From: keivan@brahms.udel.edu (Keivan Esfarjani)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian
Subject: Re: Physics-1A Question
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:46:33 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

SalAm bar ahAli and  HooshyAr khAn,
Sorry for the delay, I answered the message yesteday, but I managed 
to lose it So here I am again:


In article <1992Oct7.065546.2164@netcom.com> bavafa@netcom.com (Hooshyar Naraghi) writes:

>>Well you are the one who talks about it, so you should have
>>a definition for matter in your mind!
>
>Well, I talk about it because I am told so from the time I remember
>studying Physics.  My definition was what I had earlier noted, that is by
>being able to measure properties of matter we humans learn or conclude that
>matter exists.  Is this a definition or a statement, to your opinion?

Yes, this is a statement and a wrong one! It's not because we 
can MEASURE properties of matter that it exists.

>Let me ask this question to understand you:  Are you suggesting that one has
>to be able to _define_ matter before s/he can question or even conclude that
>s/he _knows_ it exists?  So does ability to define is a requirement or pre-
>requisite to the ability to know?  These are simply questions.  I do not

One better define what one is talking about, otherwise one doesn't
know what one is talking about :-)
So definition becomes before knowledge. You  define first,
and then according to your definition, you study the existence or
whatever.

>>well you could say the very reason why pointers exist is the existence 
>>of the variables to which they point, obviously!!
>
>'ghorbooneh Adam chiz fahm!'  So are suggesting that pointers exist because
>variables exists? 

Sure! I think now I understand what you were saying; your examplle of
temperature as property of mattesight tracked me. 
I guess by property you mean anything that is observable, detectable or
measurable. Then in that case it's easy:
We know that we see stuff around us, so we call it matter (here we
first defined matter as whatever we sense around us) then to 
characterize it or to expand our vocabulary, we define some
properties of matter such as color, size......and temperature when
we get more sophisticated. Does that answer you?
But you probably knew that already!
I thought you had another definition of matter in mind or something!

>>>It seems to me if I did not think, matter wouldn't exist.  The existence of
>>>matter is _within_ me.  So if humans did not exist, there wouldn't be a
>>>matter.  As a matter of fact there wouldn't be a discussion of matter.
>>
>>True, matter exists only for those who can "detect" or "observe" it; 
>>otherwise the existence or non-existence of it would be meaningless.
>
>Interesting.  So even the KNOWLEDGE could be relative.  For example, cows
>don't know that matter exists, so for them matter does not exist.  But for
>us humans it exists.  This is another topic by itself, because one could
>argue that even cows could "detect" and "observe" the matter.

Yes, I think it is a relative notion. If there is no way for you (even
in the future, by direct or indirect measurement) to detect something
(that you already have defined :-), then as far as you are concerned
it does not exist. Btw, I think cows know that matter exists even though
they might not understand our definition. They are aware of it, and can
feel its effect.
>Can I record your above statement?  Well, save it for future use?  I can
>live with it.  Of course this is one possible way of looking at it.

You sure can as long as you don't forget the copyright sign :-) 
But I don't take any responsibilty for it!

>Really, there was no 'film.'  As I said the KNOW business came up as a
>by-product.  There has been a _ligitimate_ question here at sci as how
>do we KNOW God exists. I felt that the question did not receive any kind
>of worthy attention, specially in the light of those who tried to offer
>their _hearsays_ points.
Fine, I believe you, but all evidences were consistent with the 
'filming' theory :-) and it's quite all right, I enjoyed the discussion
and you won a chelow kabAb :-)
As far as God is concerned, we can apply the same thing, but we will  
end up with the following:
Let's define God as the creator of the universe(our universe).
I think this is a minimal and sufficient definition to garanty its
existence. Let us not worry with the uniqueness here!
So you can say, according to this definition, that since our 
universe has been created, therefore a God exists. Very simple and
trivial so far! But the question is the power of that God and its
effect(s)  on our lives. That remains to be answered!!!
And since it's not easy to PROVE, people have just different BELIEVES.

>Regards,
>Hooshyar F. Naraghi
>bavafa@netcom.com
>(415) 322-8056

Regards,
K1