Voil,

You've accurately listed some stages in the development of the thoughts of scientist on the nature of matter. You still haven't given me a working definition for 'solid'.

>> Since you claim the experience of 'solid' form when bringing the two together, there has to be a common sourcing particle of some sort, however microscopically small, that must be the'solid' constituting matter.

Why? Is that your own definition of what it would mean for matter to be 'solid' ? Having an irreducible component, which in turn, meets some the definition of the word 'solid'?

It sounds like you are saying the same thing as Abra - "The billiard ball model fails." Which is fine. This would not directly imply nothingness.

I gave an off-the cuff, working definition for 'solid matter' a few posts ago, I'm sure it could be refined, but as far as I know, its completely acceptable to modern physicists and chemist.

sol·id (sld)
adj. sol·id·er, sol·id·est
1.
a. Of definite shape and volume; not liquid or gaseous.
b. Firm or compact in substance.
2. Not hollowed out: a solid block of wood.
3. Being the same substance or color throughout: solid gold.
4. Mathematics Of or relating to three-dimensional geometric figures or bodies.
5. Having no gaps or breaks; continuous: a solid line of people.
6. Of good quality and substance: a solid foundation.
7. Substantial; hearty: a solid meal.
8. Sound; reliable: solid facts.
9. Financially sound.
10. Upstanding and dependable: a solid citizen.
----------------------------------------------

Most of these simply don't apply to sub-atomic particles. Some of them -do- apply to matter on a macroscopic scale. People who expect the sub-atomic components of matter to have qualities directly analogous to our macroscopic experience of matter are wrong (according to the beliefs of modern physics).

Is this all you are truly claiming? That these qualities do not apply to sub-atomic matter?

Interestingly, sometimes #5 -does- apply, like to the electric fields at the surface of a crystal lattice. Hmm... actually, though there may be 'pores', I believe there is still a kind of continuity to the electric fields of most objects we perceive as solid...

Boy 'massage',

Fascinating how you keep insinsting on 'highjacking' your own post!!! I was just using the scientific evolution of solids from my first comment on this post to address your 'What is true?' question.

Makes for 'interesting' confusion though.

The evolution of 'solids' through science as physical matter with constituting particles, has helped revisit our acquired truths about what 'solid' is. That is where I though I was addressing you question.

If there in fact were such a reality as 'solids' as we've always held there has been, then there is a basis for separate and distinct entities, including human beings solid state bodies +.

Solids were constituted in our understanding of it, as separate and 'distinct' entities. Exclusive and well boxed separates so to speak.

Physics tells us this isn't so. No such thing as solids. Physicists haven't come across any. But looking for solids, they have observed 'nothing', 'holes', 'empty space' laced with tiny flashing lights (energy).

Again, in line with the question you raise about truth, not solids?!?!?, not only are we invited to revisit our truth around solid matter, but we are simultaneously invited to replace it with another possible truth of a unifying field which would force us to reconceive our world from a paradigm of seperateness, to a paradigm of 'UNIFIED-ONENESS'. Our contemporary 'flatearth' dilemma.

That was, is and will be the only point I've attemptd to make in addressing your 'What is true' question. I wholy suscribe to the 'no solids' theory, therefore my definition for solids would only be a conceptual and caracterizing one. But not partt of this discussion.

That being said, if you wish to start another thread on the definition of 'solids' +, I have no objection in participating in that one also.

Voil,

When I claim that something doesn't exist, I prefer to have in mind a specific concept of what it is which doesn't exist. Finally we are getting to the meat of yours, which is:

>>> Solids were constituted in our understanding of it, as separate and 'distinct' entities. Exclusive and well boxed separates so to speak.

If this is what it takes for something to be 'solid', then the universe is full of solid matter! Electrons are clearly recognized by modern physicists as separate and distinct entities. True, they are not stationary, they are not precisely locatable, they lack all kinds of qualities people might associate with 'solidness', but they are separate and distinct entities. Indeed, they are very anal about mutual exclusion, and will never occupy precisely the same state as another electron within a system.

>>> Physics tells us this isn't so. No such thing as solids. Physicists haven't come across any. But looking for solids, they have observed 'nothing', 'holes', 'empty space' laced with tiny flashing lights (energy).

Well, actually, real physicist are very precise in their use of terminology. In some context, they will gladly speak of 'solid matter', and they will refer to something meaningful. I think its sloppy speaking, which can lead to sloppy thinking, to making such a sweeping statement "No such thing as solids." Abra is correct, though, that the billiard ball model was disproven - I think this is what you really mean here.

>>> we are simultaneously invited to replace it with another possible truth of a unifying field which would force us to reconceive our world from a paradigm of seperateness, to a paradigm of 'UNIFIED-ONENESS'.

This invitation has -always been there- for people willing to take it. Its an excellent notion, and I fully support you, Abra, Artgurl, and other for advocating that view. Its just my opinion that if you are going to make an appeal to -physics- as part of that invitation, you do so accurately and honestly.

MT wrote:
“I think variations of that story have been around for a very long time, and wise people have seen the folly of identifying a person with their body for a long time. On one level, the same underlying premise applies - an awareness of the -movement/exchange- of material with the universe”

Yes, but I think you’re missing the point here.

It’s not just your physical body that isn’t separate, it’s your entire essence.

Yes, it’s true that people have seen the folly of identifying a person with their physical body, but even so, they still think of each person as being an individual spirit. They believe that we are all going to go to judgment when we die and our “individual spirits” are going to be judged individually.

My point may have been trivialized when I used the example of our physical bodies not being separate from the rest of the physical universe. What I really meant to convey is that the entire essence of what we are is not separate. Nothing is separate.

And yes, this conclusion has been reached by philosophers and theologians over the ages. It’s what eastern mysticism and pantheism is all about. The oneness of the universe and everything in it.

Like Voil mentioned, science is merely adding its weight to that philosophy. Not only is there no distinction between where your body lives off and the rest of the universe begins, but there is no distinction between where anything leaves off and anything else begins. This is true of matter and energy, as well as space and time itself.

MT wrote:
“To me, the very definition of 'solid matter' is "has a network of interwoven electric fields, preventing it from passing through other networks of electric fields".

This is as real as anything.”

Yes, but that’s the macro Newtonian picture. On the quantum level that picture breaks down and is shown to be an illusion. This is where modern physics differs from classical physics. It’s not as cut-and-dried as it seems at our macro level.

Moreover, I might point out that I never claimed that anything isn’t “real”. I merely claimed that all is one. There’s a big difference between claiming that something isn’t real versus merely claiming that it’s all one thing.

Like Artgurl so eloquently pointed out, our bodies are like waves in an ocean. Are waves not real? Of course they are. But they have no separate realty from the rest of the ocean. In fact, a wave can’t even be a wave on it’s own if it doesn’t have anything to wave relative to. How would it know that it’s waving? It can only wave with respect to the whole.

What I’m saying (and I believe Artgurl is also implying) is that we are BOTH the wave and the ocean simultaneously. Our physical experience is the wave, but our essence is the ocean. What the “Christian-type” religions are trying to do is preserve the individuality of the waves for eternity. They want to keep their individual egos forever. So they invent a godhead who will oversee this enormous task of taking care of all the little separate egos for all of eternity.

But it’s the ego that is the illusion. It’s the ego that’s the wave. When we return to god (to the ocean of the cosmos) we no longer have an ego. We become one once again with the spirit of the cosmos. We lose our individuality. That scares a lot of people because they have come to identify themselves as being their ego and they want to protect that identity to the bitter end at all cost.

It’s silly really. Because there’s nothing to lose. You are the ocean. You’ve always been the ocean. You wouldn’t want to remain a wave for eternity. You only think that you’d like to be an eternal wave because you forget what it’s like to be the ocean. Being a wave is what existence is all about from the wave’s point of view. But from the ocean’s point of view, being an ocean is infinitely better.

So when you finally lose your individually and become the ocean once again you’ll sigh and say, “Ahhh, That was a gas! Let me do that again!” And you’ll be reborn as yet another wave in the ocean of the cosmos.

This, I believe, is the eternal nature of life.

Abra:

As to this >>> I don’t know your beliefs, but based on the few posts I have read of yours I see that you speak of Jesus, and therefore I imagine that you have a Christian-like faith. That faith, (at least it seems to me) imagines that there is a self-conscious and basically egotistical god that is somehow separate from us. That faith also seems to assume that we can somehow be separated from god and still exist in our own right. It also suggests that our “spirit” comes into existence at birth, yet it has the potential for existing for eternity after we die.

In other words, in that faith, we are creating new spirits from nothing every time we conceive a child, and those new spirits have the potential to exist forever. They are deemed to be separate from god and will somehow live under god’s rule and serve god for all of eternity like workers in a beehive where god is the queen bee.

You are correct - my belief structure is Christian - and where Jesus speaks of "being born again" - I have experienced this phenomina - as it were. However we differ radically in our perception of God. I'm not sure where this "living under God's rule" comes from, othre than it being a choice that I make. I'm like everyone else - I make mistakes, I "sin" as it were, and God does not strike me dead any quicker than he would an Atheist because I have chosen to accept the sacrifice of Jesus as payment for my discresions. (Or however that is spelled.) I agree with you in that we are all apart of God in some way - and that my idea of the "God" within us that you speak of is simply our conscience. But as to your further idea that God is us - and we are God, I can't agree with you there. That God is an inept God to me, and much too small. My idea of God is much too large to fit within the confinds of the universe. The universe - as large as it may seem to us - has limits. Whether or not you believe that time exits or not - there is one aspct of time that we know exists for a fact, and that is the past. It has been, and is now gone. Never to return. Just as much as tommorrow never comes - the past will never return. Though we have total control of our choices over what we make of our tomorrows - nothing we can do can change the past. So, time exits - in a very measurable means - if only backwards. The God that I understand and have faith in - exists outside of that realm, and therefore has no need of it. Whatever He had willed to happened - happened. And there wasn't a choice made by anyone through time that came as a "surprise" to Him, nor will anything that anyone ever does be a surprise. So to say that he is somehow "the queen bee" over his creation - is putting God into a really small box. And as I said before - that God which you have stated... I don't believe in that God either.

lj

Abra,

Yes, the 'composition of the human body' story did not address the full depth of the issue.

-----------------
>> “To me, the very definition of 'solid matter' is "has a network of interwoven electric fields, preventing it from passing through other networks of electric fields".

>> This is as real as anything.”

>> Yes, but that’s the macro Newtonian picture. On the quantum level that picture breaks down and is shown to be an illusion. This is where modern physics differs from classical physics. It’s not as cut-and-dried as it seems at our macro level.
-------
Abra,

No, the macro Newtonian view would not take into account the electric field interaction which is believed to occur. The macro Newtonian view would simply be that each 'solid' has a 'surface'.

Are you saying that on the quantum level physicist deny the existence of an electric field interaction between hand and wood?

>>> Like Voil mentioned, science is merely adding its weight to that philosophy. Not only is there no distinction between where your body lives off and the rest of the universe begins, but there is no distinction between where anything leaves off and anything else begins. This is true of matter and energy, as well as space and time itself.

This is how you see, and I don't. I see that science continues to uncover some truths (and falsehoods believed to be truths). In every era, with every group, with every belief system, there is a possibility of people looking for ways to interpret that evidence in a way which supports their belief system.

Artgurl's analogy is far superior, in my opinion, because we can use that metaphor to open peoples minds to what might be the true relationship between a person and the rest of the universe, without having any confusion as to what is -really- being claimed about the nature of (for example) oceanography.

The entire second half of you post I find beautifully written and inspirational.

i just keep myself reading open mouthed (not sure if this a right expresion) for the display of wisdom and word's usage.
I try to jump into the debate, but i find myself so wordless between this amazing group of higher minds.
I'm still too young with too little experience and knowledge.
However, i do enjoy a lot this display of deep philosophy.
Sometimes I take notes as if I were in a lecture of college (not being sarcastic, totally honest).
I always try to be less ignorant, and i find this an amazing way to do it.
i'm sorry i can't join the debate.

TLW

what i enjoy the most is that finally i see pure debate and not catfights.

ya dont know 4 sure about anything.

>> what i enjoy the most is that finally i see pure debate and not catfights.

I have a lot of respect for the depth of thought other people, including Abra, Artgurl, and Voil, have put into their positions.

Ah-hem.... excuse me gentleman. Though I find the discussion of matter being solid - or freeflowing within an electrical force field absolutely facinating - and quite informative - I don't think I quite see how it is being related to the original topic. Which I also find interesting. But "Message" - was it your intention to question how we can be sure our "perceptions" are true - or if there really is Truth?

a very wise priest from my country taught me long ago that the truth is how a thing is fixed in our mind.
Let's say for instance since I was a little boy I know what a tree is. Then everytime I see a tree I know that is truely a tree.
The same happens with beliefs and other matters. They become true depending upon how we fix it on our minds. This fixation is maiden by what we were taught while being children and our own experience of the world and its surroundings.

TLW

>> Which I also find interesting. But "Message" - was it your intention to question how we can be sure our "perceptions" are true - or if there really is Truth?

I was meaning to ask - in a very open ended way - how people, individually, go about making their personal decision/estimation on whether some new claim presented to them is 'true'. Or course most people's answers would depend on the kind of claim being made, which I left open. I expected both issues ("confidence in perceptions" / "existence of Truth") would be touched on, if indirectly.

The catch is that my truth isn't necessarily your truth.
From where I am I see and perceive things differently, so if you see something is golden it might be black for me. Yet both of us are telling the truth about the same thing.

well it is really true that Inana's hair turned orange

omg ya know i'm stressed when i typo my own childs name!!

Inanna

what does Inanna means?
i know it's the name of one of your children, but what does it mean?

"Inanna" means finish your paper and get ready for class!

i am actually done with the classes
this is my internship report
25 pages since 7 pm till 4:15 am