Where's the scientific evidence that matter exists?

On the macro level, matter is easy to prove but when we go to micro level, that is when things become a mystery. We actually haven't discovered yet the smallest breakdown of an atom. We stopped at neutrino and we wanted to know the breakdown of neutrinos. That is when scientists started thinking that tiny vibrations of energy might be the smallest particle in an atom. We are still searching for the answer.

Originally posted by -PLB-
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.

Hey thank you for your reply. Anyone that has a understanding of the working of science knows that science is a philosphey. If you dont and you are intersted you should do some more reading...

Science is a project whose goal is to obtain knowledge of the natural world. The philosophy of science is a discipline that deals with the system of science itself. It examines science’s structure, components, techniques, assumptions, limitations, and so forth.

www.angelfire.com...

Science is based on the premise of dualism....

In philosophy of science, dualism often refers to the dichotomy between the "subject" (the observer) and the "object" (the observed). Criticism of Western science may label this kind of dualism as a flaw in the nature of science itself. In part, this has something to do with potentially complicated interactions between the subject and the object, of the sort discussed in the social construction literature.[citation needed] another dualism, in Popperian in philosophy of science refers to "hypothesis" and "refutation" (for example, experimental refutation). This notion also carried to Popper's political philosophy.

en.wikipedia.org...

Have a look at some Sir Francis Bacon or Karl Popper..

Popper is known for his attempt to repudiate the classical observationalist / inductivist form of scientific method in favour of empirical falsification. He is also known for his opposition to the classical justificationist account of knowledge which he replaced with critical rationalism,

en.wikipedia.org...

The scientist is not a part of science itself

Yes the scientist is part of the science. A scientist has to work in a strict guidline of parametres otherwise it is not science...

Whether a scientist observes or not has no influence on the outcome of any experiment

Yes it does, it is a well proven branch of physics and has been in existence for several decades...

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

If you do not think quantam physics is mysterious you are kinda missing the wonder of it. Some of the greatest minds that exist today find it mysterious. It is not some kind of mysterious phenomna would you care to explain how it works.
An understanding of the observer affecting the state of the material world around us is of paramount importance. These are non local events, they appear to work outside the remit of time and space. When they teleported information last year over a distance of ten miles of so the affect was instant. Not the speed of light, but instant.
Now that is down to quantam entaglement with particles. Particles at opposite ends of the universe can be entagled and have instant affects on each other. That is funky enough but start thinking about entaglement through time and you will start to get the picture.

:-)

Originally posted by gabby2011

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

edit on 30-5-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)

Could you please point out the the poster that is trying to prove they dont exist.. because i cant see one. I think you are missing the point...

Originally posted by wavemaker
On the macro level, matter is easy to prove but when we go to micro level, that is when things become a mystery. We actually haven't discovered yet the smallest breakdown of an atom. We stopped at neutrino and we wanted to know the breakdown of neutrinos. That is when scientists started thinking that tiny vibrations of energy might be the smallest particle in an atom. We are still searching for the answer.

Mind is not divisble into smaller components..

Originally posted by purplemer
Hey thank you for your reply. Anyone that has a understanding of the working of science knows that science is a philosphey. If you dont and you are intersted you should do some more reading...

Science is a project whose goal is to obtain knowledge of the natural world. The philosophy of science is a discipline that deals with the system of science itself. It examines science’s structure, components, techniques, assumptions, limitations, and so forth.

www.angelfire.com...

Science is based on the premise of dualism....

In philosophy of science, dualism often refers to the dichotomy between the "subject" (the observer) and the "object" (the observed). Criticism of Western science may label this kind of dualism as a flaw in the nature of science itself. In part, this has something to do with potentially complicated interactions between the subject and the object, of the sort discussed in the social construction literature.[citation needed] another dualism, in Popperian in philosophy of science refers to "hypothesis" and "refutation" (for example, experimental refutation). This notion also carried to Popper's political philosophy.

en.wikipedia.org...

Have a look at some Sir Francis Bacon or Karl Popper..

Popper is known for his attempt to repudiate the classical observationalist / inductivist form of scientific method in favour of empirical falsification. He is also known for his opposition to the classical justificationist account of knowledge which he replaced with critical rationalism,

en.wikipedia.org...

In the text you quote a clear distinction between actual science and the philosophy of science is made. They are not the same.

Yes the scientist is part of the science. A scientist has to work in a strict guidline of parametres otherwise it is not science...

Sure, but it is not part of its contents, that is what I mean by the science itself.

Yes it does, it is a well proven branch of physics and has been in existence for several decades...

No it is not. This is a myth that has gained a lot of popularity due to documentaries such as "What the bleep do we know".

If you do not think quantam physics is mysterious you are kinda missing the wonder of it. Some of the greatest minds that exist today find it mysterious. It is not some kind of mysterious phenomna would you care to explain how it works.
An understanding of the observer affecting the state of the material world around us is of paramount importance. These are non local events, they appear to work outside the remit of time and space. When they teleported information last year over a distance of ten miles of so the affect was instant. Not the speed of light, but instant.
Now that is down to quantam entaglement with particles. Particles at opposite ends of the universe can be entagled and have instant affects on each other. That is funky enough but start thinking about entaglement through time and you will start to get the picture.

I agree that part was a bit badly worded, hence I changed it. But I was too late with changing it. A better word would be mystical. The point is that these are purely physical phenomena which we yet do not (fully) understand. However, they do not require conscious observers to take place.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


Matter doesn't exist.... but, your perception is that it does.
Free will doesn't exist but your perception is that you have free will.

Same thing on many levels but when we take a look at String Theory I think it explains that there must be cause and effect on some level of "reality"... this is a rationalization based on the idea that ultimately there must be some purpose of our questioning and (mis)perceived individuality.

Originally posted by purplemer

Originally posted by gabby2011

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

edit on 30-5-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)

Could you please point out the the poster that is trying to prove they dont exist.. because i cant see one. I think you are missing the point...

It seems to me the OP was trying to say or question wether matter really existed or not,and I think we are all made up of matter.

Another poster argued that its all in our minds ,and I think our minds are made up of matter.

If you can't see the posts I'm refering to, that is your problem, I don't think I'm missing the POINT at all, and that is why I refer to it as POINTLESS.

Alright, I'll bite.

They suppose the universe is merely a mental construct, there is no abstract reality but that created in the mind.

Who gets the mind that decides the universe? Whos' mind is so special that our "reality" is merely their though process?

There is an impossibly simple method to test this. I'll buy the gun, you pull the trigger, when you brain stops providing electrical pulses to your body, I'll still be here.

It's a fun little game to play, but even if "matter" is merely a mental construct, it still has fundamental laws. We aren't part of whatever level of reality where mind creates the universe, we're inside the system.

to a fish in a bowl, the outer edge of the bowl is the end of the universe. To those of us outside, it's merely a small part of a bigger universe.

We're inside the system, and for us, matter is real, we can make predictions and observations about it that prove to be correct later. That is a basic principle of science, and it doesn't matter if the matter (lol english rules) is really there, or our minds merely interpreting it being there, the physical laws still apply.

That rock might not be real, and at the quantum level, it's actually mostly empty space. Go head and kick is as hard as you can, I assure you it is indeed there.

reply to post by purplemer


I went through Bohm via Talbot feeling the closeness of the approach but it was not until I read Gotswami that I truly had that "this is obvious" moment. I have studied this since reading Tarthang's book "Time ,Space,Knowledge" some 20yrs ago and I believe Gotswami is correct in that a new paradigm of thought needs formed which can work within the parameters starting with consciousness as the fundamental unit of the universe.
seed

Originally posted by Illustronic
This thread reminds me of the minister that talked about my wife's ex-husband's father during his funeral who was a renown physiological neurochemist and he wanted to enlighten us to a bit of his humor.

He continued to tell us a short story of a British man in Paris flying home and after the stewardess (incidentally stewardess is the longest English word typed by a single hand on the keyboard), sorry, but the stewardess asked the polite English man if he would like a cup of tea, the man then answered that he thinks not–and POOF!, he vanished!

If scientific theory evidence is the very thing you need to verify what it is, you also understand it is just a theory don't you? But it is the best process to verify repeatable outcomes of what we project to occur, like if that brick fell on my head from that roof, it would really actually really hurt! Therefore, it is. (as far as I'm concerned).

I concur it will be interesting to see if the vibrations of quarks etc are what really causes mass. Or it may be some weird mechanic of quantum mechanics or the Higgs Boson

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?

You can prove it to yourself but only if you are willing to Let Go of everything you know and believe.

Adi Da is the first and only one to give the explanation of mind (EgoSelf) as ACTIVITY not past action.

Simply Observe yourself and you will see that you as EgoSelf are always Seeking. When this Insight or
Enquiry becomes Profound you will naturally fall into that Reality that is Prior to Seeking. When there
is No Seeking you fall into the Heart of Reality which is Love/Bliss/Fullness or God Consciousness.

Adi Da explaned it all in, The Knee of Listening
This is the Great Sublime Teaching you ask for but will you consider it?

Originally posted by onequestion reply to post by RRokkyy
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.

reply to post by RRokkyy


Similar proof exists for the existence of the god of the bible and other types of believes. I prefer to call it faith. To me proof constitutes evidence or arguments which can convince others but yourself.

I think it's pretty obvious that matter doesn't have an objective existence and when we get down to a quantum level it looks more like consciousness not anything that we would associate with matter. This is what troubled Einstein and others.

On a subatomic level we're talking about waves of probability, the Observer, measurement, non locality and more. These things should be familiar to us because they sound like the consciousness we experienve everyday. We're confronted by a wave of probabilities everyday and when a state is measured that probable state is observed. I think memory is just an extension of non locality. Memory on a subatomic level is not clouded by noise like memory on a classical level, which makes are memories less vivid.

Quantum Mechanics and Classical Physics is like oil and water but materialist have "faith" that we will discover some future theory that will bring Newton back to life.

matter is impermanent and has no absolute existence. Nothing has absolute existence except for something that is immaterial (The Self).

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by RRokkyy

 

Similar proof exists for the existence of the god of the bible and other types of believes. I prefer to call it faith. To me proof constitutes evidence or arguments which can convince others but yourself.

Let me guess.
YOU DIDNT READ THE BOOK.

You are not actually interested in the subject.

reply to post by RRokkyy


I am not really interested no. I do not need to read a book to know that actual proof does not exists. Every personal experience can as well be some form of illusion.

reminds me of the rodney dangerfield joke.


i can prove gravity at the same time.

throw yourself out a window.

if you stop suddenly, matter probably did it.