Where's the scientific evidence that matter exists?

reply to post by SireFurious


Hypothetically speaking,

When you touch a thing, the finger you touch it with sends a signal to your brain to let you know that you touched it.

Hypothetically speaking,

Before you touch the thing, your brain already knew it was there and told you you were going to touch it.

Which is it?

reply to post by onequestion


I am trying, really hard, to not give a scathing retort. In fact, you have insulted my intelligence. You have insulted the intelligence of every sane and rational person in this thread with what you have posted.

Am I to understand, by your dismissal of evidence easily duplicated by anybody on the planet, even a poor homeless child in Africa, that you are claiming that you are indeed better than every single one of us because you apparently experience the physical reality that we as a species share does not apply to you? Are you claiming, sir, that you are in fact not a human, but a sapient being capable of intelligent thought processes that is either supra-natural, extraterrestrial, or logic forbid i even say this word but "divine?"

are you claiming in front of us all that you are in fact so much better than us that you do not experience what we experience, do not feel the cold, wet earth under your feet when you go outside with no shoes on, breathe in the hot, dry air we all breathe, drink of cold, wet water we drink of, and is warmed by dry, hot fire when camping or otherwise outside near a firepit?

are you sense-mute? are you blind? are you unable breathe without mechanical assistance? What are you, sir, to claim such an outrageous thing?

Well, OP, you are in good philosophical company. Look into Hume and Kant for starters. There is no way to prove absolutely that there is substance or material behind the world of phenomena or appearances. We can never necessarily have direct knowledge of things in themselves beyond experience.

That having been said, on a certain relatively macropscopic level there is a consistency and continuity to phenomena that is certainly material-like. However, in whatever model of reality you construct; you at least have to account for that as quantum mechanics (for instance) does through statistical modelling of fundamentally indeterminate, or acausal (immaterial) reality.

reply to post by gabby2011

Could you please explain to me how matter doesn't exist..yet..you are real enough to read this post,and respond to it..using tools made of matter.. c'mon .....have a little logic.

logic does not prove the subject exists nor can science prove the subject exists..

Originally posted by 90percent10less
I don't know about any scientific evidence but I know an at-home experiment you can do.
Slap yourself in the face. Now ask yourself 3 things:
1) Was there a sound?
2) Did you see your hand hit yourself in the face?
3) Did you feel it ?

If you answered yes to all three, matter exists.

None of the above prove matter exists. Your points are all based on your senses which build up a mental image in your mind. All is does is prove your mind exists to you..

k

Matter exists in your brain. What you are perceiving in front of you is not really matter.

Originally posted by J2288
If your not talking about dark matter i'm pretty sure the periodic table covers allot. Matter has many definitions, but the most common is that it is any substance which has mass and occupies space. All physical objects are composed of matter, in the form of atoms, which are in turn composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Not sure what type of evidence your requesting but the proof is every where?? well thats my 2cents hope that helped.

Hey there. I think you are kind of missing the OP point. Take an electron for example. A single electron seems to exist in many positions at the same time. ( a superposition) However when we look at the electron it moves into a single position. The same electron can move between two places at the same time without going through the space in the middle and it can appear and disapear as well. These are the building blocks that make us up and when we look closely they are not so tangible...

Originally posted by jessejamesxx
Matter exists in your brain. What you are perceiving in front of you is not really matter.

That is what I think too. Matter is an epiphenoma of mind, not the other way round... The universe can only exist if it is being observed...

Originally posted by babybunnies
Sometimes you don't need proof. Sometimes proof is simply in the beholding.

you are here, that should be enough to proove that matter exists.

No your statement only proves mind exists... nothing else..

:-)

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by SireFurious

 

Hypothetically speaking,

When you touch a thing, the finger you touch it with sends a signal to your brain to let you know that you touched it.

Hypothetically speaking,

Before you touch the thing, your brain already knew it was there and told you you were going to touch it.

Which is it?

both are correct in a world where matter is created by mind...

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by RRokkyy

 

Adi whoever should be telling people that their idea of reality is what we design it to be within our mind ( the dream as it is so called exist within our imagination). Mind having nothing to do with body.

The problems we face as a species are the problems we face within ourselves. We are aging cosmically and becoming self aware. I think of it as adolescence, we must learn our ego and become aware of it in order to accept and experience it for what it is.

The illusion is not self.

The ego is you.

When you can look in the eyes of the devil and see yourself, you have found what is known as the truth.

When you can close your eyes and see the universe, you have found a diamond in the dirt.

When you see the person next to you distracting you from your heart, the essence of your being, and know this distraction is here as a part of yourself, you have found the truth.

edit on 30-5-2011 by onequestion because: (no reason given)

Nice reply. The universe is the mirror of the mind, nothing else...

Originally posted by SireFurious
reply to post by onequestion

 

I am trying, really hard, to not give a scathing retort. In fact, you have insulted my intelligence. You have insulted the intelligence of every sane and rational person in this thread with what you have posted.

Am I to understand, by your dismissal of evidence easily duplicated by anybody on the planet, even a poor homeless child in Africa, that you are claiming that you are indeed better than every single one of us because you apparently experience the physical reality that we as a species share does not apply to you? Are you claiming, sir, that you are in fact not a human, but a sapient being capable of intelligent thought processes that is either supra-natural, extraterrestrial, or logic forbid i even say this word but "divine?"

are you claiming in front of us all that you are in fact so much better than us that you do not experience what we experience, do not feel the cold, wet earth under your feet when you go outside with no shoes on, breathe in the hot, dry air we all breathe, drink of cold, wet water we drink of, and is warmed by dry, hot fire when camping or otherwise outside near a firepit?

are you sense-mute? are you blind? are you unable breathe without mechanical assistance? What are you, sir, to claim such an outrageous thing?

edit on 30-5-2011 by SireFurious because: Note to mods: this is pure sarcasm at work, ladies and gents.

I dont get your problem with this poster. He spoke more sense in his remarks than anyone else on this thread. Why you being negative.
You cannot argue that mechanical assistance proves matter exists. The mechanical universe theory is dated and very limited. Neoeciences are puttind mind forefront to matter and there is nothing wrong with that. It is just a long over due paradigm shift..

.

It seems a lot of people here adhere to solipsism. To me it is a useless philosophy as it in no way increases my understanding of what I call reality. Whether matter is a mental construct of my mind or an actual objectively existing phenomena that is totally independent of my mind does not change the explanation of how it works.

Originally posted by -PLB-
It seems a lot of people here adhere to solipsism. To me it is a useless philosophy as it in no way increases my understanding of what I call reality. Whether matter is a mental construct of my mind or an actual objectively existing phenomena that is totally independent of my mind does not change the explanation of how it works.

edit on 30-5-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

The only thing you know to exist is the experience of mind. It is not a useless philosophy, reality can exist within mind. That does not demean from our understanding of reality it adds to it.
A new science is needed to understand that nature of what we call reality and that is a science that exists within the construct of mind. It is happening, the world of neophysics and quantam theory are reshaping our understanding of reality and how we relate to it.

reply to post by purplemer


How is whether or not someone accepts that reality is a construct of the mind in any way going to change the way that person does science? How does it increase our understanding of anything when there is no way to prove the validity of that position? Can you give any concrete example of either?

Originally posted by CN1018
Of course matter doesn't exist.

I read a very interesting book a loong time ago, The Holographic Universe, by Michael Talbot.

I'd be surprised to find anyone who hasn't read it, but this concept isn't a new one.

I read that too, a good read. If you liked that you should try: The Self-Aware Universe by Amit Goswami. a theoretical nuclear physicist . It really is an amazing read.

Consciousness, not matter, is the ground of all existence, declares University of Oregon physicist Goswami, echoing the mystic sages of his native India. He holds that the universe is self-aware, and that consciousness creates the physical world. Calling this theory "monistic idealism," he claims it is not only "the basis of all religions worldwide" but also the correct philosophy for modern science. Once people give up the assumption that there is an objective reality independent of consciousness, the paradoxes of quantum physics are explainable, contends Goswami, writing with his wife and Reed ( Building the Future from Our Past ). He also applies his hypothesis to the so-called mind-body schism, which he attempts to heal. Sketching a model of the self, this demanding but rewarding treatise uses analogies from the "new physics" to throw light on choice, free will, creativity, the unconscious and paths to spiritual growth.

www.amazon.com...

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by purplemer

 

How is whether or not someone accepts that reality is a construct of the mind in any way going to change the way that person does science? How does it increase our understanding of anything when there is no way to prove the validity of that position? Can you give any concrete example of either?

Science is a philosophy that works on the premise of subject and object. The subject being the scientist and the object being that which is observed. Both these entities need to remain seperate from each other in order for the philosophyof science to work.
These principles worked well in the Cartesian view of the universe were the whole universe and all within in it was view like a machine of cause and affect.
However with the birth of quantam physics these views started to change. The universe does not work like a big machine it is convient for us to think it does, but the nature of reality says different.
Now in many experiements it has been seen that the act of observation has an affect on the experiment. The act of looking changes the nature of what we call matter. This breaks down the convient subject/object orintation that has been a corner stone for hundreds of years. Further the results of many quantam experiments are not logicaly explainable. Logic is a tool we use to understand the world around us, but like most tools it too has its limitations.
We need new tools to understand the nature of reality, tool kit is not big enough and the universe cannot be explained in terms of logic only.
The world of the quantam is not an offshoot of science it is science. Physics is the backbone of all science. Now we are developing a new kind of physics we are developing new types of science.
The real nice thing about all this is it puts you the observer clearly back in the driving seat as an intergal co-creater in the universe..

I find it truly sad that some waste so much time trying to prove they really don't exist...

reply to post by purplemer


I disagree that science is a philosophy that works on the premise of subject and object. The scientist is not a part of science itself, it is the entity doing it. Whether a scientist observes or not has no influence on the outcome of any experiment. The issue with quantum physics is that in order to observe certain effects there is no other known method than to interact with it in such a way that its state is influenced. In other words, observing physically affects the state, it is not some mysterious phenomena caused by a conscious observer.