Will you provide examples of what can be physical yet not be matter?
Okay, they are two different questions, but can either of them be debated?
If your answer is yes, then please provide some examples?
Anything subatomic. For example, are the quanta from Quantum Physics matter? Highly debatable. And, is space matter? Most certainly not.
Well, no, but that’s not because of your questions but because of my question. Mr Cat wants to debate the reason for honest atheists’ choice to live or stay alive. I question whether such choices are rational at all. People may think they are, but that may just be their opinion. One can debate whether their opinion corresponds to reality, but that’s not what Mr Cat is asking to do. That would at best be a kind of preliminary debate, not the main debate. His question is not: “Is what you think is why you’re choosing to live really why you’re choosing to live?”, but: “Are your reasons for choosing to live good reasons in the light of your physicalist atheism?”
This is one of the reasons I do not like modern philosophy. Materialism used originally the term “matter” or “atom“ or “particle“ to describe that everything has a physical base and referred to physical processes to explain the world. Physisists found that mass and energy are interchangeable, and now we invented a new philosophical term, the naturalism.
In my opinion, this is over-killing. There was no reason to have two different branches for practically the same thing.
I could have used even the more ancient term for myself, i.e. atomic philosophy, if the chemistry had not used the term atom for hydrogen, oxygen, etc. It is this mix of science and philosophy that creates many misunderstandings. I have even seen in serious texts people to claim that the ancient Democritus’ atomic philosophy “failed”, because atoms are divisible to electrons and nucleus (seriously now?)
I agree, but I’ve been misinterpreted on this matter in the past. Moreover, it matters how one interprets Democritus’ atoms. (No puns intended.) Are they really indestructible particles which therefore cannot pop in and out of existence in space (vacuum)?
Democritus thought of these as non-divisible, unchangeable, infinite in size and number, and not pop in and out of existence. Epicurus assumed that they had finite number of sizes. Many of the things they assumed are of course out-dated.
With the current technology we cannot yet “see” electrons and verify if they are divisible or not. Similar question to the quantum of the quantum mechanics. The theory works, but do they actually have minimum non-destructive physical size yes or no? Do they indeed pop in and out in vacuum? So the question of smallest possible particle still remains.
In Spinoza’s physics, everything is always divisible, leading to one entity. Einstein, who we can say was philosophically close to Spinoza, provided a theory where space and time are united in a 4-D manifold. Physisists with similar approaches consider that all events (past, present and future) coexist.
All these different hypotheses remain to be proven or disproven.
That’s not the debate topic. The rubric was decided to be:
i.e. not “DO you choose”, but “WHY DO you choose.”
You’re twisting my melon man.
don’t see how this is the case, nor how it relates to the debate rubric.
If quanta are particles at the subatomic level, then what are they particles of exactly, if it is not matter? Or, what are the particles exactly?
How is space physical?
But this can only ever be known after the answer/s are provided. Which as far as I am aware I am the only who has provided the answer.
But it is very common practice for human beings to change words, and what they mean, to fit in with their already held beliefs and assumptions.
For example, when it is shown and proven that the Universe is actually infinite and eternal, instead of being finite and starting, those who believe the Universe began and is expanding are trying to change the word Universe to mean something else, and are trying to replace that word with the “multiverse” word.
The issue they have though, they have not yet even recognised nor even thought about.
The question may still remain, but the answer also already exists.
Is the one entity divisible? If it is not, then everything is not always divisible, obviously.
But, it is theory, which let us not forget is more or less essentially just a guess, of two things that so-called “scientists” of “today” cannot even agree upon and define.
While “physicists” with different approaches consider that all events (past, present and future) do not coexist.
Which is why making up and looking at all hypotheses, theories, and guesses is really just a waste of time. Especially considering the fact that what is actually irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and Correct is HERE, ‘staring at us in the face’, as some might say.
And, I have already told you.
WHY I choose to live, (and not die right now), is because to exist is all I “know”.
To keep existing, as I am, in material form, is all I can really do.
Did you miss this?
Now, what is there to debate?
I also said other things, but you claim you don’t have the time to read up on what I write. Which is a sign of an excuse when one is not able to debate.
In case you missed it, here’s the OP, which is by convention the first port of call in any thread:
Then stop using science. For Einstein’s theory, stop using GPS. According to you it is false, since it uses the special relativity theory for correcting deviations between clocks on sattelites and earth.
It seems that you have no clue why scientists make hypotheses….
I don’t see L answering
What are the respective positions? Is your claim that atheist materialism provides no reason to choose life, and @ghatzige is arguing that it does?
Is this intended for the opening post of the debate, or is it what you will say in the first round?
I will definitely argue that it does.
Hi there, yes that will be my opening post. The title will be: Atheist Materialism Interrogated: Why Choose Life?
I will stick to responding to whatever @ghatzige says, to make sure his arguments are strong. I may advance my own arguments too. But which arguments l advance, will depend on @ghatzige’s reply.
George told me so
To be clear: Suicide is illegal in my country (UK) and probably all other nations. Nobody has, is, or will, encourage it within this debate. Despite the matter of the debate.
“In physics, a quantum (pl.: quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity (physical property) involved in an interaction.”
Matter is not a physical property. So quanta are not particles of matter in that sense. They are what that which we call “matter” consists of. To be sure, though, this means we might call it an emergent property, but not a fundamental property:
“In everyday as well as scientific usage, matter generally includes atoms and anything made up of them, and any particles (or combination of particles) that act as if[!] they have both rest mass and volume. However it does not include massless particles[!] such as photons, or other energy phenomena or waves such as light or heat.”
Well, that’s actually why I wrote ‘Quantum Physics’ and not ‘Quantum Mechanics’…
“Space is one of the few fundamental quantities in physics”.
Right, the answer to a question can only ever be known after the answer is provided…
You have clearly missed the point entirely.