An answer - Page 2

Cool.

We have two uesrions the to tale the first quesion:

1. Is mass thought
2. Is mass a product of thought.

Well my point; almost everything somehow manages to stay in the same general form but changes in he specific. If everything is really quantum soup, ten what tells atoms to bind into molecules, etc,.

Imagine the dots are the mass are there lines runing through like on an abacus but that bed, felx, seperate, join.Are these lines infrmation? But inormation is not knowledge. What keeps my skin in place even though every individual atom is changed after a few months?

quote:

---

then what tells atoms to bind into molecules

---

Atoms consist of sub atomic particles- protons, neutrons, electrons which orbit the nucleus. Each atom can be charged and therefore is attracted to another atom. Chemical (covalent and non-covalent)bonding of atoms forms molecules.

What are these so called 'lines' you refer to? do you mean atoms or cells? Information is carried in absolutely every cell- within the DNA/RNA. DNA/RNA monitors cells. The body is regulated by cells>molecules>atoms. Cells within the body are renewed millions of times a second.

quote:

---

What keeps my skin in place even though every individual atom is changed after a few months

---

You skin is made up of kerantinised cells, colagenous and elastic connective tissue. These cells and tissues keep you skin together. Cell division ensures that skin is regulated.

You keep answering with smaller, more refined matter. This matter, as it reduces becomes just energy. Is this energy itself the inormation. More particuklarly, thinkas fine as you can go, subatomic particles. What makes them form familiar objects? why does a tree look so similar to the next tree, et it is always nevr exaty the same?

Think of Newtons gravity equat9ion. You answer its a prouct of mass and distance and a constant. What is mass? its energy forming a measurable quantity. What is linear distance? its that between two bodies, but whee is the eact centre of the two bodies if they are both more than 99.9999% empty space. About everyhing we need a concept of infiity before getting to the next thing if we deal in points, not flows, as in my lines thing. Then what makes things cohere into discrete objects?

Here is how I see it:
Thought is matter. Matter is mass. Thought is a product of mass. Matter is only energy if it moves. Moving 'Information' in matter is mass. Energy isn't the information itself; the energy are the carriers of info. Matter is anything occupying space and having mass. Mass is the quantity of matter in an object. Energy can't determine mass of matter, because objects with little mass may produce a lot of energy and vica versa. Refering to my chemistry book- "mass is a measure of the resistance of an object to a change in its state of motion. Mass is measure by the force necerssary to give an object a certain aceleration".

Electrons move from one orbital to another-they don't occupy space between orbitals. Energy is required to move an electron from 1 orbital to another. That is know as an energy quantum. Your tree example; well they look similar because the amino acid sequences are ~99.99% the same. However there is always genetic variation (as evolution maintains).

Then what makes things cohere into discrete objects? well for biological matter- it is the amino acid sequences and DNA/RNA. For abiotic matter it is the unique energy charge of the subatomic particles depending on the element and its atoms/molecules.

I'm still trying to grasp onto your 'lines' concept

quote:

---

matter is only energy if it moves.

---

If matter is composed of vibrating subatomic particles, isn't energy forming matter?

quote:

---

This energy isn't the information itself; the energy are the carriers of info (I think).

---

I'll think more on this. If this energy is massless then the info is perhaps non-material-can't think of a better example.

quote:

---

Mass is the quantity of matter in an object.

---

This is a good way of showing how the object is seperate from its mass but at the same time defined by it.

Consider two big balls seperted by space. Lets assume they change. All the tiny subatomic particles-they exist in any matter-chemicals, DNA, cells, molecules. Give me something and I'll boil it down to this. Now what I imagine is a matrix if you like. Imagine a net that is everywhere in space. The holes are filled with subatomic particles; the weaves are the lines. The underlying mat of processes that allow the holes to characterise what we see as objects. I wish I could paint this.

is "god" that important?

Is truth God? note the way this is phrased?

quote:

---

If matter is composed of vibrating subatomic particles, isn't energy forming matter?

---

However matter forms energy: you need matter to create energy, because without energy you have no matter. If mass is the quantity of matter in an object and energy is a product of matter then energy comprises of mass. Energy of matter is measured in enthalpies.

quote:

---

Now what I imagine is a matrix if you like. Imagine a net that is everywhere in space. The holes are filled with subatomic particles; the weaves are the lines. The underlying mat of processes that allow the holes to characterise what we see as objects. I wish I could paint this.

---

Now I'm getting your 'lines' concept. When you refer to the mat comprising of weaves of lines and holes it sounds quite similar to components of the string theory. Interesting. If the holes are filled with matter, then what are the lines composed of? are they structual or maybe a form of anti-matter?

God is only truth to individuals who believe in it. Only individual truth exists. A 'God' is not important in all, and is absent in many. There is no universal truth.

how do you know all this. you talk as if your right and you can prove it. where are your facts?

Knowledge is information based. I have knowledge of this because I have learnt it- school, university (at the moment), and have gathered my own scientific concepts and philosophy. I never claimed it as fact. Unfortunately you may fail to realise that scientific theories are not facts. The ultimate goal of science is to understand the natural world in terms of scientific theories, which are only concepts. The word 'theory' refers to a speculative idea. Ideas will always be challenged either side. A theory can't claim the truth or fact- they are simply reasons. As I said- there is no universal truth, just individual truth. Science has a great capacity for information but in the end it needs to be interpreted. Humans always like to put things into categories or frameworks. What Heyjme1 and I are doing is we are hopefully moving towards thinking outside these frameworks at a higher level and to understand a 'concept' that seems to be an interesting reason.

Okay. Its a question of semantics for me. Take E=mc2; so yes mass forms energy. However, this is purely material. The logic is of the structure of the universe as a cause of the effect. However, just like the Big Bang it is an answer but when we delve into absolutes it becomes philosophy or religion, the differnce being meaning or primary causation. Now energy is a word used because I can't think of a better one. If we limit ourselves to 4-dimensions or 3 then we have a problem in that though. My point is if mass is composed of vibrating subatomic particles, when does the mass become absolute? Mass is measured in kgs and theres an object which is weighed each year in France via SI units solely because it changes each year. I'm not saying mass doesn't exist but that if you want absolute precision of defintion it is always tangible, never a fixed 'being'.

As for the lines; its justa way to try and show structure as we perceive it. The dots of information are like a web of information that gives character, like DNA if you will. I believe that there are boundaries constructed but that possibly are not real. Just like there is no way you could tell me where you stop and where the environment starts, but clearly in a defined area it does. But precision of absolution cannot exist because there is perpetual change. And so, then when we question deply it is hard to conceive how we see objects seperately, though I believe it is because we have finite sense perception.

quote:

---

if mass is composed of vibrating subatomic particles, when does the mass become absolute? Mass is measured in kgs and theres an object which is weighed each year in France via SI units solely because it changes each year. I'm not saying mass doesn't exist but that if you want absolute precision of defintion it is always tangible, never a fixed 'being'.

---

Yes objects can be measured in Kg via using the SI units. However if we are talking about energies, atoms, etc, then precise 'real absolute' mass is measured in atomic masses. The most accurate measuring device is the mass spectrometer, which i've used before at uni.

quote:

---

I believe that there are boundaries constructed but that possibly are not real. Just like there is no way you could tell me where you stop and where the environment starts, but clearly in a defined area it does. But precision of absolution cannot exist because there is perpetual change. And so, then when we question deply it is hard to conceive how we see objects seperately, though I believe it is because we have finite sense perception.

---

I believe this too. Boundaries are what our brain is capable of defining and establishing. That is why I think absolute 'truth' (sorry, but it always comes to truth) cannot be resolved within the brain. The universe could be a completly different realm and dimension externally from how we perceive it- like you said; we have limited sense perception. Its kinda freaky to think about this.

quote:

---

There is no universal truth

---

Summit is that statement true?

it is an opinion. Opinions are individual truths not universal truth.

what PeteSmith is saying is that in stating that there is no Universal Truth, you have created a Universal Truth, thereby nullifying your previous statement.