Space & Matter, and nature of reality

[fccool]

This is a tangent discussion from the topic of Time & Nature of Reality.

I've studied past and present physics, logic and philosophy, and I would make the major distinction in methodology in both science and philosophy of present as opposed to past, it would be the idea of discrete universe.

Before we get to that idea, Id have to point out something that's not so obvious due to the way we perceive the world. The way we experience the world may not be ontologically correct if we think of the world as it is from some "fly on the wall" objective perspective.

Let's deconstruct the idea of sight, as an example. Sight in itself is very visually complex phenomenon. We perceive brightness, color, depth (distance), and shape (scale and form) of objects. All of these formulate our experience of sight. But, when we consider the physically encoded properties of sight, virtually all of them are driven by exactly the same thing... frequency of energetic vibration.

The objects have color and brightness, because they either absorb, or emit wave energy properties that our brain decodes as color/brightness.

Now, if I had to classify the history of physical science into several periods, I'd have to say that there's two approaches to interpreting the ideas of space and matter.

1) Until very recently, the matter has been interpreted as unified whole with space. Another-words, there are no gaps. Space and matter essentially was considered by many the very same thing.

2) Then modern physics came by and beginning with Newton, the ideas of particle physics were formed. Essentially, now the matter is thought of to be formed of discrete (separated) particles that interact with each other in space through various fields they emit. These particles are finite, moving really fast, and exist in specific XYZ location in space relative to each other.

The modern physics took off and ran with the idea #2, because it's closer relates to how we observe world. In other words, there's more to the world than we see, but overall it's not different in terms of shapes, space, matter density and so on. What we see and feel is the ontological reality on macro scale.

The older model was abandoned due to several problems it presented with scientific observation and confirmation. Yet, I believe that this model is worthy to be examined and considered due to what we understand about the nature of perception (as demonstrated by objective examination of sight and perception of sound).

I'll take a break and move on.

[teresaq]

Regarding the eye and what I do understand of what you have stated, what a complex and awesome God!! He could have created the eye to see an object without all that complexity- I think tho I'm not sure. And He just spoke all this into existence!

I can see why we will be learning for eternity!

[cardw]

The problem with non quantum theories is that they fail to explain gravity.

I know that anything with the word quantum is considered too new age but when we consider quantum string theory, it is being explored with real math.

One of the most interesting aspects of the string theory is that string theory visualizes space being filled with very small strings of matter that connect everything to everything else.

And rather than a simple big bang explosion we actually had an unwinding of the universe.

I think it is an interesting new vision of the micro world.