On 29 May, 13:00, "andy-k" wrote:
> turtoni wrote:
>> "The nature and definition of matter have been subject to much
>> debate, as have other key concepts in science and philosophy. Is
>> there a single kind of matter which everything is made of (hyle), or
>> multiple kinds? Is matter a continuous substance capable of
>> expressing multiple forms (hylomorphism), or a number of discrete,
>> unchanging constituents (atomism)? Does it have intrinsic properties
>> (substance theory), or is it lacking them (prima materia)?
>
>> Without question science has made unexpected discoveries about
>> matter. Some paraphrase departures from traditional or common-sense
>> concepts of matter as "disproving the existence of matter". However,
>> most physical scientists take the view that the concept of matter has
>> merely changed, rather than being eliminated.
>
>> One challenge to the traditional concept of matter as tangible
>> "stuff" is the rise of field physics in the 19th century. However the
>> conclusion that materialism is false may be premature. Relativity
>> shows that matter and energy (including the spatially distributed
>> energy of fields) are interchangeable.
>
> This is only the case if we treat the words 'matter' and 'mass' as
> synonymous, since 'm' in the equation E=mc^2 pertains to *mass*.
>
>
>
>
>
>> This enables the ontological
>> view that energy is prima materia and matter is one of its forms. On
>> the other hand, quantum field theory models fields as exchanges of
>> particles - photons for electromagnetic fields and so on. On this
>> view it could be said that fields are "really matter".
>
>> All known solid, liquid, and gaseous substances are composed of
>> protons, neutrons and electrons. All three are fermions or spin-half
>> particles, whereas the particles that mediate fields in quantum field
>> theory are bosons. Thus matter can be said to divide into a more
>> tangible fermionic kind and a less tangible bosonic kind. However it
>> is now known that less than 5%% of the physical composition of the
>> universe is made up of such "matter", and the majority of the
>> universe is composed of Dark Matter and Dark Energy - with no
>> agreement amongst scientists about what these are made of. This
>> obviously refutes the traditional materialism that held that the only
>> things that exist are things composed of the kind of matter with
>> which we are broadly familiar ("traditional matter") - which was
>> anyway under great strain as noted above from Relativity and quantum
>> field theory. But if the definition of "matter" is extended to
>> "anything whose existence can be inferred from the observed behaviour
>> of traditional matter" then there is no reason in principle why
>> entities whose existence materialists normally deny should not be
>> considered as "matter"
>
> Strawson makes this point in his paper "Real Materialism".
>
>> Some philosophers feel that these dichotomies necessitate a switch
>> from materialism to physicalism. Others use materialism and
>> physicalism interchangeably."
>
>
> "Meaning is use", and there are various ways the word 'matter' is used,
> all bearing only a family resemblance rather than any essential attribute.
> Stipulating a technical definition circumvents this aspect of language,
> but any such definition can only be "for the purposes of this paper"
> since others will wish to stipulate their own definitions.
>
Could matter exist outside of space, or is it a label to that which
resides in space?
