Kant called that "illusion" Transcendental Idealism. In that case, ". . . what we think we see, is not absolute reality but our own ideas about reality."If matter doesn’t exist then what do we see? I don’t know. There’s obviously something there, but it has no true substance, which is why I call it an illusion. — Braindead
Hoffman's theory is based on a specific understanding of how evolution has constructed the human body and mind. His concept of Model Dependent Realism, which goes back to Kant's notion of "ding an sich", says that we never know the "real" object, but only a mental image of the object (subjective meaning), constructed in the mind from abstract inputs of energy (quantum dots of photons). You could think of the human mind as an old-timey telegraph operator. What his senses receive are meaningless dots & dashes of energy, which must be translated into ordinary language with conventional meanings. So, yes, Matter is like the telegraph sender, "outside the senses" of the receiver.Oh, icons sounds like a pretty good way to describe it. Though we see things by using light, which according to my understanding are collections of specific amounts of energy, doesn’t that mean matter is actually something outside our senses? So we use something invisible that might not exist as an icon for something that does exist, sounds like a pretty roundabout way of doing things. — Braindead
If so, then Philosophy is nothing. :cool:↪Gnomon
That's just giving it a name. Metaphysics is nothing, — Banno
Physics without math is Philosophy — Gnomon
Energy and matter are often separated due to matter being a “physical” substance, while energy is not. — Braindead
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.