Happy belated 4/20 everyone!
For non-reefer reasons, I have suddenly become motivated, whether out of sheer disrespect for the neurons of my potential audience, or out of basic boredom, to put forth an obviously specious theory concerning the non-existence of our material substratum.
That is, I’m going to disprove the existence of objects in the universe (objects, here, defined as rocks, tree, humans, etc….we’re not bringing dark matter, or any other such nonsense, into this).
Now, I’m not saying that there is NOTHING; there is, conceptually, “energy”, and this component is the key portion of the theory. Consider the following:
1) Matter is essentially just condensed energy; matter and energy are two sides of the same coin. When water molecules slow down in their movement, we call that ice, and when particles interact with the Higgs field they gain mass. E=mc^2
2) The mind (defined as the activity of the brain) contains concepts, including our understanding of energy. This understanding comes from the observation of coinciding events, leading to the creation of formulas for said events, which involve, as a mathematical necessity, a component called “energy”. This energy is inferred to be transferred in a variety of forms.
3) The definition of energy is generally something as follows (from Wikipedia): “In physics, energy is a scalar physical quantity that describes the amount of work that can be performed by a force.” Another definition: “The capacity of a physical system to do work.” (dictionary.com). In short, energy is an idea; a concept; a useful heuristic applied to repeated observations.
4) The concepts in the mind are loosely based on the world outside, but they are based only on regularity of events occurring, and the prototype images (ie, “car”, what is a “dog”, etc…); the mind cannot contain anything other than mere representations of matter.
∴ The mind probably exists (because “I think therefore, I am” is implied), but matter DOES NOT.
I have thus disproven the material world. Good day.
[response to Ernest]
Well...it DOES suggest that it isn't representative of an actual material entity....in the sense that frozen energy=matter, and that energy is not "material" in nature.
In fact, one could argue that we don't have ANY definition of matter at all. As you admitted before, the concepts of "work", used to define energy and "energy", simultaneously used to define work, create a chain of circular logic.
Therefore, either energy exists and material objects still don't, or energy itself doesn't exist, meaning that only our minds do. Essentially, our definition of "material objects" precludes them from existing in the strictest sense of the word.
I must protest. Simply because the concept of "energy," as we think of it is simply a heuristic does not mean that it isn't representative of some actual, material entity. The fact that we cannot give a clear definition energy, and, by extension, matter, does suggest the possibility that "matter DOES NOT" exist, but it is a long way from actually proving that concept.
ReplyDeletewell, what else would you expect the mind to contain other than a representation, your mind cannot hold a car. the representation in itself is just data, which in the mind is neurotransmitters and they themselves are matter as they are made of up elements that make up the matter, and if you continue extend this argument you can say then that b/c matter does not exist, according to your argument, the neurotransmitters do not exist, the nerve endings, cells, everything that make up the brain DOES NOT EXIST. So what are you left with then? NOTHING! Adam, you don't exist anymore then, I just proved you don't exist by your own argument. (Owned...)
ReplyDelete@ Harsh:
ReplyDeleteNo; in order to say that, you have to be able to prove that neurotransmitters, etc... actually exist. We cannot know that, for the same reason that energy remains only a concept.