Conversation With Richard - Does Matter Equal Existence?

Here is Richard's reply to my piece on the Big Bang experiments:

Hi there Peter,

I have finally found time amidst the hustle and bustle of this busy time of year to reply to your message. Firstly, your first paragraph, it brings me to draw up the question, 'If matter behaves predictably, then why do surprises exist?.. Does this mean it happens outside of our knowledge, or does it happen through another means in something science will never find?' If either is the case, then the scientists are trying to find the answers in the wrong areas, which I suppose agrees with the points you were making towards the end of your message.

I heard about the Large Hadron Collider and was following the news of it's results very closely, until I heard it may not be fired up again for months maybe. How dissappointing. I hope they find some answers when it is next fired up, or maybe the leak it had wasn't an accident, maybe we aren't meant to find any answers to matter and the dark matter yet. I do however hope we do find answers that will build knowledge.

I have another point in difference to your point involving matter. I read that you thought "matter=existence". However, I tend not to agree with this, and take the road of a dualist. From my experience of life, life isn't just about substance, you have to experience it subjectively too. So in short, the mind is just as important as materialism, and together they both equal existence.

I guess in relation to dark matter a million different responses on what it is could make sense. However if it makes up 70% of the universe's energy, surely it could be said that it could be controlling what happens as we know it without realising? If this is the case, life is a constant struggle, and we will never be in control.


I shall leave my response here, and look forward to your response as always,

Richard Debnam

Tags: conversation Big Bang matter existence predictable science Large Hadron Collider dualist control dark matter

Conversation With Richard - Big Bang Or Big Whimper?

Hi Richard

I hope you got my email with a piece from Reuters on Dark Matter. I cannot reproduce it here because of copyright restrictions. Nor can I provide a reference to it because pieces by Reuters' journalists only survive a few days and are then removed as yesterday's news. I do find journalists are exceptionally good at reporting on this particular subject and I recommend Reuters as a source of news for anyone. I have it fed to my email box several times a day, all for free.

Dark Matter and things to do with the Big Bang are very much in the news this week, in any case, with the switching on of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN on Wednesday. and to celebrate Radio 4 is having a Big Bang Day. This, at least, means that a lot more people are better informed about the state of our scientific knowledge at the present time. I am, therefore, going to take the opportunity to review what I think the state of play is at the present time.

Science, in its various forms, begins from the proposition that the cosmos is made out of substance which, nowadays, is commonly referred to as matter. By very careful observation and experimentation it has been established that matter behaves in quite specific ways, never randomly or unpredictably. The job of all scientists is to detail exactly how this process operates. In order to do this the scientific community put forward various theories to explain a particular part of the story of matter and then set about testing their theory to see how robust it really is. If they find there are problems with a particular theory they will refine it or replace it with a better one. Their belief is that, even though scientific knowledge is changing, it is always moving forward as each new theory is improved upon. The totality of knowledge about matter is growing.

There are, of course, many gaps in the scientist's knowledge. The discovery of Dark Matter is a very good example. Not many years ago the scientific community came to the conclusion that there was another form of matter, as yet unrecognised. This version of matter was invisible and could only be discerned by its gravitational effect, hence the name Dark Matter. It is believed to account for something around 80% of the matter in the universe. Incredibly, we know very little about either it, or it's associated Dark Energy. I have dug out a Reuters piece from 07 Sep 2006, just 2 years ago, reporting on the CERN LHC. The quotes are from Brian Cox of Manchester University:

"We don't know what 95 percent of the universe is made of - which is a bit embarrassing for a subject that claims to be fundamental... There is Dark Matter. It is all over the place but we have no idea what it is."

"There is also something called Dark Energy, and that is an even bigger question. It makes up about 70 percent of the energy in the universe but again we have absolutely no idea what it is."

Now, if that were the end of the story, we could leave the scientists to get on with their quest and wish them good luck. However, in spite of their self-declared ignorance, they claim that what they are doing is the answer to all knowledge, that there is nothing else in the universe except matter or matter like derivatives and that their quest is, in fact, a theory of everything.

Most people understand conventional physics, put crudely how things we can see work. They can extrapolate from that some idea of how the totality of the universe might work in a similar way. However, alongside all of that there has been developing what is called particle physics, which is the science of the small, very, very small. Although sub atomic physics has been around for about a century it is still a huge puzzle to scientists. Initially, it was believed that there were only a few bits inside the atom. Indeed, the very word atom means an indivisible unit. I think the present count is something like 8 but don't quote me - they may have found some more by the time you read this! The frustrating thing is that as well as finding particle physics just gets more and more complicated, there is a serious problem about linking it in with conventional physics. Unfortunately, the maths just does not add up. Here we go again, I hear you say. So, we have hypothetical Dark Matter and hypothetical particle matter and the only way to make sense of the 2 is to posit another missing bit, known as the Higgs boson particle. The problem is about making sense of mass and the Higgs boson would endow the necessary mass. The trouble is, so far, no one has been able to isolate it. Enter LHC. The prize which the scientific community is hoping to win, as I say, is a theory of everything. They wish to join together the science of the large with the science of the small. LHC will examine the basic structure of the universe and, hopefully, explain how the Big Bang happened and what happened then and then, and then.

I wonder what fate lies in store for my now quite famous quip about astro physics:

"In the beginning was nothing - and then it exploded!"

There are 2 ways of looking at this. The scientific way is to say that matter is all we have and it has to explain everything. If we get bits of it wrong, so what. The quest goes on. All that proves is that we are struggling. The project is still worth while. Crucially, everything is made out of particles.

The other way is to say, yes, understanding matter is worth while but where is the evidence that there is nothing more to it than that? We think in material terms most of the time. Matter=facts. Matter=existence. Matter=real. I am not sure that we can even think of existence without thinking matter. And this is becoming so invasive now that even the likes of feelings are considered to be materially produced. And what of God? I wonder how many people today believe that man created God in his own image and not the other way round. But even so the idea is very material like. God does seem very much like a Dark Person.

We have some knowledge of substance and how it works, but this is very limited. We are getting close to being able to make scientific comments on the moment the Big Bang occurred. Where does this take us? In my view, not very far at all. Science, at the moment, has its hands full trying to understand the process tracing back to the Big Bang. But there must have been something there waiting to go Bang. Where did it come from? And if that traces back to another Bang, or a thousand Bangs... What if the universe is one of many contained within many... where does that leave us?

The answer, I would suggest, is the same as it has always been. Science is not erroding philosophy because science cannot answer philosophical questions. It can only answer scientific questions. The details will change but that fact will not. How do I know this? Because science, patently, is dealing with process - how things work - not where they came from. Follow every scientific process to its logical conclusion and you will find yourself in an infinite regress. Science is not an explanation - it is a method. To be honest, it amazes me that so many people have trouble with this concept. Perhaps my mind is more logical than most. The difference between how matter works and where it came from seem so obviously different to me. Let's try approaching it scientifically. Imagine we have a little package, pre-universe, which is about to explode, and bear in mind, this actually happened, how did it come to be there, just waiting to explode? Let's suppose you say to me "It grew, by a scientific process". We then go through the same process again and we get back to the package that grew into the one that eventually exploded. How did that come to be there?

That is an infinite regress and it is why science cannot explain everything.

I will leave for another time what can explain everything and, indeed, the other points made in your reply. I think we have plenty to consider already!

Peter Rayner

Tags: conversation Big Bang Reuters Dark Matter Large Hadron Collider CERN scientific knowledge Dark Energy theory of everything Higgs boson particles existence God

An Afterlife? - Wave If You're There

Another one of my diversions. This one concerns some brief postings by Kim. You can read the full text here. Kim speculates about the idea that the Spirit uses waves to communicate. I picked up on her concern that there would need to be "a translating medium" and replied to her because this seemed so reminiscent of Descartes. It provides a summary of what Descartes thought and also what the central issues are in the philosophy of mind.

Kim's posts were made on 18 Jul 2008 at 08:36 and 08:43am. My post was made on 18 Jul 2008 at 04:13 pm:

Hi Kim. I am not surprised that you are struggling with your ideas but at least you can console yourself with the knowledge that you are in the greatest of company. I would like to pass on a few observations of your post in the hope of advancing your ideas which I do find intriguing. You may or may not be aware that you have expressed ideas which are very similar to those of the great philosopher, Rene Descartes, who also struggled with the same material.

Descartes, like you, argued that there is an essential self which is not material and which inhabits our bodies. Matter does not have this self awareness but it does have attributes and so can do things. This is not the same as having life. He believed that the self has no attributes, no physical characteristics because its essential quality is its own existence. To be alive is to able to say "I am me" and we can never say "I am you" even if you and I share similar qualities. We can never be another person. In contrast physical matter is defined by its attributes and abilities. Essentially, he described a "ghost in the machine".

Also, like you, Descartes believed that there had to be some kind of interface which allowed the mind and body to relate to each other and rather oddly he believed that this was located in the pineal gland. Although that is obviously not the case, it is intriguing that you share his worry!

I suppose the central issue is whether selfhood is really a physical thing all along and consciousness and self identity is just a manifestation, an illusion, if you will, which can wholly be explained by physical processes or whether ultimately it is not possible to provide an adequate explanation of life by re-arranging matter to form being. The scientific approach provides a very powerful case for matter being the answer to everything. Set against that is the fact that things we associate with being, such as the ability to have free choice and intentions do not easily fit into an entirely physical universe. How can the strict rules of matter allow us to make decisions? Would that not cash out as no more than a string of inevitable occurences entirely governed by the detailed actions and reactions of material processes? Also, how can matter, alone, account for why as well as how the universe came to be?

Just a few observations which I offer in the hopes of clarifying your thinking and encouraging further ideas. Good luck!

Peter Rayner

Kim replied that our brains are, in some respects, like computers and went off to do some thinking. I referred her to our series of posts, now re-produced in this blog.

Kim's post was made on 18 Jul 2008 at 04:28 pm. My reply was made on 18 Jul 2008 at 04:33 pm:

Hi Kim. You might like to look back over my discussions with Richard in which we discuss intentionality and how computers think with particular reference to John Searle's chinese room illustration.

Peter Rayner

Tags: afterlife Spirit translating medium Descartes philosophy of mind existence matter attributes self ghost in the machine pineal gland computers thinking

An Afterlife? - Legoland or Never Never Land

Picking up on Richard's idea of a spectrum, I look at the problems of trying to fit everything into a single unity and the alternative, which is to invoke another realm to deal with what does not make sense in this realm.

My post was made on 07 Jul 2008 at 08:39 pm:

Hi Richard. You talk about a spectrum with materialism at one end and experience at the other. I like the idea that everything is ultimately hooked up and forms a complete system but I'm not sure that the evidence is compelling. It is, of course, the view which dominated philosophy 100 years or so ago known as Post Kantian Hegelian Idealism or just Idealism for short. The idea was that everything was a part of the Absolute and it did seem to solve a lot of problems at the time, not that I was around then, I hastily add. It also created some problems as in the case of the theologian who was accused of denying the divinity of Jesus. His reply was "I have never denied the divinity of any man!" In an age in which we think materially and mathematically it is easy to believe that all matter originates from one atom which explodes and starts a huge reaction and results in the cosmos. I suppose you could argue that seemingly non material entities were, in fact, made of the same atoms but they are so arranged as to look different. I dare say the makers of Lego would be overjoyed to think that we live in a Lego universe in which you can make anything from a box of building bricks. However, I don't buy it. This is more process stuff and I think the logic of it is that everything is made of matter, but some things just don't look as if they are. It is naive materialism in disguise. What I am trying to assert is that process is what matter does and understanding is what process and matter can't do. Therefore - and it's the biggest therefore in philosophy - matter is not the only thing to exist. Moreover, matter does not explain a lot of things with which we are familiar. In particular, it does not explain the grand scheme of things. As long as matter goes on recycling itself, all is well. However, the issue of beginnings and endings does not make sense in a world of matter alone.

The whole idea of something "other than" or just different provides, I think, a more attractive solution to these weighty philosophical problems. It takes us into the same logical territory as religion has been in throughout history. The basic idea of God is that he is "other than" and has to cross over or transcend into our world in order to communicate with us. Now, I would not go so far as to argue for the existence of God as an entity. I do think that is a bridge too far. But I do think there is a realm unreachable and unfathomable, and part of my thinking is directed by the nature of our own world and our own experiences.

In itself the non material is not that difficult to get your head around. We can all understand, for example, the concept of language. It is very evident and clearly, in essence, non material, although we communicate it through material channels. The problem, I think, that arises, is that we think about things as having existence and that is a more perplexing word. We use the word existence in just about every conceivable way. Matter exists. Ideas exist. But what is existence?

Well, I don't know how much sense you will make of this but I'm going to pause now to get your response.

Peter Rayner

Richard's response is uncompromising in its rejection of any kind of other world explanation although he accepts that such a thing cannot be disproved. He does, however, turn the issue from "how" to "why".

Richard's post was made on 14 Jul 2008 at 09:41 am:

Hi Peter, I find myself having to think twice before I post this just to make sure I've taken in everything, and I appreciate you informing me about what my thoughts were, as I haven't learnt or read much of the post-Kant era of Philosophy. Without going off in a tangent, I find myself in a position at the moment where I am going to respectively disagree with you about your point involving "other than" and "God".

I think for the universe to work properly, if there is a "God", then I do think if this God is untouchable and in a transcendent universe to our own, then anything from our universe should be able to transcend into the other world beyond what we know. As Albert Einstein said, "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

However, if the transcendent beings including God and spirits of the dead (I won't argue for the dead people's existence), are in another universe, and people in our material world do come across them, then what is to say our worlds aren't as far apart as we think? Another thought that crops up is that if this does happen, would we actually know if we were in a different world to our own? Because when we dream whilst asleep, we are in a different dimension to what anyone else can experience this could be linked to another world apart from our main conscious material world, and I thought that the human mind and the unconscious part of the brain could be the key to unravelling the mystery involving other worldly type experiences people have.

As well as these thoughts though, I do have doubts about whether one can actively appear in God's world [if it does exist], without having to morbidly and reluctantly sacrifice life in the world we know. Which from my perspective, it's a sacrifice I would never be willing to make whilst I am me!

Descartes touches on the topic of existence, famously saying "I am I think I am, therefore I am" which I think is the best possible answer anyone can come up with without some form of Godly entity confirming and explaining to everyone what existence actually is. Which is obviously a very highly unlikely occurence.

In some form of conclusion, to wrap up my post, and in order to pause to await your response, I am reluctant to agree with an existence of another world, but at the same time I don't want to pass it off either, as it could be a possibility as much as it doesn't exist. However, existence I think is exactly what it is, how, who, when and what we know. Without existence there is nothing, and the more science evolves, the more I think existence is less doubtful. The question I would ask is why do we exist?.. I think we find we've gone around in a circle in our thoughts. lol

Richard Debnam

Tags: afterlife spectrum materialism experience Idealism divinity atoms process religion God transcend existence ideas other than why

An Afterlife? - Soft Solipsism

Richard found my previous post disconcerting because he believed my attempt to introduce the idea of a "contentless, experiencing self" entailed a belief in the doctrine of solipsism. This is the view that nothing else exists apart from my own self and, since the material world does not exist, except in my mind, then the self, in this context, is taken to be mental only. I have included my reply to the point because it can best be understood as a single exchange. Whereas the solipsist wishes to argue that nothing else can be known for certain, I am trying to use this as a starting point to establish what else there is. My argument that each of us has a unique point of view which we experience directly, in contrast to our experience of everything else, which we must, therefore, infer, might be called a soft solipsism but, unlike the solipsist, I use it to point to there being more than just myself.

Richard then introduces a different context, in a sense, by suggesting that we need to "know the meaning of life" before we can consider the possibility of an afterlife.

Richard's post was made on 12 May 2008 at 12:31 pm:

Hi Peter, thanks for your reply. I'll get straight down to what I have to say again. From what I said from "the aim of a computer", I meant it from the point of view that the computers do not have aims of their own, but instead that us humans rely on them for their aims. As in, computers are used for our advantage to speed up the processing, memorising and calculating abilities that outperform us humans.

For example, if one would like to work out 1,267.89 x 568 for a business matter, one would consult a calculator, then for the accounts of their business they could record this in Microsoft Excel for an invoice to print off and send to the customer of their business etc. Therefore the computer would remember, calculate and create the process of buying, and the person is only using the computer for an aim of their own, not for the computer's own gain. I apologise if it was bad wording on my part, and I hope this clarifies my point.

I have one question that relates to your mentioning of the afterlife. If we "establish a self which is not tied to the physical world", then it doesn't make sense, because the only thing we can relate to is our materiality in our lives. If materiality doesn't exist, then nothing we are experiencing is real, which means there is no life or afterlife. It seems that this way of thinking has gone down the road of the solipsism, which is a theory I do not agree with.

I myself think that to consider the possibility of an afterlife, first you must know the meaning of life. If you cannot know the meaning of life for certain, then there is no reason to consider there being an afterlife. However, if you think you have a meaning to life, then it holds the key to the prescence of an afterlife.

Richard Debnam

My post was made on 12 May 2008 at 02:31 pm:

Hi Richard. I very much like your assertion that we have to address "life" before we address "afterlife" and that does raise some real problems for anyone of a Cartesian inclination. As you will know, the Cartesian view of Selfhood is that it is an entity which has no describable attributes. It is what we are and is not dependent on any "features" all of which could be the product of the evil genius. I will give some thought to your point and write again later. Unfortunately, I don't have time to do the point justice at the moment.

Peter Rayner

My next post was made on 02 Jun 2008 at 02:43 pm

Hi Richard, I have given some careful thought to your comments. We seem to be in agreement that there is a considerable difference between the performance of a computer, however spectacular, and the "aims" as you put it, of a human being. To use the conventional philosophical jargon, a computer simply processes whereas a human being has intentions. So, if human beings are simply complex amalgamations of organic materials how do they come to have intentions and why is it that computers don't? It is not that I am attempting to deny materiality but rather to ascertain whether or not there are elements of humanness which are non material in nature.

On the question of solipsism I am having some problem understanding your point. You have introduced the idea that we can have experiences which are "real" and that these are contingent upon what you call "materiality". Does this mean we can also have experiences which are not "real"? Also you state that it is materiality which we "relate to" whereas the traditional answer is that the one thing we cannot doubt is our own existence. Since no one else can be us, experiencing our unique point of view then all else has to be, in some sense, inferred, except our own existence.

As to the "meaning" of life let us first consider the "nature" of life and how it differs from matter. Perhaps we should also consider why we have matter, why we have life and how they came to be. That would be a scientific or evolutionary approach. And right in the middle of all that let us consider the place of intentionality and the place of experience. Does the evidence suggest that the clever way in which a computer works provides a close approximation of the sense of it all? Or does the unique, purposeful intentions of the conscious human being give a better clue to the underlying mysteries of the universe? You decide.

Peter Rayner

Tags: afterlife self solipsism meaning of life aim computer physical world life cartesian process intentions real materiality experiences doubt inferred existence