I challenge you: your best argument for materialism

[marplots]

I understand that but I don't think you grasped my point about falsifiability and detectability: it isn't about the actual detection, but the ability to detect; the ability to falsify. If you cannot detect of falsify something in principle, something's wrong with your hypothesis. If something interacts with anything in our reality, it is detectable in principle. Punshhh wants to have his cake and eat it by having something interact but be undetectable. That is a self-contradictory concept.

The future is undetectable in principle - yet none of us doubts it will arrive.

Can you give me a clear example of something you would say is "unfalsifiable in principle?"

 

[Belz...]

The future is undetectable in principle

Of course it's detectable. We detect time and its passage, and the state of particles now indicates their future states.

It seems to me like you are making an effort at misunderstanding my point, but I cannot think of a reason why.

Can you give me a clear example of something you would say is "unfalsifiable in principle?"

Anything that is beyond our universe, for instance. Anything that is defined as never interacting with it.

 

[punshhh]

Of course you are not, since you want to believe in another possibility.

Sorry, I was distracted by JaysonR. No I have told you I don't do belief, I just don't see any reason to dismiss philosophical perspectives on our existence.

That's because you misunderstand what I mean by "detectable" and "in principle". First, everything we detect, we do so through the interactions between two things. When I punch you in the face, you detect my fist by the impact and the bruise it leaves. When you eat chocolate, you detect it through the thing interacting with your taste buds, etc. This is true of everything. We cannot detect something that does not interact with anything, which is why neutrinos are so hard to pick up, as they rarely interact with stuff. Second, "in principle" means that it can be detected, not that we have the ability to do so at the time of this writing. For instance, if gravitons exist, they are detectable in principle, thought we have not detected them so far.

Yes I get those points, my concern is more in the direction of realising that this can only apply to things we are able to discuss, fathom out, detect, or experiment on. What I reject is the assertion that there is nothing else consequential in our existence.
Now I am happy to agree with you that all forms of material are in principle falsifiable, but this is so universal to be of little help in such discussions and to even consider most materials which are out there is likely to require either an omniscient being, or a highly evolved being able to step out of our timespace.

Of course we are. Discussing things that may exist in another universe but with which we can never interact or of which we can never have any knowledge is pointless. Entertaining, perhaps, but useless.

Again I'm not concerned about useability, or entertainment value. This is a philosophical exercise and every avenue should be considered, or at least not ignored.

But you forget that the god interacted with the person by contacting them. There is no other way. Even if they used magic to move the guy's neurons around, the fact of the matter is that the neurons were moved, and we can, in principle, detect that.

Ah, we might be getting to the point. From my perspective there is a complex process going on when a person is having inspiration, or is having a revelation and if there is a god like being tipping the balance of probabilities in the thinking or state of mind of the person involved, it would be very difficult to isolate any interaction. Although I agree with you to a large extent here.

However I perceive a significant difference in the way you see the situation from how I do. Basically I generally consider that there is another parallel world of subtle material coexisting alongside the physical world, something similar conceptually to an aura(but not an aura, that is just a convenient way to describe it). And that the mind can be influenced in its flow from the other material, especially when a god like being is involved. Now I expect that you don't consider any of this and that is why we differ on this point.

 

[marplots]

(much snipped)
Of course we are. Discussing things that may exist in another universe but with which we can never interact or of which we can never have any knowledge is pointless. Entertaining, perhaps, but useless.

This is interesting because I think of the future as just that kind of universe and situation.

Consider a six-sided die and the possibility of making a bet on some future state of that die. The actual number which will be rolled is unknown and we cannot interact with the future state at present.

Do we have knowledge about that future state by way of probability? Hardly. When we say there is a 1:6 change of a three being rolled, we aren't expressing our knowledge, we are expressing the extent of our ignorance. We freely admit that whatever is rolled, the other numbers don't occur. To say we have "predicted" a three will come up with a likelihood of 1/6 never actually happens either. When the future arrives, we either have a three or we do not.

The expression of the probability is useful to us, but it is a statement about a universe we are not interacting with and will never interact with. It is a mathematical expression of a combination of possible universes that describes none by combining all.

The die is material. The process and the outcome is only conceptual. And yet, we treat probabilities as if they were just as real as anything else. We would say that the odds of any particular number is 1:6 even if, shortly thereafter, the die was destroyed utterly. The concept has a life of its own.

 

[Jono]

Do we have knowledge about that future state by way of probability? Hardly. When we say there is a 1:6 change of a three being rolled, we aren't expressing our knowledge, we are expressing the extent of our ignorance. We freely admit that whatever is rolled, the other numbers don't occur. To say we have "predicted" a three will come up with a likelihood of 1/6 never actually happens either. When the future arrives, we either have a three or we do not.

The expression of the probability is useful to us, but it is a statement about a universe we are not interacting with and will never interact with. It is a mathematical expression of a combination of possible universes that describes none by combining all.

The die is material. The process and the outcome is only conceptual. And yet, we treat probabilities as if they were just as real as anything else. We would say that the odds of any particular number is 1:6 even if, shortly thereafter, the die was destroyed utterly. The concept has a life of its own.

I don't understand how you're actually negating probability of outcomes with your argumentation above. Such probabilities (pertaining to outcomes) can be considered; knowledge. We can empirically predict a whole lot, i.e we can apply our knowledge of the past and present to get, on a great deal of questions/phenomenas/events/situations/aspects, an accurate prediction fulfilled again and again (and we do). Thus validating the applied/given method of probability. There is no absolute knowledge, so in that sense we can't absolutely interact with the future, except... for the part that we can predict it, just with 'more or less' probability. That's knowledge, it just isn't absolute knowledge.

 

[marplots]

I don't understand how you're actually negating probability of outcomes with your argumentation above. Such probabilities (pertaining to outcomes) can be considered; knowledge. We can empirically predict a whole lot, i.e we can apply our knowledge of the past and present to get, on a great deal of questions/phenomenas/events/situations/aspects, an accurate prediction fulfilled again and again (and we do). Thus validating the applied/given method of probability. There is no absolute knowledge, so in that sense we can't absolutely interact with the future, except... for the part that we can predict it, just with 'more or less' probability. That's knowledge, it just isn't absolute knowledge.

If it's knowledge, it's a very strange sort of knowledge. You never get a future where the die isn't either one way or another - there is no mixed state of 1/6th a particular number. Instead, we are making a statement about six different, and mutually exclusive futures.

But it's worse. It's worse because we are making a statement we take to be informative (knowledge seems like the wrong word here) but which may never actually happen at all - the die may never be rolled. If the die just sits there and we never throw it, we'd still take the 1:6 probability as something "real."

I can even dispense with the die altogether, as we are actually doing in these posts. It is enough that we can imagine a cube with six different sides. In what sense is this imaginary item material? We can't falsify it, nor can we observe it, save in our imagination. Still, we would say that a student, expressing the probabilities, is incorrect if they told us it was 1:3 in favor of a three.

I'd stipulate that we live our lives in just such a manner - avoiding those choices we deem poor in favor of choices we like better. And there are many, many more things we avoid - futures which, while possible, don't happen - than those we actually do. This makes the pool of "never happened" much larger than what we know to be true and can test for ourselves.

I see no ready way to falsify statements of this type: "If I had gone to the market today, I'd have purchased that item while it was on sale." And yet, we act as if such statements were not only true, but obviously so. When you see that the combination of possibilities swamps our ability to actually test - if we do X, we cannot do Y - then the matter of falsifiable in principle doesn't meet the challenge.

 

[punshhh]

You're calling your Zippo a flamethrower here. Your weak evidence is competing against some strong evidence (first things first: Materialism as a philosophy is ambitious but it is the only game in town for modeling so I have to subscribe to it if I want to discuss physical models.) You need to keep this in mind and never forget this. If I abolished ALL records, anecdotes, cultural, and scientific descriptions right now; if I nuked the entire Earth to a glass marble, YOUR evidence would be gone and never come back. Scientific models would endure. That's why we can dismiss your anecdotes.

Yes that is a pragmatic approach, although science and scientific models are not an alternative to idealism. They are indiscriminate and would be used to develop a science of mind, or the Divine, in time. As I have already pointed out there is not an either or, the either or in the OP is as to personal preference. Also we are not discussing physical modelling, it might be difficult to do from a perspective steeped in physical modelling, but surely we are discussing the underlying basis of the physical, something of which we are in ignorance.

Your point about nuking the earth, well the science of the divine would remain.

As for existence, are you seeking a "how" or a "why"?

A how, I am happy to discuss why, but that is a different subject.

 

[Belz...]

I don't do belief

And yet you gravitate around idealism, an unproven and illogical proposition.

What I reject is the assertion that there is nothing else consequential in our existence.

Value is what you make of it. It is not rational to expect the universe to agree.

Now I am happy to agree with you that all forms of material are in principle falsifiable, but this is so universal to be of little help in such discussions and to even consider most materials which are out there is likely to require either an omniscient being, or a highly evolved being able to step out of our timespace.

Yes but that's not the point of falsifiability: it's basically a thought experiment that allows us to discard the least likely ideas.

Basically I generally consider that there is another parallel world of subtle material coexisting alongside the physical world, something similar conceptually to an aura(but not an aura, that is just a convenient way to describe it). And that the mind can be influenced in its flow from the other material, especially when a god like being is involved. Now I expect that you don't consider any of this and that is why we differ on this point.

And you say that you don't do belief.

Do you agree with my point about interactions and detectability ?

 

[Belz...]

Consider a six-sided die and the possibility of making a bet on some future state of that die. The actual number which will be rolled is unknown and we cannot interact with the future state at present.

I don't think we are using the same definition of "interact", here. Interaction is in the present by definition.

 

[marplots]

I don't think we are using the same definition of "interact", here. Interaction is in the present by definition.

I thought I acknowledged that when I said:
"The actual number which will be rolled is unknown and we cannot interact with the future state at present."

I'm not sure how I could make that clearer.

 

[abaddon]

Everyone interacts with the future all of the time.

 

[Belz...]

I thought I acknowledged that when I said:
"The actual number which will be rolled is unknown and we cannot interact with the future state at present."

I'm not sure how I could make that clearer.

Well I've addressed that as well. Did you miss it ? You are treating the future as a thing.

 

[marplots]

Well I've addressed that as well. Did you miss it ? You are treating the future as a thing.

This is a difficulty with language. There's a materialist bias built in. I don't see a good way to express the idea that we treat the future as a real thing without also making it seem like I'm saying the future exists presently.

What seems to happen is that language breaks down and I'm left with examples and poor analogies. In a sense, the future is a "thing," but it's not a material thing - and "thing" kinda has a material bias.

But the future isn't entirely a conceptual thing either. After all, none of us doubts the future will arrive.

Maybe I'll come up with a better way to express what I want to say, but maybe not.

 

[tsig]

This is a difficulty with language. There's a materialist bias built in. I don't see a good way to express the idea that we treat the future as a real thing without also making it seem like I'm saying the future exists presently.

What seems to happen is that language breaks down and I'm left with examples and poor analogies. In a sense, the future is a "thing," but it's not a material thing - and "thing" kinda has a material bias.

But the future isn't entirely a conceptual thing either. After all, none of us doubts the future will arrive.

Maybe I'll come up with a better way to express what I want to say, but maybe not.

No matter how you express it you will have to use matter to do it.

 

[punshhh]

And yet you gravitate around idealism, an unproven and illogical proposition.

This is because I gravitate to threads about these topics, I don't normally concern myself with such things. In fact I was surprised when I came across the notion of idealism, it struck me as naive and an intellectual academic construct.

Value is what you make of it. It is not rational to expect the universe to agree.

I arrived at my position following years of enquiry into reality, not through egotistical whim.

Yes but that's not the point of falsifiability: it's basically a thought experiment that allows us to discard the least likely ideas.

Yes fine, but what has that got to do with the basis of our existence? All we have is thoughts and scientific and cultural knowledge, I see no evidence of the basis of our existence in these. They are artefacts of human life, something determined by local evolutionary circumstances. I see no reason to presume that any of this has any relevance to an understanding of the basis of our existence. This is why it is in the realms(at this time) of philosophy.

And you say that you don't do belief.

Do you agree with my point about interactions and detectability ?

I have a position on some issues, but this is ready for revision at any time.

In pragmatic terms I agree with you about interactions and detectability. As usual I will point out the lack of understanding of the issues under discussion here(in the external world), among humanity and that assumptions made are provisional at best.

 

[abaddon]

This is a difficulty with language. There's a materialist bias built in. I don't see a good way to express the idea that we treat the future as a real thing without also making it seem like I'm saying the future exists presently.

Nope. Just because you are unable to express it does not necessarily invalidate your claim. At worst, one might misunderstand what you have said. That is easily corrected.

What seems to happen is that language breaks down and I'm left with examples and poor analogies. In a sense, the future is a "thing," but it's not a material thing - and "thing" kinda has a material bias.

Except that it is. When you drive your car, when you play basketball, or tennis, or whatever is your sport of choice, when you select a mate, when you make any decision at all, you are interacting with the future.
Everything you do in your everyday life is informed by your interaction with the future. If it were not, you would do nothing at all.

But the future isn't entirely a conceptual thing either. After all, none of us doubts the future will arrive.

Yet it informs everything you do every day. How is that NOT interacting with the future?

Maybe I'll come up with a better way to express what I want to say, but maybe not.

Perhaps you will. But interacting with the future informs your every action, right down to your decision as to what to have for breakfast.

 

[Belz...]

I arrived at my position following years of enquiry into reality, not through egotistical whim.

Reality won't care.

Yes fine, but what has that got to do with the basis of our existence?

Everything. If the idea is bad, we discard it.

All we have is thoughts and scientific and cultural knowledge, I see no evidence of the basis of our existence in these.

What do you mean by "basis" of existence ?

I have a position on some issues, but this is ready for revision at any time.

Any time in an indeterminate future, I guess.

 

[Belz...]

Except that it is. When you drive your car, when you play basketball, or tennis, or whatever is your sport of choice, when you select a mate, when you make any decision at all, you are interacting with the future.

Not interacting in the way we were talking: particles hitting each other and doing stuff. It's a continuous process. You don't literally interact with the future by colliding with it.

 

[punshhh]

Reality won't care.

Yes, it also doesn't necessarily conform to our current scientifically based ideas.

Everything. If the idea is bad, we discard it.

Yes, but none of the ideas we currently have address do the issues of ontology. They only address locally encountered conditions.

What do you mean by "basis" of existence ?

By basis, I am referring to the mechanism resulting in the origin of the dimensional universe in which matter is found.

Any time in an indeterminate future, I guess.

I rarely come across any ideas which modify my position(note that I have not stated my position on various topics).

 

[Belz...]

Yes, it also doesn't necessarily conform to our current scientifically based ideas.

Which one do you think has the best odds of approximating reality ? Science or musings ?

Yes, but none of the ideas we currently have address do the issues of ontology.

That's because ontology is meaningless, and can never be addressed.

By basis, I am referring to the mechanism resulting in the origin of the dimensional universe in which matter is found.

There's plenty of good theories for that.

I rarely come across any ideas which modify my position

I've noticed.