Do Objects Have Independence?

[RingingSword]

Correspondents,

Do the physical objects of our material universe really have clear and distinct boundaries? Do these boundaries persist in our absence?

Below is a brief overview of the history of materialist belief. I close with questions about the independence of material objects.

Traditional Materialism – a theory about matter, which manifests the form and substance of the world; in the wake of Aristotle’s “prime matter,” which saw all material attributes while lacking any of its own, and also that of Locke’s unknowable substance of all things, likewise without attributes, the discovery of photons, energy field’s and Einstein’s E = mc² has further complicated the picture of a tangible world which nonetheless slips our grasp of understanding. With brute matter now superseded by the concept of mass, which, on occasion, is interchangeable with energy, the need for “non-eliminative materialism has emerged. Under this construction, the three branches of matter include: 1) material things (solids, liquids, gasses); 2) psychological things (thoughts, feelings); 3) abstract things (numbers, ideas).

Objectivism – as the chief property of materialism, it asserts the independence of material objects. It says material objects persist as such before, during and after their observation by conscious subjects. Herein objects and subjects are perfectly discrete and separable. Although quantum physics has clouded this separability within the realm of the micro, at the macro level of human experience, the impact of quantum realities continues to be ignored in the absence of an empirical link between the physics of the two realms.

Traditional Objective Materialism – a view of the world in which an internally consistent and holistically stable environment of reality is always on (in effect) and the objectivity of material objects is independent. The assumption here is that an object continues to be an object, even in the absence of a subject (vis-à-vis said object).

The Future of (Traditional) Materialism – as we progress into the cybernetic age, we understand with increasing clarity that: 1) solidity becomes plasticity; 2) there are degrees of hardness, but no solids; 3) everything is possible, nothing is real (always in effect).

Attack on Traditional Materialism – by asking, “Can a material object persist in total isolation from everything save itself?” we ask what degree of objective independence is possessed by material objects. If the objective independence of material objects is total, then an object should persist as such in isolation from everything save itself. A problem arises when we consider that a given object might consist of components themselves objects. When this is the case, and when the components likewise have total independence: 1) how does the more inclusive object sustain its independence vis-à-vis the components to which it reduces? 2) how do the components maintain their independence vis-à-vis the more inclusive object into which they’re incorporated?

[dotcoma]

While I do not think I have a formed opinion of this yet, I do appreciate the read-I'll be thinking about this.

[jeffl]

Quote by: RingingSword Attack on Traditional Materialism – by asking, “Can a material object persist in total isolation from everything save itself?” we ask what degree of objective independence is possessed by material objects. If the objective independence of material objects is total, then an object should persist as such in isolation from everything save itself.

At the end of his discussion of General relativity, Einstein talks about how the gravitational field of an inertial object IS the space-time the object finds itself in. So the space-time of the universe, that each object finds itself in, is somehow a sum of all of the objects in the universe. So to guess an answer, it could be that it persists differently. Each object in isolation should have its own universe, its gravitational field.

A problem arises when we consider that a given object might consist of components themselves objects. When this is the case, and when the components likewise have total independence: 1) how does the more inclusive object sustain its independence vis-à-vis the components to which it reduces? 2) how do the components maintain their independence vis-à-vis the more inclusive object into which they’re incorporated?

Awsome twist! About 'independance,' are we talking 'degrees of freedom,' or 'will?'

[RingingSword]

jeffl,

Regarding 'independence,' I'm talking degrees of individual integrity and freedom (of material objects) with respect to: 1) conscious observers; 2) the universe as a whole.

[rez]

Correct me if I am wrong.


Before Newton the theory of gravity was that the earth was the center of the universe and that everything was drawn to the center. (Right or wrong)

To me, at the time before Newton, it sounded like it was a reasonable explaination as to why objects fell. The fact that this theory, at the time, could make a lot of sense shows how objective life really is.

Knowing this, a lot of science can be considered ignorant because how many times are we going to have to revise the laws of physics while the scientists say "they offer the best explaination as to what is going on in the universe today." What good is constant revision? Why not just believe a God created the universe and have it at that?

The Future of (Traditional) Materialism – as we progress into the cybernetic age, we understand with increasing clarity that: 1) solidity becomes plasticity; 2) there are degrees of hardness, but no solids; 3) everything is possible, nothing is real (always in effect).

Where does this illusion come from?

Traditional Materialism – a theory about matter, which manifests the form and substance of the world; in the wake of Aristotle’s “prime matter,” which saw all material attributes while lacking any of its own, and also that of Locke’s unknowable substance of all things, likewise without attributes, the discovery of photons, energy field’s and Einstein’s E = mc² has further complicated the picture of a tangible world which nonetheless slips our grasp of understanding. With brute matter now superseded by the concept of mass, which, on occasion, is interchangeable with energy, the need for “non-eliminative materialism has emerged. Under this construction, the three branches of matter include: 1) material things (solids, liquids, gasses); 2) psychological things (thoughts, feelings); 3) abstract things (numbers, ideas).

I can only ask you RingingSword...what does a SPIDER think and feel? what goes through a spiders mind?

[tman_ndsu08]

mass, which, on occasion, is interchangeable with energy

Not 2 lines earlier you posted this:

E=mc^2

Energy (joules) is equal to matter (kg) times 9E16 (9 followed by 16 zeros) (m^2/s^2).

This is not "on occasion". This is universally 100% of the time.

[jenniann111]

Maybe material objects exist independently of the subject, but the subject adds meaning to the objects.

i.e. a chair may be a material object whether i'm perceiving it or not, but it is a chair and not something else (such as firewood) due to the use to which I put it.

we are accustomed to certain qualities being associated with certain meanings, which is at least partly a function of language

what if i take the chair outside and burn it - that object is firewood now. but it is still made up of the same matter in the same configuration. it is only the context that is different. where is the boundary between the object and its context? can it be taken out of context or are objects interdependent?

if i started using the chair as a plant-holder, does that change the object from a chair into a plant holder? is it just nomenclature or is this more fundamental?

[tman_ndsu08]

The answer to this entire line of logic has already been alluded to by the original poster: physics.

At the fudamental level, all matter is exactly the same as all other matter, regardless of how it is grouped together. The only question is what is this fundamental level? It used to be thought that the atom was the smallest level of matter. Then electrons and the nucleous. Then protons and nutrons. Now quarks and gluons are standard with strings gaining popularity.

As humans, we arbitrarily choose to label certain groups of matter in convenient ways. We choose the most convenient level of awareness at the time being. For example, I can choose to look at a neighboorhood as: one neighboorhood or 20 houses or 60000 square feet, and so on. I can go the other direction as well: half of the 1300 block or one fourth of the 16th district or 1 sixty fourth of West Anytown or one thousandth of Anytown, and so on.

The only true universal levels of awareness are at the extremes: 1/4EE9999999999 (that would be 4 times 10 to the 10 to the 9999999999) of the universe (yes, I made that number up) or 4EE9999999999 strings (I also made that number up). Notice that I'm assuming that the universe is as big as you can go and that strings are as small as you can go. Are they? I don't know.

[RingingSword]

Incidental to the question of the independence of objects is the question of the continuity of (a specified) reality. Since it's foundational to our vision of the world, the assumption that the particulars of our experience are situated within an "always on" "always in effect" underlying reality lies embedded within our axiomatic beliefs, wrapped snugly within the warm blankets of self-evident truth, away from the uncertainties of examination.

Is there any entertainment value in speculating upon the possibility that reality, like energy, inhabits discrete packets that are discontinuous and separable?

Could it be that material objects serve the (human) mind as anchors of the continuity of reality? Along the line of this rationale, material objects collide, so they must be there, even when no one is looking and thus, by extension, reality must also be there, likewise even when no one is looking.

But what if it's the case that material objects are just the lowest energy level for endlessly reprogrammable cybernetic configurations of attributes? What if there's an inverse relationship between energy level and apparent continuity? Herein apparent continuity means the impression of continuity created by discrete, discontinuous events that repeat on a cycle. According to the inverse relationship, the lower the energy level, the faster the cycle, and thus the greater the impression of "always on" continuity (solidity).

If a specified reality is actually the product of discrete and discontinuous events, then we can conclude that said reality is, in fact, stitched together. If this is the case, then it's in the interest of adventurers to plot a course along the interstices of said reality. I suppose jumping in and out of reality is a higher order of freedom, and thus it's desirable.

[tman_ndsu08]

A movie runs at 24 framers per second. There are actually an infinite number of frames in one second that would need to be shown in order for the second to officially be a continuous event in space, but 24 of them (evenly spaced out) is enough for the mind to perceive continuity.

[jeffl]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 At the fudamental level, all matter is exactly the same as all other matter, regardless of how it is grouped together. The only question is what is this fundamental level? It used to be thought that the atom was the smallest level of matter. Then electrons and the nucleous. Then protons and nutrons. Now quarks and gluons are standard with strings gaining popularity.

Might the fundamental level be the level at which phenomenon become classical rather than quantum? Your point that all matter is the same is profound; and i think it has alot to do with the 'collapse of the wave function.' It seems that at the micro level, identical objects can actually become one large complex that is neccessarily ONE object. That 'spooky action at a distance' can be understood only if the separated particles are somehow ONE particle, atleast for a time while they separate.

In the Mahabharat, the antagonist Duryodan has his brother disrobe Draupadi, the wife of the protagonists. Krishna continually replenishes her sari; and, naturally, i read that as this potentially perpetual reduction of what is 'fundamental.'

[MerlinsByte]

Do Objects Have Independence?

Merlin ......Hmm what label to past on me? Im not sure, soitimes I feel that groping in the darkness a ranting madman would be a correct one.

Matter is mostly empty space and held together by unseen forces making the matter seem solid, but it is more empty than empty space.

We should consider the macro world and the micro world as the same. However we may not be in the position of God to view the universe in a micro fashion. And is therefore even the universe is not as it seems.

Matter must be linked to time and a reference frame which only exists for the observer. Matter would not exist without observers only information. So we as observers and God which we are a part of are necessary for the continuation of the universe time space and all it encapsulates.

So no, objects do not exist independently of an observer.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: jeffl Might the fundamental level be the level at which phenomenon become classical rather than quantum? Your point that all matter is the same is profound; and i think it has alot to do with the 'collapse of the wave function.' It seems that at the micro level, identical objects can actually become one large complex that is neccessarily ONE object. That 'spooky action at a distance' can be understood only if the separated particles are somehow ONE particle, atleast for a time while they separate. In the Mahabharat, the antagonist Duryodan has his brother disrobe Draupadi, the wife of the protagonists. Krishna continually replenishes her sari; and, naturally, i read that as this potentially perpetual reduction of what is 'fundamental.'

The fundamental level may simply be energy.

But then, of course, what is energy?

[Dadoo]

Dense "matter" is an extremely rare event or phenomenon.
If it may be conceived and allowed that there are degrees of density underpinned by a singular, common and fundamental quantum, then the entire universe is a 'solid' chunk of [somewhat] dense 'matter'.
Matter is comprised of matter.
I wonder and ask you all if a constant such as Planck's can be reasonably adhered to even if mathematical proof is not readily available. If limitations are removed, then the infinities which are so often avoided in popular physics may have to be reincorporated in a novel way to answer modern cosmological puzzles.
Dadoo

[MerlinsByte]

"Can a material object persist in total isolation from everything save itself?"

A.... answer..... no, all matter, time and space require an observer.

1) How does the more inclusive object sustain its independence vis-à- the components to which it reduces?

Answer ....There are no inclusive objects. see A

2) how do the components maintain their independence the more inclusive object into which they’re incorporated.

Answer.......If I understand the question correctly, when the object is observed it is frozen into its state and incorporated into its universe. This is the only way it can exist as a material thing.

mb

[Samildanach]

Might as well call the universe one object and have done with it.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Dadoo Dense "matter" is an extremely rare event or phenomenon. If it may be conceived and allowed that there are degrees of density underpinned by a singular, common and fundamental quantum, then the entire universe is a 'solid' chunk of [somewhat] dense 'matter'. Matter is comprised of matter. I wonder and ask you all if a constant such as Planck's can be reasonably adhered to even if mathematical proof is not readily available. If limitations are removed, then the infinities which are so often avoided in popular physics may have to be reincorporated in a novel way to answer modern cosmological puzzles. Dadoo

The universe is mostly empty with matter spotted here and there (probably a bit more dense at the middle and less so at the edges).

No idea why you'd say the universe was one solid chunk of matter.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Samildanach Might as well call the universe one object and have done with it.

But how many universes are in the super universe?

[MerlinsByte]

Might as well call the universe one object and have done with it

Yes I agree. However, there may be an infinite number of universes. The infinite universe theory is the only argument that gives God a run for the money. In any case god lives in one of my infinite universes!

However in my strange paradigm there is only a finite amount of universes. One for each sentient observer.

I suspect that a being need not even need be self aware of sentient to have a universe assigned to its soul! So maybe, animals, plants and even inanimate objects have universes much like the native Americans believed!

And each of these universes is slightly different from the other. But all our universes are casually connected, and therefore can influence the other universes. In other words your universe will merge or overlap with my universe. your pets universe is not as similar and is not as merged as your mothers for example.

In infinite universe theorem involves more faith than any religion.



mb

[MerlinsByte]

The universe is mostly empty with matter spotted here and there (probably a bit more dense at the middle and less so at the edges). No idea why you'd say the universe was one solid chunk of matter.

To clarify my post, the collection of stars and objects in the universe is distributed like sheets or bubbles and does indeed have structure, But It is mostly empty space. And there is the problem of the missing mass. But we should envision the universe as a whole structure that has its own frame of reference. (in the scope of multi or infinite universes)