Can You Prove That Matter Exists

I have chosen to ask this question on a science thread, I intent to move it to a philosophy or spiritual threat; but, I wanted the hardest audience first. There is a quantum physicist that said the only thing we know is real is matter. He is an aethiest. I have no problem with that. Perhaps you can explain how you can prove that matter exists.

How do you prove that this is not all an illusion being experienced by a sentient being, yourself for instance? From a purely logical standpoint, how do you prove that matter exists if you do not believe the observer exists as an independent sentient being? I do believe it is fair to ask a phylosophical question of science minded people when they ask science questions of phylosophical people. Fair is fair. Now if your answer involves the fact that "we can observe it" then you have already said that we are sentient and can observe, as a consequence you have to reconcile the two, because you prove we exist before you prove there is matter, to know that fact requires an observer.

This is primarilly for the phylosophy section, but, how can I fairly address it there if I have not allowed the science community their explanation? I cannot. I don't spell check and probably won't, having said that I read a lot of quantum physics and understand the current state of scientific research. You are more than free to use all of the jargon of your trade and I will translate it and you can correct my translation so long as you are honest.

Some of you may not agree that the only thing we know to be true is matter, if that is the case then how do you explain sentience and why do you believe matter exists at all? If my question appears more phylosophical than science related then I will ask the moderators to allow it for two weeks on this thread because I only want to hear the science and do not intent to discuss the spiritual until science has waded in on their ground.

reply to post by AQuestion


you cannot, no science has, no science will

you can prove philosophically that you perceive matter (and debate endlessly about it)

reply to post by AQuestion


Wasn't it Descartes who formed the foundation of philosophy with the line "I think therefore I am"? That's the building block in philosophical studies. This quantum physicist seems to be putting the cart before the horse.

reply to post by XmikaX


Dear XmikaX,

I understand your answer; but, a very famous quantum physicist said we could only prove matter was real, I wish to allow science people the opportunity to give their best evidence. Those of the science community that do not agree with his comment are free to give an alternate, I am open to all comments. Be well.

Originally posted by mathematic
reply to post by AQuestion

 

Wasn't it Descartes who formed the foundation of philosophy with the line "I think therefore I am"? That's the building block in philosophical studies. This quantum physicist seems to be putting the cart before the horse.

Dear mathematic,

I do not believe this is the forum for correcting quantum physicists or other scientists, that is why I asked to have it moved to another forum later. This is in this forum so that they can give others the best science behind what the physicist said. I do not wish to argue with them, I wish to hear their explanation, move the thread and then examine the answers in a philosophical thread; but, we need to allow for their answer first. That is fair and that is what I am attempting to achieve, it requires patience which will hopefully allow for a deeper understanding of both.

reply to post by AQuestion



I believe philosophy is a good way to help open up a mind block. For example, someone could have an epiphany (you know those Dr Who'esque idea moments ) in philosophical discussion and find that missing equation they needed to make their theory work with the rest of physics. I don't think they should be debated over, I personally believe they can have a beneficial relationship as long as each one knows its place theres no need for the two to fight lol.

Originally posted by XmikaX
reply to post by AQuestion

 

you cannot, no science has, no science will

you can prove philosophically that you perceive matter (and debate endlessly about it)

What the Great Philosophy Proves is what you believe to be your sense of PERCEPTION is not
Perception at all but the Avoidance of Relationship. When you grasp that you will know everything.

You can't really prove its existence beyond our capacity to perceive it. To paraphrase the philosopher George Berkeley, no matter can exist beyond some mind to perceive it. A quantum physicist should know that an electron is both everywhere and nowhere until it is measured ( aka perceived).

Read Principles of Human Knowledge by George Berkeley for his solution to your philosophical question.

reply to post by topherman420


Dear topherman420,

I believe that we should allow both sides to be heard fully, we don't to each other well and if science people feel they are being attacked then they will feel restricted from saying what they believe. I don't wish to educate at this point, I wish to listen and I ask that they be allowed to speak. I narrowed the question sufficiently to be allowed on this thread and wish to keep it to the original question and the original audience. Please show patience and wait two weeks for the thread to be moved before discussing philopsophy. Thank you.

reply to post by hayek11


Exactly. The whole basis of quantum mechanics is that electrons behave differently as a result of being observed or not. Particle or wave? Behavior is affected simply by there being an observer.

reply to post by AQuestion


Well first i vote to leave it here... it is in the right area... the questions is a very basic one of science hard or soft...

(note philosophy is not a science at all)



No one here even bothered to answer the first question.... shame I thought this was to deny ignorance....


Basic science can answer your question...

Follow good sir the scientific method...


it is the original five step program...

The questions has been asked now follow down the chart..

problem
hypothesis
test
observations
conclusion

and their is a legendary sixth part...

rinse & repeat...


test what your senses tell you

go from there...

@ those who are curious it is simple... stand up remove your hands away from the computer and...

slam your head down as fast as you can... note the results... do your senses tell you reality exist.... for if the matter didn't would it have behaved that way...

It is at this point the next step begins...


What did you observe... it leads to the next test....

how do you test response time of senses....

trust me,

research a little their are known discrepancies

gtg will answer more later

Originally posted by ripcontrol
reply to post by AQuestion

 

Well first i vote to leave it here... it is in the right area... the questions is a very basic one of science hard or soft...

(note philosophy is not a science at all)



No one here even bothered to answer the first question.... shame I thought this was to deny ignorance....


Basic science can answer your question...

Follow good sir the scientific method...


it is the original five step program...

The questions has been asked now follow down the chart..

problem
hypothesis
test
observations
conclusion

and their is a legendary sixth part...

rinse & repeat...


test what your senses tell you

go from there...

@ those who are curious it is simple... stand up remove your hands away from the computer and...

slam your head down as fast as you can... note the results... do your senses tell you reality exist.... for if the matter didn't would it have behaved that way...

It is at this point the next step begins...


What did you observe... it leads to the next test....

how do you test response time of senses....

trust me,

research a little their are known discrepancies

gtg will answer more later

Dear ripcontrol,

Thank you for your answer, I will address answers when this thread had been move, you are welcome to follow it and respond in that forum. I like the scientific method and that is what I wish to address in the future. I do not understand "gtg", I don't know what that means, I am 51. Thank you for your civility, I am attempting to be fair and limit the conversation to what I asked of whom I asked. I hope that is apparent. I have even given a time frame, two weeks. I am not attacking science, I intend to address the questions, statements and truths in a fair and balanced way. I do not get that from others on the spirituality threads, I do hope I will fair batter here. Be well and I will disagree with one statement you made, philosophy is very scientific; but, allows for the wrong also, science is not different, we test all theories.

reply to post by RRokkyy


which sense of perception ? the mind ?

explain relationship avoidance, i don't understand what you are saying indeed

reply to post by AQuestion


A blade of grass has no way of visualizing, but it can sense a vibration. And yet, this vibration is sensed without a brain, but instead by all the cells nervous functions. All those cells experienced a lawn mower cutting through...

Now, do you think the redneck on the tractor cared whether the blades of grass were made up of cells with nervous reactive functions?

reply to post by ripcontrol


Dear ripcontrol,

I am going to take back what I said and leave this thread where it is. If the moderators believe it should be somewhere I will them decide.

Originally posted by AQuestion
.... There is a quantum physicist that said the only thing we know is real is matter. He is an aethiest. I have no problem with that. Perhaps you can explain how you can prove that matter exists...

If he said ". . . the only thing we know is matter", you're creating a paradox by removing the we part from existence. You're seeking a proof by contradicting the theorem.

It's like trying to prove the earth revolves around the sun, but the sun doesn't exist. I'm not trying to insult any intelligence, but I don't see how the construction of this theorem has a feasible solution. Perhaps clarify your hypothesis.

reply to post by mathematic


Dear mathematic,

I don't agree with what the person said, I believe the only thing we can know is that we exist and that from there we must make reasonable assumptions about the nature of reality. I found his statement to be contrary to what we do know. The man that said it is an aethiest. Science has a problem with sentience, I do not have a problem with the fact that nature follows a process, science attempts to understand that process.

I had hoped that people who agreed with him would explain why because I don't understand how he could have made the statement. Quantum physics certainly has not been able to prove that any of what we consider material can be explained. I assume that his view on reality was based on his refusal to even consider the possibility of God and I am okay with that, he can believe whatever he wishes. The same man also said that there is no possibility of living beyond this reality while not being bothered by physicist who believe in alternate universes.

I think my problem with his statement is that he allowed his views on God to impact his views on reality. I have no problem with people who are aethists, heck we should all be allowed to come to our own beliefs. I have a problem with bad science that refuses to take sentience into consideration, we are part of the natural world also. I wanted to understand where he was coming from by hearing from people who agreed with him.

I find it sad that the man has so little concern for our experience. He discounts the importance of our being. I did not start this thread in the faith section because I didn't want it to devolve into be focused on the possibility of God, so I wanted to limit the discussion to science and then move it and discuss whether or not science and philosophy were at odds (again not a religious examination; but, a philosophical one).

"We", our specialness and importance are being discounted. I read many articles talking about how we don't have real free will and only respond to stimuli, I don't agree and believe that all science should begin with a recognition that we are what matters the most because we experience this "reality", I would feel the same if I didn't believe in God and did when I was an agnostic.

Whether or not there is a God, I know I exist and I feel pain and pleasure, I matter and you matter. The type of philosophy that looks at us as a science experiment is what led to the tests conducted by the Nazis and tests done on Americans without their permission by our own government (Tuskegee being just one example). Science, government, religion, business and all organizations that discount the importance of our human experience is all bad, in my opinion. I am vehemently opposed to torture of anyone for these same reasons, it is done by people who stop remembering that we matter.

I did not start the thread with my beliefs because I didn't want anyone to feel I was attacking theirs, not the intent, I just wanted to understand how they could believe that the only thing real is matter, that is not the science I was taught not when just observing an experiment changes the outcome.

reply to post by AQuestion


AQuestion,

I wasn't trying to figure out your beliefs, however I do appreciate that you provided more background. I don't know where to take the conversation from here. I cannot prove what was asked. Like others in the thread, and yourself, I don't believe this can be proved. It's not a truth.