matter does not exist

[lemur]

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."

I think you've got the cartesian logic backwards. Descartes is just saying that it is not possible to doubt the existence of the doubting subject, i.e. the presence of doubt is evidence of existence of at least the doubting subject. That does not mean that anything else the doubting subject perceives necessarily exists, because all those things could just be figments of imagination. If you can observe a difference, all it means is that your thoughts of differentiation exist. It doesn't mean that your differentiation is objectively rooted in conditions outside your thoughts.

 

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.

So if I show that unicorns are different from pegasuses because one has wings and the other doesn't, then that means one or other exists?

 

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.

All you do definitively is establish a logic distinction between matter and non-matter. That doesn't address the issue of the existence of either. You also have yet to explicate what it means for something to exist or not. By your differentiation reasoning, existence is a function of differentiation so you're basically saying that things come into existence at the moment they are differentiated by human thought. Do you think matter only exists as a function of human cognition?

 

 

 

[Incendia]

Okay...Is his question: Does matter exist independently to the mind?

 

...If it is I can easily prove it...We exist...that's the proof...we are matter we exist... Explanation:

 

In the beginning of the universe there was no mind to watch the matter be created. Minds only exist if there is a body to sustain it...the body must be made of matter because it's the reactions in the matter that cause thought and behaviour and our minds to exist. The body can be robotic, cybernetic or organic...But it must still be made of matter and minds[intelligence, and thought] can't exist without something made of matter react with other matter or energy to produce different matter and energy which is how minds exist. Reactions between particles creating energy [electricity] which causes thought.

 

Unless there is an omnipresent, omnipotent, mind filling the universe [a deity] then there is no mind to see the matter that causes the forces and reactions that cause the atmosphere to stay, and cause gravity to exist in sufficient strength and our organs to continue sustaining our mind which would make the universe exist. I don't believe the stupid quantum thingy that states that unless a conscience being is looking a quantum event could hasn't made up it's mind on whether it's done something or hasn't because without an omnipresent deity that never sleeps the universe would never have began in the first place and we would all die and then there would be no conscience beings to look at the universe which would cease to exist except for energy...

 

[i an forgetting something, misunderstanding or thinking wrongly? Or am I correct?*Waits for response*]

[padren]

I think you've got the cartesian logic backwards. Descartes is just saying that it is not possible to doubt the existence of the doubting subject, i.e. the presence of doubt is evidence of existence of at least the doubting subject. That does not mean that anything else the doubting subject perceives necessarily exists, because all those things could just be figments of imagination. If you can observe a difference, all it means is that your thoughts of differentiation exist. It doesn't mean that your differentiation is objectively rooted in conditions outside your thoughts.

If your thoughts on differentiation exist, then something has to be responsible for that differentiation - there has to be a cause. There is no need to even claim they originate outside one's thoughts - all matter could exist only in the imagination of the person you are proving the existence of matter to, and from their perspective you could potentially be a figment of their imagination. However, regardless of whether you exist (from their perspective) they have to acknowledge that matter (from their perspective) does exist.

So if I show that unicorns are different from pegasuses because one has wings and the other doesn't, then that means one or other exists?

Yes it does, and without any doubt.

 

The mistake you are making is you have an unreasonable definition of what a Pegasuses is, and what a unicorn is - you want to know if they exist as other animals exist. They do exist, but what they are, are patterns in literature, art, and conceptualizations. Not flesh and blood animals.

 

All you do definitively is establish a logic distinction between matter and non-matter. That doesn't address the issue of the existence of either. You also have yet to explicate what it means for something to exist or not. By your differentiation reasoning, existence is a function of differentiation so you're basically saying that things come into existence at the moment they are differentiated by human thought. Do you think matter only exists as a function of human cognition?

If I wasn't clear enough I'll elaborate:

 

For us to make any observation of distinction, there must be corresponding complexity within the unique at least equal to the differentiation observed. If you want to get into theories on the subconscious, the nature of consciousness and pattern recognition you could easily argue that corresponding complexity must exceed the differentiation observed, but for the purposes of our discussion we don't need to address that so it's just an aside tangent.

What we can be sure of though - I hope you can agree - that if you can observe "black and white" as different things, there must be some corresponding complexity to the universe (whether it all exists within your mind, some meta-philosophical soul, the Matrix, or physical reality) that is capable of existing in multiple states and thus able to create the difference that you observe.

 

Can we agree on that? The premise is pretty simple and straight forward - but if you disagree let me know because we will have to deal with that before addressing secondary factors in this argument.

 

 

So, what then, is observable complexity in the Universe?

 

We can't say much for certain about it - I can't say for instance, based on the logic above, that matter "as defined by shared scientific empirical studies of it's behaviors and properties" definitely exists. I cannot say matter (as defined by that which has mass, as an example) exists. But I can say that matter exists.

 

This is because when you get down to the most basic yet still sound definition of "matter" itself, you are referring to observed differences that relate directly to the complexity of the Universe. Whatever the nature of this Universe is - it has complexity, and some of that complexity is observable in the form of the observable differences between matter and not-matter. We aren't proving unicorns here. It would be equally viable to prove that "light" exists because we can differentiate light and darkness, therefore that must be based on some sort of complexity within the Universe.

 

When testing "light" by this measure, we can safely say the best simplest definition of light is "that which observably differentiates from darkness" and again it doesn't matter if it exists within our mind or within an outer reality. If everything exists in our minds - that is the Universe. Then there is no outer Universe and no point in a definition for light that only works for an outer Universe that doesn't exist. The definition that relates directly to observable complexity in "the Universe" (whatever that may be) is the simplest, and most accurate definition possible.

 

Thus, you can say safely that matter exists. You just can't make the general assumptions about matter that we all assume to be true.

[lemur]

If your thoughts on differentiation exist, then something has to be responsible for that differentiation - there has to be a cause. There is no need to even claim they originate outside one's thoughts - all matter could exist only in the imagination of the person you are proving the existence of matter to, and from their perspective you could potentially be a figment of their imagination. However, regardless of whether you exist (from their perspective) they have to acknowledge that matter (from their perspective) does exist.

 

I agree with you that anything imaginable exists at least as an artifact of imagination. I think Descartes would agree with you too. The people you would run itno problems with, however imo, would be the materialists who would insist that matter exists in a way that imaginary experiences cannot exist; i.e. beyond the control of human subjectivity. You will probably say that subjectivity and objectivity only exist distinctly because they are differentiated by our minds, and again I would agree, but these insistent materialist will say that physical materiality exists externally and independently of human subjectivity. They only run into problems when they have to explain how they can know that given the fact that they are trapped in a subjective flesh and blood body.

 

The reason I like this thread is that it has the potential to expose the very nature of materiality and its relationship to the logic of proof, which is self-referential. Things are proven by reference to the assumption that the existence of materiality is self-evident. There is no proving materiality beyond its self-evidence. If you reject the existence of materiality on these grounds, there is no compulsory rationality of proof that can force you to accept the existence of matter. Someone can be lashing you with chains and you can attribute the pain to their vengeance and insist that the chains are just a subjective artifact that happens to be able to translate vengeance into physical pain. None of it is proof of matter's existence.

[padren]

Okay...Is his question: Does matter exist independently to the mind?

 

...If it is I can easily prove it...We exist...that's the proof...we are matter we exist... Explanation:

 

In the beginning of the universe there was no mind to watch the matter be created. Minds only exist if there is a body to sustain it...the body must be made of matter because it's the reactions in the matter that cause thought and behaviour and our minds to exist. The body can be robotic, cybernetic or organic...But it must still be made of matter and minds[intelligence, and thought] can't exist without something made of matter react with other matter or energy to produce different matter and energy which is how minds exist. Reactions between particles creating energy [electricity] which causes thought.

That explanation is similar to mine but yours does make the assumption that we are not living in a purely metaphysical universe that only appears to be physical. Pretty much anything that requires more assumptions than "cogito ergo sum" does, and this will get you in trouble due to the burden of proof.

 

You can argue your summary is the most elegant or the simplest known way to describe the Universe, and even point out that you are not making any assumptions greater than those already needed to apparently maintain our ability to survive any given minute in this Universe, but you still get locked into assumptions.

Unless there is an omnipresent, omnipotent, mind filling the universe [a deity] then there is no mind to see the matter that causes the forces and reactions that cause the atmosphere to stay, and cause gravity to exist in sufficient strength and our organs to continue sustaining our mind which would make the universe exist. I don't believe the stupid quantum thingy that states that unless a conscience being is looking a quantum event could hasn't made up it's mind on whether it's done something or hasn't because without an omnipresent deity that never sleeps the universe would never have began in the first place and we would all die and then there would be no conscience beings to look at the universe which would cease to exist except for energy...

 

[i an forgetting something, misunderstanding or thinking wrongly? Or am I correct?*Waits for response*]

Just a note on the quantum thing: there is no scientific claim that anything exists in a superposition (two places/states at once) until it is observed by a conscience being - you are correct in your skepticism there. That is a poor characterization derived from poor articulation and pop culture reporters failing to communicate the actual information. The issue with superpositions is actually that they are in both states until interacted upon by measurable forces that collapse them into one state or the other. The corollary to this is that since we, as conscious beings require some sort of measurable force to act on what we want to detect in order to detect it - any attempt to measure it will cause the superposition to collapse. Therefore any observation made by a conscious being will cause it to collapse, but it's just because of the mechanics involved - not something special about conscious beings.

 

Consider a ship at night navigating through iceberg infested waters, where you blow a whistle and if it echos, you know there is an iceberg there:

 

It works fine for icebergs, but if the sound generated by the whistle pushed the icebergs around, you could not detect them without moving them. When we get to quantum scales, even using a single photon to bounce off a particle and come back into a receptor (similar to the whistle sound bouncing off the iceberg) will change what you are trying to observe if you successfully detect it.

 

It's like trying to detect where moths are in a room by shooting bowling balls through it and listening for "splats" - you can detect the bugger, and know where you detected it, but it sure isn't going to be there anymore. Therefore all attempts by us to observe these types of interactions fail, because that key element in "observation" is to interact with it, and nothing we can use to interact with it has a small enough impact to leave it in the state you just detected.

 

I agree with you that anything imaginable exists at least as an artifact of imagination. I think Descartes would agree with you too. The people you would run itno problems with, however imo, would be the materialists who would insist that matter exists in a way that imaginary experiences cannot exist; i.e. beyond the control of human subjectivity. You will probably say that subjectivity and objectivity only exist distinctly because they are differentiated by our minds, and again I would agree, but these insistent materialist will say that physical materiality exists externally and independently of human subjectivity. They only run into problems when they have to explain how they can know that given the fact that they are trapped in a subjective flesh and blood body.

The nice thing (imo) about my matter-proof is that it is not inconsistent with materialist views, but doesn't depend on them. I can address anyone with that view and say "But if you're right, then I have to be right - but I don't need you to be right for me to be right."

The reason I like this thread is that it has the potential to expose the very nature of materiality and its relationship to the logic of proof, which is self-referential. Things are proven by reference to the assumption that the existence of materiality is self-evident. There is no proving materiality beyond its self-evidence. If you reject the existence of materiality on these grounds, there is no compulsory rationality of proof that can force you to accept the existence of matter. Someone can be lashing you with chains and you can attribute the pain to their vengeance and insist that the chains are just a subjective artifact that happens to be able to translate vengeance into physical pain. None of it is proof of matter's existence.

It usually becomes a question of run-away burdens of proof - someone is happy to accept the proof of your gas gauge as evidence that you filled the tank, but when you want to discuss any complex topic they are uncertain about -suddenly you have to prove you aren't existing in The Matrix or some dream.

 

It is generally an unfair burden of proof but since this topic was so simplistically specific "prove matter exists" I assumed such a burden would be in effect. As such I tailored my proof to that high burden by discarding unnecessary ancillary assumptions about matter. We all have to admit that we make these assumptions about reality every day, and no one is really eager to jump off a building just to find out if this is a dream - but if we want to get this deeply philisophical it's going to come up under the burden of proof.

 

However, since my proof is consistent with materialism and all other considerable models of the Universe (even models that conflict with each other) without depending on any of them I am able to side-step that debate entirely.

 

 

Are there any holes in my proof that I missed?

Edited November 14, 2010 by padren

[matterdoc]

A substance that gives positive existence to a real object is called matter. Hence, if there are real objects in nature, matter has to exist.