Do physical objects truly exist or are they just illusions?

[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.

 

[apeiron]

Appealing to authority convinces no one.

That was a cite.

There is no doubt that analysis is a pillar of modern mathematics.

Analysis is the thirdness that arises out of the mixing of the dichotomy of discrete~continuous - creating continuous geometry via discrete steps. You call it a pillar supporting something. I see it as the middle ground that forms from the mixing of two opposed metaphysical conceptual extremes.

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.

Interesting. Perhaps you can appeal to...err, I mean cite some authority for such a definite view. Such statements really convince me you have no idea what you are talking about.

Meanwhile go argue with these guys...

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/category-theory/

Category theory has come to occupy a central position in contemporary mathematics and theoretical computer science, and is also applied to mathematical physics. Roughly, it is a general mathematical theory of structures and of systems of structures...Category theory is an alternative to set theory as a foundation for mathematics. As such, it raises many issues about mathematical ontology and epistemology. Category theory thus affords philosophers and logicians much to use and reflect upon.

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.

That is the point. Two languages for describing the same thing. The descrete can be used to describe the continuous (via additive construction). And the continuous can be used to describe the discrete (via a process of downward constraint).

 

[debra]

I can see how Category Theory relates to information theory and its importance is probably underated in mathematics I would humbly say - especially as one of the originator of Categories was taught by Emma Noether no less! But, programming languages are not directly built on it - it may have persuaded programming originators somewhat. We still argue about fundamental 'correctness' of programming languages especially regarding types and encapsulation ontologies.

Noether would have surely agreed that a more general approach was needed than individual time or space translations etc - ie an encapsulated approach using mathematical objects would be more powerful at least. I use that in programming all the time to abstract and encapsulate - its a tool rather than a fundamental philosophy I would suggest.

The idea of 'discrete' as additive construction is a key notion and the one I am running with.

An information system built on a von-neumann machine uses, essentially, only addition to build its complex processing as the building block or 'Pythagorean Monad'. Addition is, essentially, the only thing a register in a processor can do - yet at the higher level we all know just what a digital processing system is capable of.

A digital processing system uses data and instructions - both in digital form - and its the instructions that contains logic (if - not, or, and) that operates on data to produce results. The Turing machine shows that discrete steps with state can solve anything (that is solvalble).


Then does mathematics becomes no more than complex logic operations and truths built on discrete addition? So if 1 + 1 = 10 (binary!) we know something about x + y - it does or does not == 01. Is that all we need to build the rest of mathematics??

In the 'real' universe quantum states provide the discreteness needed for this ontology to be realized in the 'real' universe.
And poor old analogue is then a long range view of discrete processes which can also give us suspect philosophies
to lead us down false or only partially true paths.

My question is: Can addition (of information units) build mathematics completely? So higher mathematical laws are built on the 'truth' that 01 + 01 = 10 (in binary!) and logical operators?

So then the beauty of mathematics is built on merely 1 + 1 = 2 (sorry guys, convince me that this is not the case please)

 

[wofsy]

I can see how Category Theory relates to information theory and its importance is probably underated in mathematics I would humbly say - especially as one of the originator of Categories was taught by Emma Noether no less! Then does mathematics becomes no more than complex logic operations and truths built on discrete addition? So if 1 + 1 = 10 (binary!) we know something about x + y - it does or does not == 01. Is that all we need to build the rest of mathematics??

In the 'real' universe quantum states provide the discreteness needed for this ontology to be realized in the 'real' universe.My question is: Can addition (of information units) build mathematics completely? So higher mathematical laws are built on the 'truth' that 01 + 01 = 10 (in binary!) and logical operators?

Without the notion of a limit - or more generally the idea of continuity - you can not have most of mathematics. On the other hand you can have discrete approximation. Computers are discrete approximators. But mathematics can not be derived from discrete approximations without limits.

Disreteness on the other hand is derivable from continuity e.g. the intersection of two Euclidean lines produces a point. Computers would seems to be an example of a discrete object derived from a continuum.

BTW: Quantum mechanics does not give up the idea of continuity. The Shroedinger equation for the hydrogen atom for instance has continuous standing wave solutions. The possible spin states of a spin 1/2 particle form a Lie group - a continuous manifold with uncountably infinitely many points. How does a computer produce that except only by approximation?

Discrete approximation can not reach a limit without an ambient metric. This metric always exists outside of the discrete space.

One might say that one could still use the discrete without a metric to inductively construct a continuum. Such a process would create a countable infinity of points such as say the points that one could construct from repeated ruler an compass constructions. However even if one could do this forever - and a computer could never do this forever - and complete the inductive process, the number of points would only be countably infinite. The continuum is an uncountable infinity.

If our minds are really Turing machines endowed with some incredibly complex self adapting program one would have to say how this program could conceive of and picture visually continuums and other non-inductively described objects. It seems to be true that nerves are merely on off switches with thresholds so perhaps this is possible in some yet mysterious way. Simply asked, "How does the discrete conceive of the continuous?"

Perhaps you can explain why you think Category theory is important to the deep unity of Mathematics. A group is a category with one object in which all of the morphisms are isomorphisms. What does that tell me about groups? The derivative is a covariant functor from the category of differentiable manifolds and differentiable maps to the category of differentiable vector bundles and vector bundle morphisms. What does this tell me about differentiable manifolds other than restate the Chain Rule?

 

[Anticitizen]

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.

In order to argue from first principles, one must first determine what they are.

 

[debra]

We are told that matter is 99% empty space, so we are arguing whether matter is 'real physical material', as in little pieces of gray rock or similar analogies - the linguistic meaning - or does that not exist and what we call matter is something else - non-material?

 

[wofsy]

In order to argue from first principles, one must first determine what they are.

well put

 

[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?)

Can you elaborate your idea more?

If matter is mathematical or informational (what does "informational" exactly mean? Explain) - then what is it that we experience and observe with instruments?

 

[wofsy]

My question is: Does Matter Really Exist?

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

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

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

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

Thanks in advance, Daisey

I am not sure of this Daisey but I think that when elementary particles interact they form a composite that is not merely the sum of their parts. Perhaps you know more about this - but when say when a proton and electron combine to form a hydrogen atom you get a new wave function. A large object like an ice cube would have its own wave function as well. Maybe this means that from the point of view of your question that matter does exist.

 

[debra]

Can you elaborate your idea more?

If matter is mathematical or informational (what does "informational" exactly mean? Explain) - then what is it that we experience and observe with instruments?

Seth LLoyd at MIT, Nick Bostrom at Oxford Uni and Zeilinger (germany I think) are working in
this area.

Rather than writing 10 pages let's draw an analogy between a virtual 3D simulation as in Sims or any 3D computer game and say that the universe is operating in a similar sort of way - in that its using data and instructions (that's the information part) in a von-neumann-like machine - maybe based on quantum state changes or similar.
Nick Bostrom (a philosopher) claims we are in a computer simulation of some sort and is not interested in the technical details of how this works - he is more interested in who or what made the machine. I do not follow his view point - but that is a whole new story.

The implications of this are many - not many people have worked through them yet. There is lots of room for even home-made implications of this theory (one of my guesses is that there is only a present time, you can make more implications yourself)

But, a computer generates its 3D space entirely from binary co-ordinates and everything in the scene is also generated from binary. Now, binary is actually 'numbers' only isn't it?

So when someone says its all a hologram or there is nothing there, in a sense (in this theory) they are correct. At a low abstraction level everything is made from numbers. But that is a sort of newspaper exciting description which nevertheless has some validity. A more formal definition is available if you want it.

Binary is flat 1s and 0s and it gives only an illusion of a 3D space and also an illusion of objects in that space. By our own definition it is all an illusion (but as Einstein said a very good one).

I prefer the term mathematical objects, because that restores a sense of atoms - even though they are only made of numbers! - sorry about this if its new to you, it must sound odd...

What I like about it is the view that everything is built on logic - which we kind of suspected anyway (remember the comprehendable universe idea?)

 

[wofsy]

Seth LLoyd at MIT, Nick Bostrom at Oxford Uni and Zeilinger (germany I think) are working in
this area.

Rather than writing 10 pages let's draw an analogy between a virtual 3D simulation as in Sims or any 3D computer game and say that the universe is operating in a similar sort of way - in that its using data and instructions (that's the information part) in a von-neumann-like machine - maybe based on quantum state changes or similar.
Nick Bostrom (a philosopher) claims we are in a computer simulation of some sort and is not interested in the technical details of how this works - he is more interested in who or what made the machine. I do not follow his view point - but that is a whole new story.

The implications of this are many - not many people have worked through them yet. There is lots of room for even home-made implications of this theory (one of my guesses is that there is only a present time, you can make more implications yourself)

But, a computer generates its 3D space entirely from binary co-ordinates and everything in the scene is also generated from binary. Now, binary is actually 'numbers' only isn't it?

So when someone says its all a hologram or there is nothing there, in a sense (in this theory) they are correct.

Binary is flat 1s and 0s and it gives only an illusion of a 3D space and also an illusion of objects in that space. By our own definition it is all an illusion (but as Einstein said a very good one).

I prefer the term mathematical objects, because that restores a sense of atoms - even though they are only made of numbers! - sorry about this...

What I like about it is the view that everything is built on logic - which we kind of suspected anyway (remember the comprehendable universe idea?)

Interesting - maybe I'm going off track with this question - but the simulation must be realized in something sensible. How is that purely digital?

How would such a simulation start - what would produce it? - is this a systems idea of emergent complexity from simple interactions? In the beginning there was a random number generator?

BTW: I could tolerate a long explanation.

 

[Collisionman]

My question is: Does Matter Really Exist?

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

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

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

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

Thanks in advance, Daisey

I think, therefore I am.

 

[debra]

Interesting - maybe I'm going off track with this question - but the simulation must be realized in something sensible. How is that purely digital?

How would such a simulation start - what would produce it? - it this a systems idea of emergent complexity from simple interactions? In the beginning there was a random number generator?

BTW: I could tolerate a long explanation.

Yes, the question of how it all started... It needs something changing state, quantum states look suspiciously close to what is required. And its probably self-booting and makes its own hardware too. How can it make its own hardware? Because there is intelligence contained in the instructions or program. Maybe supplied by previous aliens - maybe self evolved, not sure, have not given it much thought. Even we (possibly more advanced than now) could design a (bad) universe already. Some universities are modelling particles in computers now.

Don't forget that all a computer register can do and needs to do is add 01 + 01 = 11.
It is that monad that is able to perform logic, subtract, multiply, show digital films etc etc. Its that simple addition that provides a platform for intelligence to evolve. It needs instructions and data and a von-neumann-like machine. Von Neumann, John Wheeler both suspected this and it was Wheeler who blurted out 'we are all in a damn great computer' as a joke.

So the intelligence resides in its instructions (a program) -also in binary (or QuBits).

Why a universe at all? I would GUESS that an intelligence of some sort wanted it for some reason and designed it. By 'it' some logical process encapsulated (even trapped) in the information.

How did it start? You tell me, not thought much about that. A random number generator - it sounds an interesting idea to me because that would give evolution a chance eh? Great idea Wofsy!

 

[Pythagorean]

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

This is what we mean by proof though. We're not talking about the math definition of proof or any other kind of self-contained logic proof. Any useful logic proof would require it's premises to be true, and those premises could only be proven empirically. It's the causal use of the word (yeah, that was a pun). Anyway, I don't wish to argue semantics.

What is the difference between a theory that is shown to be incorrect, and one that just needs more refining? Nothing really.

I beg to differ. You seem to be picky about what a proof is, but then not picky here. But if you want to get down to the thinking that goes behind science, then you ought to realize the point and practice of assumption and how they're interpreted as "IF" statements (or conditional boundaries).

In this way, we can say Newton's theory is correct in the limit. Of course there's always a chance that something is excluded, or a special case is included that shouldn't be, but that will always be the case, so there's never going to be a "correct" theory, since we can never prove a negative. So your conclusion would lead us to believe that we stand over a gaping chasm of nihilism and might as well not formulate any theories, since we can never have a correct theory and all incorrect theories are equally bad.

Of course, you contradict yourself (on the point that there's no difference) when you realize this difference: it's usefulness.

Science is empirical philosophy, prediction based on evidence.

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

Yes, but that's not my point. Empirical philosophy alone may be sufficient for an experimentalist, but theoretical physicists may employ a number of different philosophies. In my office (where we do both experimental and theoretical) we don't follow the "steps of the scientific method". Empiricism is necessary, but it need not stand alone.

 

[JoeDawg]

and those premises could only be proven empirically.

Actually, that is my point, no they can't.

Anyway, I don't wish to argue semantics.

Calling it semantics is a diservice to what science actually does well.

You seem to be picky about what a proof is, but then not picky here.

Actually I'm just as picky about the proper scientific use of the word 'theory'. A good scientific theory offers an explanation that both furthers understanding, offers predictions, and aligns well with other theories. But whether that theory describes the universe correctly is an entirely different matter.

Newton didn't actually have much use for theories, he preferred to just 'describe' nature, not explain it. His law of gravity simply describes what gravity does. Einstein, by contrast, wanted to know how this 'action at a distance' worked. He developed a theory to 'explain' it.

So your conclusion would lead us to believe that we stand over a gaping chasm of nihilism and might as well not formulate any theories, since we can never have a correct theory and all incorrect theories are equally bad.

While its certainly generous of you to put so many words in my mouth and supply my conclusion for me, I beg to differ..

My conclusion has nothing nihilistic about it. The fact a theory is incorrect doesn't make it bad, incorrect theories can be very useful. Your value judgment has little utility. The fact is that all 'theories' in the history of science, regardless of how useful, have been incomplete. This doesn't in any way mean they are all equally anything.

we don't follow the "steps of the scientific method".

Which one?

Or did you mean you like to read your horoscope with your morning coffee?

 

[Pythagorean]

The fact is that all 'theories' in the history of science, regardless of how useful, have been incomplete. This doesn't in any way mean they are all equally anything.

As long as you realize that, we're in agreement. I didn't quote your whole post in my last one. You can go back and look at your post where you said "What's the difference? Nothing" to see where I may have come to the conclusion that you were calling a theory that's completely wrong and one that's slightly inaccurate have "nothing" as a difference.

The theories will always be incomplete.

Which one?

This one:

* Ask a Question
* Do Background Research
* Construct a Hypothesis
* Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
* Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
* Communicate Your Results

We start with the experiment (the experiments going on 24/7 and passing the data to us every hour) then we analyze the data and play with it. We do the background research as we play with the data. Playing with the data is where the questions and hypothesis come from. Sometimes we don't even directly acknowledge the question.

The important step is play. That's our philosophy, pretty much. We do what we're doing because we enjoy it and we're actually interested in the nature of the phenomena we're studying.

Or did you mean you like to read your horoscope with your morning coffee?

Yeah, this, but instead of picking your birth month you randomly pick any month. It still works wonders.

 

[JoeDawg]

As long as you realize that, we're in agreement. I didn't quote your whole post in my last one. You can go back and look at your post where you said "What's the difference? Nothing" to see where I may have come to the conclusion that you were calling a theory that's completely wrong and one that's slightly inaccurate have "nothing" as a difference.

A theory is not an observation. Its how we frame an observation. Its not a thing with solid edges, its a concept. If I have 3 theories, two of which support each other, and the third contradicts the other two, which is correct? With regards to what is correct, there is no difference. One scientist might accept the two, merely because they explain more, with regards to what she is interested in. Another scientist might put value on what the 3rd explains, simply because he wants to test its limits. There are plenty of cases where the third has turned out to be the 'more useful' theory, long term. And that is all we can really say about theories. And no, that doesn't equate to all theories are equal. But the value of theory is in its utility, not its correctness. The latter is something only the gods know.

Getting back to matter. This word doesn't describe data, its a name for how we organize the data. So when you go from saying matter is made up of particles called atoms, to a matter/energy paradigm, its not just 'more accurate'. Its a different theory entirely, on the most basic level, its a different conception. And that often leads to new insights which can be useful.

This is not just semantics. And its important because sometimes the line between science and pseudo-science is not at all clear.

That question you ask to start... it is not random, even if its pure inspiration, it draws on your stable of theories. And that is why understanding what a theory is, is so important to any method.

And there is no one method to science, that idea died with logical positivism.

 

[Pythagorean]

A theory is not an observation. Its how we frame an observation. Its not a thing with solid edges, its a concept. If I have 3 theories, two of which support each other, and the third contradicts the other two, which is correct? With regards to what is correct, there is no difference. One scientist might accept the two, merely because they explain more, with regards to what she is interested in. Another scientist might put value on what the 3rd explains, simply because he wants to test its limits. There are plenty of cases where the third has turned out to be the 'more useful' theory, long term. And that is all we can really say about theories. And no, that doesn't equate to all theories are equal. But the value of theory is in its utility, not its correctness. The latter is something only the gods know.

This isn't where our disagreement lies. In fact, the point that you make in your last sentence (assuming it was a secular statement) is where the whole matter of "correctness" becomes irrelevant, even in terms of philosophy. We have no access to it, so anything we say about it is a wild guess. We could all be brains in vats, blah blah blah... boring and completely unproductive.

Getting back to matter. This word doesn't describe data, its a name for how we organize the data. So when you go from saying matter is made up of particles called atoms, to a matter/energy paradigm, its not just 'more accurate'. Its a different theory entirely, on the most basic level, its a different conception. And that often leads to new insights which can be useful.

So? You seem to be more interested in the question "what is matter" which is actually an interesting question; but it's not the question of this thread. The question is "does matter exist?" which is boring. It's really a ridiculous question that you and I both know the answer to (no matter how vehemently you may prepare to deny it).

Matter didn't stop existing and then force itself back into reality as a new theory emerged. We didn't give it a new name. (Of course you know this). We observed energy, we observed matter, we observed a direct relationship between the two. We don't tear down everything we knew about matter. In fact, we use the old theory to validate the new theory. In the same way, QM better validate the observations of Classical. The theories themselves are really beside the point. To some extent, one could even argue that the part of the theory that isn't observation... is interpretation.

What's important is the observation of some phenomena that we've dubbed "matter". It necessarily exists (ignoring the fruitless possibility that we're brains in vats or solipsists.)

This is not just semantics. And its important because sometimes the line between science and pseudo-science is not at all clear.

Actually, it is semantics (either that, or you're being pedantic) stemming from my casual use of the English language. I've tried to be more explicit in this post.

That question you ask to start... it is not random, even if its pure inspiration, it draws on your stable of theories. And that is why understanding what a theory is, is so important to any method.

I hope I didn't give you the impression that I "draw questions from a hat" at work...

And there is no one method to science[...]

Which was my point.

 

[JoeDawg]

We have no access to it, so anything we say about it is a wild guess.

Which means, what we have access to, is experience data, and our theoretical framework.

Data doesn't tell us that matter exists. Data is just data. Matter is a description of what the data means. So yes, the definition of matter is important to the question of whether it exists.

So? You seem to be more interested in the question "what is matter" which is actually an interesting question; but it's not the question of this thread.

If you don't know what you're talking about, how can you say whether 'it' exists. It is not the data, IT is your conclusion about the data.

The question is "does matter exist?" which is boring.

And yet you seem interested enough to post to a thread specifically about that.

Matter didn't stop existing and then force itself back into reality as a new theory emerged.

You are confusing data and theory.

To some extent, one could even argue that the part of the theory that isn't observation... is interpretation.

Exactly, 'matter' is an interpretation of the data.

What's important is the observation of some phenomena that we've dubbed "matter". It necessarily exists (ignoring the fruitless possibility that we're brains in vats or solipsists.)

The observation 'exists' whether you are a solipsist or not. Its the intepretation that will invariably be in dispute.

 

[Pythagorean]

Exactly, 'matter' is an interpretation of the data.

I'm not sure how you're using data, but observations are not just data in the technical sense. We have to qualify, we can't just quantify it. But the way I generally use data, it pertains more to the methodology than the observation. I don't know what you mean by "experience data".

Anyway, matter is not an interpretation of data. We're not saying "oh, this must be what's happening behind the scenes based on what we see". That's an interpretation. We're calling the phenomena that gives rise to the data "matter". The interpretation comes into a theory of how matter works and interacts with the world.

We see this thing and we're like "oh, what's this?" We give it a name, knowing little about it (i.e. "matter"). Then we begin playing with it to see how it acts. Interpretation has not entered into it yet. We're just collecting data on this thing we've named matter.

We don't want to solidly define it because we're afraid (rightly so) that we'd be wrong, but we know it's something and that it exists, we're just not completely sure what it is. We name it "matter"

The question of what matter is, is still being answered. A rather pointless pursuit for something that doesn't exist.

That is, there's a difference between saying "the world is ending" and saying "the world as we know it is ending". The first speaks to the existence of the world, the second to the nature of the thing.

 

[octelcogopod]

To the OP:

Matter as we see it is a subjectively emergent property of fundamental forces and particles.
Because of the way our bodies are built of electrons and our eyes and brain interpret light waves coming off surfaces, we perceive these as solid whole objects.
Whether they exist or not depends on what viewpoint you look at it from.
If we were the size of sub atomic particles maybe they wouldn't exist to us.
They exist to us as humans though.