Does Something Other Than Matter Exist?

[Yerda]

Everything is made up of something?

But why does that thing have to be matter?

Can't space be made of space?

Is time made of something?

 

[Jimmy]

But why does that thing have to be matter?

Can't space be made of space?

Is time made of something?

I think it’s material right down to the quantum level.

 

[Jimmy]

*big hug*

I mean idealist, not materialist.

So are you gonna answer the Op?

 

[Yerda]

I think it’s material right down to the quantum level.

I suppose I think it depends on the "it" we are talking about. If you look at matter at any scale it is matter. If you look at space it is space.

 

[Willamena]

So are you gonna answer the Op?

What exists precedes either matter or idea. We experience the world through senses and interpret it through analysis and logic. We call one bit idea, and another bit matter.

Something exists other than matter. I suspect that's not what you're really asking.

 

[George-ananda]

I agree with you but I don't think there is evidence sufficient to convince every fair minded person. Many will simply have mental maps which won't permit them to see it.

Actually look at all the data fairly and in volume and I conclude it’s hard to justify any other conclusion.

 

[Jimmy]

I suppose I think it depends on the "it" we are talking about. If you look at matter at any scale it is matter. If you look at space it is space.

I think matter at the quantum level is inter-penetrating each other, leaving no space

 

[Jimmy]

What exists precedes either matter or idea. We experience the world through senses and interpret it through analysis and logic. We call one bit idea, and another bit matter.

Something exists other than matter. I suspect that's not what you're really asking.

That’s what I’m asking. I appreciate your view

 

[osgart]

I thought that perhaps semantic information is fundamental to existence. Maybe this information operates on matter and energy, and consciousness and beings emanate from it. Form that serves function, cohesive synergy of all being functions, and efficient processes that maximize function probably didn't come about mindlessly. Existence is no less than what makes being qualities possible.

There's no magic arrangement of particles that makes life emerge. Life is intrinsic. Life is a language that spawns other life.

 

[blü 2]

I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt just by the quantity, quality and consistency of even the anecdotal data that an understanding of consciousness as merely a biological creation is not possible.

I'd say that consciousness was likely a particular kind of feed-back mechanism. The ability of anesthetics to take it from us in controlled circumstances, and the absence of consciousness in the dead, and so on, demonstrate the connection between biochemistry and consciousness. It's true that we haven't yet put a complete description on paper of how it all happens, but at least the question is being addressed by knowledgeable people.

I don't expect that to convince you, but you can see the nature of my reasoning.

 

[blü 2]

But why does that thing have to be matter?

Can't space be made of space?
Is time made of something?

One of the peculiar things about the dimensions of our universe is that you can't define them without using words that assume you already know what they are. That would appear to explain why the scientific definition of time is "what clocks measure" ─ and you quickly get a view of the problem if you then ask, "What is a clock?".

But (as I understand our present understanding to be) space is not empty. Even in the middle of the apparently most remote voids, energy fields are present ─ see >Vacuum energy - Wikipedia<. What would happen if you could create a space of one cubic foot with absolutely utterly entirely nothing in it, I don't know. But all empty sets are the same, which is to say there is only one empty set ─ no giraffes is the same nothing as no leptons and no underwear.

 

[Nakosis]

I’d say no.

IMO, it has to be physical to matter. Physical means it can either be measured or it's effect on something physical can be measured.

So anything not physical can't effect you. So while something non-physical may exist but it wouldn't matter because it would be unable to affect you, a physical being.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I agree with you but I don't think there is evidence sufficient to convince every fair minded person. Many will simply have mental maps which won't permit them to see it.

Much like how many will believe one particular religious explanation for life and not others? My mental map is perhaps more rigorous than others, in that I demand better quality information before I commit to any particular belief. And numbers believing any particular thing or anecdotal evidence, no matter how many, is not good evidence in my view.

 

[GoodAttention]

Do you think the space between atoms is made up of something or do you think it’s just a vacuum made up of nothing?

A vacuum is a volume of space without pressure, meaning there is no discernible matter that can be measured.

However, cosmic microwave background radiation is present almost everywhere in space, so space isn’t as empty as empty would suggest.

 

[Whateverist]

Actually look at all the data fairly and in volume and I conclude it’s hard to justify any other conclusion.

Well I personally don’t feel that strongly about it. Depending on what else you believe, there may be more or less points of agreement with that perspective. And let’s face it, it is an esoteric question which needn’t arise at all.

I started out a physicalist after leaving a poorly established religious frame of mind behind in elementary school. But my reading has helped me loose the grip of physicalism. Those still in its grips have a hard time seeing their POV as anything but common sense.

 

[George-ananda]

I'd say that consciousness was likely a particular kind of feed-back mechanism. The ability of anesthetics to take it from us in controlled circumstances, and the absence of consciousness in the dead, and so on, demonstrate the connection between biochemistry and consciousness. It's true that we haven't yet put a complete description on paper of how it all happens, but at least the question is being addressed by knowledgeable people.

I don't expect that to convince you, but you can see the nature of my reasoning.

I see the nature of your reasoning but in the end don't think it stands.

With anesthetics and the dead examples, you are working under a definition that consciousness is only the normal waking consciousness. Consciousness may be fundamental and the waking state to be only one example of its expression.

Hinduism holds that with anesthesia consciousness is temporarily disabled from animating the physical experience, but fundamental consciousness still exists at a level (plane of nature) above the working mind.


And I will again further argue that the Afterlife Evidence strongly suggests that active mental consciousness continues even in the complete absence of a physical body and brain. As I just said in another post above: Actually look at all the data fairly and in volume and I conclude it’s hard to justify any other conclusion. Strong statement but I really don't see nonbelievers wade deep enough to convince me they really studied the evidence in volume. People stick to listening to people of similar thought. I actually want to hear and search for every new thought and idea from the so-called skeptic side.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

And I will again further argue that the Afterlife Evidence strongly suggests that active mental consciousness continues even in the complete absence of a physical body and brain. As I just said in another post above: Actually look at all the data fairly and in volume and I conclude it’s hard to justify any other conclusion. Strong statement but I really don't see nonbelievers wade deep enough to convince me they really studied the evidence in volume. People stick to listening to people of similar thought. I actually want to hear and search for every new thought and idea from the so-called skeptic side.

I think that the Afterlife Evidence reference you mentioned is an excellent resource for studying this subject, George. I also recommend reading Beyond the Brain: The Survival of Human Consciousness After Permanent Bodily Death by Jeffrey Mishlove. It's a lengthy read, but well worth it, in my opinion. I have a vast collection of articles and books about other people's opinions and research on the afterlife, as well as personal encounters with spirits.

Some of my favorite books on the afterlife and other people's experiences with earthbound spirits include:

Between Two Worlds: Lessons from the Other Side

The Afterlife Revealed: What Happens After We Die

Life With the Afterlife: 13 Truths I Learned about Ghosts

Return to Life: Extraordinary Cases of Children Who Remember Past Lives

Goodbye Hello: Processing Grief and Understanding Death through the Paranormal

However, despite all of the articles and books I've read about other people's beliefs about the afterlife and/or personal encounters with earthbound spirits, nothing, in my opinion, compares to having these firsthand encounters myself or a lifetime of experiencing them (as I've explained in many of my previous posts, including the ones linked below). It is also gratifying for me when other people tell me that they had such a profound encounter with a spirit (either during a reading or a paranormal investigation) that they are no longer skeptics but true believers in the paranormal. It changed their lives.

During the past seventeen years that I've been investigating the paranormal and giving readings to others, I've come to believe that skeptics won't believe in an afterlife until they have an up-close and personal encounter with it, which could include a NDE, an OBE, or a personal encounter with a spirit(s) that they can't rationally explain or logically debunk. I've witnessed the latter happen with staunch skeptics more times than I can count. The majority of the ones I've met in real life initially denied the existence of spirits and other entities, as well as an afterlife, but their staunch skepticism gradually faded after they either had a personal encounter with a spirit(s) or received a one-on-one reading from a spirit medium that they couldn't logically explain or debunk.

As a result of my many years of experience with skeptics, I am a firm believer in "seeing is believing" when it comes to them believing in the paranormal, whether it is personally witnessing earthbound spirits and hauntings or UFOs and extraterrestrials, or anything else that others believe to be paranormal.

Here are the posts (with additional links) that I was referring to.

Post 1: Life From Dirt

Post 2: What is Evidence?

Post 3: What's After Death?

Post 4: A Christian Believes?

Post 5: Demons, is there any evidence they even exist?

Post 6: Do you believe more and more people are getting into the paranormal?

 

[George-ananda]

And let’s face it, it is an esoteric question which needn’t arise at all.

not clear on this point. It seems the question can't help but raise in a thinking mind.

 

[blü 2]

And I will again further argue that the Afterlife Evidence strongly suggests that active mental consciousness continues even in the complete absence of a physical body and brain. As I just said in another post above: Actually look at all the data fairly and in volume and I conclude it’s hard to justify any other conclusion. Strong statement but I really don't see nonbelievers wade deep enough to convince me they really studied the evidence in volume. People stick to listening to people of similar thought. I actually want to hear and search for every new thought and idea from the so-called skeptic side.

As I keep saying, you are persuaded to your view and I'm persuaded to mine. We do that having considered what we respectively consider to be satisfactory evidence. If I ever come across evidence that in my terms is satisfactory and supports your view, or at least some other view than my present materialist one, then I'll change my view accordingly.