[dleviwing]

Unlike time and space, matter does not have an intuitive axiomatic concept or definition.

Matter is something that occupies space and can be perceived by one or more senses; a physical body or the universe as a whole. In physics it is an entity displaying gravitation and inertia when at rest as well as when in motion.

This definition implies an intuitive understanding of our universe and infers that matter cannot exist without displaying gravitation and inertia at some condition of rest and motion. Let's provide an absolute definition for matter and state that "Matter is the fundamental substance of the universe". This doesn't seem to invoke awe and amazement, but it does invoke a vision of something that everything is made of and this is the only physical stuff of the universe. As such we must redefine our notions of mass and energy.

Absolute Matter is the fundamental substance of which all physical entities acquire form and existence. Only the Void exists as a separate entity within an infinite cosmos.

To assign physical properties to a phenomena under this definition, you need to define the physical (physics) mechanics of actions and interaction of matter. This demands cause-and-effect, as opposed to only using empirical data of measurements in producing a mathematical equation to allow us to predict events and motions of material objects. This basically was science before the proliferation and the abuse of Relativity by media and pseudo science.

It would be to the advantage of science to develop equations without also requiring the creation of a new science to interpret them. This was the practice set down by both Relativity and Quantum theory; Do we now allow this process to repeat itself again with "String Theory"? Let's keep the math and get rid of the bizarre interpretations of the mathematical terms.

[baudrunner]

Absolute Matter is the fundamental substance of which all physical entities acquire form and existence. Only the Void exists as a separate entity within an infinite cosmos.

The Universe is an ecology. Space and matter are mutally inclusive. One cannot exist without the other. The void is no more an entity separate from matter than is air from water.

Matter is such by definition only. Throw away the word and encompass all.

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by baudrunner The Universe is an ecology. Space and matter are mutally inclusive. One cannot exist without the other. The void is no more an entity separate from matter than is air from water. Matter is such by definition only. Throw away the word and encompass all.

What you state is simply a hypotheses or theory, NO FACT OR PROOF. Have we sent a craft far enough to test that concept? As I've stated many times: "any concept of a beginning is beyond proof". My concept is as good, and possibly better, than current concepts.
You are right in saying that space and matter are the same stuff though. In my view, the universe is occupying a volume of an eternal void.

[Guille]

"God is dead." Neitzsche

"The Void is dead." Guille

I more or less agree with Buad. If matter exists, automatically there must be space and energy, and simultaneouslly as conseuquence of these, time and force. Is there anything in the universe not covered by these five terms? No, it is the DNA of the universe, MEFD (or mefst, if you want to change d for dimensions into st of space-time).

[Mohan.C]

But what exists outside the realm of MEFD. I think that is what David is reffering to.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Mohan.C But what exists outside the realm of MEFD. I think that is what David is reffering to.

Nothing exists outside the realm of MEFD cause the realm of MEFD is existence (and existence is all of reality, that is absolute everything).

[dleviwing]

Hi Guille;
There are many plausible views but, as yet none have been presented with indisputable proof. I see no reason why a place (void) cannot exist without matter but matter cannot exist without a place to occupy.

The mainstream "belief" is that matter created the place and matter came into being from absolute nothing. I disagree with this concept. Even though I cannot prove it wrong, nobody can prove it right; the burden of proof is on those making the claim.

The only support to any idea of the beginning, is the simplicity and logic of the hypotheses and thus Occam's razor is often quoted as evidence. IT IS NOT EVIDENCE! If it were, my concepts would lead all others.

Matter and the void are the only entities; Motion and bonding are the only properties of matter to produce all the TERMS of scientific measurement (dimensions). As yet, no one has proposed a simpler or more logical hypotheses. All physical terms must be reduced to the structure of matter or interactions of matter using only the fundamental properties of motion and bonding.

I trust you did well on your exams.

[Guille]

Thanks dave. I have a big complication now. I agree that if there is matter there must be space-time (actually, also energy-force). But can there be any of these four without matter? Doesn't 'existence' requier a physical body? If it doesn't--and I don't deny this possibility--what is the nature (the inner structure, formation) of space-time? and of energy-force? Do you believe in the m-thoery's quantization of forces (photons, gravitons, gauge bosons, w+, w-, z0)? and do you believe 'energy' is quantized?

[dleviwing]

Hi Guille;
The answer to your question depends on how you view "something" as opposed to "nothing". If you view an absolute void as something, then there is existence without the physical presence of fundamental matter.
All the other phenomena you mentioned, require the presence of a physical entity with real physical properties. (motion and bonding) Energy, force particles (photons, bosons, gravitons, gluons etc) spacetime, gravity, and so on, all require the motion and interactions of matter to form their existence.

Quantization is an interesting phenomena and basic to the functioning of matter in the structured micro world. Structured matter is dependent on the wave symmetry of matter. To produce a change of state of an atomic or subatomic particle, it is required that the entire structure alter it's wave function symmetry within a finite time increment. (Planck time) Thus only when an event can change the quantity of wave function motion of a quantum unit of matter, can there be a change of the structure. Thus, Planck's constant. This also limits our ability to directly test and measure events that may occur within these structures. (Probability and uncertainty)

Don't be awed by the window dressing of science. It is a physical universe and nature is not mysterious, only tricky.

[Guille]

Science can only limit itself to be adecuate for the world, for society, for humanity, for the space-time point it is in. It can never give us knowledge which is truth, fro truth is something derived from our propositions, not from nature.

Now, leaving the philosophy of science and getting into science itself (even though there is not that much difference between them), I understand what you say, but it rellies on the 'absolute void'. This term is a bit confusing, because it seems it's the same concept as aether. Is there a difference (if so, what?)? Can the two concepts be together in the same explanation of the universe?