What is matter?

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20203
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is matter?

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:47 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:51 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:33 pm
That is needed to explain the interaction between two objects. An object cannot move another object if the Qualia that they exchange does not contain momentum.


What do you mean?


It is substance dualism since there are two underlying substances that make everything including matter, those two substances are mind and Qualia.


Everything is made of Mind and Qualia only, that is underlying reality.
So, to you, a 'brick', for example, is made up of 'Mind' and 'Qualia', correct?
Yes.
So, to you, a 'brick' is made up of 'an irreducible substance with the ability to experience and cause' AS WELL AS 'the subject of experience and causation'. Which then MEANS a 'brick' is made up of a substance WITH the ability to experience and cause AS WELL AS being a subject of experience and causation, which further reinforces the absolute ABSURDITY and CONTRADICTORY of your BELIEFS and CLAIMS here.

Now, what do you IMAGINE a 'brick', all by itself, can 'experience' and can 'cause', EXACTLY?
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:47 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:51 pm If yes, then HOW MANY 'minds' or is there just One Mind 'per brick', and, what does the word 'Qualia' even mean or refer to, to you?
There are many minds per brick. I already defined what I mean by Qualia, the subject of experience and causation.
So, a 'brick' is made up of MANY 'minds', and is the subject of 'experience' and of 'causation', whatever that actually means and/or entails.
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:47 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:51 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:33 pm We, however, experience different categories of objects around ourselves, such as the chair that you are sitting on right now, or the cup of coffee that I am drinking from, these are nothing but mind and Qualia though, but they are chunks of minds and Qualia that persist to exist having certain properties.
On just about EVERY thread I follow of yours you appear to speak in MORE and MORE ABSURD and ILLOGICAL ways. This one here appears NO DIFFERENT.

you seem to make MORE SENSE in your first post, and then just make LESS SENSE as you are QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED along the way.

As I have INFORMED you a few times ALREADY your UNDERLYING premises are ACTUALLY just about ABSOLUTELY True, Right, AND Correct. BUT, and VERY SADLY, you ALLOW your OWN CURRENT BELIEFS to GET IN THE WAY and DISTORT FROM what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS.
Which part of what I explained is right and which part is wrong?
The part about a 'brick' being made up of MANY 'minds' and being ABLE to 'experience' and 'cause' 'things' is Wrong. And,

I do NOT think ANY part of what you so-call 'explain' is right BECAUSE you end up just CONTRADICTING your previous CLAIMS the more you 'try to' explain things here.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: What is matter?

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 5:01 am
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:34 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:42 pm

LOL




YES. What you SAY and CLAIM here is PURE NONSENSE because there is absolutely NO truth AT ALL to it.
What is your definition of regress?
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
LOL
Why you don't try to educate yourself instead of laughing? Just google lifetime of electron for example.
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
you SAY 'this' BECAUSE you BELIEVE 'matter' is NONE 'physical'. OF COURSE 'non physical' 'things' could NOT 'bump' into itself.
Now you are wasting my time.
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm

Okay. To "bahman" 'I' do NOT understand absolutely ANY 'thing' AT ALL.
Yes.
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
Is 'pi-meson' AN 'object'?
It is a particle.
A particle of 'what', EXACTLY?
What do you mean? A particle is by definition smallest thing you can find in the universe.
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:34 pm Matter is made of particles.
Matter is made up of particles of 'what', EXACTLY?
Protons, Neutron and Electrons.
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:34 pm Don't you know that?
Let us SEE what you do and do NOT know here.
Ok.
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:34 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm If no, then READ the ACTUAL WORDS that I wrote. I SAID 'matter' stays 'together' FORMING 'objects' BECAUSE OF 'magnetism', itself. I NEVER SAID, 'ALL forms of matter HAS 'magnetism'.

But if 'pi-meson' IS AN 'object', then what does the 'pi-meson object' look like, EXACTLY?
Pi-meson is a particle. Objects are made of particles.
So, does this then MEAN that 'pi-meson' is an 'object'?

If no, then why NOT?

By the way do you even know what 'clarify' MEANS, EXACTLY?
No, objects are assemblies of particles. For example, the chair that you are sitting on is an object made of Protons, Electrons, and Neutrons which are particles.
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:34 pm And magnetism is not the thing that keeps particles together. There are four forces that do that.
Okay, and what is fundamental to those so-called 'forces'?
What do you mean?
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:34 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm WHAT?

you SAID and CLAIMED ABOVE that 'matter' is NOT of 'physicality'. Now you are SAYING and CLAIMING that ALL 'objects' are ONLY made of 'physicality'.

Are you AWARE of just HOW MANY TIMES you end up CONTRADICTING "your" 'self' in this forum "bahman"?

Also, and by the way, to you, absolutely EVERY 'object' IS ONLY made up of 'physical matter', right? Like 'tables' and 'watermelons' for example, right?
Did you NOT respond to this BECAUSE it SHOWS and PROVES just HOW MUCH and HOW OFTEN you CONTRADICT what you SAY and WRITE here?
What you are talking about? That was you who always lack understanding.
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:34 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm

That was ONLY for those WITH ANY CURIOSITY, in regards to my CLAIM that SOME 'objects' ARE FOREVER while SOME 'objects' ARE FINITE. BUT, you, OBVIOUSLY, MISSED that part.
Objects cannot exist forever. They decay.
Of course they ALL do, except, OF COURSE, for the one and ONLY 'Object', which exists FOREVER and ALWAYS.
Now, you are not making any sense. If objects are made of particles and particles are subjects of decay then how one object can exist forever?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: What is matter?

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 5:25 am
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:47 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:51 pm
So, to you, a 'brick', for example, is made up of 'Mind' and 'Qualia', correct?
Yes.
So, to you, a 'brick' is made up of 'an irreducible substance with the ability to experience and cause' AS WELL AS 'the subject of experience and causation'. Which then MEANS a 'brick' is made up of a substance WITH the ability to experience and cause AS WELL AS being a subject of experience and causation, which further reinforces the absolute ABSURDITY and CONTRADICTORY of your BELIEFS and CLAIMS here.

Now, what do you IMAGINE a 'brick', all by itself, can 'experience' and can 'cause', EXACTLY?
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:47 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:51 pm If yes, then HOW MANY 'minds' or is there just One Mind 'per brick', and, what does the word 'Qualia' even mean or refer to, to you?
There are many minds per brick. I already defined what I mean by Qualia, the subject of experience and causation.
So, a 'brick' is made up of MANY 'minds', and is the subject of 'experience' and of 'causation', whatever that actually means and/or entails.
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:47 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:51 pm

On just about EVERY thread I follow of yours you appear to speak in MORE and MORE ABSURD and ILLOGICAL ways. This one here appears NO DIFFERENT.

you seem to make MORE SENSE in your first post, and then just make LESS SENSE as you are QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED along the way.

As I have INFORMED you a few times ALREADY your UNDERLYING premises are ACTUALLY just about ABSOLUTELY True, Right, AND Correct. BUT, and VERY SADLY, you ALLOW your OWN CURRENT BELIEFS to GET IN THE WAY and DISTORT FROM what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS.
Which part of what I explained is right and which part is wrong?
The part about a 'brick' being made up of MANY 'minds' and being ABLE to 'experience' and 'cause' 'things' is Wrong. And,

I do NOT think ANY part of what you so-call 'explain' is right BECAUSE you end up just CONTRADICTING your previous CLAIMS the more you 'try to' explain things here.
Ok, does a brick reacts when you kick it? If yes then why? And does a brick move? If yes then how?
Age
Posts: 20203
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is matter?

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 1:51 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
I think they are sound and valid.
Okay, but I KNOW they are NOT.
Or, you just don't understand.
OR, maybe 'I' understand FAR MORE than 'you' could even IMAGINE here.
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
O, now you don't know what you are talking about. Let me commont further.
Okay, we WILL wait.
Ok.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
Now you are not making any sense.
Okay, but WHY, EXACTLY?
I know the whole picture.
So, you now CLAIM to know the whole picture, YET the picture that you are painting here for us is, OBVIOUSLY, False, Wrong, Incorrect, AND VERY CONTRADICTORY. So, what makes you ASSUME and BELIEVE that you know the whole picture?
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm X and Y either lay on the same point there is a distance between them. Which one do you pick?
The words 'lay on the same point' does NOT really make that much sense when in relation to two DIFFERENT 'objects'.
I am talking about one system which is subject to change, a falling apple for example.
But every system is IN CONTINUOUS CHANGE, besides the BELIEF-system OF COURSE. Therefore it is ONLY the BELIEF-system that is 'subject to change'.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
Because there is a gap between X and Y.
BUT considering the Fact that there is NO ACTUAL 'separation' in the WHOLE Universe, besides, OF COURSE, the separation/s made through 'conception' or 'conceptual thinking'.
If there is no gap between X and Y then things would be simultaneous. Do you what is simultaneous? Do you know what is the difference between simultaneous and temporal?
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm There is a gap between when you experience something and when you cause something.
So, for example, when you 'experienced' your first year teacher telling you to 'sit down now', and, when you 'caused' the words above these ones, you are SAYING and CLAIMING that there is a so-called 'gap', right?
I am saying that there is a gap between asking you to do something and you doing something. For example, a teacher asks you to sit down and then you sit down.[/quote]

But I might be picking my nose, for example, when a teacher asks me to sit down, so there is ACTUALLY NO gap between the asking me to do some thing and the doing of this thing.
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm This gap, however, is filled by background whatever you experience but it is not the subject of your focus.
I have absolutely NO IDEA NOR CLUE what 'filled by background' means AT ALL.
By the background, I mean whatever that you experience and it is not the subject of your focus. For example, now you are reading what I am writing. It takes you time that you read and then understand what I am writing. So there is a gap between reading and understanding too.
But WHY is there A GAP between you reading and you understanding?

And, HOW LONG is the GAP between you reading and understanding?
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm You however experience all sorts of things, like your monitor and whatever is behind it. So we have two things in here: 1) Whatever is your subject of focus, like reading and then understanding my words, and 2) the background whatever you experience and it is not the subject of your focus, your monitor and whatever is behind it for example.
WHY do you ALWAYS IMAGINE there is A GAP, SOMEWHERE?

Can you REALLY NOT YET SEE and UNDERSTAND that there is NO ACTUAL 'gap' ANYWHERE?

OF COURSE there IS a 'distance' from when you see/read 'things' and when you see/understand some 'thing', but this in NO way means that there is ANY ACTUAL 'separation'. Besides, OF COURSE, the 'separation' of your OWN making.
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm By simultaneous, I mean that X and Y lay at the same point or the distance between X and Y is absolutely zero. Temporal and simultaneous events are two different categories therefore they cannot be the same.
So, HOW, EXACTLY, does 'this' DIFFER from what I SAID and WROTE here?
What is simultaneous and temporal to you?
HOW MANY TIMES are you going to MAKE CLAIMS in this forum but WHEN asked to back them up or CLARIFY them you WILL just ATTEMPT TO DEFLECT?

'Simultaneous', to me, is something like two or more 'things' happening at the same time.

'Temporal', to me, here relates to 'time', or, 'temporary' and NOT 'eternal'?

What is 'simultaneous' and 'temporal', to you?
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
Example!? Anything that can experience now, like the chair that you are sitting on.
So now you are CLAIMING that 'chairs' can experience 'things', correct?
Sure it does. Your chair is made of wood which is a sort of matter. Matter is made of minds and Qualia.
LOL
LOL And,
LOL
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
What is the definition of regress for you?
'Return to a former or less developed state', will suffice for now.
No, by regress I mean endless. For example when something depends on something else etc.
Even to your OWN ABSURD CONCLUSION that EVERY 'thing' CAME FROM NO 'thing' there STILL EXISTS and ENDLESSNESS of DEPENDENCE, or CAUSE.
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm To me, there are two categories of things, either the thing is reachable or not no matter how much you wait.
But the word 'you' refers to 'that', which is VERY, VERY limited. So, there are MANY, MANY 'things' that ARE 'unreachable', to 'you'.
'Regress' being just ANOTHER one of those 'things' that 'you' can NOT reach but 'I' CAN.
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm The first category is a finite thing. The second category is infinity. Regress is endless so it is worst than infinity.
'Worst, (or even worse), than infinity', is NOT a LOGICAL term NOR phrase, in the english language.

And, it is GREAT to SEE that you DO RECOGNIZE the two categories of 'finite' and 'infinite'.
So you understand the difference between finite and infinite?
Yes.
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm Can you reach the infinite future for example if you could live forever?
Yes.
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
What is your definition of regress?
As above.

Your definition of 'regress' is 'endless', right?
Yes.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
You are chasing your tail when you say that matter is physical. What is physical? What matter is.
So, YOUR WAY out of 'this' was to just SAY and CLAIM that 'matter' is NOT 'physical', correct?
No, I am saying that just saying that matter is physical does not resolve the issue.
WHAT ISSUE? To me there is NO ISSUE AT ALL here, OTHER THAN you being SO CONTRADICTORY, OF COURSE.
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm You have to explain what is physical.
To WHO, and WHY?

I am NOT the one making the CLAIMS here.
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm So don't you agree that your definition of physical has problems?
Yes.
But explain to you that it has a problem since it is human dependent.
But there is NO problem. I just TOLD you THAT.
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
You gave your definition of physicality, something that can be smelt, seen, etc.
AND what did that AT ALL have to do with some so-called 'thing' as 'spiritual reality'?
Something that some people can experience and others not.
But EVERY one experiences 'spiritual reality'. Only SOME recognize this Fact.
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
No, I used it.


I asked what is physical to you.
AND I ANSWERED 'it'.
But your definition has a problem.
NO it does NOT.

But what do you ASSUME or BELIEVE is the so-called 'problem' with my definition of 'physical'.
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm I didn't say that matter is not physical.
I asked 'you', "bahman", 'By the way 'matter' is just 'that', which is of 'physicality', yes or no?'

Which 'you' CLEARLY replied with 'No'.

So, now HOW, EXACTLY, does this ALIGN with your CLAIM here that you did NOT say that matter is not physical?
Matter to me is made of minds and Qualia. By physicality, I mean something that exists on its own.
Will you EVER provide ANY EXAMPLES?

What is some 'thing', to you, that exists 'on its OWN'?
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm I asked you the question that I did, SPECIFICALLY in the WAY that I did, because of the OUTCOME that WOULD arise, and which HAS now ARISEN.
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
What do you mean by physical?
As I SAID BEFORE, 'that', which can be felt by the five senses of the body.
But that definition has a problem as I showed you. It is human-dependent.
How is just being 'human-dependent' a so-called 'problem' here?

Also, what I SAID, and MEANT, NEVER meant 'human-dependent'. This is just ANOTHER 'thing' of your OWN making or PRESUMING.
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm
I already explain what mind is in OP.
So, to you, 'mind' is 'an irreducible substance with the ability to experience and cause', and, which, OBVIOUSLY IN YOUR VERSION of 'things', existed BEFORE absolutely ANY 'thing' ELSE did, and which CAUSED absolutely EVERY 'thing' to come into existence, OUT OF and FROM absolutely NOTHING, other than from its OWN self, correct?
No, I am not talking about the beginning of time here.
NEITHER AM I.

WHY do you PRESUME the MOST ILLOGICAL and STUPID 'things' some of the time?
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm Minds have existed since the beginning of time since there is no such thing as before the beginning of time.
Ah okay. So minds and time came FROM NO 'thing' just like EVERY 'thing' ELSE did, to you, correct?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: What is matter?

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:14 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 1:51 pm

Okay, but I KNOW they are NOT.
Or, you just don't understand.
OR, maybe 'I' understand FAR MORE than 'you' could even IMAGINE here.
I don't think so.
Age wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:14 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm

Okay, we WILL wait.
Ok.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm


Okay, but WHY, EXACTLY?
I know the whole picture.
So, you now CLAIM to know the whole picture, YET the picture that you are painting here for us is, OBVIOUSLY, False, Wrong, Incorrect, AND VERY CONTRADICTORY. So, what makes you ASSUME and BELIEVE that you know the whole picture?
Do you know what is the whole picture that I think is true? What is it?
Age wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:14 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm BUT considering the Fact that there is NO ACTUAL 'separation' in the WHOLE Universe, besides, OF COURSE, the separation/s made through 'conception' or 'conceptual thinking'.
If there is no gap between X and Y then things would be simultaneous. Do you what is simultaneous? Do you know what is the difference between simultaneous and temporal?
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm So, for example, when you 'experienced' your first year teacher telling you to 'sit down now', and, when you 'caused' the words above these ones, you are SAYING and CLAIMING that there is a so-called 'gap', right?
I am saying that there is a gap between asking you to do something and you doing something. For example, a teacher asks you to sit down and then you sit down.
But I might be picking my nose, for example, when a teacher asks me to sit down, so there is ACTUALLY NO gap between the asking me to do some thing and the doing of this thing.
Are you going to sit or not?
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm

I have absolutely NO IDEA NOR CLUE what 'filled by background' means AT ALL.
By the background, I mean whatever that you experience and it is not the subject of your focus. For example, now you are reading what I am writing. It takes you time that you read and then understand what I am writing. So there is a gap between reading and understanding too.
But WHY is there A GAP between you reading and you understanding?
Because it takes time.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
And, HOW LONG is the GAP between you reading and understanding?
It depends on the complexity of the subject. Sometimes you understand after you read it, a fraction of a second, and sometimes you need to reread the sentence to understand it.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm You however experience all sorts of things, like your monitor and whatever is behind it. So we have two things in here: 1) Whatever is your subject of focus, like reading and then understanding my words, and 2) the background whatever you experience and it is not the subject of your focus, your monitor and whatever is behind it for example.
WHY do you ALWAYS IMAGINE there is A GAP, SOMEWHERE?

Can you REALLY NOT YET SEE and UNDERSTAND that there is NO ACTUAL 'gap' ANYWHERE?

OF COURSE there IS a 'distance' from when you see/read 'things' and when you see/understand some 'thing', but this in NO way means that there is ANY ACTUAL 'separation'. Besides, OF COURSE, the 'separation' of your OWN making.
I think I am wasting my time on you.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm

So, HOW, EXACTLY, does 'this' DIFFER from what I SAID and WROTE here?
What is simultaneous and temporal to you?
HOW MANY TIMES are you going to MAKE CLAIMS in this forum but WHEN asked to back them up or CLARIFY them you WILL just ATTEMPT TO DEFLECT?

'Simultaneous', to me, is something like two or more 'things' happening at the same time.

'Temporal', to me, here relates to 'time', or, 'temporary' and NOT 'eternal'?
You didn't define temporal!
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
What is 'simultaneous' and 'temporal', to you?
Simultaneous: When events happen at the same point.
Temporal: When events happen at different points in time.

There is no other way around these.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm

'Return to a former or less developed state', will suffice for now.
No, by regress I mean endless. For example when something depends on something else etc.
Even to your OWN ABSURD CONCLUSION that EVERY 'thing' CAME FROM NO 'thing' there STILL EXISTS and ENDLESSNESS of DEPENDENCE, or CAUSE.
That is the meaning of regress in philosophy. Could we agree with that definition?
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm So you understand the difference between finite and infinite?
Yes.
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm Can you reach the infinite future for example if you could live forever?
Yes.
So you don't understand what infinity is. Infinity by definition is a something that you cannot reach!
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm

As above.

Your definition of 'regress' is 'endless', right?
Yes.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm

So, YOUR WAY out of 'this' was to just SAY and CLAIM that 'matter' is NOT 'physical', correct?
No, I am saying that just saying that matter is physical does not resolve the issue.
WHAT ISSUE? To me there is NO ISSUE AT ALL here, OTHER THAN you being SO CONTRADICTORY, OF COURSE.
So I am wasting my time with you.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm You have to explain what is physical.
To WHO, and WHY?

I am NOT the one making the CLAIMS here.
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
Yes.
But explain to you that it has a problem since it is human dependent.
But there is NO problem. I just TOLD you THAT.
Of course there is a problem with that.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm AND what did that AT ALL have to do with some so-called 'thing' as 'spiritual reality'?
Something that some people can experience and others not.
But EVERY one experiences 'spiritual reality'. Only SOME recognize this Fact.
No.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm AND I ANSWERED 'it'.
But your definition has a problem.
NO it does NOT.

But what do you ASSUME or BELIEVE is the so-called 'problem' with my definition of 'physical'.
I already mentioned.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm I asked 'you', "bahman", 'By the way 'matter' is just 'that', which is of 'physicality', yes or no?'

Which 'you' CLEARLY replied with 'No'.

So, now HOW, EXACTLY, does this ALIGN with your CLAIM here that you did NOT say that matter is not physical?
Matter to me is made of minds and Qualia. By physicality, I mean something that exists on its own.
Will you EVER provide ANY EXAMPLES?

What is some 'thing', to you, that exists 'on its OWN'?
Your chair for example.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm I asked you the question that I did, SPECIFICALLY in the WAY that I did, because of the OUTCOME that WOULD arise, and which HAS now ARISEN.


As I SAID BEFORE, 'that', which can be felt by the five senses of the body.
But that definition has a problem as I showed you. It is human-dependent.
How is just being 'human-dependent' a so-called 'problem' here?

Also, what I SAID, and MEANT, NEVER meant 'human-dependent'. This is just ANOTHER 'thing' of your OWN making or PRESUMING.
Because your chair still exists when you leave your room and don't see it.
Age
Posts: 20203
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is matter?

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 11:49 am
Age wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 5:01 am
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:34 pm
What is your definition of regress?


Why you don't try to educate yourself instead of laughing? Just google lifetime of electron for example.


Now you are wasting my time.


Yes.


It is a particle.
A particle of 'what', EXACTLY?
What do you mean? A particle is by definition smallest thing you can find in the universe.
You OBVIOUSLY need to read up a bit more.

Protons and neutrons are said to be 'particles', yet they are, by definition, NOT the smallest thing you can find in the Universe.
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 11:49 am
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:34 pm Matter is made of particles.
Matter is made up of particles of 'what', EXACTLY?
Protons, Neutron and Electrons.
Are you aware that protons and neutrons are made up of smaller particles?
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 11:49 am
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:34 pm Don't you know that?
Let us SEE what you do and do NOT know here.
Ok.
So, we are STILL WAITING to find out IF you do or do NOT know what 'particles' are made out of.

If 'sub-atomic particles' are NOT 'matter', then what are they, EXACTLY?
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 11:49 am
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:34 pm
Pi-meson is a particle. Objects are made of particles.
So, does this then MEAN that 'pi-meson' is an 'object'?

If no, then why NOT?

By the way do you even know what 'clarify' MEANS, EXACTLY?
No, objects are assemblies of particles. For example, the chair that you are sitting on is an object made of Protons, Electrons, and Neutrons which are particles.
Which are NOT the smallest thing in the Universe that you can KNOW OF, correct?
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 11:49 am
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:34 pm And magnetism is not the thing that keeps particles together. There are four forces that do that.
Okay, and what is fundamental to those so-called 'forces'?
What do you mean?
I mean what is 'fundamental' or 'what makes up' these so-called 'forces'?

Either you know, and hopefully will tell us, or, either you do NOT know, and, again, hopefully will tell us.
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 11:49 am
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:34 pm
Did you NOT respond to this BECAUSE it SHOWS and PROVES just HOW MUCH and HOW OFTEN you CONTRADICT what you SAY and WRITE here?
What you are talking about? That was you who always lack understanding.
LOL I lack UNDERSTANDING of what you CLAIM is ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLE true BECAUSE a LOT of what you SAY and CLAIM here IS VERY CONTRADICTORY. For example, EXACTLY WHERE I just SHOWED and PROVED you DID, ONCE AGAIN.

bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 11:49 am
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:34 pm
Objects cannot exist forever. They decay.
Of course they ALL do, except, OF COURSE, for the one and ONLY 'Object', which exists FOREVER and ALWAYS.
Now, you are not making any sense.
Here we have a PRIME EXAMPLE and PROOF of WHEN one ALREADY BELIEVES some 'thing' to be true, and thus is NOT AT ALL ABLE to even just CONSIDER ANY thing OPPOSING that BELIEF.

And what makes this phenomena SO TRULY ABSURD is the Fact that there is absolutely NO proof AT ALL for what they ALREADY BELIEVE is true.

They base the CONCLUSION, which they BELIEVE is true, on absolutely NOTHING AT ALL besides ONLY 'that' what they ASSUME is right.
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 11:49 am If objects are made of particles and particles are subjects of decay then how one object can exist forever?
VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY.
Age
Posts: 20203
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is matter?

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:00 pm
Age wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 5:25 am
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:47 pm
Yes.
So, to you, a 'brick' is made up of 'an irreducible substance with the ability to experience and cause' AS WELL AS 'the subject of experience and causation'. Which then MEANS a 'brick' is made up of a substance WITH the ability to experience and cause AS WELL AS being a subject of experience and causation, which further reinforces the absolute ABSURDITY and CONTRADICTORY of your BELIEFS and CLAIMS here.

Now, what do you IMAGINE a 'brick', all by itself, can 'experience' and can 'cause', EXACTLY?
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:47 pm
There are many minds per brick. I already defined what I mean by Qualia, the subject of experience and causation.
So, a 'brick' is made up of MANY 'minds', and is the subject of 'experience' and of 'causation', whatever that actually means and/or entails.
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:47 pm
Which part of what I explained is right and which part is wrong?
The part about a 'brick' being made up of MANY 'minds' and being ABLE to 'experience' and 'cause' 'things' is Wrong. And,

I do NOT think ANY part of what you so-call 'explain' is right BECAUSE you end up just CONTRADICTING your previous CLAIMS the more you 'try to' explain things here.
Ok, does a brick reacts when you kick it?
'you', "bahman", is the one here who is CLAIMING that a 'brick' can 'experience' and can 'cause'. So, maybe best if you TELL us if a 'brick' 'reacts' or not when you kick 'it'.
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:00 pm If yes then why? And does a brick move? If yes then how?
REMEMBER it is 'you', "bahman", that CLAIMS bricks can 'experience' and can 'cause'. NO else that I KNOW OF claims such things as this.

So, does a brick react when you kick it?

If yes, then WHY, and HOW?

Do bricks move all by themselves?

If yes, then HOW?
Age
Posts: 20203
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is matter?

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:03 pm
Age wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:14 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Or, you just don't understand.
OR, maybe 'I' understand FAR MORE than 'you' could even IMAGINE here.
I don't think so.
Age wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:14 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Ok.


I know the whole picture.
So, you now CLAIM to know the whole picture, YET the picture that you are painting here for us is, OBVIOUSLY, False, Wrong, Incorrect, AND VERY CONTRADICTORY. So, what makes you ASSUME and BELIEVE that you know the whole picture?
Do you know what is the whole picture that I think is true?
No.

If you answered ALL of the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS that I pose to you, then I WOULD get closer to knowing the WHOLE PICTURE, which you think is true. But UNFORTUNATELY you do NOT.
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:03 pm What is it?
This is a redundant question.
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:03 pm
Age wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:14 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
If there is no gap between X and Y then things would be simultaneous. Do you what is simultaneous? Do you know what is the difference between simultaneous and temporal?


I am saying that there is a gap between asking you to do something and you doing something. For example, a teacher asks you to sit down and then you sit down.
But I might be picking my nose, for example, when a teacher asks me to sit down, so there is ACTUALLY NO gap between the asking me to do some thing and the doing of this thing.
Are you going to sit or not?
That has ABSOLUTELY NO SIGNIFICANCE AT ALL here.

But you are now sounding like a typical one who HAS POWER of "another" but who is feeling threatened or who is feeling loss of that POWER.
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:03 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
By the background, I mean whatever that you experience and it is not the subject of your focus. For example, now you are reading what I am writing. It takes you time that you read and then understand what I am writing. So there is a gap between reading and understanding too.
But WHY is there A GAP between you reading and you understanding?
Because it takes time.
This has become VERY CLEAR.
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:03 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
And, HOW LONG is the GAP between you reading and understanding?
It depends on the complexity of the subject. Sometimes you understand after you read it, a fraction of a second, and sometimes you need to reread the sentence to understand it.
Okay.

But WHY does it take some of 'you' SO LONG to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND that the earth is NOT flat, is NOT in the center of the Universe, and/or that the Universe IS infinite AND eternal?
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:03 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm You however experience all sorts of things, like your monitor and whatever is behind it. So we have two things in here: 1) Whatever is your subject of focus, like reading and then understanding my words, and 2) the background whatever you experience and it is not the subject of your focus, your monitor and whatever is behind it for example.
WHY do you ALWAYS IMAGINE there is A GAP, SOMEWHERE?

Can you REALLY NOT YET SEE and UNDERSTAND that there is NO ACTUAL 'gap' ANYWHERE?

OF COURSE there IS a 'distance' from when you see/read 'things' and when you see/understand some 'thing', but this in NO way means that there is ANY ACTUAL 'separation'. Besides, OF COURSE, the 'separation' of your OWN making.
I think I am wasting my time on you.
It CERTAINLY appears that way. Exactly like the people who were 'TRYING TO' CLAIM that the sun does revolve around the earth were, OBVIOUSLY, wasting their time on "others".
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:03 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
What is simultaneous and temporal to you?
HOW MANY TIMES are you going to MAKE CLAIMS in this forum but WHEN asked to back them up or CLARIFY them you WILL just ATTEMPT TO DEFLECT?

'Simultaneous', to me, is something like two or more 'things' happening at the same time.

'Temporal', to me, here relates to 'time', or, 'temporary' and NOT 'eternal'?
You didn't define temporal!
REALLY?

And, LOL 'this' coming from the one who CONTINUALLY ATTEMPTS to DEFLECT from CLARIFYING and DEFINING.

'Temporal', to me, RELATES TO 'time' or being 'temporary', or, in other words, IS DEFINED AS a 'length of duration shorter than eternal'.
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:03 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
What is 'simultaneous' and 'temporal', to you?
Simultaneous: When events happen at the same point.
Is 'point' REALLY the word you like to CHOOSE here?

When EXACTLY could two or more events happen at the SAME 'point'? In other words, will you provide at least ONE EXAMPLE?
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:03 pm Temporal: When events happen at different points in time.
Are you ABLE TO provide a dictionary that OBTAINS this definition of YOURS here?

If yes, then WILL YOU?
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:03 pm There is no other way around these.
OBVIOUSLY you do NOT look past your OWN views and perspective of 'things' here. So, you do NOT SEE 'things' how they REALLY ARE. For example, just above you SAID and CLAIMED that I did NOT define 'temporal'. It is like if one does NOT define a word the WAY you do, then they have NOT defined that word. Which IS absolute ABSURDITY, in the extreme.
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:03 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
No, by regress I mean endless. For example when something depends on something else etc.
Even to your OWN ABSURD CONCLUSION that EVERY 'thing' CAME FROM NO 'thing' there STILL EXISTS and ENDLESSNESS of DEPENDENCE, or CAUSE.
That is the meaning of regress in philosophy. Could we agree with that definition?
What is the, supposed, meaning of 'regress' in 'philosophy', which you are asking me to agree with here?
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:03 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm So you understand the difference between finite and infinite?
Yes.
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm Can you reach the infinite future for example if you could live forever?
Yes.
So you don't understand what infinity is. Infinity by definition is a something that you cannot reach!
LOL
LOL
LOL

But that is NOT what 'infinity' means in ANY dictionary that I have LOOKED IN. Will you provide a dictionary with THIS DEFINITION here?

If no, then WHY NOT?

But if yes, then GREAT, I will WAIT.

ALSO, and LOL MORE, if one can live FOREVER, then by definition they are One WITH 'infinity'. So, they cannot NOT just 'reach' 'infinity' they are ACTUALLY are a PART OF 'infinity'.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Yes.


No, I am saying that just saying that matter is physical does not resolve the issue.
WHAT ISSUE? To me there is NO ISSUE AT ALL here, OTHER THAN you being SO CONTRADICTORY, OF COURSE.
So I am wasting my time with you.[/quote]

If you SAY and BELIEVE SO, then yes. Just like ALL of those people who 'TRY TO' to SAY and CLAIM 'things', which are NOT True or are NOT a PART of what ACTUALLY IS are ALL wasting their time.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm You have to explain what is physical.
To WHO, and WHY?

I am NOT the one making the CLAIMS here.
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
But explain to you that it has a problem since it is human dependent.
But there is NO problem. I just TOLD you THAT.
Of course there is a problem with that.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Something that some people can experience and others not.
But EVERY one experiences 'spiritual reality'. Only SOME recognize this Fact.
No.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
But your definition has a problem.
NO it does NOT.

But what do you ASSUME or BELIEVE is the so-called 'problem' with my definition of 'physical'.
I already mentioned.[/quote]

And you do NOT CLARIFY because ....
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:03 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Matter to me is made of minds and Qualia. By physicality, I mean something that exists on its own.
Will you EVER provide ANY EXAMPLES?

What is some 'thing', to you, that exists 'on its OWN'?
Your chair for example.
But you just got through telling us the chair exists because of the 'particles', which the 'chair' is made up of.
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:03 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
But that definition has a problem as I showed you. It is human-dependent.
How is just being 'human-dependent' a so-called 'problem' here?

Also, what I SAID, and MEANT, NEVER meant 'human-dependent'. This is just ANOTHER 'thing' of your OWN making or PRESUMING.
Because your chair still exists when you leave your room and don't see it.
But NO one, and especially ME, NEVER said the chair does NOT exist when a human being leaves a room. WHY would you GO TO SUCH ABSURDITIES.

'you' REALLY DO go off on some Truly WEIRD and RIDICULOUS tangents here "bahman".

Can you recall what we were ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT and DISCUSSING?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: What is matter?

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 1:31 am
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 11:49 am
Age wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 5:01 am
A particle of 'what', EXACTLY?
What do you mean? A particle is by definition smallest thing you can find in the universe.
You OBVIOUSLY need to read up a bit more.

Protons and neutrons are said to be 'particles', yet they are, by definition, NOT the smallest thing you can find in the Universe.
Proton and Neutron are made of Quarks. There is nothing smaller than Quarks to the best of our knowledge.
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 11:49 am
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm

Matter is made up of particles of 'what', EXACTLY?
Protons, Neutron and Electrons.
Are you aware that protons and neutrons are made up of smaller particles?
Sure, they are made of Quarks.
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 11:49 am
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
Let us SEE what you do and do NOT know here.
Ok.
So, we are STILL WAITING to find out IF you do or do NOT know what 'particles' are made out of.

If 'sub-atomic particles' are NOT 'matter', then what are they, EXACTLY?
The question is what is matter?
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 11:49 am
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm So, does this then MEAN that 'pi-meson' is an 'object'?

If no, then why NOT?

By the way do you even know what 'clarify' MEANS, EXACTLY?
No, objects are assemblies of particles. For example, the chair that you are sitting on is an object made of Protons, Electrons, and Neutrons which are particles.
Which are NOT the smallest thing in the Universe that you can KNOW OF, correct?
Yes, if you want it better written your chair is made of Electrons and Quarks.
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 11:49 am
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
Okay, and what is fundamental to those so-called 'forces'?
What do you mean?
I mean what is 'fundamental' or 'what makes up' these so-called 'forces'?

Either you know, and hopefully will tell us, or, either you do NOT know, and, again, hopefully will tell us.
Physicists don't have an answer for that. I have.
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 11:49 am If objects are made of particles and particles are subjects of decay then how one object can exist forever?
VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY.
So?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: What is matter?

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 1:35 am
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:00 pm
Age wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 5:25 am

So, to you, a 'brick' is made up of 'an irreducible substance with the ability to experience and cause' AS WELL AS 'the subject of experience and causation'. Which then MEANS a 'brick' is made up of a substance WITH the ability to experience and cause AS WELL AS being a subject of experience and causation, which further reinforces the absolute ABSURDITY and CONTRADICTORY of your BELIEFS and CLAIMS here.

Now, what do you IMAGINE a 'brick', all by itself, can 'experience' and can 'cause', EXACTLY?


So, a 'brick' is made up of MANY 'minds', and is the subject of 'experience' and of 'causation', whatever that actually means and/or entails.


The part about a 'brick' being made up of MANY 'minds' and being ABLE to 'experience' and 'cause' 'things' is Wrong. And,

I do NOT think ANY part of what you so-call 'explain' is right BECAUSE you end up just CONTRADICTING your previous CLAIMS the more you 'try to' explain things here.
Ok, does a brick reacts when you kick it?
'you', "bahman", is the one here who is CLAIMING that a 'brick' can 'experience' and can 'cause'. So, maybe best if you TELL us if a 'brick' 'reacts' or not when you kick 'it'.
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:00 pm If yes then why? And does a brick move? If yes then how?
REMEMBER it is 'you', "bahman", that CLAIMS bricks can 'experience' and can 'cause'. NO else that I KNOW OF claims such things as this.

So, does a brick react when you kick it?

If yes, then WHY, and HOW?

Do bricks move all by themselves?

If yes, then HOW?
I think I am talking with a brick!
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: What is matter?

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:35 am
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:03 pm
Age wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:14 pm
OR, maybe 'I' understand FAR MORE than 'you' could even IMAGINE here.
I don't think so.
Age wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:14 pm
So, you now CLAIM to know the whole picture, YET the picture that you are painting here for us is, OBVIOUSLY, False, Wrong, Incorrect, AND VERY CONTRADICTORY. So, what makes you ASSUME and BELIEVE that you know the whole picture?
Do you know what is the whole picture that I think is true?
No.

If you answered ALL of the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS that I pose to you, then I WOULD get closer to knowing the WHOLE PICTURE, which you think is true. But UNFORTUNATELY you do NOT.
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:03 pm What is it?
This is a redundant question.
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:03 pm
Age wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:14 pm

But I might be picking my nose, for example, when a teacher asks me to sit down, so there is ACTUALLY NO gap between the asking me to do some thing and the doing of this thing.
Are you going to sit or not?
That has ABSOLUTELY NO SIGNIFICANCE AT ALL here.

But you are now sounding like a typical one who HAS POWER of "another" but who is feeling threatened or who is feeling loss of that POWER.
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:03 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm


But WHY is there A GAP between you reading and you understanding?
Because it takes time.
This has become VERY CLEAR.
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:03 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
And, HOW LONG is the GAP between you reading and understanding?
It depends on the complexity of the subject. Sometimes you understand after you read it, a fraction of a second, and sometimes you need to reread the sentence to understand it.
Okay.

But WHY does it take some of 'you' SO LONG to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND that the earth is NOT flat, is NOT in the center of the Universe, and/or that the Universe IS infinite AND eternal?
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:03 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm


WHY do you ALWAYS IMAGINE there is A GAP, SOMEWHERE?

Can you REALLY NOT YET SEE and UNDERSTAND that there is NO ACTUAL 'gap' ANYWHERE?

OF COURSE there IS a 'distance' from when you see/read 'things' and when you see/understand some 'thing', but this in NO way means that there is ANY ACTUAL 'separation'. Besides, OF COURSE, the 'separation' of your OWN making.
I think I am wasting my time on you.
It CERTAINLY appears that way. Exactly like the people who were 'TRYING TO' CLAIM that the sun does revolve around the earth were, OBVIOUSLY, wasting their time on "others".
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:03 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm


HOW MANY TIMES are you going to MAKE CLAIMS in this forum but WHEN asked to back them up or CLARIFY them you WILL just ATTEMPT TO DEFLECT?

'Simultaneous', to me, is something like two or more 'things' happening at the same time.

'Temporal', to me, here relates to 'time', or, 'temporary' and NOT 'eternal'?
You didn't define temporal!
REALLY?

And, LOL 'this' coming from the one who CONTINUALLY ATTEMPTS to DEFLECT from CLARIFYING and DEFINING.

'Temporal', to me, RELATES TO 'time' or being 'temporary', or, in other words, IS DEFINED AS a 'length of duration shorter than eternal'.
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:03 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
What is 'simultaneous' and 'temporal', to you?
Simultaneous: When events happen at the same point.
Is 'point' REALLY the word you like to CHOOSE here?

When EXACTLY could two or more events happen at the SAME 'point'? In other words, will you provide at least ONE EXAMPLE?
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:03 pm Temporal: When events happen at different points in time.
Are you ABLE TO provide a dictionary that OBTAINS this definition of YOURS here?

If yes, then WILL YOU?
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:03 pm There is no other way around these.
OBVIOUSLY you do NOT look past your OWN views and perspective of 'things' here. So, you do NOT SEE 'things' how they REALLY ARE. For example, just above you SAID and CLAIMED that I did NOT define 'temporal'. It is like if one does NOT define a word the WAY you do, then they have NOT defined that word. Which IS absolute ABSURDITY, in the extreme.
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:03 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm


Even to your OWN ABSURD CONCLUSION that EVERY 'thing' CAME FROM NO 'thing' there STILL EXISTS and ENDLESSNESS of DEPENDENCE, or CAUSE.
That is the meaning of regress in philosophy. Could we agree with that definition?
What is the, supposed, meaning of 'regress' in 'philosophy', which you are asking me to agree with here?
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:03 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm


Yes.


Yes.
So you don't understand what infinity is. Infinity by definition is a something that you cannot reach!
LOL
LOL
LOL

But that is NOT what 'infinity' means in ANY dictionary that I have LOOKED IN. Will you provide a dictionary with THIS DEFINITION here?

If no, then WHY NOT?

But if yes, then GREAT, I will WAIT.

ALSO, and LOL MORE, if one can live FOREVER, then by definition they are One WITH 'infinity'. So, they cannot NOT just 'reach' 'infinity' they are ACTUALLY are a PART OF 'infinity'.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Yes.


No, I am saying that just saying that matter is physical does not resolve the issue.
WHAT ISSUE? To me there is NO ISSUE AT ALL here, OTHER THAN you being SO CONTRADICTORY, OF COURSE.
So I am wasting my time with you.
If you SAY and BELIEVE SO, then yes. Just like ALL of those people who 'TRY TO' to SAY and CLAIM 'things', which are NOT True or are NOT a PART of what ACTUALLY IS are ALL wasting their time.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm You have to explain what is physical.
To WHO, and WHY?

I am NOT the one making the CLAIMS here.
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
But explain to you that it has a problem since it is human dependent.
But there is NO problem. I just TOLD you THAT.
Of course there is a problem with that.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
Something that some people can experience and others not.
But EVERY one experiences 'spiritual reality'. Only SOME recognize this Fact.
No.
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:32 pm
But your definition has a problem.
NO it does NOT.

But what do you ASSUME or BELIEVE is the so-called 'problem' with my definition of 'physical'.
I already mentioned.[/quote]

And you do NOT CLARIFY because ....
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:03 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm


Will you EVER provide ANY EXAMPLES?

What is some 'thing', to you, that exists 'on its OWN'?
Your chair for example.
But you just got through telling us the chair exists because of the 'particles', which the 'chair' is made up of.
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:03 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:15 pm


How is just being 'human-dependent' a so-called 'problem' here?

Also, what I SAID, and MEANT, NEVER meant 'human-dependent'. This is just ANOTHER 'thing' of your OWN making or PRESUMING.
Because your chair still exists when you leave your room and don't see it.
But NO one, and especially ME, NEVER said the chair does NOT exist when a human being leaves a room. WHY would you GO TO SUCH ABSURDITIES.

'you' REALLY DO go off on some Truly WEIRD and RIDICULOUS tangents here "bahman".

Can you recall what we were ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT and DISCUSSING?
[/quote]
Look, I don't have more time for you. Maybe later I answer this post.
Age
Posts: 20203
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is matter?

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 12:34 pm
Age wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 1:31 am
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 11:49 am
What do you mean? A particle is by definition smallest thing you can find in the universe.
You OBVIOUSLY need to read up a bit more.

Protons and neutrons are said to be 'particles', yet they are, by definition, NOT the smallest thing you can find in the Universe.
Proton and Neutron are made of Quarks. There is nothing smaller than Quarks to the best of our knowledge.
It is GREAT to SEE that you followed my SUGGESTION here.
bahman wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 12:34 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 11:49 am
Protons, Neutron and Electrons.
Are you aware that protons and neutrons are made up of smaller particles?
Sure, they are made of Quarks.
So, YOUR CLAIM that 'particles' are the smallest things you can find in the Universe is NOT correct, right?

Unless, OF COURSE, you want to CLAIM that protons and neutrons are now NOT 'particles'.
bahman wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 12:34 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 11:49 am
Ok.
So, we are STILL WAITING to find out IF you do or do NOT know what 'particles' are made out of.

If 'sub-atomic particles' are NOT 'matter', then what are they, EXACTLY?
The question is what is matter?
I have ALREADY PROVIDED my definition. We are AWAITING for you to EXPLAIN how 'matter' is NOT 'physical'. AND, what 'matter' is EXACTLY if NOT 'physical'.
bahman wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 12:34 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 11:49 am
No, objects are assemblies of particles. For example, the chair that you are sitting on is an object made of Protons, Electrons, and Neutrons which are particles.
Which are NOT the smallest thing in the Universe that you can KNOW OF, correct?
Yes, if you want it better written your chair is made of Electrons and Quarks.
OF COURSE I WANT 'things' BETTER WRITTEN here, in a PHILOSOPHY FORUM.
bahman wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 12:34 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 11:49 am
What do you mean?
I mean what is 'fundamental' or 'what makes up' these so-called 'forces'?

Either you know, and hopefully will tell us, or, either you do NOT know, and, again, hopefully will tell us.
Physicists don't have an answer for that. I have.
Well WILL you TELL us?

If yes, then GREAT.

But if no, then WHY NOT?
bahman wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 12:34 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 11:49 am If objects are made of particles and particles are subjects of decay then how one object can exist forever?
VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY.
So?
So 'what', EXACTLY?
Age
Posts: 20203
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is matter?

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 12:36 pm
Age wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 1:35 am
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:00 pm
Ok, does a brick reacts when you kick it?
'you', "bahman", is the one here who is CLAIMING that a 'brick' can 'experience' and can 'cause'. So, maybe best if you TELL us if a 'brick' 'reacts' or not when you kick 'it'.
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:00 pm If yes then why? And does a brick move? If yes then how?
REMEMBER it is 'you', "bahman", that CLAIMS bricks can 'experience' and can 'cause'. NO else that I KNOW OF claims such things as this.

So, does a brick react when you kick it?

If yes, then WHY, and HOW?

Do bricks move all by themselves?

If yes, then HOW?
I think I am talking with a brick!
Okay, but can what 'you' 'think', be Wrong?

And, considering the Fact that 'you' BELIEVE that 'I' can NOT understand ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' AT ALL, it is NOT surprising AT ALL that you think that 'you' are talking to a 'brick' here.

Also, WHY is it like IMPOSSIBLE for 'you' to just BACK UP and SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS, or just CLARIFY 'them'?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: What is matter?

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 12:47 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 12:34 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm Are you aware that protons and neutrons are made up of smaller particles?
Sure, they are made of Quarks.
So, YOUR CLAIM that 'particles' are the smallest things you can find in the Universe is NOT correct, right?

Unless, OF COURSE, you want to CLAIM that protons and neutrons are now NOT 'particles'.
I am questioning what is matter and how it could move.
Age wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 12:47 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 12:34 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
So, we are STILL WAITING to find out IF you do or do NOT know what 'particles' are made out of.

If 'sub-atomic particles' are NOT 'matter', then what are they, EXACTLY?
The question is what is matter?
I have ALREADY PROVIDED my definition. We are AWAITING for you to EXPLAIN how 'matter' is NOT 'physical'. AND, what 'matter' is EXACTLY if NOT 'physical'.
But your definition has problems, most importantly depends on the existence of an intelligent agent.
Age wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 12:47 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 12:34 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:44 pm
I mean what is 'fundamental' or 'what makes up' these so-called 'forces'?

Either you know, and hopefully will tell us, or, either you do NOT know, and, again, hopefully will tell us.
Physicists don't have an answer for that. I have.
Well WILL you TELL us?
Please read OP.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: What is matter?

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 12:53 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 12:36 pm
Age wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 1:35 am

'you', "bahman", is the one here who is CLAIMING that a 'brick' can 'experience' and can 'cause'. So, maybe best if you TELL us if a 'brick' 'reacts' or not when you kick 'it'.



REMEMBER it is 'you', "bahman", that CLAIMS bricks can 'experience' and can 'cause'. NO else that I KNOW OF claims such things as this.

So, does a brick react when you kick it?

If yes, then WHY, and HOW?

Do bricks move all by themselves?

If yes, then HOW?
I think I am talking with a brick!
Okay, but can what 'you' 'think', be Wrong?

And, considering the Fact that 'you' BELIEVE that 'I' can NOT understand ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' AT ALL, it is NOT surprising AT ALL that you think that 'you' are talking to a 'brick' here.

Also, WHY is it like IMPOSSIBLE for 'you' to just BACK UP and SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS, or just CLARIFY 'them'?
Are you made of matter?
Post Reply