The best tested theories of physics suggest that the assumptions of locality and realism are wrong. Classical mechanics and GR seem to give support to the idea that free-will is an illusion and when you take out all these assumptions - realism, locality and free-will, you end up with one only consitent scenario - that our reality is objectively virtual. I'd say it's the only scenario that is consistent with all the evidence found in physics nowadays and that reality appears local and real only to its inhabitants.

 

[debra]

Yes, at the limits(at c, infinite gravity, boundery conditions, Planck scale), we should observe that what we call reality would fall apart or completely disappear.
In string theory, the hidden dimensions that are necessary for the theory to work, make sense and be consistent with observations and experiments, are assumed to be hidden within our universe. This assumption might be wrong and the extra dimensions that we don't observe, could well lie outside the "universe". It might be our first hint at the hardware underlying our personal experience(the so-called reality). What is the difference between an unknowable dimensions that are “in the world” and one that is “outside the world”? Since both are untestable science should favour neither view. The best tested theories of physics suggest that the assumptions of locality and realism are wrong. Classical mechanics and GR seem to give support to the idea that free-will is an illusion and when you take out all these assumptions - realism, locality and free-will, you end up with one only consitent scenario - that our reality is objectively virtual. I'd say it's the only scenario that is consistent with all the evidence found in physics nowadays and that reality appears local and real only to its inhabitants.

I think you are on the hardest route to the underlying reality of all - through physics. The ideas of hidden dimensions, locality and realism are all trying to make sense of a reality that is in fact informational in nature and its not about particles, energy, 3D space and dimensions. You should end up with the same 'virtual' answer, but the route through QFT, quantum mechanics obscures the simplicity of it. Even physicists refer to space-time *metrics* - which is admitting that it is not a real physical space-time rather its based on measurements and mathematical values. Information theory is the same - it says that space-time is defined and *created* by information co-ordinates and does not exist *as of itself*. i.e. its VIRTUAL.

Whichever way you look at it, mathematics (& data) creates the whole thing. That is why its 'virtual'. The physics route is an extremely difficult to get to the answer
which is really very very simple when viewd as information and mathematics
(i.e. a kind of computer simulation).

Hardware? Probably made of information too.

 

[trogan]

I think you are on the hardest route to the underlying reality of all - through physics. The ideas of hidden dimensions, locality and realism are all trying to make sense of a reality that is in fact informational in nature and its not about particles, energy, 3D space and dimensions. You should end up with the same 'virtual' answer, but the route through QFT, quantum mechanics obscures the simplicity of it. Even physicists refer to space-time *metrics* - which is admitting that it is not a real physical space-time rather its based on measurements and mathematical values. Information theory is the same - it says that space-time is defined and *created* by information co-ordinates and does not exist *as of itself*. i.e. its VIRTUAL.

Whichever way you look at it, mathematics (& data) creates the whole thing. That is why its 'virtual'. The physics route is an extremely difficult to get to the answer
which is really very very simple when viewd as information and mathematics
(i.e. a kind of computer simulation).

Hardware? Probably made of information too.

I totally agree with you Debra that "reality" is informational in nature. I don't agree that it is a computer simulation. I believe it exists independently of any other entity. I think is consists entirely of energy and that space is just ground-state energy. It has all the characteristics of a state machine (admittedly a complex one whose workings are still somewhat obscure). In line with this it seems to consist of two primary "sub-systems":

1. Matter - whose purpose seems to be to process "state" (i.e. maintain it, process it, change it etc.).
2. Light - whose purpose seems be to transmit information about events (i.e. changes of state in matter).

We (people) are sub-state machines in this extraordinarily large state machine.

There is increasing evidence that "reality" is holographic in nature. Thus each of us may also "be" "reality" in total (i.e. godlike in nature). A sub-state machine can have as one of its states the state machine that it is part of. Whatever, we are certainly part of a single system.

I agree that physics is tortuous in its attempts to explain reality. It makes the big mistake at looking to cause and effect to explain reality when the truth is we just "are". That is, consciousness is a property of "reality". A state machine is "aware" of its states and the events that cause it to change state.

Relativity assumes that light and matter are part of the same "system" so many of its conclusions are weird. For example the speed of light might be a constant but it is part of a different system to matter, so trying to compare the two is like comparing chalk and cheese. The "time dilation" effect can be explained by an increase in mass as an object speeds up. So its rate of change slows and thus its experience of time.

I believe computer science will more and more take over from maths as the primary tool for explaining “reality”.

 

[debra]

Yes, at the limits(at c, infinite gravity, boundery conditions, Planck scale), we should observe that what we call reality would fall apart or completely disappear.

Its at the Heisenberg Uncertainty region that information pokes through to provide algorithmically calculated answers. If an answer is not required because nobody or no photon is 'observing' then it does not need to provide an answer. If a tree is not being observed... In the case of the wave function. The particle exists in information behind space-time not in space-time. It will provide an answer when the x,y,z,t co-ordinates of observed and observer triggers an algorithmic answer, if nothing triggers that then it does not *exist* in space time at all. The algorithm simply executes when the z,x,z,t condition is reached. Its the information *behind* that Heisenberg window that is sending answers.

The entangled particle paradoxes are answered neatly, because two particles can refer to the same data to find their correlations no matter how far they are separated. The algorithm doing it would not allow cause and effect to break, that would be a programmed condition. Otherwise the whole shabang would not function properly. But there is nothing to stop it using corellation data associated with entangled particles.

Note, in QFT there are no particles, but the same logic applies, to the peturbations of fields etc.

 

[debra]

I agree that physics is tortuous in its attempts to explain reality. It makes the big mistake at looking to cause and effect to explain reality when the truth is we just "are". That is, consciousness is a property of "reality". A state machine is "aware" of its states and the events that cause it to change state.

I think you are 3/4 there but are still in "energy and consciousness" which needs to go too.
Energy is nothing magical, its a simple consequence of time translation and conservation of momemtum. Even in a 'particle universe' its very logical and tangible.

Consciousenss - replace that with intelligence - as in a computer program - and your almost there. Our brains are von-neumann machines, i.e. data and a processing area. A *thought* is entirely tangible, measurable, as in a computer. Yes, our brains create their own universe that is simply smaller than the bigger universe around us. But its just as valid - that's what the bigger universe is doing too!

Its all based on intelligence, in a sense.

 

[Danger]

I must admit that I haven't read this thread, but the title brings to mind a favourite quote of my father's:
What is matter?
Never mind.
What is mind?
No matter.

 

[daisey]

Energy is nothing magical, its a simple consequence of time translation and conservation of momemtum.

Hello, Debra. :)

Can you expand on what you mean by that statement?


Daisey

 

[Evolver]

My question is: Does Matter Really Exist?

I have a thread which you can read... in it I attempt to show that nothing exists except information. Everything we experience is an interpretation of that information:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=368284

If you want a good book to read about the universe being treated as a giant quantum computer, I suggest "Programming the Universe" by Seth Lloyd. Dr. Lloyd is a professor at MIT and is currently researching and developing quantum computing.

 

[debra]

Hello, Debra. :)

Can you expand on what you mean by that statement?


Daisey

Yes, I will expand on that:

If space is symmetric in all directions, then the Lagrangian is said to be rotationally symmetric. And applying Noether's theorem the angular momentum of the system must be then be conserved. Similarly, the laws of motion are symmetric in an isotropic space (which we assume is the type of space we live in). If experiments and the laws of physics are the same in all places or times then its Lagrangian is symmetrical, and by Noether's theorem, these symmetries account for the conservation laws of linear momentum and energy within this system.

Note: Symmetries are a key notion in physics. Amazing simplicities actually.

 

[debra]

I have a thread which you can read... in it I attempt to show that nothing exists except information. Everything we experience is an interpretation of that information:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=368284

If you want a good book to read about the universe being treated as a giant quantum computer, I suggest "Programming the Universe" by Seth Lloyd. Dr. Lloyd is a professor at MIT and is currently researching and developing quantum computing.

I read your thread on the brain, but think you have gone over the top about quantum nature of the brain... How about the brain is a von-neumann like machine that processes information and instructions that it receives from inputs such as eyes, ears and touch in much the same way - at a high level - as an ordinary computer might.


The difference is that a computer is electrical - transistor based whereas the brain is chemically based. But the processing of information is common to both.

 

[Evolver]

I read your thread on the brain, but think you have gone over the top about quantum nature of the brain... How about the brain is a von-neumann like machine that processes information and instructions that it receives from inputs such as eyes, ears and touch in much the same way - at a high level - as an ordinary computer might.The difference is that a computer is electrical - transistor based whereas the brain is chemically based. But the processing of information is common to both.

There is no such thing as an "ordinary" computer. The universe exists at a quantum level which means even transistors or traditional computers can only function because of their quantum nature. That goes for the brain too, to say the brain is not quantum in nature is to defy all of Quantum Mechanics entirely.

Also, I think you are missing a very crucial element of the concept. You say that the eyes and ears can be inputs for the brain... and I agree, but what exactly is the input they are receiving? All they do is create electrical signals that they feed to the brain. And the brain then interprets these electrical signals as the 5 senses. If you really think about what you are saying you will realize you have missed an element of it's truth.

As for going over the top... there are many that came before me that shared similar ideas... Rene Descartes and Seth Lloyd are just a few of those.

 

[debra]

There is no such thing as an "ordinary" computer. The universe exists at a quantum level which means even transistors or traditional computers can only function because of their quantum nature. That goes for the brain too, to say the brain is not quantum in nature is to defy all of quantum mechanics entirely.

Also, I think you are missing a very crucial element of the concept. You say that the eyes and ears can be inputs for the brain... and I agree, but what exactly is the input they are receiving? All they do is create electrical signals that they feed to the brain. And the brain then interprets these electrical signals as the 5 senses. If you really think about what you are saying you will realize you have missed an element of it's truth.

As for going over the top... there are many that came before me that shared similar ideas... Rene Descartes and Seth Lloyd are just a few of those.

I agree with Seth Lloyd entirely from what I have read of his ideas.
But I think you are lost in how we abstract our world. At its most fundamental there is ONLY information. i.e. electrical signals, atoms, quantum levels are merely a higher level abstraction of deeper abstraction which is of mathemataics and logic using information to create everything.

So inputs into the brain are essentially DATA inputs that interpret the world outside the brain. The level we abstract that is personal preference. But I am abstracting at the information level and assuming electrical signals, quanta are merely higher up in the abstraction chain.

 

[Evolver]

I agree with Seth Lloyd entirely from what I have read of his ideas.
But I think you are lost in how we abstract our world. At its most fundamental there is ONLY information. i.e. electrical signals, atoms, quantum levels are merely a higher level abstraction of deeper abstraction which is of mathemataics and logic using information to create everything.

So inputs into the brain are essentially DATA inputs that interpret the world outside the brain. The level we abstract that is personal preference. But I am abstracting at the information level and assuming electrical signals, quanta are merely higher up in the abstraction chain.

I think basically we are saying the same thing here, I just think the confusion is arising from the fact that you assume electrical signals can exist outside of a quantum existence and I don't. I feel that a quantum sense of information is far more basic than electrical signals, because electrical signals and atoms, again, only exist because of their quantum nature. Therefore, I perceive quantum information (as opposed to traditional information) as the most basic form of input.

 

[debra]

Therefore, I perceive quantum information (as opposed to traditional information) as the most basic form of input.

AFAIK binary data is the most fundamental form of information. There is no deeper level possible. In the machine that is making everything, a one and a zero is probably related to quantum states in some way that we do not yet know. I am only guessing because I have not researched that to any depth. I don't think anyone has yet.

And yes, the brain could be using quantum computing mechanisms - I wish we knew more about that aspect. Penrose thinks it does.

 

[Evolver]

AFAIK binary data is the most fundamental form of information. There is no deeper level possible. In the machine that is making everything, a one and a zero is probably related to quantum states in some way that we do not yet know.

Well this is why I bring up quantum information. There is a property of quantum mechanics called 'entanglement.' It's when two particle are intrinsically linked, and affecting one will instantly affect the other. It's not fully understood why this property of QM exists, but it is the key element in researching quantum computers. Why is it the key element? Because instead of a traditional computer that can have a 1 or 0 to represent a state... a quantum computer can have BOTH a 1 and 0 simultaneously. That implies that a quantum bit of information would be infinitely more capable than a traditional bit. A string of quantum 1's and 0's can represent countless states of information at the same time.

 

[debra]

Well this is why I bring up quantum information. There is a property of quantum mechanics called 'entanglement.' It's when two particle are intrinsically linked, and affecting one will instantly affect the other. It's not fully understood why this property of QM exists, but it is the key element in researching quantum computers. Why is it the key element? Because instead of a traditional computer that can have a 1 or 0 to represent a state... a quantum computer can have BOTH a 1 and 0 simultaneously. That implies that a quantum bit of information would be infinitely more capable than a traditional bit. A string of quantum 1's and 0's can represent countless states of information at the same time.

Oh yes, that's right - I was forgetting the one, zero and one_zero states that QC uses.

 

[danielatha4]

First off, sorry for jumping into this thread without reading most of the replies. Ignore me if what I'm saying is irrelevant to the current discussion or if what I'm about to suggest has already been said.

I once read someone say that the mass of atomic particles can in some sense be described as the manifestation of energy, rather than actual "mass." Perhaps mass is nothing but a motion, charge attraction or repulsion, or gravity attraction (weird!) etc., or in other words: energy. If the universe became stagnant, and "froze in place" including all atomic and subatomic particles, would everything disappear into a vast amount of energy?

 

[debra]

First off, sorry for jumping into this thread without reading most of the replies. Ignore me if what I'm saying is irrelevant to the current discussion or if what I'm about to suggest has already been said.

I once read someone say that the mass of atomic particles can in some sense be described as the manifestation of energy, rather than actual "mass." Perhaps mass is nothing but a motion, charge attraction or repulsion, or gravity attraction (weird!) etc., or in other words: energy. If the universe became stagnant, and "froze in place" including all atomic and subatomic particles, would everything disappear into a vast amount of energy?

Does not really make sense - objects would still have temperature and thus 'contain' energy.
And stopping motion is sort of removing time, because it is time that allows things to move around in a 3D space. Also, time translation in an isotropic 3D space via Noethers theorem you arrive at conservation of energy. So no motion...

BUT, slightly more likely is the evaporation of all matter into photons. At this point in time the universe becomes like a point once again because photons travel infinite distances in no time and there is nothing else there to measure time.
An empty universe apart from photons is a fascinating concept. Penrose postulates this and says it 'has a chance' in the academic cosmological world.

 

[rewebster]

Does not really make sense - objects would still have temperature and thus 'contain' energy.
And stopping motion is sort of removing time, because it is time that allows things to move around in a 3D space. Also, time translation in an isotropic 3D space via Noethers theorem you arrive at conservation of energy. So no motion...

BUT, slightly more likely is the evaporation of all matter into photons. At this point in time the universe becomes like a point once again because photons travel infinite distances in no time and there is nothing else there to measure time.
An empty universe apart from photons is a fascinating concept. Penrose postulates this and says it 'has a chance' in the academic cosmological world.

I haven't heard that about 'time' before----is that your own thoughts or from some theory already out there?

 

[debra]

I haven't heard that about 'time' before----is that your own thoughts or from some theory already out there?

Prof Penrose reckons if there are no objects in the universe then time loses track - its his thought not mine.

But the idea of photons not traveling in time is correct. If a photon goes billions of miles in space, then for it, no time passes at all. So you must agree that a universe with only free photons would be a strange place...

 

[rewebster]

Prof Penrose reckons if there are no objects in the universe then time loses track - its his thought not mine.

But the idea of photons not traveling in time is correct. If a photon goes billions of miles in space, then for it, no time passes at all. So you must agree that a universe with only free photons would be a strange place...

isn't that just for relativity?

no photons? well, if you go with Darwin, the 'universe' would find something else to fill their spot in space.

 

[debra]

isn't that just for relativity?

no photons? well, if you go with Darwin, the 'universe' would find something else to fill their spot in space.

I think Penrose is saying that when there are only photons left, then the universe would start again. Its only a theory of his but he thinks 'it has a chance' (of being accepted by the cosmological community).

Only relativity? I agree with your 'only' because relativity is only a mathematical consequence of cause and effect in an isotropic space. And the speed of light is the maximum speed of information travel - it would be the same for gravity waves too. If it were not then we could defeat cause followed by effect. But Bohm has something to say on that too which is interesting, but probably not belong in this thread.

 

[rewebster]

I think Penrose is saying that when there are only photons left, then the universe would start again. Its only a theory of his but he thinks 'it has a chance' (of being accepted by the cosmological community).

Only relativity? I agree with your 'only' because relativity is only a mathematical consequence of cause and effect in an isotropic space. And the speed of light is the maximum speed of information travel - it would be the same for gravity waves too. If it were not then we could defeat cause followed by effect. But Bohm has something to say on that too which is interesting, but probably not belong in this thread.

and this, to me, is why we really do need a stronger theory----

it's difficult not to say "but, in this other theory [insert favorite theory] it works this way..."

(but, please do say what you were thinking about Bohm...)

 

[debra]

(but, please do say what you were thinking about Bohm...)

Bohm theory (in 'easy' words) is that when a quantum particle is prepared and sets off to a destination... from A to B then, when it arrives at B a signal goes back in time to A and basically let's the particle know its destination before it sets off.

This only works between preparation and observation - so its not a blanket going back in time type of thing.

There is no record of the particles path from A to B - so it can do the backwards in time-trick without breaking causality. (called weak causality).

I like the theory because it overcomes a huge calculation problem that the universe has if its destination is unkown. I am speaking about a wave function here.

If a wave function spreads out over a huge area then its easy to see the problem the universe has in picking by probability its observed location. Because the location algorithm would have to instantly dissappear everywhere over that huge area.

To me there seems to be too much information to process - that's why Bohm Theory appeals to me, because its a much easier solution for the universe if that small, short, backwards time thing happened. It does not break cause and effect.

 

[rewebster]

Bohm theory (in 'easy' words) is that when a quantum particle is prepared and sets off to a destination... from A to B then, when it arrives at B a signal goes back in time to A and basically let's the particle know its destination before it sets off.

This only works between preparation and observation - so its not a blanket going back in time type of thing.

There is no record of the particles path from A to B - so it can do the backwards in time-trick without breaking causality. (called weak causality).

I like the theory because it overcomes a huge calculation problem that the universe has if its destination is unkown. I am speaking about a wave function here.

If a wave function spreads out over a huge area then its easy to see the problem the universe has in picking by probability its observed location. Because the location algorithm would have to instantly dissappear everywhere over that huge area.

To me there seems to be too much information to process - that's why Bohm Theory appeals to me, because its a much easier solution for the universe if that small, short, backwards time thing happened. It does not break cause and effect.

well, if you tolerate time travel, I guess...

I personally can't accept any theory that includes any amount, that is necessary for it to 'work', of "backwards in time" or "stoppage of time".

 

[wofsy]

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.

when you say that objects can be touched and probed you are assuming what you want to prove. You are assuming that there is something real - whatever that means - that can be touched or probed. But in fact all you know is the results of you touching and probing - you do not know that there is anything else - real as you call it.

 

[ZapperZ]

when you say that objects can be touched and probed you are assuming what you want to prove. You are assuming that there is something real - whatever that means - that can be touched or probed. But in fact all you know is the results of you touching and probing - you do not know that there is anything else - real as you call it.

Then it makes this whole thread moot. The question "does matter really exist" is not real either, since it is a composition of matter that came together and interact to produce that idea and question, AND, convey it to others (i.e. note that your computer, your screen, Physicsforums website, etc) are all not real. This thread and and this question do not exist. Just think of all the wasted time spent dealing with this issue...

Zz.

 

[wofsy]

Then it makes this whole thread moot. The question "does matter really exist" is not real either, since it is a composition of matter that came together and interact to produce that idea and question, AND, convey it to others (i.e. note that your computer, your screen, Physicsforums website, etc) are all not real. This thread and and this question do not exist. Just think of all the wasted time spent dealing with this issue...

Zz.

Wile I agree with your point, this is still a difficult philosophical issue that took a couple thousand years until Kant to figure out. It does not hurt to think it through.

 

[ZapperZ]

Wile I agree with your point, this is still a difficult philosophical issue that took a couple thousand years until Kant to figure out. It does not hurt to think it through.

.. and people wonder why I have very little patience (and time) to deal with such philosophical issues...

Zz.