# Thread: The physics of the "present"

1. Originally Posted by manasij7479
Originally Posted by mk27
I have never seen it asserted that matter is/could not be anything but atomic
Maybe I'm missing your point, but matter is quite commonly considered as waves, in duality with particles.
My point was that it's atomic matter that is considered as waves and particles ("quants of force, which refers to matter's relationship with itself (matter as the medium of energy)"); my understanding of big bang theory is that this is only true after a certian point in time, but that the existence of the mass (ie, matter/energy) of the universe preceeds the atomic state which we understand in terms of waves and particles.

I did not google this because I assume someone here will put me to rights anyway, but I have it my head that there is considered to be a relationship between the value of 'c' and the (equally constant) amount of mass/energy (matter) in our universe. Atomicity is about the unit, ie, the possibility of there being multiples of one; this is I think also the basis of logic (the potential equivalence of two or more things, mental/conceptual or physical/real)*. But that does not apply to the (mental concept of) "matter"; we refer to matter in various forms but not various "matters" plural; although the meaningfulness of that may be a semantic illusion. I've equated matter with existence because it seems they are actually semantic equivalents. That means using the term matter in a more inclusive way than traditional physics, because eg, a photon particle is not considered a form of (atomic) matter, it's a form of (atomic) energy. But notice while it might be meaningful to refer to matter independent of energy, I am dubious about referring to energy independent of matter. Again, it seems that matter is a medium for energy / energy is a conceptual way of understanding matter (hence, it is not more matter, it is about relationships involving matter, so we say: energy is not matter, matter is not energy, but the two are intrinsicly intertwinned).

To my mind the idea that "existence" is just a semantic illusion seems logically implausible; but (logically) I don't see how it can be considered as anything other than matter (the inclusive "matter/energy" definition), which seems purely logical in nature (hence, the characteristics of the atomic form).

* there was a page I found in a GD thread a while back that involved a sort of semantic map of wikipedia, by way of which you could see how any given article related to another in a branching (historical/time axis) tree. A few people remarked how virtually everything was descended from math, but in fact, this was because almost everything required the concept of number and there are a few notable exceptions such as reason.

2. I think that was pretty clear, maybe using something like "currently recognizable quantum mechanical matter" might have been a better term than atomic.

The point in the big bang I am referring to is between the "Plank epoch" and the "Grand unification epoch" here:

Chronology of the universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's mentioned that these points are very speculative and our current knowledge of them permits a wide range of theories, eg, I think "brane inflation" must be a superstring/multiverse model. Point being that some of the fundamental laws of physics in our universe that we take to reflect immutable characteristics of what we recognize as quantum mechanical matter may not be fundamental characteristics of matter (or "what matter is made of") but more arbitrary, relecting the state of this "ultimate" matter under certain (arbitrary) conditions or as a consequence of certain (arbitrary) events.

The reason I find that philosophically interesting is it isolates existence as a more fundamental property of "matter" than anything else; "it" may (perhaps: logically must) exist outside the form which defines space time to us. So the "reason" for existence is because existence is a property of what is (matter, in a broad sense). Sort of circular, but I like it because it means investigations/questions about "existence" are questions about the nature of matter, sans metaphysics and misapplications of space-time based cosmology (which lead to non-sensical problems such as "What was there before there was anything?" -- nothing, ha-ha, but I think a more realistic answer is there is/was no such time period).

Matter is existence, existence is matter. I should start a cult. We could sell little Steven Hawking icons and "GOD HATES METAPHYSICS" buttons .