Are words immaterial?

[Kharakov]

When I change a configuration of some oranges, I am not putting distances between them and taking distances away; the distances of space-time were already there. It simply comes down to the fact that we can have two different outcomes using the exact same material in both instances. We don't add anything or take anything away from the input or the system, yet two different effects can take place.
Maybe we can say that the difference is physically described by using measuring instruments between the objects, but space-time does nothing causally and has no input to make the difference. Space-time isn't really doing anything that I can tell in either instance.

Space-time does a hell of a lot (and even stationary oranges are constantly going through minute changes). To paraphrase ??John Wheeler??: Matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter how to move.

Spacetime is very real, just like matter. It is not immaterial, although it is a different type of real.

Show

When the snake said "pay time, low down one" I heard "spacetime slows down son".

 

[ryan]

Maybe we can say that the difference is physically described by using measuring instruments between the objects, but space-time does nothing causally and has no input to make the difference. Space-time isn't really doing anything that I can tell in either instance.

This is just plain bullshit. You are not making any sense whatsoever. It is obvious that position/distances/structure is an important part of what is called material.

Immaterial is useually used to mean something that is not material in any way. And position is definitely not that usually is part of the immaterial.

It is like this: there is stuff, the real world, the world we experience with our senses. This is called the material world. Then there is some that believe an a altogether different real: the immaterial. The world of thoughts and feelings.

Your usage of the word "immaterial" has nothing to do with that concept.

I always hear the scientists say that there can't be a non-physical consciousness because there is nothing like that that has been found in the brain. I am searching for a place where it might be.

 

[Juma]

This is just plain bullshit. You are not making any sense whatsoever. It is obvious that position/distances/structure is an important part of what is called material.

Immaterial is useually used to mean something that is not material in any way. And position is definitely not that usually is part of the immaterial.

It is like this: there is stuff, the real world, the world we experience with our senses. This is called the material world. Then there is some that believe an a altogether different real: the immaterial. The world of thoughts and feelings.

Your usage of the word "immaterial" has nothing to do with that concept.

I always hear the scientists say that there can't be a non-physical consciousness because there is nothing like that that has been found in the brain. I am searching for a place where it might be.

But then that place will not be immaterial. It will be just something going on in the material world.

 

[ryan]

When I change a configuration of some oranges, I am not putting distances between them and taking distances away; the distances of space-time were already there. It simply comes down to the fact that we can have two different outcomes using the exact same material in both instances. We don't add anything or take anything away from the input or the system, yet two different effects can take place.
Maybe we can say that the difference is physically described by using measuring instruments between the objects, but space-time does nothing causally and has no input to make the difference. Space-time isn't really doing anything that I can tell in either instance.

Space-time does a hell of a lot (and even stationary oranges are constantly going through minute changes). To paraphrase ??John Wheeler??: Matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter how to move.

Spacetime is very real, just like matter. It is not immaterial, although it is a different type of real.

Show

When the snake said "pay time, low down one" I heard "spacetime slows down son".

Please read it again. In other words, curvature of space-time among the oranges does not play a significant role in their reactions to inputs coming from different angles. And I know that an orange is not a static object, so we can imagine the oranges in both situations going through identical internal processes in both instances.

 

[ryan]

I always hear the scientists say that there can't be a non-physical consciousness because there is nothing like that that has been found in the brain. I am searching for a place where it might be.

But then that place will not be immaterial. It will be just something going on in the material world.

Does this material world include things that do not consist of matter or energy?

 

[Juma]

But then that place will not be immaterial. It will be just something going on in the material world.

Does this material world include things that do not consist of matter or energy?

What do you have in mind? Are you still stuck in the failed thought that position is not material?

 

[ryan]

Does this material world include things that do not consist of matter or energy?

What do you have in mind? Are you still stuck in the failed thought that position is not material?

Can we define material/matter as consisting of matter or energy? If so, then yes.

 

[Juma]

What do you have in mind? Are you still stuck in the failed thought that position is not material?

Can we define material/matter as consisting of matter or energy? If so, then yes.

Space and matter are one and the same: matter is ripples in space. Position is a necessity for matter to exist.

 

[ryan]

Can we define material/matter as consisting of matter or energy? If so, then yes.

Space and matter are one and the same: matter is ripples in space. Position is a necessity for matter to exist.

I have never heard that before. If you don't actually mean that particles are ripples in space-time, then space-time is not energy/matter. Imagine A completely dense object like a black hole. Or even at the time of the Big Bang; there was no space in the beginning, yet there was matter/energy.

Furthermore, just because something is necessary for something else to exist does not mean that they are the same thing. Take an ice cube and an ice-cube tray for example. The water needs the tray to be an ice cube, but it doesn't mean that they are the same thing.

 

[Juma]

Or even at the time of the Big Bang; there was no space in the beginning, yet there was matter/energy.

Wrong. Space AND matter was born at the same time.

Furthermore, just because something is necessary for something else to exist does not mean that they are the same thing. Take an ice cube and an ice-cube tray for example. The water needs the tray to be an ice cube, but it doesn't mean that they are the same thing.

You got it wrong. A correct allegory would be to say that the ice needs the water to be an ice cube.

 

[ryan]

Wrong. Space AND matter was born at the same time.

If conditions at the exact time of the Big Bang were infinitely dense, then distances go to zero; do they not?

Furthermore, just because something is necessary for something else to exist does not mean that they are the same thing. Take an ice cube and an ice-cube tray for example. The water needs the tray to be an ice cube, but it doesn't mean that they are the same thing.

You got it wrong. A correct allegory would be to say that the ice needs the water to be an ice cube.

Are you sure that particles are ripples of space-time? If they are not, then there is a distinction between the two.

 

[Juma]

If conditions at the exact time of the Big Bang were infinitely dense, then distances go to zero; do they not?.

So what?

All this discussion is meaningless since you doesnt recognize that central problem that you are misunderstand the usage of the word "immaterial". "Immaterial" is not some well defined scientific term. It is just a vague term used to describe that something is not available to science.

 

[Speakpigeon]

That is based on carbon atoms only needing certain positions to be considered a diamond which is obviously wrong. But I'll go with it if you want.
So, assuming there is no difference other than the arrangements between the black dust and a diamond, the only difference is position. Surely positions are not material.

Then what IS material?

Elementary particles seem sufficient.

Excellent!

Yet, the properties of elementary particles are dependent on relative position, distance, relative movement etc., all things that are not strictly matter.

So perhaps you should say that only matter is material?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

In my post I said that the structure is made of both material and immaterial. And if everything is material, then what is the point in that?

To express the general view that the world reported by our senses possesses fundamental unity.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Elementary particles seem sufficient.

So atoms are imaterial since they are made up of relative positions of particles.

Particles have both positions and the particles, so they are both material and immaterial.

So elementary particles would be sufficient but they are not necessary...

Matter is both sufficient and necessary, yes?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I was just asking about words, and I don't really have a definition. haven't thought about it much
it seems the user "fast" made some progress but I didn't understand what was being said in his exchanges.
I wouldn't take offense if we talk about souls, heck if there is one then why not two?

Maybe we could march in a little closer by exposing the answers to the questions we aren't after.

For instance, if we answer the question, "what is a word," have we answered the question, "what do words do?" Aren't we instead interested in knowing what they're made of? Perhaps we want to know where they are, so we can find them and inspect them and see for ourselves if they are things that are made of matter. The provocative notion that there can be something that exists yet not be made of matter just might be the underlying conflict that drives some to deny that something exists. Of course, we aren't denying that words exist. That forces people to explain its location, and when there is no actual location for something, many (and boy don't I mean many) people will declare that it's in the mind--perhaps in the form of electricity and chemicals.

A word that is verbalized is detectable as a sound. A word that is written is detectable as lead, ink, or toner. A word that is computer generated is detectable as pixels. The physical representation of words can be found in many places, but in what form does a word take notwithstanding its detection? We know what they're composed of. They are composed of letters. But, what are they composed of?

Sure, they're apart of our alphabet which is apart of our language, but what elements from the periodic table are included in their being? For this, let's turn to what they do. They denote. They denote meaning. Yes, we use them to denote (or to stand in place of meaning), but what are they?

I think they are more like a class (and more of an abstract nature) than things regarded as being made up of material matter. Awe, and it's this that prompts me to classify them as immaterial (or things that do in fact exist that are not made up of material substance). In the mind? No way. The idea of a pig is in the mind. The concept of a pig is in the mind. A statue of a pig ... In the BBQ parking lot. The idea of a word...in the mind. The concept of a word...in the mind. Written representation of a word...in books, etc.

A word is not an actual thing. It's something, but it's not a thing. Perhaps it's a class.

I think there are two main aspects that should be taken into consideration: (1) First, it seems essential that we use words to communicate with each others (2) As such they always come with some material form.

I think (1) shoud lead to exclude considering words as mental things.

Following ryan's point, I accept that words are not made of matter only but again nothing we can perceive with our senses is made of matter only (except matter itself if it exists at all). A car for instance has matter but also shape, structure, position, volume etc. and we certainly regard cars as material things.

If it is essential for a thing that it is used for the purpose of communication if it is to be a word then it is also an empirical matter that words should come in material form so as to allow us to perceive them or indeed create them. We can certainly imagine disincarnated words but that's hardly an argument for saying that they exists as immaterial things.

Your suggestion that a word is a class seems to fall under the general problem of the existence of universals. You call "word" the class of all those particular things that I call "words". I think we all accept that we can perceive words as particulars, for example when written on a piece of paper, but then these are particulars. I don't know how one perceives universals or indeed a class.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

When I change a configuration of some oranges, I am not putting distances between them and taking distances away; the distances of space-time were already there. It simply comes down to the fact that we can have two different outcomes using the exact same material in both instances. We don't add anything or take anything away from the input or the system, yet two different effects can take place.

Maybe we can say that the difference is physically described by using measuring instruments between the objects, but space-time does nothing causally and has no input to make the difference. Space-time isn't really doing anything that I can tell in either instance.

You seem to make the assumption that matter and spacetime are independent things. Yet, I don't see how we ever experience one without the other. For all we know, an orange sitting here is merely a property of spacetime. If so, changing the location of the orange is changing spacetime, which explains why the effects will be different. This is what we call "material things". A quantity of matter only come with what you call the "immaterial" properties of position, structure, movement, etc.
EB

 

[Perspicuo]

Configuration is physical. Configuration is location on the x-y-z axes of the space-time continuum. Saying it's "immaterial" is a smart way to dodge the fact that it is physical. Both mass and energy are forms of matter and part of the physical world. Physical existence and material existence are interchangeable.

When I change a configuration of some oranges, I am not putting distances between them and taking distances away; the distances of space-time were already there. It simply comes down to the fact that we can have two different outcomes using the exact same material in both instances. We don't add anything or take anything away from the input or the system, yet two different effects can take place.

Maybe we can say that the difference is physically described by using measuring instruments between the objects, but space-time does nothing causally and has no input to make the difference. Space-time isn't really doing anything that I can tell in either instance.

Wrong. You changed the configuration of the oranges, your hand being physical within physical spacetime with respect to physical oranges. And then these affect the physical system which is the human observer having physical phenomena happening in his optical nerve, optical cortex and deeper structures, recorded in physical neurons to be later evoked in the physical neural network (cognition, emotion, etc) and probable physical motor behavior.

I'm really running out of didactic tools here. Not a ghost of an idea how to make it clearer.

 

[Togo]

I'm really running out of didactic tools here. Not a ghost of an idea how to make it clearer.

hm.. Let's say I have three oranges, and sell two to you. You have not collected the oranges and I have no need to move them.

We've gone from a set of 3 oranges, to a set of two oranges (yours) and one orange (mine).

Has something physical changed?

There has to be some level at which inclusion in a set or exclusion from a set is either an immaterial change, or else 'material' really doesn't mean very much.

 

[ryan]

If conditions at the exact time of the Big Bang were infinitely dense, then distances go to zero; do they not?.

So what?

All this discussion is meaningless since you doesnt recognize that central problem that you are misunderstand the usage of the word "immaterial". "Immaterial" is not some well defined scientific term. It is just a vague term used to describe that something is not available to science.

Remember, this is all about position. The same space-time and the same material can cause totally different effects because of their positions.