John Page

How about getting away from the "matter" debate for a moment to consider that our knowledge comes through sense information.

This being the case, our senses detect "effects". From some of these effects we posit that there is "matter" (*kicks Berkeley's book*).

Other effects can be detected by "remote sensors" such as Mass Spectrometers etc. There are "effects" called neutrinos that seem to be able to pass through "matter" as though it was not solid. So, "matter" may be considered as an "effect" we can communally call solidity.

As far as I can tell, this reduces to statements like "Effects cause us to believe that reality is stuff made out of things that cause effects". The difficulty is in the a priori assumption that there are "things" - all we can say for sure is that there are effects (as defined above). However, there may be "things" but we can only know them through their "effects".

Do we all agree solidity exists (as a repeatable phenomenon of external reality)? If so, matter is an adjective that describes solidity, not vice versa. (Note: All words are adjectives).

Now I'm wondering what effect this posting will have......

Cheers!

snatchbalance

WJ

Well, I think, in a scientific sense what we agree or disagree on drives the direction of research.

For example(these are more Kuhn's thoughts than my own):

Certain areas, evolutionary biology as an example, most(all) people working in the field agree that life evolved and is evolving. There is disagreement on the details of the mechanism; so they are busy sweeping up the pieces.

In cosomology/metaphysics and psychology,for example, there is still some rather large debates on paradigm(Kuhn again).

To use your example, can the universe be described mathematically or not; or can all phenomenon be related mathematically? Most physicists like to say yes; some say no, and with some appearently valid reasons. What is reality in this regard? Until enough people agree, who can say?

Of course, just because enough agree, that dosen't mean they necessarily have it right.

But, and I think that this is the important part, we have to start someplace.

In regards to everyday perceptual experiences, if enough people see pink unicorns, it becomes very difficult to argue aginst thier existance; no mater what the "objective" evidence may indicate.

If I can think of a place where there is nothing, that dosen't mean my thoughts go there and fill it with something. There may be places, beyond the edge of the universe, for example, where there truly is nothing.

Snatchbalance

snatchbalance

John Page

Yes, solid in a relative sense.

John Page

Assuming "universe" is the word you use to specify "everything", does your suggestion not contain a contradiction?

Cheers!

John Page

Relative to what?

WJ

Well guys if I could be so bold to try answering what it (solid matter) is relative to: Time.

I suppose if there is some truth to that then a snapshot in time represents the experience of sensations from the external world. Those sensations are transmitted by electrical medium/brain. And electricity is relative to time. And with time things in themselves change. How much some things will change is unknown.

Too bad we can't see or know the beginnings and endings of time itself (or the implications or observations of same)!

Make sense?

Walrus

John Page

Well, it could be but I specified repeatable.

I guess where I was expecting to go was the process of comparison the mind undertakes in order to classify the experience as, say, "solidity from matter interaction" rather than "gooey" or "splashy" or "nothing (detectable) there".

On the other hand, you're also right because it could be relative to the effects sensed in the moment before impact.

Relativism rules OK!

Cheers!

snatchbalance

John Page

Assuming "universe" is the word you use to specify "everything", does your suggestion not contain a contradiction?

1. I don't know, I don't think anyone does. Is there anything past the edges of the observable Universe? Are there other U's? Matter in the void(now there is the contridiction)?

Is there a VOID? I don't know. But is a pretty good working hypothesis. If you look at my original post, I said there MAY be such places.

2. "Solids", feel "solid" to the touch. At the molecular level, they seem to composed of bits of matter and energy, not "solid" at all. Hence, "solidity" depends on a frame of referance.

3. "Solidity" also depends on physical conditions. At some temps steel, rocks, water, etc., feel "solid"; at others they don't.

4. I think WJ also makes a point, "solid" rocks become sand, which becomes silt, which becomes clay, which becomes individual atoms. Are atoms solid?

5. Maybe you are using the term "solid" in a way that I am not familiar with.

Snatchbalance

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

snatchbalance

John Page

"Do we all agree solidity exists (as a repeatable phenomenon of external reality)? If so, matter is an adjective that describes solidity, not vice versa. (Note: All words are adjectives)."

Sorry, I guess I missed this qualifier.

1. Yes, solidity exists as an abstration, as a convenience.(See my previous post for an explanation of why I may say this).

2. Other than things that are relativly solid, I don't know of "solidity" in nature. Can individual atomic particles be considered "solid"?

3. "Matter" within most usages is a noun. I guess it can be used an adjective, but I can't think of any examples.

Snatchbalance

snatchbalance

John Page

"I guess where I was expecting to go was the process of comparison the mind undertakes in order to classify the experience as, say, "solidity from matter interaction" rather than "gooey" or "splashy" or "nothing (detectable) there"."

This is a good question:

1. I think the mechanics of individual nerve systems are pretty well understood; so I won't go into that.

2. The problem that I've been struggling with is something like this: Can there there be a private reality in any sense? For example, if I touch something and say to myself, "solid"; how can I know that I have it right without confirmation?

3. Everything I can think of tells me that, while reality is objective, the nature, the structure, of the reality available to us, is subject to agreement between a number of minds.

A single person can never be sure. Of course the corralarly is that no matter how many may agree, there is no guarantee that they are right.

Snatchbalance