The following post got me thinking:
“First of all I suggest you do a little research before you talk nonsense. I will quote the definition of a theoretical point particle. All you have to do is look it up. “A point particle (ideal particle or point-like particle, often spelled pointlike particle) is an idealization of particles heavily used in physics. Its defining feature is that it lacks spatial extension: being zero-dimensional, it does not take up space.” This is often used in the theory of gravitation and electromagnetism. Now I will quote the definition of energy in physics, from the same source: “In physics, energy is a property of objects which can be transferred to other objects or converted into different forms. The ability of a system to perform work”.
Secondly, I did not imply that “reality is unreal” or that it doesn’t exist. You just didn’t get the gist of what I said. What I conveyed is that matter isn’t matter in the way you have been taught, in the way you think it is. I very much agree with the fact that things cannot magically originate from nothingness. I never claimed otherwise. Actually, this fact in itself suggests that existence is a paradox. The Big Bang must have been caused by something else, and in turn that something else must have had a cause as well. If you really think about it, there must be infinite origins. That, or things really do come from nothingness. Once you really understand what this means, you come to the conclusion that both of those options are illogical and paradoxical. Infinity is as illogical as something coming from nothing. The fact that you pointed that out yourself and don’t realize the implications of the concept shows you really have no idea what you are talking about.
Let’s talk for a bit about these concepts. The existence of just one thing implies that either it originated from nothing at some point, or it had a beginning. It having a beginning suggests that there must be infinite beginnings. If the Big Bang came from something, that something must have come from something, and that something from something. On and on and on. Now, you might think you understand infinity. You’ll say: It’s just something that does not end. But you can’t even begin to wrap your mind around such a concept. Can you imagine an infinite amount of colors? Whether they exist or not, you can’t. Ultimately, infinity is just as nonsensical as something coming from nothing. Let me ask you something: *If the universe comes from nothing, why did the Big Bang wait all eternity to spark up?
Having cleared that up, we can then come back to discussing the nature of matter by applying the concept of either an infinite amount of origins or an origin from nothingness. There are only those two options. Taking into account the fact that physics breakes matter down until it reaches point particles, we can come to the conclusion that matter cannot be physical. It cannot be physical because if everything has to be made of something else (you yourself pointed that out), then that would imply that matter can break down infinitely. Even if it is made of a tangible energy, that energy must have also come from somewhere, it must have a cause. Because infinity makes as much sense as an origin from nothingness (zero sense), the only conclusion you are left with is that reality is mental, because the only way you and I experience it, as well as any other form of life which can perceive, is mentally. Through awareness. Scientifically, it is impossible to prove this concept right or wrong.
I do not claim to have all the answers and I recognize the paradoxical nature of existence, unlike you. It doesn’t matter whether mind creates the universe or the universe creates mind. The fact that either or exists implies a paradox, because things cannot come from nothing and things cannot have infinite beginnings. The idealism I am “espousing” is not a fact, it is a theory just like everything else, just like the theory of a material reality. I did not claim it was a fact, and anyone who devotes their lives to something so difficult to prove is surely idiotic. I was simply exploring the idea, because it is interesting. Ultimately you cannot deny that you cannot prove reality is objective. Trying to prove it would be like trying to touch your finger tip with that same finger. It cannot be done, because the only tools you have to prove that reality, are made of that reality. A wise man knows he knows nothing, and stays in neutral ground while considering all the possibilities. That’s what I’m doing.”
If it’s true about those particles not taking up any space whatsoever, what does that mean for reality? How can something that feels like its there ultimately be made from nothing?
It seems to me that when philosophy tries to explain reality it usually defaults to some god as that is the only way it holds arguments together when you press them hard enough.
Where did this come from? It is not a “thought” piece at all. It is an anti-thought piece. It takes an important concept like “infinity” and says it is silly. It restates Munchausen’s trilemma and claims to have come up with something new. It responds to none of the many responses to this philosophical problem.
Where did this come from? It is not a "thought" piece at all. It is an anti-thought piece. It takes an important concept like "infinity" and says it is silly. It restates Munchausen's trilemma and claims to have come up with something new. It responds to none of the many responses to this philosophical problem.Can you expand on that? This was a part of a piece from A debate about solipsism and it seems good to me. How can something go on forever? How can something have infinite beginnings? How can we use infinity if we can't fathom what endless is? The bit about the particles is true as well when I checked it out. Those point particles take up no space, which I find curious. How can matter be made up of particles that take up no space? How do such things even exist?
Where did this come from? It is not a "thought" piece at all. It is an anti-thought piece. It takes an important concept like "infinity" and says it is silly. It restates Munchausen's trilemma and claims to have come up with something new. It responds to none of the many responses to this philosophical problem.Can you expand on that? This was a part of a piece from A debate about solipsism and it seems good to me. How can something go on forever? How can something have infinite beginnings? How can we use infinity if we can't fathom what endless is? The bit about the particles is true as well when I checked it out. Those point particles take up no space, which I find curious. How can matter be made up of particles that take up no space? How do such things even exist? I could, but I'm way past doing that kind of work for you. You don't care. Read a physics book. You'll notice that they don't have philosophical problems with these things. You don't even know what you are asking. "use infinity", what do you mean?
Where did this come from? It is not a "thought" piece at all. It is an anti-thought piece. It takes an important concept like "infinity" and says it is silly. It restates Munchausen's trilemma and claims to have come up with something new. It responds to none of the many responses to this philosophical problem.Can you expand on that? This was a part of a piece from A debate about solipsism and it seems good to me. How can something go on forever? How can something have infinite beginnings? How can we use infinity if we can't fathom what endless is? The bit about the particles is true as well when I checked it out. Those point particles take up no space, which I find curious. How can matter be made up of particles that take up no space? How do such things even exist? I could, but I'm way past doing that kind of work for you. You don't care. Read a physics book. You'll notice that they don't have philosophical problems with these things. You don't even know what you are asking. "use infinity", what do you mean? I do care about this since it seems rather fascinating. But what do you mean they don't have philosophical problems with these things. According to what I read about these point particles they don't take up any space, so doesn't that essentially make them "nothing"? Or am I missing something? I ask here because unfortunately I lack the mental ability to piece things together in such a way (or at least it takes me a very long time to do so, and I mean LONG). I ask here because everyone else seems to have a better handle on critical thinking than I do.
http://www.kyranarcher.com/how-science-proves-that-we-actually-dont-exist/
Ignoring the bits about religion, this follows similar lines.
http://www.kyranarcher.com/how-science-proves-that-we-actually-dont-exist/ Ignoring the bits about religion, this follows similar lines.How can you ignore the bits about religion in that? Instead, ignore this, "science has proven that it is impossible for “nothing" to become “something". " Show me were science proved that. Really, just stop reading these things. Or at least stop posting them here. This is the cosmological argument, solved by a bare assertion that God exists. Look that up and read the counter arguments to it. If you have questions about that, I might answer them.
But how can something come from nothing as is the case with the point particles?
The whole bit seems to be about the “first cause”. Like what created god if god were true. Some counter it by saying that god is exempt from this but there is the question as to what makes such a thing exempt from having a cause.
But even if that was the case it still doesn’t answer how such particles take up no space and yet make up the matter around us which does take up space. Doesn’t that mean that reality is mental if that’s the case? Also what caused the Big Bang anyway? Isn’t the secular argument for beginnings subject to the same infinite regress that the god one is?
Kyran Archer did a nice job with his website.
Would like to make a related point from past history.
Searched for the oldest written text. It turned out to be a beer tab.
Then searched for old pre-history data. Was surprised to find out that in the Rig Veda they were talking about “matter" and how the earth, universe and everything was made up of matter. As for the creation of the universe, they said that it was unknown and that mankind may never know the answer.
You are trying to figure out one of the oldest known questions of mankind. Good luck. :coolsmile:
When Mike and I agree, take it seriously.
But how can something come from nothing as is the case with the point particles?The trouble I think you're running into is the notion that particle physics, and theoretical physics in general, is really about explaining the data, explaining the results of some experiment of observation without worrying about "the truth" of the matter. It's kind of like a blind person who's been blind since birth. They've never seen a face, or a rock, or a bowling ball, but they've "observed and measured" them with their hands. And so they form a coherent picture as it were of the world without ever having actually seen the subject of their observations. Similarly with massless objects. Physicists have worked out mathematical equations that explain the observed data, and use those equations in useful ways. And it just so happens that the equations implying something they describe to us laymen as "massless particles". What they really are, who knows. But whatever they are, when a scientist use their mathematical equation "stand-ins" results get explained, other objects can be described (equations created) etc. That's all it is - a buch of very smart blind people trying to build a mathematical picture of a reality that is not available to them. Where things go off the rails, IMHO as a layman, is when they start ascribing actual reality to the mathematical objects themselves, as some seem to do in quantum theory with the wave function and whatnot.
But how can something come from nothing as is the case with the point particles?The trouble I think you're running into is the notion that particle physics, and theoretical physics in general, is really about explaining the data, explaining the results of some experiment of observation without worrying about "the truth" of the matter. It's kind of like a blind person who's been blind since birth. They've never seen a face, or a rock, or a bowling ball, but they've "observed and measured" them with their hands. And so they form a coherent picture as it were of the world without ever having actually seen the subject of their observations. Similarly with massless objects. Physicists have worked out mathematical equations that explain the observed data, and use those equations in useful ways. And it just so happens that the equations implying something they describe to us laymen as "massless particles". What they really are, who knows. But whatever they are, when a scientist use their mathematical equation "stand-ins" results get explained, other objects can be described (equations created) etc. That's all it is - a buch of very smart blind people trying to build a mathematical picture of a reality that is not available to them. Where things go off the rails, IMHO as a layman, is when they start ascribing actual reality to the mathematical objects themselves, as some seem to do in quantum theory with the wave function and whatnot. So how does that relate to the particles that don't take up space? Are they just beyond our ability to measure and comprehend?
But how can something come from nothing as is the case with the point particles?The trouble I think you're running into is the notion that particle physics, and theoretical physics in general, is really about explaining the data, explaining the results of some experiment of observation without worrying about "the truth" of the matter. It's kind of like a blind person who's been blind since birth. They've never seen a face, or a rock, or a bowling ball, but they've "observed and measured" them with their hands. And so they form a coherent picture as it were of the world without ever having actually seen the subject of their observations. Similarly with massless objects. Physicists have worked out mathematical equations that explain the observed data, and use those equations in useful ways. And it just so happens that the equations implying something they describe to us laymen as "massless particles". What they really are, who knows. But whatever they are, when a scientist use their mathematical equation "stand-ins" results get explained, other objects can be described (equations created) etc. That's all it is - a buch of very smart blind people trying to build a mathematical picture of a reality that is not available to them. Where things go off the rails, IMHO as a layman, is when they start ascribing actual reality to the mathematical objects themselves, as some seem to do in quantum theory with the wave function and whatnot. So how does that relate to the particles that don't take up space? Are they just beyond our ability to measure and comprehend?Um, I guess you missed my point. That's what I'm refering to as massless particles. Physicists have experimental data that needs explaining...the measurements. Comprehending means finding equations that can predict other experimental data based on the existing data. When they talk to us laymen they use words like massless particles. When they talk to each other they use those words as shortcuts to the whole sets of equations related to the particle. Even the word "particle" is just a nice little discussion-aid. The trouble we laymen get into is trying to reason about these things based on the non-mathematical properties we ascribe to the "discussion-aid".
But how can something come from nothing as is the case with the point particles?Read Lawrence Krauss' book A Universe From Nothing. The total energy in the universe is zero. How so, you ask. Easy. Add all the matter in the universe and subtract the potential energy from gravitational attraction and the total is zero. The universe is just a special case of nothing.