Does mass exist?

[bkc]

People often question does time exist, or does God exist. Most people pretty much think that mass or matter exists though. But there is really no proof that it does. You can find ways to think about or examine mass which suggest it doesn't exist, or that it does. Same with God or time. Do you think it exists? Is there anything you can prove?

By our definition of existance, yes matter does exist. I think I know what you're getting at, and I've thought about it a lot in the past. We don't really know if matter really exists, or if it's an illusion, but I've come to the conclusion that it's incidental. We can observe it, that's all that really matters.

Think about this:

Pick a material object, a rock for example. You can see this rock, you can touch it, smell it, taste it, etc. But if you look away, is it still there? How can you know for sure? You might look again, and it's still there, or you can reach out and touch it, but if you're not observing it, is it still there? We'll never know.

[sp0rkius]

Teh Matrix!

[Craftian]

Does blueness exist?

"Mass" and "blueness" are words that we use to describe properties of the things around us.

Mass exists in the same way that distance and time do, as measurements of the way we perceive things to be.

[bkc]

quote:Originally posted by JMcSmoky:

By our definition of existance, yes matter does exist.

Yes, by our definition, mass does have mass. Or, by that way of looking at it, with weight scales for instance, we will find that it has weight, or by displacing water, that it has volume. In other words, we define what it means to "have mass", and then we test things to see if they fit the definition.

But we limit ourselves to these definitions and then we say "See, this is the way it is. This is the truth". But there are other ways of looking at mass, or anything, that will produce results that deny its existence.

And the point is, there is always another way to look at something. You can try to limit youself to one definition, but it will eventually fail.

And so even the existence or anything can never be proven, and this is the summation of all knowledge, and our guiding light.

[bkc]

quote:Originally posted by JMcSmoky:

... but I've come to the conclusion that it's incidental. We can observe it, that's all that really matters.

It is all that really matters when we are limiting our concern to the limited sphere of human existence and observation.

^^yeah, that was my point exactly.



Have you ever wondered if matter can exist without being observed? Maybe the entire material universe exists within our collective consciousness.

[Craftian]

1. How would we ever know?

2. How would it have any effect?

[bkc]

"How would it have any effect?" This brings up another idea, because say a tree falls in the forest and you don't hear or see it. But it still rearrange the molecules in the air and makes butterflys take different course and this has an effect on us, say it causes the wind to blow differently, and so the assumption that is commonly made that something can happen and it not have an effect on the rest of us is not 100% true, as is always true.

[KikoSanchez]

Existence is relative and is in the eye of the beholder.

[Craftian]

Got any evidence to back up your claim, Kiko?

bkc -

Look at it this way: If a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?

What if you're really far away and have a sensitive microphone? I'd say that in this case you've avoided the original question, because somebody has heard it.

If you can observe secondary effects of something, you can observe an aspect of that something.

Most of this is just playing with semantics. In response to the original question. Mass exists as a property of matter and energy, time as a dimension and the jury's still out on the whole god thing.

[This message has been edited by Diokhan (edited 06-25-2004).]

[I_Like_Traffic_Lights]

All words, just silly silly words. "Mass", "exists", BAH!!!

Mass exists in that while alive we have to accept the fact that we have to deal with it. Just like time (in most societies) and most of the other things you said. Sure you can make anti-descarte claims like that from the matrix all day but you'll usually get crap based on crap you don't believe in or you wouldn't have posed the original question in the first place. You can't really prove anything to somebody who doesn't want to be proven wrong, there's always another side. It's like counting the sides of a diamond or finding the corner of a circle.

In the end it's all absurd and completely void of any meaning if you have to ask.

[This message has been edited by I_Like_Traffic_Lights (edited 06-25-2004).]

[---Beany---]

quote:Originally posted by I_Like_Traffic_Lights:

You can't really prove anything to somebody who doesn't want to be proven wrong, there's always another side.

True, unless they run out of argument, in which case they still won't admit defeat out of stubbornness.

[bkc]

quote:Originally posted by I_Like_Traffic_Lights:

You can't really prove anything to somebody who doesn't want to be proven wrong, there's always another side.

Thats the point really, that there always is another side, and thats why people argue, because they don't want to recognize that there always is another side. So when someone argues that a tree falls in a forest and has no secondary effects, from whose vantage point are they taking this opinion that there are no effects.

And what is a secondary effect? versus a primary effect? Is seeing or hearing a primary or secondary effect?