Question Description
The nature and definition of matter have been subject to much debate, as have other key concepts in science and philosophy. Is there a single kind of matter which everything is made of (hyle), or multiple kinds? Is matter a continuous substance capable of expressing multiple forms (hylomorphism), or a number of discrete, unchanging constituents (atomism)? Does it have intrinsic properties (substance theory), or is it lacking them (prima materia)? Without question science has made unexpected discoveries aboutmatter. Some paraphrase departures from traditional or common- sense concepts of matter as “disproving the existence of matter”. However, most physical scientists take the view that the concept of matter has merely changed, rather than being eliminated. One challenge to the traditional concept of matter as tangible “stuff’ is the rise of field physics in the 19th century. However the conclusion that materialism is false may be premature. Relativity shows that matter and energy (including the spatially distributed energy of fields) are interchangeable. This enables the ontological view that energy is prima materia and matter is one of its forms. On the otherhand, quantum field theory models fields as exchanges of particles- photons for electromagnetic fields and so on. On this view it could be said that fields are “really matter.”All known solid, liquid, and gaseous substances are composed of protons, neutrons and electrons. All three are fermions or spin-half particles, whereas the particles that mediate fields in quantum field theory are bosons. Thus matter can be said to divide into a more tangible fermionic kind and a less tangible bosonic kind. However it is now generally believed that less than 5% of the physical composition of the universe is made up of such “matter”, and the majority of the universe is composed of Dark Matter and Dark Energy- with no agreement amongst scientists about what these are made of. This obviously refutes the traditional materialism that held that the only things that exist are things composed of the kind of matter with which we are broadly familiar (“traditional matter”) - which was anyway under great strain as noted above from Relativity and quantum field theory. But if the definition of “matter” is extended to “anything whose existence can be inferred from the observed behaviour of traditional matter” then there is no reason in principle why entities whose existence materialists normally deny should not be considered as “matter.” Some philosophers feel that these dichotomies necessitate a switch from materialism to physicalism. Others use materialism and physicalism interchangeably.Q. Some scientists who follow the definition of traditional matter:a)Are inflexible in their beliefs.b)Condemn the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.c)Base their theory in the ontological view of prima materia.d)Expect field physics to disprove the traditional existence of matter.e)Consider hylomorphism and atomism adequate representations of matter.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about The nature and definition of matter have been subject to much debate, as have other key concepts in science and philosophy. Is there a single kind of matter which everything is made of (hyle), or multiple kinds? Is matter a continuous substance capable of expressing multiple forms (hylomorphism), or a number of discrete, unchanging constituents (atomism)? Does it have intrinsic properties (substance theory), or is it lacking them (prima materia)? Without question science has made unexpected discoveries aboutmatter. Some paraphrase departures from traditional or common- sense concepts of matter as “disproving the existence of matter”. However, most physical scientists take the view that the concept of matter has merely changed, rather than being eliminated. One challenge to the traditional concept of matter as tangible “stuff’ is the rise of field physics in the 19th century. However the conclusion that materialism is false may be premature. Relativity shows that matter and energy (including the spatially distributed energy of fields) are interchangeable. This enables the ontological view that energy is prima materia and matter is one of its forms. On the otherhand, quantum field theory models fields as exchanges of particles- photons for electromagnetic fields and so on. On this view it could be said that fields are “really matter.”All known solid, liquid, and gaseous substances are composed of protons, neutrons and electrons. All three are fermions or spin-half particles, whereas the particles that mediate fields in quantum field theory are bosons. Thus matter can be said to divide into a more tangible fermionic kind and a less tangible bosonic kind. However it is now generally believed that less than 5% of the physical composition of the universe is made up of such “matter”, and the majority of the universe is composed of Dark Matter and Dark Energy- with no agreement amongst scientists about what these are made of. This obviously refutes the traditional materialism that held that the only things that exist are things composed of the kind of matter with which we are broadly familiar (“traditional matter”) - which was anyway under great strain as noted above from Relativity and quantum field theory. But if the definition of “matter” is extended to “anything whose existence can be inferred from the observed behaviour of traditional matter” then there is no reason in principle why entities whose existence materialists normally deny should not be considered as “matter.” Some philosophers feel that these dichotomies necessitate a switch from materialism to physicalism. Others use materialism and physicalism interchangeably.Q. Some scientists who follow the definition of traditional matter:a)Are inflexible in their beliefs.b)Condemn the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.c)Base their theory in the ontological view of prima materia.d)Expect field physics to disprove the traditional existence of matter.e)Consider hylomorphism and atomism adequate representations of matter.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The nature and definition of matter have been subject to much debate, as have other key concepts in science and philosophy. Is there a single kind of matter which everything is made of (hyle), or multiple kinds? Is matter a continuous substance capable of expressing multiple forms (hylomorphism), or a number of discrete, unchanging constituents (atomism)? Does it have intrinsic properties (substance theory), or is it lacking them (prima materia)? Without question science has made unexpected discoveries aboutmatter. Some paraphrase departures from traditional or common- sense concepts of matter as “disproving the existence of matter”. However, most physical scientists take the view that the concept of matter has merely changed, rather than being eliminated. One challenge to the traditional concept of matter as tangible “stuff’ is the rise of field physics in the 19th century. However the conclusion that materialism is false may be premature. Relativity shows that matter and energy (including the spatially distributed energy of fields) are interchangeable. This enables the ontological view that energy is prima materia and matter is one of its forms. On the otherhand, quantum field theory models fields as exchanges of particles- photons for electromagnetic fields and so on. On this view it could be said that fields are “really matter.”All known solid, liquid, and gaseous substances are composed of protons, neutrons and electrons. All three are fermions or spin-half particles, whereas the particles that mediate fields in quantum field theory are bosons. Thus matter can be said to divide into a more tangible fermionic kind and a less tangible bosonic kind. However it is now generally believed that less than 5% of the physical composition of the universe is made up of such “matter”, and the majority of the universe is composed of Dark Matter and Dark Energy- with no agreement amongst scientists about what these are made of. This obviously refutes the traditional materialism that held that the only things that exist are things composed of the kind of matter with which we are broadly familiar (“traditional matter”) - which was anyway under great strain as noted above from Relativity and quantum field theory. But if the definition of “matter” is extended to “anything whose existence can be inferred from the observed behaviour of traditional matter” then there is no reason in principle why entities whose existence materialists normally deny should not be considered as “matter.” Some philosophers feel that these dichotomies necessitate a switch from materialism to physicalism. Others use materialism and physicalism interchangeably.Q. Some scientists who follow the definition of traditional matter:a)Are inflexible in their beliefs.b)Condemn the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.c)Base their theory in the ontological view of prima materia.d)Expect field physics to disprove the traditional existence of matter.e)Consider hylomorphism and atomism adequate representations of matter.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The nature and definition of matter have been subject to much debate, as have other key concepts in science and philosophy. Is there a single kind of matter which everything is made of (hyle), or multiple kinds? Is matter a continuous substance capable of expressing multiple forms (hylomorphism), or a number of discrete, unchanging constituents (atomism)? Does it have intrinsic properties (substance theory), or is it lacking them (prima materia)? Without question science has made unexpected discoveries aboutmatter. Some paraphrase departures from traditional or common- sense concepts of matter as “disproving the existence of matter”. However, most physical scientists take the view that the concept of matter has merely changed, rather than being eliminated. One challenge to the traditional concept of matter as tangible “stuff’ is the rise of field physics in the 19th century. However the conclusion that materialism is false may be premature. Relativity shows that matter and energy (including the spatially distributed energy of fields) are interchangeable. This enables the ontological view that energy is prima materia and matter is one of its forms. On the otherhand, quantum field theory models fields as exchanges of particles- photons for electromagnetic fields and so on. On this view it could be said that fields are “really matter.”All known solid, liquid, and gaseous substances are composed of protons, neutrons and electrons. All three are fermions or spin-half particles, whereas the particles that mediate fields in quantum field theory are bosons. Thus matter can be said to divide into a more tangible fermionic kind and a less tangible bosonic kind. However it is now generally believed that less than 5% of the physical composition of the universe is made up of such “matter”, and the majority of the universe is composed of Dark Matter and Dark Energy- with no agreement amongst scientists about what these are made of. This obviously refutes the traditional materialism that held that the only things that exist are things composed of the kind of matter with which we are broadly familiar (“traditional matter”) - which was anyway under great strain as noted above from Relativity and quantum field theory. But if the definition of “matter” is extended to “anything whose existence can be inferred from the observed behaviour of traditional matter” then there is no reason in principle why entities whose existence materialists normally deny should not be considered as “matter.” Some philosophers feel that these dichotomies necessitate a switch from materialism to physicalism. Others use materialism and physicalism interchangeably.Q. Some scientists who follow the definition of traditional matter:a)Are inflexible in their beliefs.b)Condemn the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.c)Base their theory in the ontological view of prima materia.d)Expect field physics to disprove the traditional existence of matter.e)Consider hylomorphism and atomism adequate representations of matter.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of The nature and definition of matter have been subject to much debate, as have other key concepts in science and philosophy. Is there a single kind of matter which everything is made of (hyle), or multiple kinds? Is matter a continuous substance capable of expressing multiple forms (hylomorphism), or a number of discrete, unchanging constituents (atomism)? Does it have intrinsic properties (substance theory), or is it lacking them (prima materia)? Without question science has made unexpected discoveries aboutmatter. Some paraphrase departures from traditional or common- sense concepts of matter as “disproving the existence of matter”. However, most physical scientists take the view that the concept of matter has merely changed, rather than being eliminated. One challenge to the traditional concept of matter as tangible “stuff’ is the rise of field physics in the 19th century. However the conclusion that materialism is false may be premature. Relativity shows that matter and energy (including the spatially distributed energy of fields) are interchangeable. This enables the ontological view that energy is prima materia and matter is one of its forms. On the otherhand, quantum field theory models fields as exchanges of particles- photons for electromagnetic fields and so on. On this view it could be said that fields are “really matter.”All known solid, liquid, and gaseous substances are composed of protons, neutrons and electrons. All three are fermions or spin-half particles, whereas the particles that mediate fields in quantum field theory are bosons. Thus matter can be said to divide into a more tangible fermionic kind and a less tangible bosonic kind. However it is now generally believed that less than 5% of the physical composition of the universe is made up of such “matter”, and the majority of the universe is composed of Dark Matter and Dark Energy- with no agreement amongst scientists about what these are made of. This obviously refutes the traditional materialism that held that the only things that exist are things composed of the kind of matter with which we are broadly familiar (“traditional matter”) - which was anyway under great strain as noted above from Relativity and quantum field theory. But if the definition of “matter” is extended to “anything whose existence can be inferred from the observed behaviour of traditional matter” then there is no reason in principle why entities whose existence materialists normally deny should not be considered as “matter.” Some philosophers feel that these dichotomies necessitate a switch from materialism to physicalism. Others use materialism and physicalism interchangeably.Q. Some scientists who follow the definition of traditional matter:a)Are inflexible in their beliefs.b)Condemn the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.c)Base their theory in the ontological view of prima materia.d)Expect field physics to disprove the traditional existence of matter.e)Consider hylomorphism and atomism adequate representations of matter.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The nature and definition of matter have been subject to much debate, as have other key concepts in science and philosophy. Is there a single kind of matter which everything is made of (hyle), or multiple kinds? Is matter a continuous substance capable of expressing multiple forms (hylomorphism), or a number of discrete, unchanging constituents (atomism)? Does it have intrinsic properties (substance theory), or is it lacking them (prima materia)? Without question science has made unexpected discoveries aboutmatter. Some paraphrase departures from traditional or common- sense concepts of matter as “disproving the existence of matter”. However, most physical scientists take the view that the concept of matter has merely changed, rather than being eliminated. One challenge to the traditional concept of matter as tangible “stuff’ is the rise of field physics in the 19th century. However the conclusion that materialism is false may be premature. Relativity shows that matter and energy (including the spatially distributed energy of fields) are interchangeable. This enables the ontological view that energy is prima materia and matter is one of its forms. On the otherhand, quantum field theory models fields as exchanges of particles- photons for electromagnetic fields and so on. On this view it could be said that fields are “really matter.”All known solid, liquid, and gaseous substances are composed of protons, neutrons and electrons. All three are fermions or spin-half particles, whereas the particles that mediate fields in quantum field theory are bosons. Thus matter can be said to divide into a more tangible fermionic kind and a less tangible bosonic kind. However it is now generally believed that less than 5% of the physical composition of the universe is made up of such “matter”, and the majority of the universe is composed of Dark Matter and Dark Energy- with no agreement amongst scientists about what these are made of. This obviously refutes the traditional materialism that held that the only things that exist are things composed of the kind of matter with which we are broadly familiar (“traditional matter”) - which was anyway under great strain as noted above from Relativity and quantum field theory. But if the definition of “matter” is extended to “anything whose existence can be inferred from the observed behaviour of traditional matter” then there is no reason in principle why entities whose existence materialists normally deny should not be considered as “matter.” Some philosophers feel that these dichotomies necessitate a switch from materialism to physicalism. Others use materialism and physicalism interchangeably.Q. Some scientists who follow the definition of traditional matter:a)Are inflexible in their beliefs.b)Condemn the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.c)Base their theory in the ontological view of prima materia.d)Expect field physics to disprove the traditional existence of matter.e)Consider hylomorphism and atomism adequate representations of matter.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The nature and definition of matter have been subject to much debate, as have other key concepts in science and philosophy. Is there a single kind of matter which everything is made of (hyle), or multiple kinds? Is matter a continuous substance capable of expressing multiple forms (hylomorphism), or a number of discrete, unchanging constituents (atomism)? Does it have intrinsic properties (substance theory), or is it lacking them (prima materia)? Without question science has made unexpected discoveries aboutmatter. Some paraphrase departures from traditional or common- sense concepts of matter as “disproving the existence of matter”. However, most physical scientists take the view that the concept of matter has merely changed, rather than being eliminated. One challenge to the traditional concept of matter as tangible “stuff’ is the rise of field physics in the 19th century. However the conclusion that materialism is false may be premature. Relativity shows that matter and energy (including the spatially distributed energy of fields) are interchangeable. This enables the ontological view that energy is prima materia and matter is one of its forms. On the otherhand, quantum field theory models fields as exchanges of particles- photons for electromagnetic fields and so on. On this view it could be said that fields are “really matter.”All known solid, liquid, and gaseous substances are composed of protons, neutrons and electrons. All three are fermions or spin-half particles, whereas the particles that mediate fields in quantum field theory are bosons. Thus matter can be said to divide into a more tangible fermionic kind and a less tangible bosonic kind. However it is now generally believed that less than 5% of the physical composition of the universe is made up of such “matter”, and the majority of the universe is composed of Dark Matter and Dark Energy- with no agreement amongst scientists about what these are made of. This obviously refutes the traditional materialism that held that the only things that exist are things composed of the kind of matter with which we are broadly familiar (“traditional matter”) - which was anyway under great strain as noted above from Relativity and quantum field theory. But if the definition of “matter” is extended to “anything whose existence can be inferred from the observed behaviour of traditional matter” then there is no reason in principle why entities whose existence materialists normally deny should not be considered as “matter.” Some philosophers feel that these dichotomies necessitate a switch from materialism to physicalism. Others use materialism and physicalism interchangeably.Q. Some scientists who follow the definition of traditional matter:a)Are inflexible in their beliefs.b)Condemn the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.c)Base their theory in the ontological view of prima materia.d)Expect field physics to disprove the traditional existence of matter.e)Consider hylomorphism and atomism adequate representations of matter.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The nature and definition of matter have been subject to much debate, as have other key concepts in science and philosophy. Is there a single kind of matter which everything is made of (hyle), or multiple kinds? Is matter a continuous substance capable of expressing multiple forms (hylomorphism), or a number of discrete, unchanging constituents (atomism)? Does it have intrinsic properties (substance theory), or is it lacking them (prima materia)? Without question science has made unexpected discoveries aboutmatter. Some paraphrase departures from traditional or common- sense concepts of matter as “disproving the existence of matter”. However, most physical scientists take the view that the concept of matter has merely changed, rather than being eliminated. One challenge to the traditional concept of matter as tangible “stuff’ is the rise of field physics in the 19th century. However the conclusion that materialism is false may be premature. Relativity shows that matter and energy (including the spatially distributed energy of fields) are interchangeable. This enables the ontological view that energy is prima materia and matter is one of its forms. On the otherhand, quantum field theory models fields as exchanges of particles- photons for electromagnetic fields and so on. On this view it could be said that fields are “really matter.”All known solid, liquid, and gaseous substances are composed of protons, neutrons and electrons. All three are fermions or spin-half particles, whereas the particles that mediate fields in quantum field theory are bosons. Thus matter can be said to divide into a more tangible fermionic kind and a less tangible bosonic kind. However it is now generally believed that less than 5% of the physical composition of the universe is made up of such “matter”, and the majority of the universe is composed of Dark Matter and Dark Energy- with no agreement amongst scientists about what these are made of. This obviously refutes the traditional materialism that held that the only things that exist are things composed of the kind of matter with which we are broadly familiar (“traditional matter”) - which was anyway under great strain as noted above from Relativity and quantum field theory. But if the definition of “matter” is extended to “anything whose existence can be inferred from the observed behaviour of traditional matter” then there is no reason in principle why entities whose existence materialists normally deny should not be considered as “matter.” Some philosophers feel that these dichotomies necessitate a switch from materialism to physicalism. Others use materialism and physicalism interchangeably.Q. Some scientists who follow the definition of traditional matter:a)Are inflexible in their beliefs.b)Condemn the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.c)Base their theory in the ontological view of prima materia.d)Expect field physics to disprove the traditional existence of matter.e)Consider hylomorphism and atomism adequate representations of matter.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The nature and definition of matter have been subject to much debate, as have other key concepts in science and philosophy. Is there a single kind of matter which everything is made of (hyle), or multiple kinds? Is matter a continuous substance capable of expressing multiple forms (hylomorphism), or a number of discrete, unchanging constituents (atomism)? Does it have intrinsic properties (substance theory), or is it lacking them (prima materia)? Without question science has made unexpected discoveries aboutmatter. Some paraphrase departures from traditional or common- sense concepts of matter as “disproving the existence of matter”. However, most physical scientists take the view that the concept of matter has merely changed, rather than being eliminated. One challenge to the traditional concept of matter as tangible “stuff’ is the rise of field physics in the 19th century. However the conclusion that materialism is false may be premature. Relativity shows that matter and energy (including the spatially distributed energy of fields) are interchangeable. This enables the ontological view that energy is prima materia and matter is one of its forms. On the otherhand, quantum field theory models fields as exchanges of particles- photons for electromagnetic fields and so on. On this view it could be said that fields are “really matter.”All known solid, liquid, and gaseous substances are composed of protons, neutrons and electrons. All three are fermions or spin-half particles, whereas the particles that mediate fields in quantum field theory are bosons. Thus matter can be said to divide into a more tangible fermionic kind and a less tangible bosonic kind. However it is now generally believed that less than 5% of the physical composition of the universe is made up of such “matter”, and the majority of the universe is composed of Dark Matter and Dark Energy- with no agreement amongst scientists about what these are made of. This obviously refutes the traditional materialism that held that the only things that exist are things composed of the kind of matter with which we are broadly familiar (“traditional matter”) - which was anyway under great strain as noted above from Relativity and quantum field theory. But if the definition of “matter” is extended to “anything whose existence can be inferred from the observed behaviour of traditional matter” then there is no reason in principle why entities whose existence materialists normally deny should not be considered as “matter.” Some philosophers feel that these dichotomies necessitate a switch from materialism to physicalism. Others use materialism and physicalism interchangeably.Q. Some scientists who follow the definition of traditional matter:a)Are inflexible in their beliefs.b)Condemn the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.c)Base their theory in the ontological view of prima materia.d)Expect field physics to disprove the traditional existence of matter.e)Consider hylomorphism and atomism adequate representations of matter.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.