The True Nature of Matter and Mass

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

JSS
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:42 am

Re: The True Nature of Matter and Mass

Post by JSS »

Obvious Leo wrote: If you can't follow this then all hope is lost. An apple takes a finite length of time to fall from the tree to the ground. This time interval can be measured with a clock. If time was infinitely divisible then it would take an infinite length of time for the apple to fall to the ground. Infinity means exactly what it appears to mean.
Okay, so you really are stuck on Zeno's paradoxes.

See if you can follow this (again even though I already explained it):

Let's take the total time for the fall to be "t". And we are gong to divide that by a chosen standard for infinity, namely:
infA ≡ [1+1+1+...] by definition

so now we can say that:
1/infA = 1/[1+1+1+...] ≡ 1 infinitesimal by definition

So now we can use normal arithmetic (because we declared a standard for infinity, "infA" and defined it)

We now know that:
infA * 1/infA = 1, and that
infA * t/infA = t


That says that an infinity of our infinitesimals adds up to "t"

"t" was a finite value. We multiplied an infinitesimal value times an infinite value and got a finite value because the two cancel each other's infinite property.

That is how calculus works, by adding an infinite count of an infinitesimal amount. That is why it has that "Σ" cap-sigma symbol there, an infinite sum of an infinitesimal amount. Despite using infinities, calculus quite often, and very provably yields finite values. Do you disagree?
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The True Nature of Matter and Mass

Post by Greta »

We can't yet know, JSS. Yet.

I don't add qualifiers for shits and giggles, y'know :)
JSS
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:42 am

Re: The True Nature of Matter and Mass

Post by JSS »

Greta wrote:We can't yet know, JSS. Yet.

I don't add qualifiers for shits and giggles, y'know :)
Then you need to qualify "WE"!! :shock:

..cuz I sure can "know" and I'm sure that I am not the only one. 8)

What? Is it just me and the Pope? :wink:
User avatar
nanophilosopher
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 12:47 am

Re: The True Nature of Matter and Mass

Post by nanophilosopher »

attofishpi wrote:I know people around these parts don't like watching utube vids, so here's a utube vid:-

The True Nature of Matter and Mass | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSKzgpt4HBU

Mr Leo, any thoughts? I think this chap is pretty good at getting across the fundamental nature of 'the' equation.
I don't think human beings are able to know the true nature of such things. Matter or mass is interdependent and can be changeable.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The True Nature of Matter and Mass

Post by Greta »

JSS wrote:Then you need to qualify "WE"!! :shock:
"We" is humanity. I use shorthand to keep my posts down.

It's a hazard on philosophy forums - if you spell everything out you then you end up writing vasts tracts of dense prose that tends to get skipped over. If you don't spell everything out people call you on it.

Nature of the beast, I guess.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: The True Nature of Matter and Mass

Post by Obvious Leo »

JSS. Mathematical logic can only be used to prove mathematical statements but no meaningful statement about physical reality can be inferred from a mathematical statement.

"Mathematics can be used to prove ANYTHING"......Albert Einstein
JSS
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:42 am

Re: The True Nature of Matter and Mass

Post by JSS »

Obvious Leo wrote:JSS. Mathematical logic can only be used to prove mathematical statements but no meaningful statement about physical reality can be inferred from a mathematical statement.

"Mathematics can be used to prove ANYTHING"......Albert Einstein
You seem to be contradicting yourself, but...

Mathematics is merely logic applied to quantities. There is nothing magical about it. It is logic, merely a limited version involving quantities of things. And we were discussing quantities of things.

Now I have provided both a logical and a mathematical proof for how something can be made of an infinity of other things and yet still be only a finite thing.

Now exactly which is the first line of my logic do you disagree with?
Exactly which line is the first that you believe to be invalid?

This is the post:
JSS wrote: 1 Let's take the total time for the fall to be "t". And we are gong to divide that by a chosen standard for infinity, namely:
2 infA ≡ [1+1+1+...] by definition

so now we can say that:
3 1/infA = 1/[1+1+1+...] ≡ 1 infinitesimal by definition

4 So now we can use normal arithmetic (because we declared a standard for infinity, "infA" and defined it)

We now know that:
5 infA * 1/infA = 1, and that
6 infA * t/infA = t


7 That says that an infinity of our infinitesimals adds up to "t"

8 "t" was a finite value. We multiplied an infinitesimal value times an infinite value and got a finite value because the two cancel each other's infinite property.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: The True Nature of Matter and Mass

Post by Obvious Leo »

JSS wrote:Now exactly which is the first line of my logic do you disagree with?
Exactly which line is the first that you believe to be invalid?
Try and pay attention. I have no interest in disputing lines of mathematical logic with you. I'm merely pointing out that in mathematical philosophy your quantities are abstract entities which have no analogue in the physical world. Are you familiar with George Boole's "Laws of thought" and "The Mathematical Analysis of Logic"? Boole is a much undervalued philosopher of mathematics and I recommend his work to your particular interest. You might benefit from an in depth study of Whitehead and Russell as well.
JSS
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:42 am

Re: The True Nature of Matter and Mass

Post by JSS »

"Try and pay attention"
You said that you stick to logic and science.
If one cannot dispute any line of a logical argument or syllogism then the conclusion is necessarily true.

You can't escape by claiming that math has nothing to do with physical reality. Science and Physics is filled to the brim with mathematical reasoning. You are the one who introduced the idea that a finite divided by an infinite is impossible. Now you claim that such math has nothing to do with physical reality???

Math has nothing to do with Physics??? Come on now.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: The True Nature of Matter and Mass

Post by Obvious Leo »

JSS wrote:Math has nothing to do with Physics???
I didn't say maths had nothing to with physics because physics is purely a branch of applied mathematics. I said maths could make no truth statements about the nature of physical reality and neither can physics make such statements.
JSS
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:42 am

Re: The True Nature of Matter and Mass

Post by JSS »

Obvious Leo wrote:
JSS wrote:Math has nothing to do with Physics???
I didn't say maths had nothing to with physics because physics is purely a branch of applied mathematics. I said maths could make no truth statements about the nature of physical reality and neither can physics make such statements.
Quantum mechanics is entirely, 100% math.
So quantum physics says no truths about physical reality? I am not sure that I would argue against that.

Why are you arguing about finite things (physical) not being able to be divided infinitely if such math (logic) has nothing to do with physical reality??
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: The True Nature of Matter and Mass

Post by Obvious Leo »

JSS wrote:Quantum mechanics is entirely, 100% math.
So quantum physics says no truths about physical reality? I am not sure that I would argue against that.
QM, SR and GR are all mathematical representations of physical models rather than physical models themselves and can therefore not be used to make physical statements about the nature of reality. This point was made perfectly clear by all of the major pioneers of early 20th century physics, including Bohr, Planck, Einstein, Heisenberg and Schrodinger. These guys cannot be held to blame for the fact that the media sluts of the modern era don't know what "shut up and calculate" means. It means shut the fuck and stay in your own sandbox with your own toys.
JSS wrote: Why are you arguing about finite things (physical) not being able to be divided infinitely if such math (logic) has nothing to do with physical reality??
The philosophy of the quantum is not a statement about mathematical logic and in fact it predates the invention of mathematics in western philosophy. It is a metaphysical statement of first principle founded on formal logic and has never been seriously challenged on metaphysical grounds. I deliberately excluded Aquinas because he was metaphysically challenged on several other fronts and also had his own mystical axe to grind in the service of his invisible best friend. However Isaac Newton was his No 1 fan and possibly even more of a religious zealot than Aquinas himself. The consequences of this conceptual bias for the science which Newton founded were profound and linger on until the present day.
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: The True Nature of Matter and Mass

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

Leo said:

"An infinite set cannot be contained within a finite one, as proven in Cantorian set theory."

Bollocks. Consider the real number line. Arbitrarily choose points 1 and 2, then cut it in half by 1.5. Then cut that in quarters by 1.25 and 1.75, etc. This process can continue on indefinitely and mathematicians say the line is dense with these rational numbers.

Now let's consider the irrational numbers that always fall within the rational numbers listed above. It's proven that the irrational numbers are a higher order of infinity than the rational numbers, meaning there are more of them than the rational numbers. So logically, when you combine this with the previous paragraph, since they are on the same line (the real number line), then an infinite set can be contained within a finite one. If you still disagree, give us a source in print where you read what you claimed.

PhilX
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: The True Nature of Matter and Mass

Post by Obvious Leo »

Phil. You obviously haven't been following the entire thread because I haven't been talking about numbers. Numbers are mathematical abstractions and I'm only talking about physical entities. I'm not saying that you can't cut a 1 metre line into an infinite number of bits. I'm saying that you can't do the same thing with a 1 metre plank of wood.
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: The True Nature of Matter and Mass

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

Obvious Leo wrote:Phil. You obviously haven't been following the entire thread because I haven't been talking about numbers. Numbers are mathematical abstractions and I'm only talking about physical entities. I'm not saying that you can't cut a 1 metre line into an infinite number of bits. I'm saying that you can't do the same thing with a 1 metre plank of wood.
When you talk about Cantorian set theory ("as proven in Cantorian set theory"), you are talking about numbers and math so the comparison shouldn't have been used.

PhilX
Post Reply