The following post got me thinking:
“First of all I suggest you do a little research before you talk nonsense. I will quote the definition of a theoretical point particle. All you have to do is look it up. “A point particle (ideal particle or point-like particle, often spelled pointlike particle) is an idealization of particles heavily used in physics. Its defining feature is that it lacks spatial extension: being zero-dimensional, it does not take up space.” This is often used in the theory of gravitation and electromagnetism. Now I will quote the definition of energy in physics, from the same source: “In physics, energy is a property of objects which can be transferred to other objects or converted into different forms. The ability of a system to perform work”.
Secondly, I did not imply that “reality is unreal” or that it doesn’t exist. You just didn’t get the gist of what I said. What I conveyed is that matter isn’t matter in the way you have been taught, in the way you think it is. I very much agree with the fact that things cannot magically originate from nothingness. I never claimed otherwise. Actually, this fact in itself suggests that existence is a paradox. The Big Bang must have been caused by something else, and in turn that something else must have had a cause as well. If you really think about it, there must be infinite origins. That, or things really do come from nothingness. Once you really understand what this means, you come to the conclusion that both of those options are illogical and paradoxical. Infinity is as illogical as something coming from nothing. The fact that you pointed that out yourself and don’t realize the implications of the concept shows you really have no idea what you are talking about.
Let’s talk for a bit about these concepts. The existence of just one thing implies that either it originated from nothing at some point, or it had a beginning. It having a beginning suggests that there must be infinite beginnings. If the Big Bang came from something, that something must have come from something, and that something from something. On and on and on. Now, you might think you understand infinity. You’ll say: It’s just something that does not end. But you can’t even begin to wrap your mind around such a concept. Can you imagine an infinite amount of colors? Whether they exist or not, you can’t. Ultimately, infinity is just as nonsensical as something coming from nothing. Let me ask you something: *If the universe comes from nothing, why did the Big Bang wait all eternity to spark up?
Having cleared that up, we can then come back to discussing the nature of matter by applying the concept of either an infinite amount of origins or an origin from nothingness. There are only those two options. Taking into account the fact that physics breakes matter down until it reaches point particles, we can come to the conclusion that matter cannot be physical. It cannot be physical because if everything has to be made of something else (you yourself pointed that out), then that would imply that matter can break down infinitely. Even if it is made of a tangible energy, that energy must have also come from somewhere, it must have a cause. Because infinity makes as much sense as an origin from nothingness (zero sense), the only conclusion you are left with is that reality is mental, because the only way you and I experience it, as well as any other form of life which can perceive, is mentally. Through awareness. Scientifically, it is impossible to prove this concept right or wrong.
I do not claim to have all the answers and I recognize the paradoxical nature of existence, unlike you. It doesn’t matter whether mind creates the universe or the universe creates mind. The fact that either or exists implies a paradox, because things cannot come from nothing and things cannot have infinite beginnings. The idealism I am “espousing” is not a fact, it is a theory just like everything else, just like the theory of a material reality. I did not claim it was a fact, and anyone who devotes their lives to something so difficult to prove is surely idiotic. I was simply exploring the idea, because it is interesting. Ultimately you cannot deny that you cannot prove reality is objective. Trying to prove it would be like trying to touch your finger tip with that same finger. It cannot be done, because the only tools you have to prove that reality, are made of that reality. A wise man knows he knows nothing, and stays in neutral ground while considering all the possibilities. That’s what I’m doing.”
If it’s true about those particles not taking up any space whatsoever, what does that mean for reality? How can something that feels like its there ultimately be made from nothing?