Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
zep73

The illusion of Matter

169 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

zep73

Matter is made of atoms, that are composed of particles. And we know that those particles are mere energy, given mass by the Higgs boson, who is also mere energy. Mass is therefore only an illusion.

That fact is among the most amazing that science has given us, during the latest 100+ years, and it has also inspired some of the most famous and profound quotes from celebrated scientists:

Quote

Einstein:
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

Bohr:
"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real."

Heisenberg:
"The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts."

(Susskind even flat out calls the universe a hologram. He won the "information debate" against Hawking.)

Most people ignore this fact about the universe. They don't ignore it on purpose, it's just something that falls natural to forget, unless it's spoken about.

How do you feel about nothing being truly tangible and solid? That you, and everything around you, is closer to being a hologram, than to being something real? How do you feel about the fact, that you can't fully trust your senses?

And what about beliefs, theories, hypotheses and ontologies (reality models). Does it, in your opinion, favor or disfavor any of them?

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

Everything feels pretty damn solid to me.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bison

I've maintained for some time that the universe is an idea, rather than the forms it appears to take to our senses. I've said as much in this forum, before. I used the example of the transitory and really indefinable nature of much larger material objects, but this must apply also to the elementary particles out of which matter appear to be made. These particles are, in some respects, even more elusive than the more familar forms of matter. We have, of course, from Dr. Einstein, the realization that matter and energy are in essence, equivalent.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
5 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Everything feels pretty damn solid to me.

It's nothing but electromagnetic resistance. A negative charge, held in place by a positive charge.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
3 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

It's nothing but electromagnetic resistance. A negative charge, held in place by a positive charge.

You think I honestly care?

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

You think I honestly care?

You care enough to click the thread, and comment. Twice.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
34 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

 And what about beliefs, theories, hypotheses and ontologies (reality models). Does it, in your opinion, favor or disfavor any of them?

In my Advaita (non-dual=God and creation are not-two) belief system only Consciousness/God/Brahman is real. Matter and energy are thoughtforms of Consciousness/God/Brahman. Advaita is really the opposite of Materialism.

Advaita: Consciousness is primary and matter is a derivative of Consciousness

Materialism: Matter is primary and consciousness is a derivative of Matter

 

In all my research I have never come across matter. To me the term matter implies a bundle of energy which is given form by an intelligent spirit.

Max Planck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
27 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

You care enough to click the thread, and comment. Twice.

How about I click and reply a third time. It seems that science likes destroying any semblance of what we can call human. Reducing everything down to atoms, chemicals, and synapses. It has taken everything that has made us human away. Reducing us down to meat machines. In your case an illusory meat machine, that doesn't even exist. So why should anyone exist or continue to exist when they are nothing? That's my opinion. I'm sorry I am not a big brain person around here, that for some stupid reason have a bit of humanity in me. But that's just chemicals anyway. 

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
8 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

In all my research I have never come across matter. To me the term matter implies a bundle of energy which is given form by an intelligent spirit.

Max Planck

I agree with Planck, except for the last word he used. But he really had no alternative at that given time, so he's excused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bison

'Spirit' is a pretty flexible word. People have used it in various ways, to convey different concepts. It could simply mean a different, and/or 'higher' form of existence.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
Just now, sci-nerd said:

I agree with Planck, except for the last word he used. But he really had no alternative at that given time, so he's excused.

So what would you replace the word with? It seems to need something more fundamental to reality than matter/energy, My beliefs come from the direct observations of the Vedic (Hindu scriptures) seers/mystics.

 

I go into the Upanishads to ask questions.

Niels Bohr

 

The Upanishads are Hindu scripture.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56

Everything is nothing pretending to be something.

  • Like 5
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
6 minutes ago, bison said:

'Spirit' is a pretty flexible word. People have used it in various ways, to convey different concepts. It could simply mean a different, and/or 'higher' form of existence.

I think Planck was referring to this mystery called Consciousness which is something immaterial (spirit).

I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

So what would you replace the word with?

I'm not sure. Everything can be explained by a random energy fluctuation. What we call the big bang.
The only thing that defies randomness is quantum duality. Because, why would a random system respond to observation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
Just now, sci-nerd said:

 Because, why would a random system respond to observation?

Because Consciousness is the creator of reality? That mystery we can't get behind.

I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
papageorge1
20 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

What he should have said is:

We need more data, before we can conclude anything.

Well we'll let you tell Planck what to think and not think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Well we'll let you tell Planck what to think and not think.

Had he known that there'd someday be machines that could achieve intelligence and potentially mimic consciousness, he most likely would have spoken differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
6 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Well we'll let you tell Planck what to think and not think.

Can't talk to a dead man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
Just now, sci-nerd said:

Had he known that there'd someday be machines that could achieve intelligence and potentially mimic consciousness, he most likely would have spoken differently.

No, I don't see how that changes anything about his knowledge of quantum behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
Just now, XenoFish said:

Can't talk to a dead man.

It was a joke. But anyway I do believe dead men can communicate through mediums but that is certainly off topic..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

No, I don't see how that changes anything about his knowledge of quantum behavior.

If he had seen that those machines behave like quantum systems, in their handling of graphics, it would have.

1) We have machines that behave like quantum systems
2) Those machines can be intelligent and potentially gain consciousness

As a scientist he would have been thrilled!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

So let me get this straight, nothing exist, nothing matters. Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
5 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

It was a joke. But anyway I do believe dead men can communicate through mediums but that is certainly off topic..

You believe everything.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

So let me get this straight, nothing exist, nothing matters. Right?

It matters to us.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.