Jump to content
Science Forums

What Is Matter?


pljames

Recommended Posts

I am having a serious problem defining matter. Matter to be is atoms and protons unformed. Formed matter is anything we can see. Unformed matter takes a special microscope to see it, which the microscope is formed matter. It seems science is not all observation but theory instead. Science to me is applied formed matter from unformed matter like the microscope. From the invisible to the visible with theories following. Explaining the known from the unknown is full of mysteries. Explaining the unknown is more mysteries. I will put my faith in whats known and proven by observation and innate/intuitive deduction rather then the guesswork of science. I have yet to have a intelligence answer to my question.

 

What is matter? What's in a word? Is my definition of what I think matter is so far gone I to am in left field? What I perceive and you perceive or understand might not be the same. Could we still be in the same universe? Thoughts please. Paul/[email protected]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is matter?

Science has several workable definitions of matter, useful in various contexts. The most general one is, I’d say “matter is that which has non-zero rest mass”, which can also be phrased “matter is that which has mass and speed less than the speed of light.”

 

Matter is a fluctuation, or better said yet, matter is a concentrated form of energy and energy is a diffused state of matter.

Aethelwulf gives two common workable scientific definitions of matter in one sentence – that it’s a fluctuation, a quantum mechanical idea, and that it’s equivalent to energy, a relativistic one – supporting my assertion that science has several of them.

 

Digging into the question “what is matter” can quickly become technically and philosophically deep.

 

Matter to be is atoms and protons unformed. Formed matter is anything we can see. Unformed matter takes a special microscope to see it, which the microscope is formed matter.

There are several problems with these statements.

 

First, I think you choice of the adjective “formed” is poor. The usual meaning of the verb “form” is “to arrange or give shape to”. Many objects too small to be seen with the naked eye or a typical optical microscope are purposefully formed. For example, the machine you’re using to read this is made of many tiny, specially formed electronic transistors, conductors, and similar objects. “Formed” does not imply the involvement of conscious human intention. For example, we say “ice crystals formed in the cold liquid.”

 

Next, I think you’re going wrong distinguishing kinds of matter by what can or can’t be seen by a naked human eye, vs. a microscope. For one, there is nothing especially unique, physically, about the human eye. It is, essentially, little different than a typical optical microscope, its chief distinction being that it has a single lens which is made of proteins grown and shaped biologically, rather than several lenses made of glass formed by mechanical grinding and polishing, and that it is connected directly to our nervous systems, rather than, say, to an electronic camera.

 

On a fundamental level, I think defining matter as “what can be seen” is problematical, because, physically, seeing usually means “forming an image using visible light”. In the absence of sufficient light, we can’t see, but this should not change our definition of matter.

 

It seems science is not all observation but theory instead.

In science “theory” means (quoting this NAS webpage) “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world”. Because this “substantiated” implies support via observation, it doesn’t make sense to say that science is “theory instead of all observation”. It’s reasonable to say that theories are what science is most about, the most valued things in science.

 

It’s very important to recognize and understand that the word “theory” is used very differently in science than in much everyday conversation. People commonly say things like “I have a theory that I left my keys in the house” to mean “perhaps I left my keys in the house”, indicating a tentative answer to a specific question. In science, the meaning of theory is nearly the opposite, indicating both great confidence, and applicability to a many possible questions – in the best case, to every possible question.

 

Quoting again from the page linked above,

In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.

 

Science to me is applied formed matter from unformed matter like the microscope. From the invisible to the visible with theories following. Explaining the known from the unknown is full of mysteries. Explaining the unknown is more mysteries.

Other than circular answers like “science is what scientists do”, answering the question “what is science?” also gets deep quickly. Your “applied formed matter” and “invisible to visible” answers don’t do much for me, Paul, as I’ve only a vague guess what you mean by them.

 

The sentence “explaining A from B” has grammatical issues, because the preposition “from” shouldn’t be used with the verb “explain”, but rather, “with”, among other valid ones.

 

“Mystery” is a somewhat problematic concept to science. I’d say a common scientific definition is “observed phenomena for which no or little even tentative explanation can be offered”, with the implication that science seeks to explain such phenomena, changing them from mysteries into non-mysteries. Philosophically, “mystery” commonly means not only a phenomenon for which no good explanation can be offered, but one for which no explanation can possibly be offered. The scientific worldview has issues with this definition, as in its simpler forms, it doesn’t admit that such any phenomena of this kind exist.

 

I will put my faith in whats known and proven by observation and innate/intuitive deduction rather then the guesswork of science.

“Faith” is another concept problematic to science, because the term usually means “belief without proof”. Saying “I believe in what’s proven” is therefore self-contradictory.

 

Because science assumes that any theory might be contradicted by future observation, even the best theories are to some extent guesses. However, as faith and absolute certainty are not goals of science, guesses are not considered bad things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MacPhee

"Matter" is real, physical, tangible, concrete "stuff" - like stones and bones and wood. The Greek wood.

 

"Energy" is just a human-invented abstract noun for the movements of the stuff. It comes from the Greek "in Work" or "Working"

 

See, there's a continual confusion caused by language.

 

If we used "Stuff" and "Work", we'd be clearer about what's what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

According to Aristotle [Physics, Bk I, Ch.8) matter is "the primary substance of each thing, from which it comes to be without qualification, and which persists in the result". This definition can be applied to the OP definition provided by PLJames..."Matter to be is atoms and protons unformed". So, atoms and protons are things, and the property presented by PLJames of being 'unformed' represents the primary substance of Aristotle which is prior to things, and from which each thing (atom and proton) comes to be without qualification, and persists as being (the 'matter to be' of PLJames).

 

The other comment I have to PLJames is that to put faith in what is known and proven by observation and deduction would be guesswork, not science. Science takes the exact opposite approach. First is removes faith as a way to know, next it only makes claim to uncertain knowledge (those that claim to have certain knowledge of any thing or event do not gain it from science), and third, science concludes that nothing is proved by observation and deduction...that is, it is not goal of science to prove. {edit: see this nice explanation why it is incorrect to claim proof in science:http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof So, if removing guesswork is of concern, first remove faith as your approach to gain knowledge, and one path that remains that does allow observation would be science.

Edited by Rade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am having a serious problem defining matter. Matter to be is atoms and protons unformed. Formed matter is anything we can see. Unformed matter takes a special microscope to see it, which the microscope is formed matter. It seems science is not all observation but theory instead. Science to me is applied formed matter from unformed matter like the microscope. From the invisible to the visible with theories following. Explaining the known from the unknown is full of mysteries. Explaining the unknown is more mysteries. I will put my faith in whats known and proven by observation and innate/intuitive deduction rather then the guesswork of science. I have yet to have a intelligence answer to my question.

 

What is matter? What's in a word? Is my definition of what I think matter is so far gone I to am in left field? What I perceive and you perceive or understand might not be the same. Could we still be in the same universe? Thoughts please. Paul/[email protected]

 

 

You've begun the path of right brain left brain harmonizing.

 

You can't answer that question. You can only alter your behavior.

 

This is what I consider to be known as the awakening.

 

 

 

Let my copy and paste something I've written before to save some time.

 

--------------

 

 

I use my growing up beliefs as my foundation. It is a realist view (scientific view of rationalism and reason, left brain control and separation) and I return to this I find comfort in less thinking. We all experience this state from time to time. The question is, are we aware of it?

 

 

 

Doing this I've learned to understand from a birds eye point of view that this world has multiple consciousness programs. People are literally living in different worlds of perception.

 

However, they do all seem to share the same human biological hardwired system that makes us all the same in nature as animal on the earth. We share happy emotions and sad emotions, all for different reasons.

 

Our beliefs shape our attitude.

 

Our attitude shapes our behaviors.

 

Our behaviors shape our consciousness and physiology.

 

Our consciousness shapes our existence.

 

Our physiology shapes our experience.

 

 

 

We are all following the same spiritual path, looking for refuge outside of ourselves and inside of our selves.

 

So now, with that said. You can become "other people". Your memories will alter their meaning. This is like time traveling.

 

 

What is greatest in all of this is that when you cast off all programs you are, for a time, everything. You are member of nature. Your body is built by the ground you sit on. Your breath is the air. The water is your form. The energy is in you and it all things. And you are silent and radiant. All things are absolutely peaceful and your heart is your full guide.

 

So if I were to travel back in time.. I would only have to imagine doing it.. and imagine a scenario.. and meditate on as many possible ways or outcomes that event could have occurred and then I find I think you acquire such insight into that event that you are able to release it from your energy structure.

 

The world is full of world views that had been spontaniously generated by the great unfolding of existence, by whatever means you find accurate to use.

 

These consciousness programs are passed onward through unique processes.

 

-if enough people say it.. it tends to persuade people

-if it is said with enough persuasion and confidence it tends to acquire the power to open the doors to the heart and mind

-if it is a long said tradition it tends to dominate someones ability to resist it

-if it comes from someone in power or authority it tends to be convincing

-if it comes from someone older it ends to be a method of passing it on.

 

However, none of these are persuasive means are the pathway to a greater wisdom which is simply passing on what you learn and letting your own mind sort it out as life goes on, and deciding for yourself if it is true, necessary or relivent to your time, place, and circumstances.

 

The underlying energy through all of this is love. Love built by consistency, trust, honesty, understanding, compassion, kindness, security, comfort, and freedom. (not all inclusive).

 

We have this as our guidance system... and all the rest is our room for exploration and further understanding.

Edited by arkain101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...