• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are atheists monists?

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
mon·ism
[ˈmäˌnizəm, ˈmōˌnizəm]
NOUN

  1. a theory or doctrine that denies the existence of a distinction or duality in some sphere, such as that between matter and mind, or God and the world.
And?

Give me a thought to work with.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
I'm not sure that 'fundamental' and having a 'composition' are at odds. As far as we know, electrons are 'fundamental', they are cannot be decomposed. But, if string theory is correct, they are described as vibrations in 'quantum strings'. I use scare quotes for good reason: the 'strings' are not 'composed' of anything.

As for 'matter' and 'thought', I don't have good definitions of either. Matter is more in line with my specialties, and I have *no* idea how to define the concept in a sensible way that is consistent with our understanding of, say, atoms.

Thought, at least, seems to be reducible to 'matter', probably even patterns of neuron fire.
I know nothing about quantum mechanics. However, the matter/thought substance debate is antiquated and could perhaps use a reboot.
 
Last edited:

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
So what do you call it if, when you reduce everything, there are 37 different 'basic substance descriptors'? Or even more?

For example, in today's standard model of particles, there are three fermion families, each having two leptons and two quarks, each of which has an anti-particle. Then we have 8 gluons and 3 vector bosons, 1 photon, and a Higg's particle. There is even some flexibility in the counting. The number of quarks could be tripled depending on how you count.

All are 'fundamental' in the sense of not being composed of anything else. All can interact with others, appearing or disappearing, or changing, depending on the interaction involved.
There is no need to reduce to anything more than matter or mind to engage the debate about philosophical dualism. Those are the pertinent substances.

Dualism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Everything is energy, that is fundamental, all forms of matter are variations of energy at lower slower frequencies.

A popular notion, but not correct. Any given piece of 'matter', say an electron, will *have* energy, but it will also have other properties like momentum, spin, charge, etc. Energy is only one component, not the whole thing.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
A popular notion, but not correct. Any given piece of 'matter', say an electron, will *have* energy, but it will also have other properties like momentum, spin, charge, etc. Energy is only one component, not the whole thing.
There was a singularity that was pure energy and it started rapidly expanding and as it cooled, then it became many things including the whole periodic table of the elements, but took a great many aeons. Energy becomes matter, matter didn't even exist at the point the singularity started expanding.
 

Straw Dog

Well-Known Member
Why or why not? Do atheists think existence came from one thing, or a no thing? I think one thing seems unlikely enough I wouldn't speculate more.

We all want to feel that we exist.

Isn't there a more important question here?

Do you feel alive? Well, do ya, punk?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
There was a singularity that was pure energy and it started rapidly expanding and as it cooled, then it became many things including the whole periodic table of the elements, but took a great many aeons. Energy becomes matter, matter didn't even exist at the point the singularity started expanding.

Again, a popular notion, but there are problems due to quantum gravity. And we simply don't have a testable theory of quantum gravity. That said, the candidates do NOT actually have a 'singularity' because it is 'smoothed out' by quantum effects. And yes, matter exists at all times in these.

Even without quantum effects, the idea of 'only energy' is rather problematic. It might be better to say that there was 'pure geometry' with an energy associated with it. The energy would be in the gravitons.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Again, a popular notion, but there are problems due to quantum gravity. And we simply don't have a testable theory of quantum gravity. That said, the candidates do NOT actually have a 'singularity' because it is 'smoothed out' by quantum effects. And yes, matter exists at all times in these.

Even without quantum effects, the idea of 'only energy' is rather problematic. It might be better to say that there was 'pure geometry' with an energy associated with it. The energy would be in the gravitons.
As far as I know gravity waves only further confirms Einsteins predictions.

Hydrogen didn't exist, the first atom, until well after the Big Bang.
Recombination (cosmology) - Wikipedia
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
As far as I know gravity waves only further confirms Einsteins predictions.

Yes. But in the era of quantum gravity, those waves are quantized. The graviton is the quantum particle for gravity waves. And gravitons would have existed whenever there was any geometry at all.

Hydrogen didn't exist, the first atom, until well after the Big Bang.
Recombination (cosmology) - Wikipedia

True. But protons, neutrons, and electrons did. Those are certainly matter. Prior to the formation of protons and neutrons, quarks and electrons existed. And those certainly qualify as 'matter'.
 
Top