Discerning the nature of matter is complicated. This blog entry is not meant to be comprehensive or exhaustive, but it's just my way of sparking thought and sharing the wonders of creation with others.
What is matter? The question might appear to be silly, otiose, and even jocose. However, serious thinkers have posited numerous and sundry theories for matter, and here are some of the main candidates:
1) Extension-Rene Descartes notably defined matter as res extensa (an extended thing). He thought that the defining property of matter is extension, but Descartes insisted that matter is not a thinking thing and it's lifeless: one source reports that he believed matter to be inert and "merely mechanical." The chief point here is that matter is extended in space: it's long, wide, and high and inanimate. Descartes' theory is labeled "mechanical" because of the role that he assigned to divisible particles and their "precisely defined laws of motion and rules of impact." https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/matter-theories
See also Marilyn McCord Adams, Housing the Powers: Medieval Debates about Dependence on God, page 84.
2) Could matter be the principle of individuation? Aristotle contends that matter and form are two metaphysical principles that inform all material objects, thereby making such objects, hylomorphic (hylemorphic) compounds. For example, a tree is constituted of matter which allows the tree to be individuated from another tree (i.e., they are different parcels of matter), but the tree likewise has form that is treeness in this case. Form (morphe) unites one tree with other trees that have the same form but different material. Think about how we distinguish one oak tree from another or a pine tree from a weeping willow, yet we recognize that they're both trees. Nevertheless, it's important to know that Aristotle thinks matter and form coexist within material objects unlike Plato, who seems to argue that form and matter exist in different worlds: the intelligible realm versus the sensible realm. Hylomorphism wielded great influence prior to the sixteenth century, and it has enjoyed a resurgence in contemporary metaphysics.
3) A common idea about matter is that it takes up space, is observable, and it's comprised of quarks, leptons, atoms, and molecules. Matter appears in different states such as liquid, solid, and gas (e.g., water), and these states can be broken down into subgroups. Additionally, thanks to Sir Isaac Newton, it is thought that all matter has the basic property of inertia and "gravitational mass" such that physical objects work to attract one another (e.g., the sun and earth). And due to the work of Albert Einstein, we can now say that mass and energy are convertible: gravity is also a result of warped spacetime. However, quantum mechanics has further complicated our view of matter.
For the ancient atomistic view of matter, see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2022/05/ad-infinitum-et-ultra-all-about.html
You can find a general article about matter here: https://www.britannica.com/science/matter
Notice the definition of matter given on this page: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-4110-5_8
Compare https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/matter-theories
For the image, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Electron_Interaction_with_Matter.svg
Saturday, August 06, 2022
What Is Matter? (Some Whittled Thoughts)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
That's a huge question.
This may have relevance:-
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00378/full
All "matter" resonates. Is it "matter" because it resonates at a single frequency & harmonics of the same.
One theory is that if two objects were to resonate at non harmonic frequency that they could pass straight through each other. Not sure how that could be tested though.
Resonance is another possiblity for how we identify matter or maybe that is a property of matter, but not "the" defining property. Is it possible for one material object to pass through another? I guess it's possible in theory, but at this point, I'd be very surprised if a car passed through a thick wall like we see in science-fiction flicks. Even cars passing through other cars would be mirabile visu/mirabile dictu.
Answering this question is the only way I can really see me my challenging my idealism and dialectical metaphysics.
At a much younger age, I was pulled in the direction of absolute idealism and the Hegelian dialectical philosophy. I still grant that most of these theories might have something salvageable about them, but I've since moved in the other direction. I find some value in Hegel, Kant, Fichte, etc. But none of them have a lock on truth, IMO. That is not to say that competing schools of thought fare any better.
https://theconversation.com/could-consciousness-all-come-down-to-the-way-things-vibrate-103070#:~:text=Even%20objects%20that%20appear%20to,scale%2C%20all%20of%20nature%20vibrates.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210218140129.htm
I read the piece at theconversation.com
Very interesting.
QM is controversial, and another question is how we should interpret quantum phenomena. Furthermore, will science ever be able to unite microcosmic (subatomic) physics with physics studied at the macrocosmic level? And what about Bell's theorem, and its implications for QM?
Just some questions that come to mind.
One question that has sat with me for a long time now, is frequency infinite with infinite harmonics?
We talk about bandwidths of light sound etc.
When that article refers to groupings, do we have to take into account the bacterial levels within the human body and that the gut is now seen to have more neurons than the brain? Is vibration more significant their? Maybe this is why there is so much difficulty on grasping how the brain works. Is it effectively billions of tiny coprocessors?
https://www.eneuro.org/content/7/4/ENEURO.0187-20.2020
Very good questions.
Does the gut have more neurons than the brain? I know it has a lot, but see https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/gut-brain-connection#TOC_TITLE_HDR_2
The brain continues to generate more mysteries. I find it interesting to think in terms of tiny coprocessors, but neuroscientists appears to be unsure about the genuine nature of the brain.
Here is one approach: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-brain-constructs-the-outside-world/?utm_source=pocket-newtab
Thanks for the eneuro link
Max Tegmark on the early development of matter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqxBPI_j-1c
Would it be correct to say that all the theories of matter have matter as something that is fully representable quantitatively and mathematically, and stands in mechanistically describable relations?
I think those predicates apply to theories of matter that developed after the scientific revolution and the advent of modern physics, but the ancient Greek theories of matter do not emphasize those things.
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-to-cultivate-a-healthy-gut-microbiome-with-food/
Food for thought ;)
So another question is - are neurons the only constituents of a gut brain or are nurtured bacteria a necessary part also? Are they just there to digest food or are they symbiotic?
Here's one perspective on gut microbiota: https://www.scientificamerican.com/custom-media/the-surprising-complexity-of-nurturing-a-healthy-gut/
An older study published in 2015: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1010660X15000245
The scientific American article is another good example of reductionism and an opportunity for marketing supplements. There are more types of bacteria than there are animals and insects. The vast majority are still not characterised. The enteric system like everything else in nature favours complexity and a broad range of interactions. I do not see good and bad bacteria but rather an imbalance with too many of one type.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/prevotella#:~:text=BACTEROIDES%20AND%20PREVOTELLA&text=Prevotella%20species%2C%20related%20to%20colonic,and%20the%20single%20species%20P.
I'm not advocating the article but just found some things interesting within it. Reductionism is usually de rigueur in today's scientific community. I don't think it always works but I understand why most take that approach--but we have a lot to learn.
Post a Comment