What is matter?

[untermensche]

Aside from the rather confused and meaningless response to my post, you really don't want to post responses like that to bilby. That looks like goading to me which is frowned on by the powers that be.

This looks like nothing but goading.

You stopped engaging.

So now all you are doing is harassing.

You somehow think in a thread entitled "What is matter?", philosophy is verboten.

 

[bilby]

There is obviously real philosophy in science, however not the semantic backflips that you call philosophy. Einstein engaged in some very meaningful philosophy. He saw the piles of data showing that no matter how or where the speed of light of light was measured it always was measured at the same speed. This was contrary to everything that science believed at the time so he pondered what the hell it could mean. His long philosophical pondering of the seemingly crazy data eventually led to the Theory of Relativity. Current cosmology is primarily an exercise in philosophy.

Science is most definitely discussion as to what could possibly be examined and how.

The reason we don't find this concept "without a cause" taught in any science class is because it is just illogical nonsense. It has no real meaning and certainly no existence.

- - - Updated - - -

So you engage, but then whatever, you decide to stop engaging for some reason I don't care about.

THEN you claim the whole thing belongs somewhere else.

Only one word to describe it.

Pathetic.

I wouldn't be quite that harsh, but I have asked for the derail to be moved to Philosophy, where I need not be surprised by how pathetic it is.

Wherever it is moved your failure to engage is clearly seen.

Refusal is a more accurate word than failure. I have explained why you are wrong; you have ignored my explanation and persist in your error; I no longer care, and am comfortable with your remaining wrong in perpetuity.

My only remaining concern is that your philosophical nonsense is cluttering up a perfectly good Natural Science thread.

 

[untermensche]

Science is most definitely discussion as to what could possibly be examined and how.

The reason we don't find this concept "without a cause" taught in any science class is because it is just illogical nonsense. It has no real meaning and certainly no existence.

- - - Updated - - -

So you engage, but then whatever, you decide to stop engaging for some reason I don't care about.

THEN you claim the whole thing belongs somewhere else.

Only one word to describe it.

Pathetic.

I wouldn't be quite that harsh, but I have asked for the derail to be moved to Philosophy, where I need not be surprised by how pathetic it is.

Wherever it is moved your failure to engage is clearly seen.

Refusal is a more accurate word than failure. I have explained why you are wrong; you have ignored my explanation and persist in your error; I no longer care, and am comfortable with your remaining wrong in perpetuity.

My only remaining concern is that your philosophical nonsense is cluttering up a perfectly good Natural Science thread.

You didn't explain shit.

I wrote a short argument explaining how it is up to those who claim "we don't know" to demonstrate that "without a cause" is actually a possibility as they claim.

Then you began squirming and squeaking about in a thread entitled "What is matter?" philosophy has no place.

 

[bilby]

Science is most definitely discussion as to what could possibly be examined and how.

The reason we don't find this concept "without a cause" taught in any science class is because it is just illogical nonsense. It has no real meaning and certainly no existence.

- - - Updated - - -

So you engage, but then whatever, you decide to stop engaging for some reason I don't care about.

THEN you claim the whole thing belongs somewhere else.

Only one word to describe it.

Pathetic.

I wouldn't be quite that harsh, but I have asked for the derail to be moved to Philosophy, where I need not be surprised by how pathetic it is.

Wherever it is moved your failure to engage is clearly seen.

Refusal is a more accurate word than failure. I have explained why you are wrong; you have ignored my explanation and persist in your error; I no longer care, and am comfortable with your remaining wrong in perpetuity.

My only remaining concern is that your philosophical nonsense is cluttering up a perfectly good Natural Science thread.

You didn't explain shit.

I wrote a short argument explaining how it is up to those who claim "we don't know" to demonstrate that "without a cause" is actually a possibility as they claim.

Then you began squirming and squeaking about in a thread entitled "What is matter?" philosophy has no place.

I can explain things to you; but I can't understand them for you.

Threads are organised into fora; This one is in a forum called 'Natural Science', which is categorised under the superset 'Science'. We have a separate superset 'Philosophy', which contains five other fora, all dedicated to philosophical debate.

Context is important; The title of the thread does not, on its own, define the scope of the expected discussion. The question 'What is matter?' could require either a scientific or a philosophical response; to invoke science in a philosophy thread, or philosophy in a science thread in passing is fine; but if you want a deep debate about the philosophical aspect of the question, the Philosophy fora are the place to do that.

 

[untermensche]

I can explain things to you; but I can't understand them for you.

Threads are organised into fora; This one is in a forum called 'Natural Science', which is categorised under the superset 'Science'. We have a separate superset 'Philosophy', which contains five other fora, all dedicated to philosophical debate.

Context is important; The title of the thread does not, on its own, define the scope of the expected discussion. The question 'What is matter?' could require either a scientific or a philosophical response; to invoke science in a philosophy thread, or philosophy in a science thread in passing is fine; but if you want a deep debate about the philosophical aspect of the question, the Philosophy fora are the place to do that.

No you lie.

You can't explain things to me because you do not understand things.

It is impossible to engage in any examination of "What is matter?" without invoking a lot of philosophy.

 

[bilby]

I can explain things to you; but I can't understand them for you.

Threads are organised into fora; This one is in a forum called 'Natural Science', which is categorised under the superset 'Science'. We have a separate superset 'Philosophy', which contains five other fora, all dedicated to philosophical debate.

Context is important; The title of the thread does not, on its own, define the scope of the expected discussion. The question 'What is matter?' could require either a scientific or a philosophical response; to invoke science in a philosophy thread, or philosophy in a science thread in passing is fine; but if you want a deep debate about the philosophical aspect of the question, the Philosophy fora are the place to do that.

No you lie.

You can't explain things to me because you do not understand things.

Whatever. I really don't give a shit what your opinion is; and everyone else here can read both of our posts, and make up their own minds which, if either, of us understands what.

It is impossible to engage in any examination of "What is matter?" without invoking a lot of philosophy.

Perhaps; but it is NOT impossible to start your own thread(s) in the Philosophy fora to do so, while discussing the Natural Science aspects of the question in the Natural Science forum.

 

[untermensche]

No you lie.

You can't explain things to me because you do not understand things.

Whatever. I really don't give a shit what your opinion is; and everyone else here can read both of our posts, and make up their own minds.

It is impossible to engage in any examination of "What is matter?" without invoking a lot of philosophy.

Perhaps; but it is NOT impossible to start your own thread(s) in the Philosophy fora to do so, while discussing the Natural Science aspects of the question in the Natural Science forum.

There is no magic demarcation as you imagine.

"What is matter?" is not "How does matter behave?"

How can you say this is science, but it doesn't make philosophical distinctions?

That's like saying; This is science, grammar doesn't apply.

 

[bilby]

Whatever. I really don't give a shit what your opinion is; and everyone else here can read both of our posts, and make up their own minds.

It is impossible to engage in any examination of "What is matter?" without invoking a lot of philosophy.

Perhaps; but it is NOT impossible to start your own thread(s) in the Philosophy fora to do so, while discussing the Natural Science aspects of the question in the Natural Science forum.

There is no magic demarcation as you imagine.

Not magic, no. Simply imposed by the creators and owners of this discussion board, as is their right.

"What is matter?" is not "How does matter behave?"

How can you say this is science, but it doesn't make philosophical distinctions?

I didn't say anything of the sort.

That's like saying; This is science, grammar doesn't apply.

Grammar is important; but a detailed discussion of the use of split infinitives in the English language is not appropriate content for a paper on particle physics; and nor is a philosophical debate on what might underlie the science. Grammar and philosophy are used; but not discussed, in a scientific forum. That is a matter for elsewhere.

Speaking of Elsewhere, that is where a meta-discussion on the merits of philosophical discussion in the Natural Science forum probably belongs.

 

[untermensche]

Whatever. I really don't give a shit what your opinion is; and everyone else here can read both of our posts, and make up their own minds.

It is impossible to engage in any examination of "What is matter?" without invoking a lot of philosophy.

Perhaps; but it is NOT impossible to start your own thread(s) in the Philosophy fora to do so, while discussing the Natural Science aspects of the question in the Natural Science forum.

There is no magic demarcation as you imagine.

Not magic, no. Simply imposed by the creators and owners of this discussion board, as is their right.

It is their right to do the impossible?

Whatever.

The movement of threads is not a subject I give a shit about.

It is a matter for small minds.

That's like saying; This is science, grammar doesn't apply.

Grammar is important; but a detailed discussion of the use of split infinitives in the English language is not appropriate content for a paper on particle physics; and nor is a philosophical debate on what might underlie the science. Grammar and philosophy are used; but not discussed, in a scientific forum. That is a matter for elsewhere.

So all you're arguments collapse.

Because this is in no way a discussion of philosophy. Nobody is talking about Sartre or Wittgenstein or any other work of any philosopher.

This is an examination of the distinction between "What something is" vs "How something behaves"

It is USING philosophy, not about philosophy.

 

[beero1000]

I find untermensche's posts much more entertaining now that I've learned not to engage at all. Though, I do find the patience and stamina of some on the board to be awe inspiring in that regard.

Let's all keep in mind that this poster's Grand Proclamations of Obvious Truth^TM have included gems like the universe must be finite because "A cubic meter of space is a discreet entity. So any amount that actually exists is a discreet number, not infinity." and "If yesterday is a finite amount of time away from all moments in time then time is finite not infinite.", etc, etc.

I've mentioned this before, but I believe I have never seen him back away from one of his Grand POOTs, no matter how his arguments are shredded. Once stated, they are stalwartly defended using "logic" for as many posts as it takes for the thread to descend into oblivion...

 

[untermensche]

I find untermensche's posts much more entertaining now that I've learned not to engage at all. Though, I do find the patience and stamina of some on the board to be awe inspiring in that regard.

Let's all keep in mind that this poster's Grand Proclamations of Obvious Truth^TM have included gems like the universe must be finite because "A cubic meter of space is a discreet entity. So any amount that actually exists is a discreet number, not infinity." and "If yesterday is a finite amount of time away from all moments in time then time is finite not infinite.", etc, etc.

I've mentioned this before, but I believe I have never seen him back away from one of his Grand POOTs, no matter how his arguments are shredded. Once stated, they are stalwartly defended using "logic" for as many posts as it takes for the thread to descend into oblivion...

Which argument do you support?

The one where they say "We don't know" but can't support in any way the concept of "without a cause"?

Or the next argument?.

I can't possibly address this because it is philosophy.

 

[bilby]

Whatever. I really don't give a shit what your opinion is; and everyone else here can read both of our posts, and make up their own minds.

It is impossible to engage in any examination of "What is matter?" without invoking a lot of philosophy.

Perhaps; but it is NOT impossible to start your own thread(s) in the Philosophy fora to do so, while discussing the Natural Science aspects of the question in the Natural Science forum.

There is no magic demarcation as you imagine.

Not magic, no. Simply imposed by the creators and owners of this discussion board, as is their right.

It is their right to do the impossible?

Whatever.

The movement of threads is not a subject I give a shit about.

It is a matter for small minds.

That's like saying; This is science, grammar doesn't apply.

Grammar is important; but a detailed discussion of the use of split infinitives in the English language is not appropriate content for a paper on particle physics; and nor is a philosophical debate on what might underlie the science. Grammar and philosophy are used; but not discussed, in a scientific forum. That is a matter for elsewhere.

So all you're arguments collapse.

Because this is in no way a discussion of philosophy. Nobody is talking about Sartre or Wittgenstein or any other work of any philosopher.

This is an examination of the distinction between "What something is" vs "How something behaves"

It is USING philosophy, not about philosophy.

Perhaps; but it sure as hell isn't Natural Science. I am yet to be convinced that it is any kind of intellectual endeavour at all, unless 'mental masturbation' is considered intellectual endeavour.

Perhaps we could have a 'mental masturbation' forum. I mean, in addition to the existing 'Political Discussions'

 

[untermensche]

Whatever. I really don't give a shit what your opinion is; and everyone else here can read both of our posts, and make up their own minds.

It is impossible to engage in any examination of "What is matter?" without invoking a lot of philosophy.

Perhaps; but it is NOT impossible to start your own thread(s) in the Philosophy fora to do so, while discussing the Natural Science aspects of the question in the Natural Science forum.

There is no magic demarcation as you imagine.

Not magic, no. Simply imposed by the creators and owners of this discussion board, as is their right.

It is their right to do the impossible?

Whatever.

The movement of threads is not a subject I give a shit about.

It is a matter for small minds.

That's like saying; This is science, grammar doesn't apply.

Grammar is important; but a detailed discussion of the use of split infinitives in the English language is not appropriate content for a paper on particle physics; and nor is a philosophical debate on what might underlie the science. Grammar and philosophy are used; but not discussed, in a scientific forum. That is a matter for elsewhere.

So all you're arguments collapse.

Because this is in no way a discussion of philosophy. Nobody is talking about Sartre or Wittgenstein or any other work of any philosopher.

This is an examination of the distinction between "What something is" vs "How something behaves"

It is USING philosophy, not about philosophy.

Perhaps; but it sure as hell isn't Natural Science. I am yet to be convinced that it is any kind of intellectual endeavour at all, unless 'mental masturbation' is considered intellectual endeavour.

Perhaps we could have a 'mental masturbation' forum. I mean, in addition to the existing 'Political Discussions'

The arguments just get more pathetic.

Of course it is mental masturbation. What did you think it is? Your path to greatness?

Call it mental masturbation or examination of ideas that have no practical use it doesn't matter. Those obsessed with masturbation might choose the former.

But if you think there is no distinction between the concepts, "What is something?" and "How does something behave?" then make the argument.

Because I don't know how you can examine the question of "What is matter?" without clarifying that distinction.

 

[skepticalbip]

I find untermensche's posts much more entertaining now that I've learned not to engage at all. Though, I do find the patience and stamina of some on the board to be awe inspiring in that regard.

Let's all keep in mind that this poster's Grand Proclamations of Obvious Truth^TM have included gems like the universe must be finite because "A cubic meter of space is a discreet entity. So any amount that actually exists is a discreet number, not infinity." and "If yesterday is a finite amount of time away from all moments in time then time is finite not infinite.", etc, etc.

I've mentioned this before, but I believe I have never seen him back away from one of his Grand POOTs, no matter how his arguments are shredded. Once stated, they are stalwartly defended using "logic" for as many posts as it takes for the thread to descend into oblivion...

I must have missed some of his posts. I have never seen him actually defend any of his Grand POOTs. I have only seen him continually repeat the exact same assertions regardless of the post he pretends to be responding to, over and over until the thread sorta peters out from everyone getting bored with reading the same thing over and over while all points refuting them are ignored.

 

[Juma]

Yes do that, please post some arguments supporting your position.

Just explain to me the logical difference between the claim that "my god always existed and had no cause" and "that behavior had no cause".

It seems to me they are the exact same idea.

It is not the claim that all behaviors has causes that is wrong, it is your stronger and unsupported claim that there are a single root cause for everything.

 

[Juma]

Because I don't know how you can examine the question of "What is matter?" without clarifying that distinction.

So do show how you answer the question "what is matter" without talking of behavior.

 

[untermensche]

Because I don't know how you can examine the question of "What is matter?" without clarifying that distinction.

So do show how you answer the question "what is matter" without talking of behavior.

This has been the diversion.

You talk about the cause of the behavior.

Which yes, is a preceding behavior, but we can't ignore the implication of this apparent string of behaviors.

It is not the claim that all behaviors has causes that is wrong, it is your stronger and unsupported claim that there are a single root cause for everything.

A root cause to any observed behavior.

Unless there can be behavior "without a cause".

Then "without a cause" is in need of rational definition such that it is shown to possibly exist and to possibly lead to effect.

 

[Juma]

So do show how you answer the question "what is matter" without talking of behavior.

This has been the diversion.

You talk about the cause of the behavior.

Which yes, is a preceding behavior, but we can't ignore the implication of this apparent string of behaviors.

It is not the claim that all behaviors has causes that is wrong, it is your stronger and unsupported claim that there are a single root cause for everything.

A root cause to any observed behavior.

Unless there can be behavior "without a cause".

Then "without a cause" is in need of rational definition such that it is shown to possibly exist and to possibly lead to effect.

Have you ever analyzed the contents of a so called "cause"? 'Cause if you do you will see the "cause" to be nothing more than a situation and what happens is not so much a matter of "the cause", which is purely incidental, but of the behavior of the structures involved.

"Cause and effect" is important for humans to understand human actions and thus a convenient how to, antromorphized, explain how the world "acts", It is not an underlying physical principle.

 

[Kharakov]

No it isn't. There are loads of real questions.

'Do Geckos lay eggs, or give birth to live young?' for example; or 'How long can a penguin hold its breath?'.

Your insistence that you have some special insight into what the 'only' questions are is probably the root cause of your incoherence.

That was a direct response to somebody else and in it the words "only real question" have a specific context.

Only the most desperate mind and stillborn imagination could think it referred to all contexts.

me!! me me !!! Questions are all imaginary.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Say eventually some testable model were proposed, consistent with observation, which explained the behaviour of matter (or fields or whatever), not as more brute facts, but as logically necessary properties of that which exists rather than doesn't... Would that be just another model? Of interest to philosophers only?

Nah, it'd be the scientific biggie. The best scientific brains and resources would be thrown at it. Not to say that there is or must be any such thing, but there'd be enormous scientific interest in it regardlesss of any philosophical intuition that there ought to be any such thing.

Wouldn't there?

There would certainly be scientific interest if it were testable. You should note that there is interest in studying quantum fluctuations.

Indeed, and I think there'd be even more interest in what I suggested for the same reason (which isn't to say there must ultimately be any such thing).

Even if it were not testable there would be interest by scientists not acting as scientists but as philosophers. Einstein was a great philosopher. Yes scientists philosophize too but they generally start with hard data and try to imagine what it could mean as opposed to many philosophers who pull an idea out of their arse and run with it.

Indeed, they look for unifying principles which reduce the number of arbitrary and theoretical entities we must just accept as brute facts. I think there'd be unprecedented interest in the first to reduce them to zero. Others apparently think it'd be just another model, so I guess we won't know unless such a thing ever comes along.