The Watchmaker Revisited

[godnotgod]

Being material, being physical, is NOT an illusion. It is really out there and NOT made by our minds.

Where does the separation between consciousness and the material world occur?

 

[exchemist]

I used the term 'solidity' not because I have a personal attachment to it, but because that is how most non-scientists think about matter; that at its root, there is 'something' of substance there. And that is what I am trying to get at here: is there in fact a 'something' present when physicists drill down to the bottom layer of the atom, or not. My understanding is that there is not, and that is part of the reason there is now a shift of interest to the field.

So, if we explain the material world in terms of fields, we are obviously explaining it in terms of the non-material. To say that we explain it in terms of the field is to say that the non-material is the source for the material world.

No I don't think that is obvious at all. What we doing, rather, is altering our understanding of what a field is. It is more material, evidently, than some of us have hitherto thought, from our schooldays futzing about with magnets. Don't forget light is real. It is real enough to give you cancer. And light is simply a pair of fields oscillating at right angles to one another.

The bottom line is what we call "matter" or "material" behaves as if it is really there, in the sense that it seems to do what it seems to do reproducibly, i.e. objectively, not subjectively. To me and to most scientists, I think, that is what we mean by something being "real". No other definition of "real" would seem to have any value.

Now, the way we model its behaviour involves a good many abstract concepts, involving particles (which are rather a ridiculous idea when you stop to think about it), waves (or rather, mathematical functions that are similar to those of waves) and fields. And we use different models for different situations, and we do not know that any of these models reflects the reality we are modelling completely accurately. That is science for you.

But there is a reality to model. Observation tells us that and observation is what matters in the end.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, I am not suggesting that. However, wave showing as particle and vice-versa is another way of saying that everything is really just energy.

No, it does not. Neither does it show that everything is momentum or spin. Energy is *one* of the many properties that quantum particles can have.

And if wave/particle is neither, then we are talking a different ball game. I would call these manifestations 'illusions'. There does not seem to be any kind of 'nitty-gritty' here, where we can say that something is definitely of a material character, because the moment that you do, the goal posts shift. It's not right or wrong; it's just the way things are.

Now isn't this shifting phenomena called 'a superposition of possibilities'?

Again, I might suggest that your image of what is required to be 'material' is the problem, not whether the universe is material.

 

[Polymath257]

Sorry, but these are not MY terms; they are how lay people think of the world they live in.

And the moment you use the term 'particle', you have implied something of a material nature being present. And as was pointed out, it appears that the particle is in reality a function of the field.

Gases, liquids, plasmas are composed of atoms, and it is to these atoms which I am referring that most people think of as having 'solidity', or 'materiality'. Let's toss 'solidity'. Provide another more viable term, then.

But these were all acknowledged as material long before it was realized they are made of atoms.

If we toss solidity, how about just using the word 'material'? It definitely describes atoms, their nuclei, and all quantum particles.

 

[Polymath257]

What is present seems to be energy parading as 'matter'. If the idea of matter being composed of 'little steel balls' is flawed, then what, in fact, are we talking about?

Well, quantum mechanics isn't a realist description: things don't have definite properties (usually---they can in certain situations) until measured.

But we *are* talking about most matter being composed of atoms and of atoms being composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and of protons and neutrons being composed of quarks. But there is a randomized aspect that isn't present in pre-modern physics (or even pre-modern philosophy).

 

[Polymath257]

Where does the separation between consciousness and the material world occur?

Why do you think there is a separation? That's sort of like asking where the separation is between a computer program and the computer. The question makes no sense. Consciousness is a process of the material world.

 

[exchemist]

What is present seems to be energy parading as 'matter'. If the idea of matter being composed of 'little steel balls' is flawed, then what, in fact, are we talking about?

Sorry if I seem pedantic but I do wish you wouldn't keep talking about energy in this way.

Energy is a mere property of a physical system. It can't exist on its own. What we are talking about is physical systems, which we observe objectively to behave in a certain way, and which we model. Little steel balls don't work as a model at the atomic scale and therefore we use QM. This involves what you can call for simplicity de Broglie's matter waves, though the theory manages to reproduce both particle-like and wave-like behaviour in just the way our observations do. These are not waves of energy. The best physical description is that they are waves of what is effectively the square root of probability density, that is, the likelihood of an observation detecting the entity - as a particle - in a given region of space. Not energy. Call them "probability waves" if you like - it gives the right general idea. The wave functions also contain within them information for specifying properties other than location, including energy, momentum and angular momentum. But please lose this notion that it's all energy, somehow. That makes no sense.

 

[Polymath257]

The following excerpt and article (now dated) from New Scientist is saying that the Higgs Field, along with the Quantum Field, together account for all mass being virtual in nature. Is it wrong?

Yes, actually. Most massive things in the universe do NOT get their mass from the Higg's interaction.

Matter is built on flaky foundations. Physicists have now confirmed that the apparently substantial stuff is actually no more than fluctuations in the quantum vacuum....

The phrase 'no more than' seems unusual here. A great deal of matter is NOT virtual.

...The Higgs field is also thought to make a small contribution, giving mass to individual quarks as well as to electrons and some other particles. The Higgs field creates mass out of the quantum vacuum too, in the form of virtual Higgs bosons. So if the LHC confirms that the Higgs exists, it will mean all reality is virtual.

It’s confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations

The mass, as described in the article, is a product of the interaction between the quarks via gluons.

 

[Polymath257]

What is apparently out there is not separate from mind, not independent of awareness.

Where did you get that? The moon is there whether or not anybody observes it.

 

[godnotgod]

Well, quantum mechanics isn't a realist description: things don't have definite properties (usually---they can in certain situations) until measured.

But we *are* talking about most matter being composed of atoms and of atoms being composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and of protons and neutrons being composed of quarks. But there is a randomized aspect that isn't present in pre-modern physics (or even pre-modern philosophy).

Still you have not provided a working definition of matter. I have surrendered 'solidity'. So where does this leave us? I mean, you keep referring to something called 'matter', but what is it?

 

[godnotgod]

Sorry if I seem pedantic but I do wish you wouldn't keep talking about energy in this way.

Energy is a mere property of a physical system. It can't exist on its own. What we are talking about is physical systems, which we observe objectively to behave in a certain way, and which we model. Little steel balls don't work as a model at the atomic scale and therefore we use QM. This involves what you can call for simplicity de Broglie's matter waves, though the theory manages to reproduce both particle-like and wave-like behaviour in just the way our observations do. These are not waves of energy. The best physical description is that they are waves of what is effectively the square root of probability density, that is, the likelihood of an observation detecting the entity - as a particle - in a given region of space. Not energy. Call them "probability waves" if you like - it gives the right general idea. The wave functions also contain within them information for specifying properties other than location, including energy, momentum and angular momentum. But please lose this notion that it's all energy, somehow. That makes no sense.

E=mc2 does not say that energy is a property of a physical system; it says that they are equal to one another, or rather, that they are the same phenomena.

A wave IS energy, is it not?

Yes, 'particle', which is a function of the field, as you previously stated. That field is an energy field, right?

 

[godnotgod]

Why do you think there is a separation? That's sort of like asking where the separation is between a computer program and the computer. The question makes no sense. Consciousness is a process of the material world.

So you say.

Ultimately, I am saying the exact opposite.

The moment you begin to speak about 'mind' and 'matter', you have created a distinction. At which point does that distinction lie? It is the mind which sees them as 'this' and 'that', obviously implying a separation or distinction.

A computer program is software; the computer itself is hardware. Together they work as a single entity. Together, consciousness and the material world work together as a single entity. In both cases, one without the other makes no sense.

 

[Polymath257]

Still you have not provided a working definition of matter. I have surrendered 'solidity'. So where does this leave us? I mean, you keep referring to something called 'matter', but what is it?

I tend not to use the word 'matter' all that often. I prefer the term 'physical'. But the best definition I've found for 'matter' is 'made from first generation fermions'.

 

[Polymath257]

So you say.

Ultimately, I am saying the exact opposite.

The moment you begin to speak about 'mind' and 'matter', you have created a distinction. At which point does that distinction lie? It is the mind which sees them as 'this' and 'that', obviously implying a separation or distinction.

A mind is a certain type of complex physical process as seen inside of human skulls. I don't see it as a 'point' of distinction any more than I see a running car as separate from 'matter'.

A computer program is software; the computer itself is hardware. Together they work as a single entity. Together, consciousness and the material world work together as a single entity.

Perhaps its better to use the term 'process' instead of 'program'. A process is a running program. It is a physical sequence of events. Consciousness is a certain type of process that matter can undergo. It tends to be limited to biological systems with brains. But perhaps we will eventually create artificial consciousness based on silicon.

 

[Polymath257]

E=mc2 does not say that energy is a property of a physical system; it says that they are equal to one another, or rather, that they are the same phenomena.

No, that is NOT what it says. It says that the physical property of *mass* is equivalent to the physical property of *energy*. But, for example, momentum is different than those.

A wave IS energy, is it not?

No. A wave can have energy as one of its properties. But the wave itself is not energy any more than it is, say, polarization, or direction of travel.

Yes, 'particle', which is a function of the field, as you previously stated. That field is an energy field, right?

No. i tis NOT an 'energy' field. The field can have energy as one of its *properties*. But, for example, the field for an electron would be an *electron* field. And that would be different in many ways from a photon field (for example, wave velocity, spin, polarizations, etc).

You can't just take one property out and say that is all there is.

 

[exchemist]

E=mc2 does not say that energy is a property of a physical system; it says that they are equal to one another, or rather, that they are the same phenomena.

A wave IS energy, is it not?

Yes, 'particle', which is a function of the field, as you previously stated. That field is an energy field, right?

No, a wave is not energy. A wave is a disturbance in some system that carries energy. Think of a water wave. Is that energy? No, it is a disturbance in the water which carries (transmits) energy.

E=mc² simply says that there is a form of energy in the rest mass of a system and that if that system gains energy it will gain mass. For example If you charge a battery it will become slightly heavier (though you would struggle to measure it). But both mass and energy are mere properties of a physical system. They do not exist on their own, any more than temperature does.

There is no such thing as an "energy field". That sort of thing is Star Trek, not physics. It is true that there is energy present in a magnetic or electric field, but the field is magnetic or electric and the stored energy is a mere property of that field.

 

[atanu]

Where did you get that? The moon is there whether or not anybody observes it.

There is no way to prove that. Moon (or any whatsoever object, including mental thoughts) are objects in waking awareness. There are dream state objects too, which seem to have objective existence in dream.

 

[godnotgod]

No, a wave is not energy. A wave is a disturbance in some system that carries energy. Think of a water wave. Is that energy? No, it is a disturbance in the water which carries (transmits) energy.

E=mc² simply says that there is a form of energy in the rest mass of a system and that if that system gains energy it will gain mass. For example If you charge a battery it will become slightly heavier (though you would struggle to measure it). But both mass and energy are mere properties of a physical system. They do not exist on their own, any more than temperature does.

There is no such thing as an "energy field". That sort of thing is Star Trek, not physics. It is true that there is energy present in a magnetic or electric field, but the field is magnetic or electric and the stored energy is a mere property of that field.

IOW, it is a 'field of energy', such as the Higgs Field.

But you are saying that the following is not true?

"The Higgs field is a field of energy that is thought to exist in every region of the universe."

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_field

Before the Big Bang, there was no 'physical system'. The physical system of The Universe came into existence at the moment of inception of the BB. And yet, a tremendous amount of energy was involved in the BB. What was the source of this energy? You say it is a property of a physical system. I see the physical system as a function of energy.

Hmmmm....a 'disturbance' is not energy?

If energy is a property of the field, as you claim, then what is the nature of the field itself?

 

[godnotgod]

No. A wave can have energy as one of its properties. But the wave itself is not energy any more than it is, say, polarization, or direction of travel.
.

Without energy, where is the wave?

 

[Polymath257]

Without energy, where is the wave?

The wave *has* energy. It is one of the properties of the wave. But quite far from being the only one, nor the defining one.