h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Isn't 'material' the adjectival form of 'matter'. How can there be immaterial matter except in some metaphorical (therefore 'stupid' according to me) sense.

'...the creation of the physical for the use of the spiritual.'

You know, the physical stuff that I see is pretty fine - not to mention exotic, or versatile - stuff. Why should it be subjugated to another 'plane'?

And how do you know we can't measure the spiritual component? For all you know you could be seeing a bit of it every time you go on the scales. And we still don't know many things about the nature of /this/ universe and /its/ laws, never mind those of a so-called 'higher realm'.

- Jordan

This is at least partly down to definitions, and families of definitions.

What's your definition of matter?

Mine, (and I'd guess Jordan's, too, on the basis of that last post) is an inclusive one. Matter is energy; energy is - anything that's subject to change, or a cause of any kind. ie. everything. And you can't get more inclusive than that.

Noggin

Ah, you probably mean immaterial 'substance'. Well, 'substance' has been defined in all kinds of ways. Dunno if anyone is right or whether there is really any such thing.

Strictly speaking, yes, but Aquinas meant it as a metaphor every bit as comprehendable as any other used to describe it. And whyever should something be stupid by mere virtue of being a metaphor? Or in this particular instance? You can comprehend the implication, surely, that there could be a substance that is, in quality, different from the substance that we see in the normal universe - he meaning the substance from which the angelic and divine - besides demonic and satanic - beings were constructed. 'Holy matter,' so to speak.

I don't agree with it, but I don't consider it stupid merely by virtue of its lexical construction!

- Jordan

And we're supported by Einstein on this one, I should think - E=mc^2, as any decent primary kid could tell you.



- Jordan

?
?

- Jordan

Ah, there we go!

- Jordan

I consider it stupid to use metaphors in a philosophical discussion which is supposed to be about analysis, not synthetic concoctions such as metaphors.

I'd say that's a better way of putting it! I was using Aquinas' words, so far as I can recall them correctly.

- Jordan

so analyse God

My gosh! Don't all these simulposts make the convo hard to follow! I really should be getting my head down, but I haven't had this much fun in quite a while.

As I said, definitions. Berkeley defined matter as inert, and then reasoned, quite correctly, that it didn't exist, and that all the things we thought were made of matter must be made of something else that did the same job. I, on the other hand, define EVERYTHING that exists as matter (or more accurately, energy), and therefore have no need to postulate anything else.

Noggin

Metaphors are our analogues of the physical or mental world. They are essential to the common speech - indeed, many words we take for granted are metaphors for something, especially parts of our body. Most of language is built upon this understanding. I see no reason to exclude them, unless we want to exclude most of the English Language!

- Jordan

"You know, the physical stuff that I see is pretty fine - not to mention exotic, or versatile - stuff. Why should it be subjugated to another 'plane'?"

except as far as you're concerned this pretty fine stuff ( and I don't deny it)will be lasting about three score years and ten."

I didn't say that the physical would be subjugated to another plane, i said the soul would be.

Noggin. I'd say matter is anything that is extended. Good Kantian word, that! That is why matter is the underpinning of space, of course. OK, that's metaphorical in origin, but it's not obfuscatory.

noggin
EVERYTHING that exists as matter (or more accurately, energy

anti matter.

I'm posting too much, considering I've just woken up from a weird bout of narcolepsy...

If theories are correct, all forces can be pinned down to exchanges of virtual particles. The fact that gravity is not instantaneous is confirmation of this.

I think it would be more prudent to ask for a definition of the word 'exists'. I propose that it could be split into two definitions: the first covering matter - i.e. the condition for existing in the physical universe - and the second covering a more universal term - for example, 'dimensions exist' as opposed to 'light exists'.

And so, we haven't covered everything - space isn't matter, it's just somewhere for matter to be. A dimension isn't matter (and thus time), and quantum 'spookiness' doesn't seem to be the result of a solely matter-level interaction either - breaking, as it does, general relativity.

I have to go now, sleep beckons.

[Absent mindedly pats everyone on the head.]



- Jordan

I would like to exclude a good part of the English language from philosophy. Rather as it is excluded, only more so, from mathematics.

anti-matter. Touche. Anti matter is, however, just energy, same as ordinary matter. It's expressed in the same equations, and interacts with ordinary matter. Electron meets positron creates photons.

This was obviously a divine revelation of the cold, dark matter that constitutes the bulk of the universe, but doesn't interact with it, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Noggin

Oh, no, the matter of my body will live on for, oh, another several hundred billion years. OK, maybe marginally less if you don't include energy. The measure of value isn't how long it exists. I think value judgements are being made that simply can't exist.

What I was referring to was your hypothesis that the physical world is put to use by the spiritual - suggesting an heirarchy of value or virtue, especially through your association with God.

- Jordan