I sometime found in physics books the afirmation that only matter exist and nothing else.

I'd be glad to share ypur thoughts on this. Here is my opinion:

«In Physic we define something by what may interact with that thing, what may act with it and how. Matter is affected by the 4 fundamental Forces of physic, which are gravity, electromagnetic, nuclear strong and nuclear weak.

So if everything is matter, how do you explain sicology, art, spirituality,... using the 4 fundamental Forces?

I sustain that there is much more that just matter in our universe.»

What is your opinion?

There is matter, but there is also energy, and these two are not separated entities: the famous E=mc^2 gives a direct equivalence between the two, so technically mass and energy are the same. For what concerns spirituality, being a scientist and an agnostic I can't give an answer, maybe it's just our minds trying to make sense of what we don't understand yet, or maybe there is really something bigger concealed from us, we can't really tell until we prove the existence or non-existence of something like that.

If you want talk about spirituality in dept you could open a topic in the Philosophy subforum.

In fact It's because Physic studies matter and therefore energy has you've mentioned (Even if I prefer to use E²=(mc²)²+(pc)² rather than the more famous E=mc^2 to include the momentum). The rest is the object of other sciences. But does Physic has the right to deny the existence of objects out of his study field just because it can't include it in any positive science? Personally I don't think so.

The physics doesn't deny other kind of objects, but if there is not even an hint at it, both from observing and mathematical theory is simply ignored. And it's quite obvious, since there is no visible effect nor interation making it non-existing. Of course you can introduce some other kind of objects, but you have to demonstrate it exists in some way, otherwise it becomes like the pink invisible unicorn I have in my garage.

Well, as it has been stated above, energy also exists.

One of the most probable answers, from my perspective, to the question of the existence of our psychology (thus, the existence of art, thought, etc.), is the interaction between the cells in our brain. This does not go against the concept that there is, mainly, only matter and energy in the universe.

Core. Mind, body.

Core is the driving force/ our programming/ spirit. What makes us us.

Mind is the brain/ computer

Body is the machinery

So our programming controls the computer and the computer controls the machinery

Consciousness is not material. OBJECTS THAT TAKE UP SPACE AND HAVE MASS ARE CALLED MATTER. EVERYTHING AROUND YOU IS MADE UP OF MATTER. WE LIVE AND EXPERIENCE THIS DIMENSION WHERE WE BELIEVE THERE IS NO OTHER. BUT MATTER IS ENERGY RIGHT? AND ACCORDING TO THAT, ENERGY IS EVERYTHING. ENERGY IS VIBRATION….YOU CHANGE VIBRATION AND MASS CHANGE….BUT YOU CAN’T FEEL THIS. THERE IS SOMETHING THAT CREATE REALITY AND INSIDE DEEP INSIDE…IS AWARENESS/CONSCIOUSNESS. QUANTUM PHYSICS IS THE ANSWER TO OUR QUESTIONS FOR THE FUTURE. Marcie Tamar (Asgardian)

Hi Marcie,

Please be mindful posting all in CAPS. On forums, capitalisation of one or a few words is often used to highlight specific words, however posting in all caps can be seen as a sign of aggression.

With people from all around the world and many cultures, we would not your posts to be misinterpreted.

We appreciate your understanding.

Hi Alan, you're right, sorry. This will not happen again.

or could the psychic phenomenon exist due to particle entanglement? Would explain why animals know when a CME on the sun occurs before our space based telemetry senses it and that's days before the CME actually passes our way.

Sub space communications ala Star Trek would be possible with particle entanglement, with the exception that it would work in real time anywhere in our galaxy, unlike in the show where it still takes a little time, increasingly the farther you are away.

Not only material and also have energy. What determines civilization‘s something is information -- different decisions about the way things are arranged. Just as we pour ink on wood can be a book.

The ancient, unending debate over whether the totality of reality can be explained solely by matter or if it requires an additional spiritual substance of some sort does indeed better fit in the philosophy subforum.

It is a mistake, I think, to approach consciousness from the perspective of trying to fit fundamental forces and the laws of physics directly onto subjective phenomena. It is easily verifiable that consciousness, and all subjective phenomena, are not directly physical phenomena, but operate through and as a result of material media/interactions, such as cells.

The primary requirement of a subjective phenomenon is a capacity for memory. Subjective phenomena do not require intelligence. They are distinguished from objective phenomena by their non-deterministic functions. Single celled organisms, for example, are often capable of (limited) selective responses to environmental stimuli. made possible through chemically stored information.

We can argue that subjective phenomena are fundamentally immaterial, but I think this requires ignoring the fundamentals of complexity and I think that all subjective phenomena are fundamentally complex. After all, nothing subjective has ever been observed at the quantum level or even at the substantially more complex atomic level. Complexity requires that the particular arrangement of the simple components of a phenomenon do not affect the complex phenomenon per se. This does not mean the particular arrangement of complex phenomena are not affected by the particular arrangement of the simple components, merely that a human brain is a human brain regardless of what particular information is stored in it. This behavior can give the appearance that the material involved is not relevant to the subjective function, but that is not the case. Remove the brain and you remove the conscious subject. Change the brain's material arrangement and you change the subject, although the subject is still a subject.

One analogy would be that turning a fan on outside in a storm changes the storm measurably (barely), but it is still a storm.

The other problem with materialism is that subjectivity naively (in the technical sense) appears to be a fundamental property of objects, but this is not the case. I would point to Putnam's Miniworld thought experiment for a rather conclusive argument that subjective markers (words) and the difference between a complex phenomenon and a simple phenomenon involving the same matter are distinctive properties that only occur when an intelligent subject is involved, not as a result of any direct material interaction. It merely appears to us, as intelligent subjects, that these properties are fundamental, because they are fundamental to the subjective universes existing virtually in our minds as materially stored information.

Многих учили с детства, что материальные вещи - это то, что можно увидеть и потрогать руками. Я считаю, это не правильное суждение, множество материальных вещей, которые находятся вокруг нас, но мы не можем увидеть и потрогать.

Many have been taught since childhood that material things are something that can be seen and touched. I believe this is not the right judgment, a lot of material things that are around us, but we can not see and touch.

Admin Edit: English Translation provided by Google Translate:  Please remember that the main pages of the forum operate in English and you are asked to provide an automated translation of your post.  Thank you.
- Jason Rainbow - 7 July 2017 @ 07:5 UTC