Science tells us matter doesn't exist

This is science not the wishful thinking of materialist.

Materialist tells us that things like life and consciousness are a secondary function of matter but the materialist has not proven scientifically that matter has an objective existence beyond our perception of it.

What we know is that matter doesn't exist absent observation.

We also know that information contained in any region of space is not found in it's volume but on a 2-D surface or boundary. So volume is an illusion.

The laws of physics are not found out their but they depend on our perception and observation. The laws of physics are found on a 2-D surface area not in 3-D space. So the question is, where does our perception come from? What's our perception connected to?

Our observation brings matter into existence. This is what's shown by science through things like the double slit experiment.

We don't have any observed evidence that matter can exist absent our observation.

So I want a materialist to scientifically prove that matter exists beyond our perception of it.

[edit on 21-4-2009 by platosallegory]

Actually the arrangement of atoms has to be at certain angles because some repel each other and they try to be as far away as possible usually in 3D shapes.

Um, there's some fancy terms for that. But it's molecular arrangement and stuff. I think that's why things are 3D

I'm pretty sure it does exist. And sometimes I think that I'm a brain in a jar or controlling everything or that nothing is real, but you can't dwell on it much and I think there's a psychiatric term for it. So, not healthy to think that way.

I think if this couch wasn't here and matter wasn't, I would just fall to infinity.
But that other thread said infinity wasn't real.

So I'll just chill on this couch and hope it doesn't spontaneously disappear.

I'm not really good at physics and chemistry and math, just a little bit good and I test/learn well. I'm sure someone will come along and know what I'm trying to say about the angles of atoms and molecular formation.

I'm pretty sure I can prove that matter exists. I'll need a baseball bat and a willing subject to take a few hits from it. I'm sure in the end after the broken knee cap the subject will enthusiactically agree that the matter ie:Bat does exist.

Or just ask anyone that's been hit by a car or in a car accident.

Originally posted by platosallegory
What we know is that matter doesn't exist absent observation.

We also know that information contained in any region of space is not found in it's volume but on a 2-D surface or boundary. So volume is an illusion.

The laws of physics are not found out their but they depend on our perception and observation. The laws of physics are found on a 2-D surface area not in 3-D space. So the question is, where does our perception come from? What's our perception connected to?

Our observation brings matter into existence. This is what's shown by science through things like the double slit experiment.

We don't have any observed evidence that matter can exist absent our observation.

So I want a materialist to scientifically prove that matter exists beyond our perception of it.

[edit on 21-4-2009 by platosallegory]

CITATION NEEDED!

You sound like you are referring to some very simplified interpretations of rather outdated quantum theory combined with a few implications of M-theory.

The double slit doesn't prove anything about things existing without observation. Actually, the quantum eraser experiment shows quite conclusively that this phenomena is independent of human interaction.

Additional, the string theories that suggest the 2D basis for the universe have no definitive evidence to back them up. Only some recent noise in data from gravitational wave experiments even comes close. And we are still a few years from any confirmation of this.

Before you go citing science to argue your personal beliefs and philosophy I would recommend advancing your understanding of that science.

reply to post by Quest


Again, I would suggest you answer the question.

Scientifically prove that matter exists.

Materialist always ask you to prove that God, UFO's, the paranormal and more exists. The materialist should be able to scientifically prove that matter has an objective existence outside of our perception of it.

That should be simple.

Show me the scientific experiment that proves that matter exists.

The double slit experiment shows that matter comes into existence when we observe it and it acts as a wave when we are not observing it. Simple and straight forward.

Show me scientifically that matter has an existence independent of our observation.

Also, we know that the maximal entropy of any region of space is determined by information on the boundary of that region and not it's volume. We can also see this in black hole entropy. The entropy of a black hole and all matter is proportional to the surface area and not it's volume.

You have zero scientific evidence that matter has an objective existence beyond our perception of it.

Give me some science please and not opinion. This should be easy for materialist because they are always asking for proof.

Give me some proof.

Even if matter only does exist when you observe it, its still exists, even if we do find that matter doesint exist until we observe it, the implications of which would be enormous, it still exists because of that, let me kick you in the crotch and demonstrate.

Originally posted by grey580
I'm pretty sure I can prove that matter exists. I'll need a baseball bat and a willing subject to take a few hits from it. I'm sure in the end after the broken knee cap the subject will enthusiactically agree that the matter ie:Bat does exist.

Or just ask anyone that's been hit by a car or in a car accident.

ohhh sorry friend but you are incorrect and i tire of seeing people toss this thought around. Think about what is being said here. . . matter is an interpratation of the brain. You can see a lit up lightbulb in your mind in a completely dark space. . . is the light bulb real? Yes its just as real as the lightbulb you actually look at the brain cannot tell the difference in a memory and a physical object at any given time.

Pain is also just an interpratation of electrical impulses inside your brain so the bat the pain and the victim are all merely perceptions. . . this in no way helps the argument is matter real. . . its just more subjective interpritation by your brain

this is a tired used up narrow minded way to avoid a much more interesting philisophical and scientific ideal

You have zero scientific evidence that matter has an objective existence beyond our perception of it.

Because experiments are testable and repeatable. Even if matter were to *poof* out of existence - or into a state of superposition (which it doesn't, this only applies to sub-atomic particles) in the absence of an observer - the introduction of a separate observer, or two, or three, or a hundred separate observers who all observe the same thing, who's experiments all verify the original hypothesis, indicate that even if matter constructs upon observation - it constructs in exactly the same way as it would as if the initial observer had never ceased observing.

The seemingly permanence of the laws of physics and the level of predictability they provide indicate that even if matter does not exist without an observer - then at least some predisposition for an objective reality exists on the sub-atomic level.

There's also the fact that we can observe evidence of past interactions of matter despite the fact that nobody was around to directly observe it at the time of the interaction. For instance, we know there was a point in the past before life began on Earth when the sun ignited.

You ask that someone "scientifically prove" that matter exists, yet you fail to recognize that all of science (including quantum mechanics) RELIES upon the testing and observation of an outside objective reality. The fact that your computer works, your coat keeps you warm, or the food you eat provides you nourishment is testament to this.

[edit on 21-4-2009 by Lasheic]

I'm not certain why the double slit experiment was referenced here. That experiment demonstrated the particle-wave duality of photons. Photons...... interesting things, MUST have mass and yet CAN'T have mass.

But onward to matter....... particles. It has been proven time and time again over the past hundred years plus, the atomic weight of particles. I understand where the OP is coming from....... talking about quantum interactions where the observation of a particle changes it. Quantum interactions and mechanics will allow the observation of the probability of a particle, but not necessarily it's precise position, because at the quantum level, it doesn't occupy an exact space, an exact location within an X/Y/Z matrix. It occupies a probability in space-time.

I don't feel the need to cite this..... it is known. OP, you pose this as a scientific study, however I think it belongs more in a philosophical study. Nothing wrong with that. Not the first time that science and philosophy melded and produced positive results.

The purest proof of matter [in my very humble opinion] is anti-matter; particles with an opposite spin, that, when combined with the inverse spin particle, produce a 100% liberation of their COMBINED energies. Think about that. Combined energies. The full realization of Einstein's famous equation. That is matter.

Good questions, good answers, discussion. I hope your thread opens a crack in all our minds, including mine.

Cheers

+reply to post by Lasheic


Your whole post is wishful thinking and it doesn't answer the simple question.

Scientifically prove that matter has an existence absent of our perception of it.

That should be simple. If you have scientific proof then lets see it. Send me to the paper so I can read the experiment.

You said:

"You ask that someone "scientifically prove" that matter exists, yet you fail to recognize that all of science (including quantum mechanics) RELIES upon the testing and observation of an outside objective reality. The fact that your computer works, your coat keeps you warm, or the food you eat provides you nourishment is testament to this."

Who is doing the testing and observation?

My computer, coat and all matter can be defined by physics written on a 2D surface are not the volume. It doesn't exist in 3D space.

There isn't one experiment that shows that matter has an existence independent of our observation of it.

The observer can understand the laws of physics and do test but you havn't shown any scientific proof that matter exists independent of the observer.

All the things that you have mentioned shows the laws of physics can be understood by the observer, you havn't offered any proof that matter exists in the absence of the observer.

reply to post by argentus


I understand some of the points that you are making but none of it shows that matter has an objective existence outside of our perception of it.

There's no scientific test or experiment that says matter has an objective existence.

We can see these things and carry out test but that's all observation and perception.

Scientifically, the only thing that has been proven is that the Observer can create reality because the observer understands the laws of physics.

There has been no scientific proof that matter exists.

Also, this is a scientific debate not a philosophy debate. This is not about philosophy but the scientific fact that matter has never been proven to exists.

[edit on 21-4-2009 by platosallegory]

reply to post by platosallegory


Those atomic weights exist and are measurable with or without our human participation. Likewise with atomic interaction and the conjunction of matter and antimatter. We may observe or not, but once set into motion the reaction is predictable, measurable, and therefore independent of our participation.

That's the reason I quantified this as a more philosophical discussion. It's akin to the "if a tree falls in the forest and no [creature] is there to [perceive] it, does it make a sound? Well, we know intellectually that if equipment were set up, the observers leave the test area and then the tree being engineered to fall, that it would, in fact, make a recordable sound. The philosopher will argue that no sound was in existance until there was an entity -- via recording device or directly -- to perceive it. The scientist will say, "yes, I hypothesize that a sound will, in fact, occur, however, I will set up and experiment with measurable parameters to test this hypothesis."

Or something to that effect. I'm involved with a biochemical experiment of my own at the moment. It's a pasta creation, and I'm not certain what to call it, I only know that it has measurable mass, perceptable smells, and is receptive to infrared radiation. I also know it will be tasty.

Enjoyable conversation. Thank you platosallegory. Will return later.

Originally posted by platosallegoryWho is doing the testing and observation?

In regards to the coat, as an example, we all are. Every individual who has ever worn a coat has carried out this experiment. The overwhelming consensus is that coats keep you warm. Indeed, coats were discovered by observation of animals and their fur - to which we then killed and stripped that fur off to wear ourselves and found that indeed - they did help keep you warm. It's not so much important that one person was able to stay warm - but that whole tribes and populations were able to stay warm wearing furs and coats - meaning that there is a property to them which is universal across ALL observers. Hence, objective.

My computer, coat and all matter can be defined by physics written on a 2D surface are not the volume. It doesn't exist in 3D space.

Even so, that information about them would still exist outside of yourself. Whether or not matter "poofed" into existence at the moment of observation - as if you were in a computer program that simply wasn't rendering what wasn't onscreen - information that isn't materialized is still present and independent of the observer.

Hence - reality is still objective, though the information is processed through a subjective mind.

Originally posted by platosallegory
+reply to post by Lasheic

 

Scientifically prove that matter has an existence absent of our perception of it.

You cant prove ANYTHING exists except perception!

However this does not prove that observation is firstly seperate to, or matter is created by perception either.

I have said many times on ATS and most people dont ever think about this. It is soo important though.

The light you see now on your screen, the light that makes things light when the sun rises so you can see and walk around, the brightness you see on your screen etc...

How does that light get into your brain? Into and through your skull into the experience you have of light?

Impossible for the light we create and see in our consciousness to get into your brain where we see from.

We create it, it is self generated.

However this does not mean that the stimulus that hits the optic nerve is not independent and separate from the light.

This whole Observer quantum mechanics thing is used in lots of Psuedo science to make wild claims by many people who have no grasp of it.

You cant talk about scrondingers slit/cat without thinking about non locality to, it is like saying sea water is salt.

You may all find this post below on just this subject answers a lot of the misconceptions and non logical statements on this:

What's Inside Your Head When nobodies Observing It?

Kind Regards,

Elf.

I think this guy needs to figure out if the light goes off when you close the refrigerator door. Then once hes enlightened will tell him the answer to this question he has put forward.

reply to post by platosallegory


These are exactly the kinds of questions that inspire further research and promote our growth as a species....I almost wrote 'spiritual' growth, but then I'd be a hypocrite, because my personal jury is still deliberating about that aspect of 'reality'....

My paltry understanding, based on various Science Channel shows, etc., of that (once) 'smallest' bit of 'matter', the atom (according to the Greek philosophy) is that, as science has since learned, there are many, many smaller particles that comprise the atom. What I've seen is that by comparison of the relative sizes and distances it's like a mini solar system.

In other words, lots of 'empty' space. What is difficult is, in our perception of the macro world, the extremely tiny is just very alien to us.

Some thinkers even go so far as to posit that all that we 'see' and 'feel' as matter is really just tightly wound bundles of energy. The protons and neutrons (each made up of smaller 'particles') are gigantic in relation to the electron....and, weirdness never stops there, 'cuz the electron is sometimes a particle, sometimes a wave...or it's always a wave....this is when my eyes get glazed....the very notion of quantum physics says that electrons, in wave form, 'fit' depending on the state of their excitation...their 'waveform' has to match for each jump in state....and when atoms combine to form molecules, again they mesh like puzzle pieces...

I know, this is woefully inadequate as an explanation...and I'm sure I missed a big gaping bunch, someone can help fill it in?

Great subject, got me excited!!


(edit) In the immortal words of Homer J. Simpson, waaaaaay back in the 'dark ages' when they were just a glint in Matt Groening's eye, as featured on "The Tracy Ullman Show"....a Father/Son moment, as Homer tries to answer son Bart's esoteric question about the meaning of matter and thought....Homer says, "What is Mind? Doesn't matter....What is Matter? Nevermind."

Priceless!!!!

[edit on 4/21/0909 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 4/21/0909 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by argentus


Your first line proves my point. You said:

"Those atomic weights exist and are measurable with or without our human participation."

Atomic weight is tied to our observation. When has atomic weight ever been measured without an observer?

This is from Wikipedia:

Atomic weights, unlike atomic masses (the masses of individual atoms), are not physical constants and vary from sample to sample. Nevertheless, they are sufficiently constant in "normal" samples to be of fundamental importance in chemistry.

en.wikipedia.org...

Again, this is scientific. I want scientific proof that matter exist independent of the observer or independent of our perception of it.

This is speculation about your opinion. I want scientific evidence that matter exists.

The common definition of matter is anything that has both mass and volume (occupies space). This simple definition should explain why when your in a dark room and you hit your toes on something why they hurt. The furniture in the room is still there even if you can't see it.

reply to post by platosallegory


Oh no you DIdn't! Yes you DID! You just split hairs between mass and weight based upon a somewhat errant Wiki entry.

Okay, I'm over myself. I just had to have a little chortle.

Platosallegory........ fine, then. I'll play in YOUR arena. Matter is the antithesis of nothingness. Nothingness is the absence of matter. I will (and have as I recall) grant you that our observations on a quantum level influence matter, but.......... please, just ask yourself: What are we influencing? Nothingness? Do you TRUELY believe that?

So....... you believe that we all agree, without concurrence..... that things are how we perceive them and in doing so, manifest the things we all agree are there. God, I wish it were so. At least humanity would have agreed upon something at one point in history.

What you see before you -- eyes closed or open -- is the absence of nothingness. You decide what to call it.

y'have a good evenin' Platosallegory et al; it's stargazin' time for us. Perhaps if I REALLY believe, I can shift Orion's Belt a few arc-seconds by my very will.

Cheers

reply to post by argentus


I thought there wasn't truley nothingness but dark matter. They say it takes up all the space left after matter don't they.