(August 6, 2021 at 3:34 pm)WinterHold Wrote:

(August 6, 2021 at 2:20 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Being in a transitional state is not a disqualification. ALL matter is in a transitional state. Does water cease to be matter simply because it freezes or evaporates?

EVERYTHING made of massy particles is matter. There are no exceptions to this.

Boru

It is a disqualification. But I thought about something to declare the winner in this debate: does plasma have a gravitational pull?
If it is matter, it must have gravity. I frankly don't know the answer to that, and I seriously doubt that it's even discovered. Searched but No google results at my side.

Are you saying that you don't know whether or not the sun exerts a gravitational pull?

(August 6, 2021 at 3:34 pm)WinterHold Wrote:

(August 6, 2021 at 2:20 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Being in a transitional state is not a disqualification. ALL matter is in a transitional state. Does water cease to be matter simply because it freezes or evaporates?

EVERYTHING made of massy particles is matter. There are no exceptions to this.

Boru

It is a disqualification. But I thought about something to declare the winner in this debate: does plasma have a gravitational pull?
If it is matter, it must have gravity. I frankly don't know the answer to that, and I seriously doubt that it's even discovered. Searched but No google results at my side.

What keeps us in orbit around the sun? The sun is made of plasma. The sun exerts a gravitational pull on the Earth. Therefore the sun has mass. Therefore plasma has mass.

Anything that has mass and occupies volume is matter.

Boru

Edit: what she said.

That's game, set and match folks.

(August 6, 2021 at 5:12 pm)Spongebob Wrote: That's game, set and match folks.

Wanna bet?

Boru

(August 6, 2021 at 1:33 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote: I believe in emergent properties. 

I'm not so sure I believe in emergent properties. Well... I mean... in a mundane sense, emergent properties are real. (like wetness of water etc.) But my thinking is that they can always be reduced to something else. And whatever lies underneath is the true mechanism of causation.

For instance, honey bees gathering nectar. I would want to say that, while it is horribly inefficient, the laws of physics at the atomic level CAN explain the honey bee gathering pollen. Is this the approach biologists use? Hell no. As I said before, it's inefficient. But that doesn't suggest emergent causation. (I guess emergent causation is really what I'm interested in... not emergent properties). As long as (hypothetically) the behavior of atoms could produce a better explanation for the bees gathering honey than the biologist's model, then we can say that physics describes what's going on in a more comprehensive and complete way.

Anyway, I'm not sold on the idea of absolute reductionism. Maybe emergent causation is possible. I've only begun to seriously think about it recently. But reductionism seems more plausible to me right now. I'm open to hearing arguments for emergent causation though.

I’m up for someone teaching me what emergent causation is. ?

(August 6, 2021 at 9:15 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I’m up for someone teaching me what emergent causation is. ?

I don't even know if it's a real thing. It's a term I'm using to postulate something with causal powers that isn't reducible to elementary particles moving according to the laws of physics 

It seems to me that no such thing exists. But maybe I'm not seeing something