Re: Matter is relative like Space and Time

From: Moby Dikc (mobydikc_at_gmail.com)
Date: 10/29/04 

Date: 29 Oct 2004 10:16:35 -0700

Morituri-Max wrote:
> Mike Helland wrote:
> > I'm taking that concept a step further. I'm saying that matter
doesn't
> > actually exist until there is the observation that matter exists.
That
> > is why matter is relative to the observer.
>
> Hmmmm... how did people appear on earth if there was no universe till
they were
> here to observe it?

An excellent question.

Let me quote from the original post in this thread:

"Your existence in nature is a subset of the Universe; nature's
superset is fundamental nature. Fundamental nature has its own
fundamental matter, fundamental space, and fundamental time."

My position is that nature is the product of observation, and nature is
a subset of the Universe. Therefore, even if your nature has only
existed since the development of your brain and sense organs, the
Universe has existed all along.

This is not an original idea. In antiquity the Monists, Plato's world
of Forms and Ideals, and the Tao all say similar things.

In more modern days Newton and more especially Leibniz spoke of an
absolute, metaphysical realm that provided the foundation for our
relative, yet physical existences.

Good question, but it should be clear from what I have written that the
Universe isn't dependent on observation, only nature is.

If you look at http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm you will see
that I have even created a little image for your viewing pleasure to
further assert my position.

Quantcast