Do physical objects truly exist or are they just illusions?

[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.

 

[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 :)