Matter and motion are abstractions
Blog 20160203 Matter and motion are abstractions
George Coyne and Glenn Borchardt
In its entry on “matter” Wikipedia states: “..., matter does not have a universal definition, nor is it a fundamental concept in physics today. Matter is also used loosely as a general term for the substance that makes up all observable physical objects.”
For well over a century physicists have been searching for this “substance” called “matter”—the ultimate tiniest particle. But this will never be found because matter is not composed of particles just as vegetables are not composed of carrots, potatoes, or spinach etc. It is more accurate to state that the category called “vegetables” includes those items but the category as an entity itself has no actual existence. Thus, that category is an abstraction, a mental construct, whereas only particular members of that category can actually exist. It is impossible to eat a mental construct, only specific vegetables, such as cauliflower or carrots, can be eaten.
Seeing that “vegetables” is simply an abstraction, it would be absurd and foolish to attempt to discover what this abstraction is composed of. Because matter is also an abstraction, it is equally ridiculous to seek its “building blocks.” With this knowledge, it is possible to successfully delve further into understanding the universe.
Realizing that only individual things that exist can be subdivided, and knowing that matter does not exist because it is merely a conceptual category, it is clear that matter cannot actually be subdivided. Only specific examples of matter can be subdivided.
What has actual existence are particular microcosms. One may ask “What are microcosms composed of?” The only rational answer is that they contain smaller submicrocosms and that these contain subsubmicrocosms ad infinitum. Per the Ninth Assumption of Science, relativism (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things) and its required infinity, no two of the submicrocosms are identical. So we cannot say that any particular type of them is the ultimate tiniest submicrocosm that does not contain an even smaller submicrocosm.
In addition, there is no ultimate macrocosm than can be labeled “the universe.” Every macrocosm is a microcosm in a still larger macrocosm ad infinitum. Any conceptualization that we generate for this infinity will never be complete or truly representative of “infinity” because all concepts by definition are limited, and what is being referred to in this article is not limited in any sense.
Comprehending how the universe functions also requires understanding that every microcosm and the macrocosm that surrounds it are in continual motion. Without motion, there would be no microcosm or macrocosm. Motion, too, is an abstraction. There are only specific motions pertaining to specific microcosms. It is extremely important to never forget that although these specific motions can be measured, these motions are not a measurement because they occur independent of measurement. Because time is motion, time also is an abstraction and may be used as a substitute for motion. No matter what we call that abstraction, we find that we can only observe and measure specific examples of it. Furthermore, “motion” or “time” is relative. Universal time is the motion of all things with respect to all other things in the infinite universe. Because it is impossible to measure universal time, we must settle for individual measurements of the motions of specific microcosms. These all must be done with respect to the motions of still other specific microcosms. By convention, we compare those specific motions with the motion of Earth's rotation on its axis or the motion of the microwave signals generated by atomic clocks when electrons in atoms change energy levels.