Talk:Matter

I propose (the) putting (of) this pair of sentences at the end of the (third paragraph of the) introduction, just before the first linked section “Related concepts”

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matter&oldid=1236033566

Since* all the scientific evidence “for matter” refers back to an intelligent witness, one can believe “all the scientific evidence ‘for matter’” without believing in “matter” per se. Indeed, a non-negligible set of philosophers have proposed an interpretation of phenomena/evidence based on an ideal^[1] rather than a material hypothesis/science.

Objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NedBoomerson (talk • contribs) 00:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Could you explain a little more what issues you see, and what changes you want to make to address them? I have to admit I've read over your post several times as well as inspected the diff you linked, and I don't know what you're articulating here. Remsense ‥ 论 04:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Please feel free to correct me if I’m mistaken, but I find no per se objection here? I linked not to a “diff” but to (what was at the time (and still is)) the current version of the article I suggested editing. I proposed adding two sentences; and stated clearly where I suggested adding them. I suggested adding them (the two sentences) after I found the article to be conspicuously missing any reference to any idealist interpretation of “the evidence.” Remsense may be convinced by the evidence to believe in “matter.” Must we insist everyone believe a purely material physics will (eventually) explain “things” like art, the creation of a music video, the inventions of steam powered machining, the slave trade, and even our argument? NedBoomerson (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

If I may—the way you write is particularly circuitous to my eye. You did all these things, but it was still hard to understand. In any case, what likely didn't help is you didn't really mention any sourcing for the additions you wanted to make. We do not append our own commentary to articles based on what we feel is lacking. What's more, both the phraseology ("refers back to an intelligent witness"? this is a non-sequitur, even if I were sure what it meant) and formatting are idiosyncratic—I wouldn't mention that if these aspects didn't work together.

So, unfortunately I wouldn't say I have "no objection here". It's a bit more like, me not being sure I could locate something here I would be able to agree to.

If I could offer one clear piece of advice—maybe when you are writing, go back and take note of how many parentheticals you are using. Each can be a loop the reader has to navigate through. Remsense ‥ 论 11:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

hmmm, now you seem to be talking as though you (also) believe there is an “I” over here with some sort of immaterial power over physics? Buenos dias (por la manyana)! NedBoomerson (talk) 11:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

My personal metaphysics are irrelevant here; we reflect what reliable sources have to say about a subject. Is there a balance issue you might be getting at? Possibly, but there's literally no way for me to say because we're not citing sources that would indicate some alternate balance to reach per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Remsense ‥ 论 11:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Your personal metaphysics are not irrelevant to Jesus. Or, say, Michael Polanyi:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Polanyi&oldid=1228988500

NedBoomerson (talk) 11:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Now we're talking! I was pretty sure you meant something pretty specific; I just wanted to get it couched in more generally recognizable terms. Right, so if I'm not mistaken: we feel the Matter article is too physicalist? I may or may not personally agree, but Philosophy of matter is very much cordoned off into its own bubble-wrapped oubliette such that we don't need to address philosophical issues in what is a plain, purposeful physics article .

(My tongue is firmly lodged in my cheek, but while I may think it's worth filling out the philosophical gamut here, I don't think NPOV will allow much more than that.) Remsense ‥ 论 12:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

without objections, we propose adding these three sentences to the final paragraph of the introduction?:

Since* all the scientific evidence “for matter” refers back to an intelligent witness, one can believe “all the scientific evidence ‘for matter’” without believing in “matter” per se. Indeed, a non-negligible set of philosophers have proposed an interpretation of phenomena/evidence based on an ideal^[2] rather than a material hypothesis/science. (More detailed discussion might be found at Philosophy of matter.)

NedBoomerson (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC) NedBoomerson (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, here's where the rubber meets the road. We don't just add content to the lead directly, as the lead is meant to summarize the article body. Plus, we should be looking at some reliable sources (maybe some academic press's handbook on metaphysics...). In any case, I would want to see what other people think about the issue generally before we start making avant garde tweaks. Remsense ‥ 论 13:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

you wouldn’t protest (too much) if I were to go ham deleting the unsourced stuff that’s already there though, yea?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Universe&oldid=1235873384

All everyday objects that can be touched are ultimately composed of atoms, which are made up of interacting subatomic particles, and in everyday as well as scientific usage, matter generally includes atoms and anything made up of them, and any particles (or combination of particles) that act as if they have both rest mass and volume.

Neutrality:

Any phenomena/evidence that acts as if “it” has both rest mass and volume has (by the witness thereto) traditionally been appended the (facile) designation, “matter.” NedBoomerson (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I would if it's disruptive, and I'm not the only one who might. There's no rush in any case—we've been here for 20 years, we'll probably be here for 20 more. Remsense ‥ 论 14:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

two idealists sitting in no tree, k.i.s.s.i.n.g. NedBoomerson (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

t Владимир Владимирович Горбач (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

The first line of this page currently says: "In classical physics and general chemistry, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume."

The first line of the section Comparison with mass says: "Matter should not be confused with mass, as the two are not the same in modern physics."

I'm confused! Aarghdvaark (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The distinction is explained in the very next sentence. Remsense ‥ 论 23:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

In the first sentence in the leade. 2A02:1810:363D:6700:9458:FD5:C3E6:603A (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)