matter does not exist

[cabinintheforest]

Can you prove to me matter exists?

 

In 1879 a million ££ reward was put forward if anyone can prove that matter exists as an objective substance independant of the mind nobody ever claimed the reward. Can you prove matter exists?

[Moontanman]

Can you prove to me matter exists?

 

In 1879 a million ££ reward was put forward if anyone can prove that matter exists as an objective substance independant of the mind nobody ever claimed the reward. Can you prove matter exists?

 

 

Yes I can, hold on let me load my pistol, now the real question is, will you be able to testify I have proved matter exists after I prove it.

[Sisyphus]

That depends on what you'll accept as "proof." I can videotape some matter if you want.

 

In seriousness, no, you can't prove to yourself than an external world exists. But if you posit that it does not, one wonders to whom you are offering a reward.

[lemur]

I don't think matter does exist in the sense that structure is assumed to be inherent in it. If you can reduce a table to a cup-full of ashes, was the solidity of the unburned table a function of its matter or the organization of its matter? Density, tensile strength, structural integrity of objects, etc. seem to be what people refer to when claiming that matter exists in contrast with supposedly less-existent things. Imagine your professor mentions the efficacy of matter while doing the cliche's knock on a table and his fist passed through the table like a cloud of dust. Would the students still be convinced of the efficacy of matter? Matter certainly exists, but just not in the sense that is often attributed to it.

[mooeypoo]

Can you prove to me matter exists?

 

In 1879 a million ££ reward was put forward if anyone can prove that matter exists as an objective substance independant of the mind nobody ever claimed the reward. Can you prove matter exists?

Can you link to some resources (or give the original source) for this reward? it sounds like a philosophical exercise rather than something strictly scientific.

[ajb]

This reminds me of the observer problem in quantum mechanics as eulogised by Schrödinger's cat. It is not clear how to remover the observer (interpreted very generally) from the system.

 

Classically, this is more of a philosophical question. Watching a classical system has no real effect on it, mod any insertion of "probes" etc. So the question of "does matter exist if I am not watching it?" is not usually considered as a physics question.

 

For a quantum system the question could be more valid. But then we seem to be heading down the road of interpretation, which itself is largely a philosophical question in my opinion.

Edited November 4, 2010 by ajb

[lemur]

Can you link to some resources (or give the original source) for this reward? it sounds like a philosophical exercise rather than something strictly scientific.

 

By "strictly scientific," are you referring to empiricism, i.e. that science is done based on what can be observed and measured using the senses instead of purely in theoretical abstraction? If so, you should realize that empiricism itself is a philosophy, so there is not really any non-philosophical "strictly scientific" approach. Your idea that there is one is based on a relatively naive philosophical approach to disciplinary boundaries as mutually exclusive.

 

No matter (wow, that's actually a pun in the case of this thread), whether it is philosophical or scientific, the point is whether it is possible to prove the existence of matter. I would say that it isn't except self-referentially. Matter is its own proof, therefore it can't be proven in some other way. If you are dreaming, you can wake up to prove the dream was just a dream. Since you can't wake up from the existence of physical matter, you cannot prove it is just a dream - but you also can't prove it's not. You're stuck in tentative limbo, which is actually a tenet of the philosophy of scientific falsification, i.e. that verification of a theory is always tentative as falsification must always remain the primary goal of theory-testing.

[mississippichem]

By "strictly scientific," are you referring to empiricism, i.e. that science is done based on what can be observed and measured using the senses instead of purely in theoretical abstraction? If so, you should realize that empiricism itself is a philosophy, so there is not really any non-philosophical "strictly scientific" approach. Your idea that there is one is based on a relatively naive philosophical approach to disciplinary boundaries as mutually exclusive.

 

No matter (wow, that's actually a pun in the case of this thread), whether it is philosophical or scientific, the point is whether it is possible to prove the existence of matter. I would say that it isn't except self-referentially. Matter is its own proof, therefore it can't be proven in some other way. If you are dreaming, you can wake up to prove the dream was just a dream. Since you can't wake up from the existence of physical matter, you cannot prove it is just a dream - but you also can't prove it's not. You're stuck in tentative limbo, which is actually a tenet of the philosophy of scientific falsification, i.e. that verification of a theory is always tentative as falsification must always remain the primary goal of theory-testing.

 

Lemur, are you a descendent of Nietszche? You have some serious philosophy skills. Or you're just very good at articulating you're argument. You should right a book man.

 

I'm with Lemur on this one, matter can't be proven or disproven because we are matter and we live in universe full of it. There is no outisde objective reference frame from which do determine matter is real or non-real. I consciously live under the assumtion that matter is real because I must practice under that assumption in order to produce any notable science. Really, we all must live under that assumtion in order to make any credible statement about anything. I can't prove that I've got $15 in my wallet right now if I don't assume the ten and five dollar bills are real.

[Fuzzwood]

This is one of those questions alike: if a tree falls in the forest and noone is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

[John Cuthber]

Steal the money.

If they come looking for it then they have accepted that it exists, in which case it's yours anyway.

It's a bit silly really. Descartes pointed out that we don't really know anything except that we exist (in some way or other); this is just a variation on that theme.

[lemur]

Steal the money.

If they come looking for it then they have accepted that it exists, in which case it's yours anyway.

It's a bit silly really. Descartes pointed out that we don't really know anything except that we exist (in some way or other); this is just a variation on that theme.

I think of "cognito ergo sum" as Des Cartes' brilliant answer to anyone who questions the existence of everything. He's basically saying, "if nothing exists, how can you perceive yourself thinking that it doesn't?'

 

Mississippichem, thanks for the compliment. I definitely have a strong will to Nietzche;)

Edited November 4, 2010 by lemur

[dragonstar57]

I don't think matter does exist in the sense that structure is assumed to be inherent in it. If you can reduce a table to a cup-full of ashes, was the solidity of the unburned table a function of its matter or the organization of its matter? Density, tensile strength, structural integrity of objects, etc. seem to be what people refer to when claiming that matter exists in contrast with supposedly less-existent things. Imagine your professor mentions the efficacy of matter while doing the cliche's knock on a table and his fist passed through the table like a cloud of dust. Would the students still be convinced of the efficacy of matter? Matter certainly exists, but just not in the sense that is often attributed to it.

the ash and the table are different because they are actually 2 different things. the wood of the table goes through a chemical reaction and becomes a new substance with new proprieties.

as for mater's existence we can no more prove that it is real any more than we can prove that we are not in a matrix like situation.

but a claim like mater does not exist has no reason for being adopted

[michel123456]

You'll get fooled again.

[rigney]

This reminds me of the observer problem in quantum mechanics as eulogised by Schrödinger's cat. It is not clear how to remover the observer (interpreted very generally) from the system.

 

Classically, this is more of a philosophical question. Watching a classical system has no real effect on it, mod any insertion of "probes" etc. So the question of "does matter exist if I am not watching it?" is not usually considered as a physics question.

 

For a quantum system the question could be more valid. But then we seem to be heading down the road of interpretation, which itself is largely a philosophical question in my opinion.

 

Let's say you visit a specific place. Perhaps a park, picnic area, scenic overlook, etc. After thirty years, your memory of it is as vivid as when you first saw it. A friend is going to visit the same place. You relate nothing more to them other than how beautifulit your memory is of it. They then return to describe in detail, just as you recall it. Honestly, does matter matter?

Edited November 6, 2010 by rigney

[Skaffen]

Relativity is congruent with subjectivity, so Einstein claims the prize on this one.

That is to say if someone can potentially hear the tree fall then it will make a potential sound. Making the scenario objective (without potential observer) is where it becomes nonsensical and thus confusing.

 

Potential by definition is Relative (positive to negative), aesthetically everything is a shade of grey with black and white forming the absolutes/boundary.

 

The present is the potential/boundary between past and future, the past or future has no mass or meaning without an observer.

[lemur]

the ash and the table are different because they are actually 2 different things. the wood of the table goes through a chemical reaction and becomes a new substance with new proprieties.

My point was that the implicit reasoning behind knocking on a table to demonstrate its solidity and by extension suggest the unquestionable existence of matter is incorrect because it is not the matter itself but its structure that is causing the observable quality of solidity.

 

as for mater's existence we can no more prove that it is real any more than we can prove that we are not in a matrix like situation.

but a claim like mater does not exist has no reason for being adopted

Your reasoning process is based on assumptions about plausibility. Plausibility does not existence make. It is no more reasonable to say that matter exists than it is to say that it doesn't. Intuition doesn't count in philosophy. The ontology of the existence of matter is a relevant issue, imo. How can you deny its relevance if you recognize that if matter in fact doesn't exist that perception/cognition is strong enough to render its existence as a given? In other words, the amazing thing is that we (materialists) really don't expect proof that matter exists because we use it as the very basis for defining existence to begin with. It's existence is assumed as an axiom.

Edited November 11, 2010 by lemur

[dragonstar57]

My point was that the implicit reasoning behind knocking on a table to demonstrate its solidity and by extension suggest the unquestionable existence of matter is incorrect because it is not the matter itself but its structure that is causing the observable quality of solidity.

 

 

Your reasoning process is based on assumptions about plausibility. Plausibility does not existence make. It is no more reasonable to say that matter exists than it is to say that it doesn't. Intuition doesn't count in philosophy. The ontology of the existence of matter is a relevant issue, imo. How can you deny its relevance if you recognize that if matter in fact doesn't exist that perception/cognition is strong enough to render its existence as a given? In other words, the amazing thing is that we (materialists) really don't expect proof that matter exists because we use it as the very basis for defining existence to begin with. It's existence is assumed as an axiom.

well everything might not be real but there are are assumptions you need to make or all knowledge breaks down

[lemur]

well everything might not be real but there are are assumptions you need to make or all knowledge breaks down

I disagree. You don't have to believe in matter to regard it as instrumentally real. It does not undermine knowledge to treat matter as a cause of consequences and nothing more. It just requires a somewhat uncomfortable shift in ontological orientation. The net results remain unaffected. I.e. living in/with "the matrix" is as easy as ignoring superstition. Don't underestimate the power of ignoring reasonable doubt to achieve certainty (without even calling it "faith").

[Butters]

cabinintheforst, i seem to recall another post of yours where you asked for a photograph or footage of evolution in progress to prove that it exists. If you would accept that as proof, then why is your concept of proof for matter's existence so much more severe? I'm fine with not trusting our own senses as it seems sensible to have the awareness of their possible fallibility in mind. That said, your previous post was so dependent on something that is physically impossible to photograph or film that it seems like you are determined not to have your own questions answered to your satisfaction.

 

Surely a dialogue is more interesting than fortifying yourself within rigid preconceptions?

[dragonstar57]

I disagree. You don't have to believe in matter to regard it as instrumentally real. It does not undermine knowledge to treat matter as a cause of consequences and nothing more. It just requires a somewhat uncomfortable shift in ontological orientation. The net results remain unaffected. I.e. living in/with "the matrix" is as easy as ignoring superstition. Don't underestimate the power of ignoring reasonable doubt to achieve certainty (without even calling it "faith").

1. if mater does not exist than would physical entities exist as physical entities. and is it conseviable that anything could exist in a nonphysical form?

2. if our senses were somehow deceiving us or we decided to operate under that assumption than there would be no reason for us to believe anything our senses tell us.

3. i'm fairly sure that most science depends on the existence of matter.

but none of this reason to say that mater exists for SURE but i think that it does even if it might be imposable to prove

Edited November 11, 2010 by dragonstar57

[empirical madness]

Matter exists, but we are not capable of perceiving all of it. Take dark matter, for example: we know it's there because it has it's own gravitational pull and interacts with other particles, even in a vacuum. What we see as humans is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg that is the universe.

[lemur]

1. if mater does not exist than would physical entities exist as physical entities. and is it conseviable that anything could exist in a nonphysical form?

2. if our senses were somehow deceiving us or we decided to operate under that assumption than there would be no reason for us to believe anything our senses tell us.

3. i'm fairly sure that most science depends on the existence of matter.

but none of this reason to say that mater exists for SURE but i think that it does even if it might be imposable to prove

 

The irony of this whole issue is that I don't even see how anything perceivable can NOT exist insofar is things have to exist to be perceived. If you reserve the status of "existent" for physical matter, then the question is self-referential. Matter exists because it is matter and if it weren't, then it wouldn't. What about the question of what is material about matter? If you define the materiality of matter as being constituted by some aspect other than its existence, then why would it make sense to say that "matter exists?" E.g. if particles are infinitely reducible into smaller particles with less mass, since the mass of larger particles is largely due to their speed relative to each other, then ultimately the mass we think of as an inherent quality of matter's existence would be just a product of its dynamism. In that case, would matter "exist" or be simply a side-effect of some other relations?

[padren]

It seems to me the biggest issue with this questions is the three slippery definitions:

 

 

1) What is matter?

2) What is proof?

3) What is existing?

 

 

We can say "Matter exists" pretty definitely, by invoking again the Descartes argument, and building on that: If you perceive a difference between any two things (a rock and a banana, for instance) then those two things cannot be entirely the same. They could both be similar (both elements of a dream, or both 3D renderings in The Matrix, or both distinct objects in "reality") but once you acknowledge there is a difference (that difference may be based on a variation of 1s and 0s or a difference in memory centers accessed during dreaming, or different patterns of different atoms in distinct molecular structures) they cannot be the same.

 

So, if we have "space where nothing is" and "space where mattery stuff is" as two distinct and different observable phenomena (fit for Descartes), we can say that matter exists, even if we don't know what matter is. If this is all a dream, then our own definition of "matter" is defined within the scope of this dream. If we are in the matrix, our concept of matter is defined by the parameters of the matrix.

 

If we are in The Matrix, matter may be better defined as "An interface class implemented by elements of the Matrix that simulate atomic structures" than by what seems to make matter observable to us in whatever environment we happen to be in.

 

 

So - while we could get lost for days on the nature of the definition of matter, or equally lost in the definition of proof or existence, I think using Descartes as a starting point we can say matter does exist, because it's presence creates differences within our "thinking" by which, "we know we are." For all the fluid definitions of matter, the fact matter creates differences in our observations is inescapable, thus any relevant definition must address those differences, thereby confirming it's existence.

Edited November 13, 2010 by padren

[lemur]

So - while we could get lost for days on the nature of the definition of matter, or equally lost in the definition of proof or existence, I think using Descartes as a starting point we can say matter does exist, because it's presence creates differences within our "thinking" by which, "we know we are." For all the fluid definitions of matter, the fact matter creates differences in our observations is inescapable, thus any relevant definition must address those differences, thereby confirming it's existence.

 

When you cite descartes, you're not talking about "cogito ergo sum" are you? If so, I don't see the logic of internal distinction/differentiation as being proof of existence. Unicorns are different from Pegasuses (Pegasi?) but both are fantasy creatures and therefore non-existent from a materialist standpoint. Or are you referring to some other part of descartes philosophy?

 

Either way, I don't think you can get around the self-referential factuality of matter's existence. In materialism at least, matter exists because it's matter and what isn't matter doesn't exist. It's axiomatic/paradigmatic. If you began with a truly empirical paradigm, you would only recognize things that are directly perceivable as existing. If something was not directly observable, you would question its existence on that basis. If you choose solipsism instead of materialism or empiricism, you could recognize everything imaginable to exist as part of the same mind, in which case everything would exist - but matter wouldn't have any special status of existence over non-material, i.e. imaginary, figments.

 

I don't think there's any proof that can establish one of these epistemological/ontological paradigms over the others. Each just has its own basis for defining what exists and how.

Edited November 13, 2010 by lemur

[padren]

When you cite descartes, you're not talking about "cogito ergo sum" are you? If so, I don't see the logic of internal distinction/differentiation as being proof of existence. Unicorns are different from Pegasuses (Pegasi?) but both are fantasy creatures and therefore non-existent from a materialist standpoint. Or are you referring to some other part of descartes philosophy?

 

Either way, I don't think you can get around the self-referential factuality of matter's existence. In materialism at least, matter exists because it's matter and what isn't matter doesn't exist. It's axiomatic/paradigmatic. If you began with a truly empirical paradigm, you would only recognize things that are directly perceivable as existing. If something was not directly observable, you would question its existence on that basis. If you choose solipsism instead of materialism or empiricism, you could recognize everything imaginable to exist as part of the same mind, in which case everything would exist - but matter wouldn't have any special status of existence over non-material, i.e. imaginary, figments.

 

I don't think there's any proof that can establish one of these epistemological/ontological paradigms over the others. Each just has its own basis for defining what exists and how.

 

I am referring to "cogito ergo sum" because it's the most basic burden of proof for the existence of individual experience, and then I use that as a base to demonstrate that the properties of matter can be differentiated via personal experience from non-matter. When an individual observes the differences between space with matter vs. space without matter, you have to accept that those spaces have different properties.

 

That is proof of something that can be personally confirmed, as "If you can observe a difference, there must be a reason there's a difference."

 

Then, I demonstrate that this differentiation is the basis for the definition of matter, thus we can say matter exists - and anything else matter could be is irrelevant. It doesn't matter at that point if matter is made up of atoms, or has the property of mass, or any other "sticking points" on proof that matter exists. Any relevant definition must at it's most basic level has to the differences between matter and non-matter. Any additional observations or empirical collection of evidence regarding the other properties of matter are ancillary.

 

As such, you can say definitively that matter exists, and anything you say about matter that "cannot be proven" is ancillary and does not negate the most basic and accurate definition of matter - that which can be observed as different from non-matter.