Do physical objects truly exist or are they just illusions?

[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.

 

[wofsy]

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

Zz.

i am not sure what you mean. To me, assumptions about nature are subtle and benefit from clarification. If you do not think that you need to think about any assumptions - then that is an assumption on your part.

 

[ZapperZ]

i am not sure what you mean. To me, assumptions about nature are subtle and benefit from clarification. If you do not think that you need to think about any assumptions - then that is an assumption on your part.

How'd you come up with THAT assumption? It appears that your assumption on why I had very little patience in dealing with THIS particular issue is severely faulty.

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

you know that old saying about assumptions...


wait...


what's a "mptions"?

 

[wofsy]

How'd you come up with THAT assumption? It appears that your assumption on why I had very little patience in dealing with THIS particular issue is severely faulty.

Zz.

why not give us your thoughts?

BTW: I was only making a philosophical point. I made no assumptions.

 

[Pythagorean]

why not give us your thoughts?

BTW: I was only making a philosophical point. I made no assumptions.

The most debilitating assumptions are the ones you don't realize you're making.

 

[zomgwtf]

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.

Zapper, just because you have no time to deal with how to go about proving matter exist doesn't mean it's a worthless endeavour.

You remind of when that guy kicked the rock and proclaimed 'I refute it thus'... good job, you've contributed nothing.

Refutation of Bishop Berkeley:

After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus."

 

[Pythagorean]

Zapper, just because you have no time to deal with how to go about proving matter exist doesn't mean it's a worthless endeavour.

You remind of when that guy kicked the rock and proclaimed 'I refute it thus'... good job, you've contributed nothing.

But the only way we have to rigorously prove things (science!) has already shown it to exist. It's properties may be more extensive than we currently understand (i.e. we may not know matter for exactly what it is) but we can show conservation of energy/mass/charge to always hold.

And the only way we're going to understand matter better is by physically interacting with it (i.e., more science). Armchair philosophy is not going to contribute very much to this conversation. The only way philosophy will contribute is that the philosophical approach of the scientists studying matter may lead them to more insightful experimentation.

 

[wofsy]

The most debilitating assumptions are the ones you don't realize you're making.

good point.

 

[JoeDawg]

But the only way we have to rigorously prove things (science!) has already shown it to exist.

Science doesn't prove things, science is about evidence and prediction.

It's properties may be more extensive than we currently understand

What is the difference between a theory that is shown to be incorrect, and one that just needs more refining? Nothing really. Newton's idea of matter was very different from Einstein's conception of it. Its not just a little change, its an entirely different understanding. That doesn't mean both can't be useful.

but we can show conservation of energy/mass/charge to always hold.

Until someone redefines matter...once again.

The only way philosophy will contribute is that the philosophical approach of the scientists studying matter may lead them to more insightful experimentation.

Science is empirical philosophy, prediction based on evidence.

Every 'explanation' for why a formula describes an observation... is philosophy.

 

[ZapperZ]

Zapper, just because you have no time to deal with how to go about proving matter exist doesn't mean it's a worthless endeavour.

You remind of when that guy kicked the rock and proclaimed 'I refute it thus'... good job, you've contributed nothing.

It's worthless when after ALL this time, one is still stuck at first base and worse yet, going around in circles. This thread and this question doesn't exist if matter doesn't exist. How much more time-wasting can there be?

Also note that just because you think that it isn't a worthless endeavor, doesn't mean that it is. What is the 'worth' value here? That we can take some people off the street and spend some minutes debating this, rather than engaging in a dangerous activity such as, oh, I don't know, driving?

So give me lots of examples of the worthiness of this discussion, because in a few months from now, there WILL be a similar thread and this whole thing will be repeated once again with the same rehashed arguments. Just check the history of this forum if you don't believe me. In all of that, what have we solved, or understand better? That we really don't exist? Then why does it matter?

Zz.

 

[wofsy]

It's worthless when after ALL this time, one is still stuck at first base and worse yet, going around in circles. This thread and this question doesn't exist if matter doesn't exist. How much more time-wasting can there be?

Also note that just because you think that it isn't a worthless endeavor, doesn't mean that it is. What is the 'worth' value here? That we can take some people off the street and spend some minutes debating this, rather than engaging in a dangerous activity such as, oh, I don't know, driving?

So give me lots of examples of the worthiness of this discussion, because in a few months from now, there WILL be a similar thread and this whole thing will be repeated once again with the same rehashed arguments. Just check the history of this forum if you don't believe me. In all of that, what have we solved, or understand better? That we really don't exist? Then why does it matter?

Zz.

since you participated in this thread, why not help us to turn our gaze away from this deep gully of banalities and show us to the high plateau?

 

[zomgwtf]

It's worthless when after ALL this time, one is still stuck at first base and worse yet, going around in circles. This thread and this question doesn't exist if matter doesn't exist. How much more time-wasting can there be?

Also note that just because you think that it isn't a worthless endeavor, doesn't mean that it is. What is the 'worth' value here? That we can take some people off the street and spend some minutes debating this, rather than engaging in a dangerous activity such as, oh, I don't know, driving?

So give me lots of examples of the worthiness of this discussion, because in a few months from now, there WILL be a similar thread and this whole thing will be repeated once again with the same rehashed arguments. Just check the history of this forum if you don't believe me. In all of that, what have we solved, or understand better? That we really don't exist? Then why does it matter?

Zz.

If someone asks the question and wants to think about it then obviously it DOES matter to that person. Just like what I'm saying here obviously matters to YOU a bit because your 'wasting your time' to respond. Measure of worth is subjective, you don't think it's worth your while because it goes no where, that's awesome, great on you. You probably have very minimal knowledge of the philosophy behind existence etc. and just have your scientific background.

So maybe instead of wasting time claiming that these questions are worthless you could actually read the various philosophies and how they have progressed through to modern times? Most people who ask the question on these forums DON'T know about the progress made and where mdoern philosophies currently stand. THATS WHY THEY POST ABOUT IT.

 

[wofsy]

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?)

Are not strings just mathematical objects?

 

[debra]

Are not strings just mathematical objects?

If we assume that the universe is created from mathematics and information then there are no objects as such. Where does philosphy come in then?

The analogue notions of 'there can be no hot without cold, no short without long, no yin without yang etc etc' becomes meaningless because all these objects are created from binary (or QBits) data and are not real of themselves. You could say they are a product of a type of intelligence as in a computer program, but are not real objects at all and there is no real physical space either.

Doesn't all that quirky yin-yang type of philosophy fall down then?

 

[wofsy]

If we assume that the universe is created from mathematics and information then there are no objects as such. Where does philosphy come in then?

The analogue notions of 'there can be no hot without cold, no short without long, no yin without yang etc etc' becomes meaningless because all these objects are created from binary (or QBits) data and are not real of themselves. You could say they are a product of a type of intelligence as in a computer program, but are not real objects at all and there is no real physical space either.

Doesn't all that quirky yin-yang type of philosophy fall down then?

I don't really understand the yin-yang stuff. It seems that mathematical structures can be too complex to be categorized in terms of opposites.

For instance, to me, the ideas of particle-wave duality in quantum mechanics over simplify the mathematics. Quantum mechanical objects are not particles in the usual sense nor are they waves. The mathematics is entirely different.

Most of what is talked about in these threads about what is or isn't real or what the nature of reality is are attempts to interpret mathematical models. This is the style of 20'th century philosophy that seems to have started with trying to interpret the unintuitive mathematics in Quantum mechanics. All of this philosophizing has to do with how to interpret the unintuitive micro-world of probability amplitudes.

From that point of view it seems that the question whether matter really exists boils down to whether it is a necessary feature of any model. How one could prove this is unclear to me. It may well be that all of our theories will be supplanted someday and all of the current models and their interpretations will be discarded.

As Descartes and Saint Augustine before him emphasized, the only thing that we can be certain of is our own thought processes. These to them were fundamental - everything else fleeting and uncertain. I sometimes think that we will only understand our world when we understand the processes of mind and how they bring the phenomena that we observe into experience. Maybe we could repeat the process of bringing things into existence with our own thoughts. This would give a level of certainty that we currently do no have. I guess this would be a theory of creativity as physically fundamental. But enough of this bologna.

 

[apeiron]

I don't really understand the yin-yang stuff. It seems that mathematical structures can be too complex to be categorized in terms of opposites.

Then why has there turned out to be a fundamental duality between algebraic and geometric descriptions of nature?

Why is category theory - the dichotomy of structure~morphism - now considered the philosophical foundations of maths?

Of course, these are not "opposites", which are symmetric states (same scale), but about asymmetries (broken scale). So not opposites but contraries, or complementaries.

 

[debra]

Then why has there turned out to be a fundamental duality between algebraic and geometric descriptions of nature?

Why is category theory - the dichotomy of structure~morphism - now considered the philosophical foundations of maths?

Of course, these are not "opposites", which are symmetric states (same scale), but about asymmetries (broken scale). So not opposites but contraries, or complementaries.

Awesome posts here... I am now reading about category theory in relation to objects and classes...

 

[wofsy]

Then why has there turned out to be a fundamental duality between algebraic and geometric descriptions of nature?

Why is category theory - the dichotomy of structure~morphism - now considered the philosophical foundations of maths?

Of course, these are not "opposites", which are symmetric states (same scale), but about asymmetries (broken scale). So not opposites but contraries, or complementaries.

Well as usual your statements require some background that I do not have.

That said, practicing mathematicians use category theory as a tool for describing certain types of structures - but none that I have ever met care about it much and do not think that the deep unity of mathematics has to do with functors and morphisms. In some sense categories do not generally even exist - but whether they do or not is not of much interest to mathematicians that I know or to physicists either.

Your statement about fundamental dichotemies is a simplification in my opinion and again overlooks the subtleties of the underlying mathematics. Algebraic and geometric views of the world are not generally considered to be dichotemous. They coexist within larger mathematical structures along with the analytical. Generally mathematicians and physicists see 3 realms of structure not two - geometric, algebraic, and analytic. They are subtly intertwined - not dichotemous or should I say trichotemous.

But again these three realms are elaborately subdivided and mixed. Clear distinctions between them are often impossible or irrelevant.

 

[apeiron]

Well as usual your statements require some background that I do not have.

Here is some background then...

http://duch.mimuw.edu.pl/~sjack/atiyah.ps

GEOMETRY versus ALGEBRA. So far I have picked out a few general themes.I want now to talk about a dichotomy in mathematics that has been with us all the time,oscillating backwards and forwards, and gives me a chance to make some philosophi-cal speculations or remarks. I refer to the dichotomy between geometry and algebra.Geometry and algebra are the two formal pillars of mathematics, and both are veryancient. Geometry goes back to the Greeks and before; algebra goes back to the Arabsand the Indians, so they have both been fundamental to mathematics, but they havehad an uneasy relationship

You can't get much more of an authority than Atiyah. And Baez is also on the same page if you follow his work - he is explicitly using category theory in a physics ToE approach as well.

Category theory is also basic to Robert Rosen's modelling relations and complex systems.

I should also point out that dichotomies are indeed subtly intertwinned - that is the whole point. And they generate triadic outcomes via the interactions of asymmetric complementarities. So you may be right in thinking things are more complex. Yet dichotomies are the most basic level of things. The making of some division.

 

[wofsy]

Here is some background then...



You can't get much more of an authority than Atiyah. And Baez is also on the same page if you follow his work - he is explicitly using category theory in a physics ToE approach as well.

Category theory is also basic to Robert Rosen's modelling relations and complex systems.

I should also point out that dichotomies are indeed subtly intertwinned - that is the whole point. And they generate triadic outcomes via the interactions of asymmetric complementarities. So you may be right in thinking things are more complex. Yet dichotomies are the most basic level of things. The making of some division.

Appealing to authority convinces no one.

All Atiyah is really saying is that Mathematics began before Analysis was discovered. Actually mathematics began almost completely as geometry and algebra was later added largely during the Islamic Renaissance. Analysis is a recent discovery and Atiyah is a master analyst (not that that really matters). There is no doubt that analysis is a pillar of modern mathematics.

As far as category theory goes I guarantee you that mathematicians do not even spend 1 second on it except maybe these system analysts who I don't know anything about. We call it "abstract nonsense". There is a deep unity to mathematics. But category theory has nothing to do with it.

One last point - much of early algebra can be derived directly as theorems in Euclidean geometry. When I taught algebra and trigonometry I taught it using Euclidean geometry proofs. It is something of an illusion to think that all of algebra is separate or even different from geometry. In a certain sense there is only geometry and analysis.