What is matter?

[Juma]

"What is X" simply means: "tell me everything i want to know about X".

Since that is usually a lot there is also an implicit "start with most important stuff" but the context can be even more discriminating as in "just tell me the size of it"

No. What is X, in terms of matter, is a question about essence, not features or behavior.

It is to take knowledge of matter to a point where there is nothing else to know.

There is nothing else to know but behavior. What do you suggest there should be? Meaning? Intention?

 

[untermensche]

No. What is X, in terms of matter, is a question about essence, not features or behavior.

It is to take knowledge of matter to a point where there is nothing else to know.

There is nothing else to know.

Nonsense.

 

[Juma]

There is nothing else to know.

Nonsense.

? What would there be? It is up to you to suggest something.

 

[untermensche]

Nonsense.

? What would there be? It is up to you to suggest something.

We have merely reached our limits to break matter apart.

That is not the end of knowledge.

It is the end of human capacities to learn more.

 

[Juma]

? What would there be? It is up to you to suggest something.

We have merely reached our limits to break matter apart.

That is not the end of knowledge.

It is the end of human capacities to learn more.

I didnt say we know everything. Just that all there is to know is behavior.

What else is there to know?

 

[untermensche]

We have merely reached our limits to break matter apart.

That is not the end of knowledge.

It is the end of human capacities to learn more.

I didnt say we know everything. Just that all there is to know is behavior.

What else is there to know?

The cause of the behavior.

 

[Juma]

I didnt say we know everything. Just that all there is to know is behavior.

What else is there to know?

The cause of the behavior.

The cause? "Cause" is just a way to model behavior: that a behavior B is caused by A is just s way of modelleing the behavior that "if A then B"

 

[untermensche]

The cause of the behavior.

The cause? "Cause" is just a way to model behavior: that a behavior B is caused by A is just s way of modelleing the behavior that "if A then B"

Root cause. What is the essence of the thing that causes it to behave as it does.

 

[DBT]

I think that you dont understand what the question "what is X" really means.

Describe what you think a complete answer would contain?

Whether they walked like an Egyptian.

Given matter energy/particle/waves in superposition, they walk like an Egyptian, a Roman, a Greek, a Persian and a Hittite, all at the same time.....who would know? Not the observer, the observer merely collapses the lot, all except one, or maybe not.

 

[Juma]

The cause? "Cause" is just a way to model behavior: that a behavior B is caused by A is just s way of modelleing the behavior that "if A then B"

Root cause. What is the essence of the thing that causes it to behave as it does.

"Root cause"?
Then what explains the "root cause"?
"Root cause" is a chimera.
You dont need it and it is a logical contradiction.

 

[untermensche]

Root cause. What is the essence of the thing that causes it to behave as it does.

"Root cause"?
Then what explains the "root cause"?
"Root cause" is a chimera.
You dont need it and it is a logical contradiction.

You don't need it to predict behavior but it exists.

If a thing has behavior there must be a root cause, or reason(s) for it to have the behavior.

 

[bilby]

I didnt say we know everything. Just that all there is to know is behavior.

What else is there to know?

The cause of the behavior.

What is a 'cause', if not the behaviour of something else?

Matter behaves as it does because atoms behave as they do because hadrons and leptons behave as they do because quarks and bosons behave as they do.

The chain stops there; quarks, leptons and bosons behave as they do, but we don't know why. To find out why would mean finding the next level of divisibility, the existence of which is currently unevidenced. It may well not exist; or if it does, there may be another level below that, and so on.

Either way, the only causes at any level are the behaviours at the level below; if there isn't a level below, then to discuss cause at all is meaningless, and if there is, it becomes a discussion of behaviours, and not causes.

The very idea of a cause that is not simply the behaviours of some other set of objects is futile and meaningless. If you have evidence to the contrary, present it.

Simply repeating your absurd demand for a 'cause' that is not a lower level 'behaviour' is not acceptable. (But it is predictable).

 

[Juma]

"Root cause"?
Then what explains the "root cause"?
"Root cause" is a chimera.
You dont need it and it is a logical contradiction.

You don't need it to predict behavior but it exists.

If a thing has behavior there must be a root cause, or reason(s) for it to have the behavior.

What does "it exist" mean? It means nothing more than "my model fits the observed behavior".

We describes how the world behaves as sn interplay of cause and result. When there is nothing more to explain, when everything is completely modelled, there wont be a "root cause" explaining everything else, but a giant web of models.

 

[untermensche]

You don't need it to predict behavior but it exists.

If a thing has behavior there must be a root cause, or reason(s) for it to have the behavior.

What does "it exist" mean? It means nothing more than "my model fits the observed behavior".

We describes how the world behaves as sn interplay of cause and result. When there is nothing more to explain, when everything is completely modelled, there wont be a "root cause" explaining everything else, but a giant web of models.

No. We have been reduced to explaining the world this way because of our ignorance and limits.

We would love to understand root causes but can't.

 

[Juma]

What does "it exist" mean? It means nothing more than "my model fits the observed behavior".

We describes how the world behaves as sn interplay of cause and result. When there is nothing more to explain, when everything is completely modelled, there wont be a "root cause" explaining everything else, but a giant web of models.

No. We have been reduced to explaining the world this way because of our ignorance and limits.

We would love to understand root causes but can't.

Understand what? Please enlight me: describe a hypotetical root cause and how that would tell us anything?

 

[untermensche]

No. We have been reduced to explaining the world this way because of our ignorance and limits.

We would love to understand root causes but can't.

Understand what? Please enlight me: describe a hypotetical root cause and how that would tell us anything?

An example would be gravity.

The behavior would be the attraction of things with mass to one another.

Einstein said the cause was that space was bent by mass.

I'm not saying this is the ultimate truth but this is a difference between behavior and root cause.

 

[Juma]

Understand what? Please enlight me: describe a hypotetical root cause and how that would tell us anything?

An example would be gravity.

The behavior would be the attraction of things with mass to one another.

Einstein said the cause was that space was bent by mass.

I'm not saying this is the ultimate truth but this is a difference between behavior and root cause.

So your "cause" is nothing but the model?
A model describes some rules (behavior). In this case that mass bends space and bent space makes mass move differently.

Thus your "cause" means nothing more than "explanation" or "detailed description"?

 

[untermensche]

An example would be gravity.

The behavior would be the attraction of things with mass to one another.

Einstein said the cause was that space was bent by mass.

I'm not saying this is the ultimate truth but this is a difference between behavior and root cause.

So your "cause" is nothing but the model?
A model describes some rules (behavior). In this case that mass bends space and bent space makes mass move differently.

Thus your "cause" means nothing more than "explanation" or "detailed description"?

Bent space is not the root cause. The root cause would have to describe what space is so we can understand how it can be bent and why it is bent by things with mass. And understanding that may necessitate the need for other causes. The models don't go anywhere near the root cause.

The example was merely to show the difference between behavior and root cause.

 

[Juma]

So your "cause" is nothing but the model?
A model describes some rules (behavior). In this case that mass bends space and bent space makes mass move differently.

Thus your "cause" means nothing more than "explanation" or "detailed description"?

Bent space is not the root cause. The root cause would have to describe what space is so we can understand how it can be bent and why it is bent by things with mass. And understanding that may necessitate the need for other causes. The models don't go anywhere near the root cause.

The example was merely to show the difference between behavior and root cause.

But the answer to "what space is" is a model of the behavior of space and stuff in it.

There is nothing "root cause" about it. It is just another part of the big picture.

It is just a more detailed model.

 

[untermensche]

Bent space is not the root cause. The root cause would have to describe what space is so we can understand how it can be bent and why it is bent by things with mass. And understanding that may necessitate the need for other causes. The models don't go anywhere near the root cause.

The example was merely to show the difference between behavior and root cause.

But the answer to "what space is" is a model of the behavior of space and stuff in it.

There is nothing "root cause" about it. It is just another part of the big picture.

It is just a more detailed model.

What is space?

How can it be bent?