There is a slight suspicion that the question was edited by a moderator.
Cosmic rays and electrons are not material either for someone who does not know the meaning of the words “cosmic rays, electrons, material”, or understands them somehow in their own way.
What does it mean to be material?
If it means “consist of some material, substance”, then yes. The rays are not material, that is why. They do not consist of the usual substances or materials. On the contrary, any substance consists of the same particles as cosmic rays – that is, from these very rays, only already “slowed down” and collected (in atoms and molecules).
If “to be material” means (for example) if you want to physically interact with something, then they are very material. Cosmic rays are detected precisely because they interacted. The electron is somewhat more complicated, but essentially the same. Electrons not only interact with each other, but also with the help of them, substances and materials interact in the usual way.
Moreover, people already know so well how electrons interact with “ordinary objects” that they can use this to get very accurate enlarged images of objects practically in everyday life. For example, in criminalistics (in this case, images obtained using an electron microscope have “evidentiary value” in court).
Nowadays, such a pleasure is available to anyone who can afford the Internet (a simple electron microscope is cheaper than an old iPhone).
The word “material” has other meanings, yes. For example, we can say that electrons are immaterial, because it is extremely difficult to invest your electrons in a business or even in a mortgage. Cosmic rays are also not very material in this sense.
Or you can call only the “perceived” material, and avoid the perception of any rays there. I don't see it, that's all. What other electrons? Show. Big deal, a microscope. The Chinese probably did anything they could call electrons.
You can do something more cunning: first become a materialist (here consistency is important), then an “idealist”. That is, to agree for a while that everything is material-just because it is-and that what is immaterial cannot be; and then suddenly to doubt the existence of matter in principle. Where is the matter? Has anyone seen this material?
And even if I did, it's not proof. Here is the idea of a triangle, but where are the triangles themselves? Visual deception. Just don't try to draw here, I'll zoom in on the pixels. Malevich drew squares over there, so he had to study for as long as he could. And then, unevenly.
It all depends on how to define matter. And whether to use this concept at all. Lenin's definition of “objective reality, which is given to a person in sensations” can hardly be taken seriously today. The New Philosophical Encyclopedia concludes the article “Matter” with the following thesis:
None of the classical definitions of matter have been preserved in modern physics. However, both philosophy and physics prefer to bypass this concept, which has become vague and obscure, and replace it with others…
And the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy generally dispenses with a separate article “Matter”, there is only” Form and Matter”, which tells about the Aristotelian concept.
Britannica, speaking of materialism, distinguishes between classical “mechanistic materialism” of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and modern materialism, saying that the latter “includes all those who build their theories based on what physics asserts exists.” Therefore, by the way, instead of the word “materialism”, “physicalism”is increasingly used. In accordance with this expansive meaning,”Britannica” goes on to say,
the concept of a material thing should be expanded to include particles and everything postulated by fundamental physical theory-perhaps even fields and points in space-time. To the extent that some cosmologists try to define elementary particles themselves in terms of the curvature of spacetime, there is no reason why a philosophy based on such a geometrized cosmology cannot be considered materialistic, provided that it does not postulate the independent existence of non-material objects such as consciousness.
It is known that many patients with coronavirus have lost their sense of smell (for a while). This does not mean that the smell of coffee has become insubstantial)
Similarly, we practically do not perceive ultraviolet light, infrasound, and much more. But the devices created by us can do the same!
So I think this is all from the field of subjective idealism (like, close your eyes, and the world around you disappears) – no, it doesn't disappear)) It is great, but we can only know a small part of it
It is not necessary to feel directly. You can feel it through instruments or mathematical calculations. But in the end, you will definitely feel it, because absolutely all the information a person receives through sensations and in no other way.
No, of course not. The main feature of objective reality is independence from our consciousness. That is, objects can, but do not necessarily, be given to us in sensations In cosmology, there is such a thing as an event horizon: because of the event horizon, we will never get information about objects, and because of this, the universe beyond the event horizon does not consist of matter? Were rocks and water immaterial before the birth of life, when no one could see or feel them? Matter, objective reality, is everything that exists in opposition to our thoughts, fantasies, etc. But our very thoughts and fantasies are just processes in the brain. Everything that exists is called matter. And I'm sure there are some kinds of mothers that we don't know about, and probably never will
Given in feelings is a popular expression for housewives. More correctly – which in principle can be transformed into something tangible, objectively fixed by our senses. That is, they are detected and recorded by some devices, and not necessarily directly.
Why are cosmic rays and electrons not material?
There is a slight suspicion that the question was edited by a moderator.
Cosmic rays and electrons are not material either for someone who does not know the meaning of the words “cosmic rays, electrons, material”, or understands them somehow in their own way.
What does it mean to be material?
If it means “consist of some material, substance”, then yes. The rays are not material, that is why. They do not consist of the usual substances or materials. On the contrary, any substance consists of the same particles as cosmic rays – that is, from these very rays, only already “slowed down” and collected (in atoms and molecules).
If “to be material” means (for example) if you want to physically interact with something, then they are very material. Cosmic rays are detected precisely because they interacted. The electron is somewhat more complicated, but essentially the same. Electrons not only interact with each other, but also with the help of them, substances and materials interact in the usual way.
The word “material” has other meanings, yes. For example, we can say that electrons are immaterial, because it is extremely difficult to invest your electrons in a business or even in a mortgage. Cosmic rays are also not very material in this sense.
Or you can call only the “perceived” material, and avoid the perception of any rays there. I don't see it, that's all. What other electrons? Show. Big deal, a microscope. The Chinese probably did anything they could call electrons.
You can do something more cunning: first become a materialist (here consistency is important), then an “idealist”. That is, to agree for a while that everything is material-just because it is-and that what is immaterial cannot be; and then suddenly to doubt the existence of matter in principle. Where is the matter? Has anyone seen this material?
And even if I did, it's not proof. Here is the idea of a triangle, but where are the triangles themselves? Visual deception. Just don't try to draw here, I'll zoom in on the pixels. Malevich drew squares over there, so he had to study for as long as he could. And then, unevenly.
=))
It all depends on how to define matter. And whether to use this concept at all. Lenin's definition of “objective reality, which is given to a person in sensations” can hardly be taken seriously today. The New Philosophical Encyclopedia concludes the article “Matter” with the following thesis:
And the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy generally dispenses with a separate article “Matter”, there is only” Form and Matter”, which tells about the Aristotelian concept.
Britannica, speaking of materialism, distinguishes between classical “mechanistic materialism” of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and modern materialism, saying that the latter “includes all those who build their theories based on what physics asserts exists.” Therefore, by the way, instead of the word “materialism”, “physicalism”is increasingly used. In accordance with this expansive meaning,”Britannica” goes on to say,
It is known that many patients with coronavirus have lost their sense of smell (for a while). This does not mean that the smell of coffee has become insubstantial)
Similarly, we practically do not perceive ultraviolet light, infrasound, and much more. But the devices created by us can do the same!
So I think this is all from the field of subjective idealism (like, close your eyes, and the world around you disappears) – no, it doesn't disappear)) It is great, but we can only know a small part of it
It is not necessary to feel directly. You can feel it through instruments or mathematical calculations. But in the end, you will definitely feel it, because absolutely all the information a person receives through sensations and in no other way.
No, of course not. The main feature of objective reality is independence from our consciousness. That is, objects can, but do not necessarily, be given to us in sensations
In cosmology, there is such a thing as an event horizon: because of the event horizon, we will never get information about objects, and because of this, the universe beyond the event horizon does not consist of matter?
Were rocks and water immaterial before the birth of life, when no one could see or feel them?
Matter, objective reality, is everything that exists in opposition to our thoughts, fantasies, etc. But our very thoughts and fantasies are just processes in the brain. Everything that exists is called matter. And I'm sure there are some kinds of mothers that we don't know about, and probably never will
Given in feelings is a popular expression for housewives. More correctly – which in principle can be transformed into something tangible, objectively fixed by our senses. That is, they are detected and recorded by some devices, and not necessarily directly.