As I look out my bedroom window I see formed matter, trees sky light and such. Science tells me there’s unformed matter I cannot see. How does unformed matter turn into formed matter, are reality as I see it? pljamesone@att.net
Wow, I like your question and the way you stated it. I have no idea, but I’d be interested in reading some answers.
Rational Metaphysics;
In an effort to avoid contention, one seeks the impossible. From such insistence, contention rises. From such rising even more contention rises and spawns more insistence for obtaining that which cannot be had. Locked into the eternal struggle to obtain the impossible, nothing else “matters”. The matter formed is born from the struggle to avoid that very formation, too much effort in too small a space to gain what cannot be had. Entropy defeated by its own threat.
Affecting takes time. The more time it takes, the more affecting gathers in the same location. The more affecting that gathers into that location, the more time it takes for affecting to occur. Eventually nothing can affect that which is already affecting as fast as possible. Inertia is born. That spot of inertia is what is called a “particle of matter”. You cannot see it, until it matters.
Physics;
The energy/mass density gets too high and collapses into a central point of mass gravitation known as a particle of matter.
[size=150]Sir James,
The reason for the question/statement is people deny reality (as I see it from my bedroom window). I see I understand what I see. I also understand I am seeing formed matter. I would like to know (how) unformed matter became formed. I have a theory but people might judge me. I am new to science. Thoughts please basic this time. pljames [/size]
Hi james,
I know what you are trying to say but i want to hear it clearly.
Leaving mysticism behind, are you saying that mind (contention) creates matter?
with love,
sanjay
I don’t know how I could say that and also leave mysticism behind.
The word “matter” refers to the concept of something firm and significant. In physics it refers to solid physical particles. In the mind, it refers to significant issues of the heart and/or mind, not to be ignored. Both uses are the result of a contention within the particle or the within the “significant issue”.
What is causing the contention in physics is merely the affectance waves within the particle that insist on affecting beyond a maximum rate. Because they cannot affect that fast, they slow their rate to match the maximum possible. But that slows other affectance behind trying to head in a similar direction, which slows more behind it, and so on. It is from that ordeal that the gravity field is created and experienced. It is from that situation that particles migrate toward each other, “mass attraction”.
In the mind, a similar but distinctly different even occurs. If an issue is important, the mind and heart insists on it being resolved. It might be an issue of logic, of compassion, or both. But other issues must remain resolved if not also be resolved. Such insistence forces the mind and heart to concentrate on the issues and possibly become overwhelmed with tension due to all of the issues that each must be resolved. As stubborn “particle” forms within the mind. Such occurrences sometimes form what is call an “addiction”, “obsession”, or even “vampire”. From that one mind and heart concentrating on that issue, other minds about get affected due to issues that they might have along the same lines or merely around that same person. The issue ends up creating a “gravitation” and migration of interest and significance to both the issue and the person, “attraction of the masses”.
James,
I thought we as humans are made of matter, atoms and such. With that said how does unformed matter turn into formed matter. From the invisible to the visible. I see formed matter why can’t I see unformed matter except through a device instead? pl
Hi James,
Metaphysics must find a way of it otherwise nobody will be convinced from its premises.
James, there are only two ways of proofing anything. the first one is physical proof and the other is reasoning. But, reasoning should be done in such a way, that should be looking like proofing the case; just as said in the law-- without any reasonable doubt. And, in that sense, mysticism doesn’t help as it manifests various interpretations.
One can know many such things, which are not known by others. I accept that. But, it has no revelance for others, unless and untill, he is not able to proof or convince others.
James, it is good that you have tried to derive cogitations from the nature and surroundings.
Without going for word to word analysis, i must say that the underline current of your response is in the right direction, but still incomplete.
James, we cannot put our foot on two boats and still allow them to go divergently.
You tried to run metaphysics by the side of physics, but you can do that infinitely parallel. They must run in convergent direction as to find a meeting point.
Thus, you have to show that particular point where immaterial contentions convert into materialistic matter.
And, i know that it is very difficult but we can try it at least.
with love,
sanjay
Well this is (almost) funny.
I could repeat my answer, but I suspect that such wouldn’t do any more good than repeating the question did. To me, I answered the question with far more detail than you would get anywhere else. So I suggest that you perhaps restate the question in an entirely different way.
If you understand what I said but merely want more details, just ask. But realize that you don’t explain why E=mc^2 in first grade arithmetic. Understanding requires an order in learning. If you ask of Z, you must either take it on faith, or suffer having to learn of A-Y.
And zinnat13,
I am way, way past the point that you imply… Rational Metaphysics is already proven (privately) and indisputable.
Hi james,
I need some time to decide what to say and how to say. i have to recollect my scatterd thoughs and synchronize those in a proper way.I hope that you do not mind.
with love,
sanjay
Hi James,
Sorry for being late. Actually, I was little confused about how to address you. I do not want to refute you because I know that you are right but, at the same time, I do not want to agree with you because I felt that your perception about your perception is not right.
Let me tell you that I have read your blog accidently, even before I joined ILP. I was surfing for something else but the word AFFECTANCE drew my attraction, because it is a bit unusual word. I stopped and tried a have a look at it. So, when I read your posts here, it immediately reminded me of that blog and I went through (though not completely) it once again.
That’s why I simply asked you – are you saying that mind creates matter? Even anticipating your response, I asked for clarification so that others also would be able to get the clear picture.
I am quoting a portion of you blog, hoping that you do not mind it—
Emergence
[i]Smooth waves, rather than spiking random points, are formed due to the mutual affect of every point on its adjacent points. The waves move due to every point in every wave still affecting every adjacent point as the mutual affecting causes shifting in the wave peaks. The “splashing” around of those affectance waves creates a probability pattern concerning the strength of the waves. That pattern is what we eventually see as the beginning essence of the universe emerging, seemingly from nothingness.
As the strength of some waves increase sufficiently, they combine in collision with other waves to form a small particle wherein the affectance noise is clustered around a single point. That congestion of noise containing maximum rates of change is what causes the particle to have inertia and a field of gravity surrounding it as the congestion spreads. It becomes a “hard” particle due to the amount of congested affectance noise. We then declare it to be “matter”.
Eventually, the numerous particles begin clumping as they attract each other through both gravity as well as electric potential differences. Some particles merge in such a way as to form a large single particle as their noise unites into a single spinning cluster. This aggregating forms positive, negative and neutral particles that form atoms and larger mass clusters[/i].
James, I think that this is the very detail that you were referring. Please let me know if you have something else to say. Otherwise, so far, I more or less agree with you. I also agree with your concept of black holes, which you stated in your blog. Having said this, I also think that it could never be proved physically.
James, though the basic concept of is right, but the explanation still not complete. There are many gaps left unfilled. There is a very long and complex series of evolution between the initial point and physical matter and human existence.
Let me tell you one more thing. Besides this, there are some other concepts as well, those also look as reasonable as this.
You said- I am way, way past the point that you imply… Rational Metaphysics is already proven (privately) and indisputable.
James, here comes the disagreement.
If i heard you right, then you are saying that RM is premised and ‘privately proofed’ by you and thus, undisputable.
James, i think that you are neither the first one nor the last, who visualized emergence that way. Many thought and said that way in the past. One of the legends of philosophy, Spinoza, sounds very same.
Here we are—
[i]God is not some goal-oriented planner who then judges things by how well they conform to his purposes. Things happen only because of Nature and its laws. “Nature has no end set before it … All things proceed by a certain eternal necessity of nature.”
Spinoza does not believe that worshipful awe or reverence is an appropriate attitude to take before God or Nature. There is nothing holy or sacred about Nature, and it is certainly not the object of a religious experience. Instead, one should strive to understand God or Nature, with the kind of adequate or clear and distinct intellectual knowledge that reveals Nature’s most important truths and shows how everything depends essentially and existentially on higher natural causes.
Nature is always the same, and its virtue and power of acting are everywhere one and the same, i.e., the laws and rules of nature, according to which all things happen, and change from one form to another, are always and everywhere the same. So the way of understanding the nature of anything, of whatever kind, must also be the same, viz. through the universal laws and rules of nature.
“Each thing, as far as it can by its own power, strives to persevere in its being.” An affect just is any change in this power, for better or for worse. Affects that are actions are changes in this power that have their source (or “adequate cause”) in our nature alone; affects that are passions are those changes in this power that originate outside of us[/i].
plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/
James, his words may not be verbatim with you but the underlying intention is the same. His concept of God is very similar to yours. He also applies the rules of nature on the mental phenomena as you said ‘attraction of the masses’.
Even if you are not satisfied with this, then allow me to little further in past; around 3000 years ago—
The Sāṁkhyapravacana Sūtra in verse no. 1.92 directly states that existence of “God is unproved”. Hence there is no philosophical place for a creationist God in this system. It is also argued by commentators of this text that the existence of Ishvara cannot be proved and hence cannot be admitted to exist.[45] Classical Samkhya argues against the existence of God on metaphysical grounds. Samkhya theorists argue that an unchanging God cannot be the source of an ever changing world and that God was only a necessary metaphysical assumption demanded by circumstances.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya
James, look at this. They are very categorically stating that something cannot be existed from total nothingness. Is this not the same argument which you discussed with Samm?
Now, this one is directly from Vedas—
[i]There was neither non-existence nor existence then. There was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond. What stirred? Where? In whose protection? Was there water, bottlemlessly deep?
There was neither death nor immortality then. There was no distinguishing sign of night nor of day. That One breathed, windless, by its own impulse. Other than that there was nothing beyond.
Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning, with no distinguishing sign, all this was water. The life force that was covered with emptiness, that One arose through the power of heat.
Desire came upon that One in the beginning, that was the first seed of mind. Poets seeking in their heart with wisdom found the bond of existence and non-existence.
Their cord was extended across. Was there below? Was there above? There were seed-placers, there were powers. There was impulse beneath, there was giving forth above.
Who really knows? Who will here proclaim it? Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation? The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe. Who then knows whence it has arisen?
Whence this creation has arisen - perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not - the One who looks down on it, in the highest heaven, only He knows or perhaps even He does not know[/i].
en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Rig_V … 0/Hymn_129
James, look carefully at this mystic language of Rig-Veda. It is very clearly suggesting that though it was nonexistent initially but had the capacity of existence. They called it desire what you call affectance, which caused the existence and thus, mind came into existence.
Vedas are considered the cornerstones of Hindu mythologies. Their language is mystic so there are around two hundred commentaries on them, which are written by Sages. They talked about it in detail. There is a commentary in the name of yog Vashistha written by sage Vashiatha. It is a very long and complex text and discusses only existence and reality. The English translation is not available on the net thus, i am helpless in that regard. Nevertheless, i found something for you—
The three main approaches in arriving at the solution to the problem of the Ultimate Reality have traditionally been the theological, the cosmological and the psychological approaches.[44] The cosmological approach involves looking outward, to the world; the psychological approach meaning looking inside or to the Self; and the theological approach is looking upward or to God. Descartes takes the first and starts with the argument that the Self is the primary reality, self-consciousness the primary fact of existence, and introspection the start of the real philosophical process.[45] According to him, we can arrive at the conception of God only through the Self because it is God who is the cause of the Self and thus, we should regard God as more perfect than the Self. Spinoza on the other hand, believed that God is the be-all and the end-all of all things, the alpha and the omega of existence. From God philosophy starts, and in God philosophy ends. The manner of approach of the Upanishadic philosophers to the problem of ultimate reality was neither the Cartesian nor Spinozistic. The Upanishadic philosophers regarded the Self as the ultimate existence and subordinated the world and God to the Self. The Self to them, is more real than either the world or God. It is only ultimately that they identify the Self with God, and thus bridge over the gulf that exists between the theological and psychological approaches to reality. They take the cosmological approach to start with, but they find that this cannot give them the solution of the ultimate reality. So, Upanishadic thinkers go back and start over by taking the psychological approach and here again, they cannot find the solution to the ultimate reality. They therefore perform yet another experiment by taking the theological approach. They find that this too is lacking in finding the solution. They give yet another try to the psychological approach, and come up with the solution to the problem of the ultimate reality. Thus, the Upanishadic thinkers follow a cosmo-theo-psychological approach.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upanishads
James, all this work was done even before the birth of Christ and Mohammad. After that Mongolians started attacking Indian subcontinent, then came Turks and Muslims and all this halted the course of knowledge.
So, the fact of the matter is that all there are premises are available with the society since 2000 BCE but the issue is never settled, nor it will be in the future, unless and until, one cannot come up with some sort of physical evidence.
I do not have any intention of undermining your effort. What you have done through, 99% even do not think of doing it. But James, these ‘privately proven’ facts do not earn much consideration in modern scientific era. One may be aware of many such things, due to some personal experiences, those others do not know, but simply knowing is not sufficient proof for others.
If you search the net, you will find some hundred thousands of people claiming new discoveries, formulas, theories and bizarre experiences and explanations but they are not entertained, just because of simple reason that they do not have any proof. May some of those claim have some truth but who knows?
I tell you a very prime example of that. There is a man named James Randi, who has offered a prize of one million dollars for any proof of paranormal phenomenon and none is able to win it since last 10 years, despite of so many claims. Check for yourself.
skepdic.com/randi.html
James, I personally experienced some such phenomena which are not normal but I cannot proof it to others so others have every reason to refute me and it is logical too. I do not have any right to claim that I am right and they are wrong because, if I were them, then I would have done the same.
Anyway, my best wishes are with you and RM. Keep going.
With love,
sanjay
zinnat13,
It is uncommon that anyone on this forum would bother to actually study any proposal from anyone about anything and certainly not about fundamental physics. What you have been reading has merely been some results of the RM concept. The entire theory and mathematical proof is a collegiate study requisited by tensor analysis.
But if you would like to help clarify the concepts involved, even without the math, I have been trying to discuss them with Eugene on his thread…A New Theory for Our Quantum World starting in the middle of page 14 or so. Eugene supports a different theory, TEW, and when I step on the toes of that theory, he repels into total denial of anything associated with RM. So the progress of the discussion is horrendously slow, but many fundamental concepts were raised. If you wish to question any of it, feel free to join the discussion on that thread with any question you like. I am used to starting all over, so no big deal. All of the concepts from ground zero are open for debate for logical proofing and verifying.
Hi James,
Let me tell you that I have read the whole thread that you mentioned; from page one to last.
But I refrained myself from posting there because you two were going along nicely and I do not want to disturb the course. Furthermore, although I am aware of basic scientific principles but do not consider myself competent enough to discuss highly technical stuff and not like to comment on those topics, those I cannot perceive properly.
James, i am just an ordinary man like most others. I am not well versed with philosophy (in formal or conservative way) but feel that I can understand, analyze and may be comment on what is narrated by philosophers.Whatever more or less, I am able to know is because of my experiences and their analysis. I tried to test and compare those cogitations with others to know whether I am right and wrong. That is only reason why I am on the board.
James, I am a curious person and good listener too. I would like to know what you have because I consider you more knowledgeable than me. Unlike others, I do not find it difficult to hold anyone else superior than me. Life taught me that one cannot learn unless he is not honest with himself.
James, I believe in empiricism because I learned that way. On the other hand, it looks to me that you gained knowledge in formal way (it is my guess only). So, it would be interesting how we deal with each other. I am sure that you will find some worth in me too.
I am ready to start but I think that it would be better if we start a new thread because what I have to say is nothing to do with quantum theory (scientific) and that thread would become confusing to all especially for EM and it would not be manners to borrow anyone’s thread. Furthermore, others also will share their opinion in new thread while they will hesitate regarding the old one because it is quite technical.
The only other issue with me is time. I am not as prompt in posting as you because I do not like to reply instantly.I always prefer to give some time to my mind to manifest thoughts.
with love,
sanjay
Your kidding? Wow. I’m impressed. I can’t imagine someone actually reading with comprehension even one tenth of what was said without having questions insisting to be asked.
Emm… a physicist would think that thread a very un-technical, totally silly, uneducated rambling of morons. I have intentionally, and not without great effort, attempted to express the concepts involved void of sophisticated math or presumed scientific axioms. I am trying to find a way of communicating not to the elitely educated, but to those who haven’t a clue, perhaps even those like you. I can’t manage that without questions from them.
Then you are my target audience. Learn to say, “I don’t understand what you meant by this phrase…” and “Did you mean to say that…?” What is the point of having the author and philosopher on hand if all you are going to do is wait until they die and then argue about what they meant?
You are always welcome to start a new thread. Ask any question concerning Rational Metaphysics or the most fundamental concerns of the universe. There is no fundamental philosophical question that RM doesn’t address, it isn’t just about physics (as you should have seen if you read that entire thread).
Since Eugene got married, he is posting at most one post a day. The clock is ticking. And everything takes time. It isn’t an issue… yet.
Hi james,
It is not a such big deal.
Did you remember that you said to EM somwhere in that thread that readers are simply not interested in such issues and he replied that there may be silent viewers as well. You may consider me one of them.
I will start a new thread tomorrow with my OP. I will let you know the title through this thread.
with love,
sanjay
Well, glad to hear. But it doesn’t really change my opinion. 
I imagine that I will notice it.
Hi James,
I have started a new thread in the name of JSSRM and a Layman
Look for it.
with love,
sanjay
- let’s start with gas, it will form stars and planets.
- stars will eventually die and swallow up the planets and explode in a supernova and it will repeat in that way.
- the odds is when Magnetars, Neutron Stars and Black Holes form, they will swallow up various form of matter and sometimes redistribute it if abundante. Eventually these odds will disperse and matter can again be recycled.
If I understand you properly, I could agree with that in general.
But there is the issue of the matter that has become “radiant energy”.
Understanding that issue with more precision requires understanding Rational Metaphysics, because the rest of Science can’t, and doesn’t explain it (except in terms of nonsensical superstitions).
isn’t unformed matter just another word for energy?