My argument against materialism

[edge]

Logic and mathematics had to be in place before the universe existed, the word, and the knowledge, before the big bang...had to be in place for the universe to have shapes.

So where does the knowledge come from, Mathematical equations had to be in place before the universe came into existence we just figured them out at this point and most is still just theory.
This points to something being in place before the universe existed.

 

[punshhh]

There is overwhelming evidence that you ARE finite, and none whatsoever that you're not.

You still haven't answered my request for an example of an infinite quantity.

Sorry I was going to reply this lunch break, I agree with your first point, normally I wouldn't state that there are things I cant prove. I think its the influence of the folk on this forum, always asking for proof and evidence of things.

I only have two pieces of evidence of infinite 'physical' quantities.

The singularity of the big bang and black holes, I cannot prove that they include infinite quantities. I have to rely on astrophysicists for that.

 

[punshhh]

This isn't the "cogito ergo sum" thing again is it?

Not precisely, I am not concluding that I exist, only that it can be demonstrated that I appear to exist.
This suggests that said existence is finite.

This may change as the discussion continues.

 

[PixyMisa]

Except that the actual quantity in question with respect to a black hole - its mass - is finite.

The Big Bang may have been finite or infinite; we're not sure.

 

[punshhh]

No.

I know, I am hinting at an infinite substrate.

 

[punshhh]

Logic and mathematics had to be in place before the universe existed, the word, and the knowledge, before the big bang...had to be in place for the universe to have shapes.

So where does the knowledge come from, Mathematical equations had to be in place before the universe came into existence we just figured them out at this point and most is still just theory.
This points to something being in place before the universe existed.

Yes that sounds reasonable, try getting it past these folks though.

 

[punshhh]

No agency. There's no alternative.

What are the properties of a universe where the speed of light is a billion times slower or faster than in ours, or propagates in seven or seventeen dimensions? It would be enormously different to ours, but we could work it out.

What are the properties of a universe where 1=2? The question doesn't even make sense.


I'm not sure you'd be able to recognise them as universes, but I don't see why not.

Are the way light and dimensions manifest in an unrelated notional universe the same as in our universe?

If there were for sake of argument a notional universe, infinitely 'removed/distant/unrelated' and infinitely different in nature to ours, would math and logic manifest there the same?

Also what is the agency by which the force of gravity is exercised between bodies in our universe?

 

[edge]

Yes that sounds reasonable, try getting it past these folks though.

I know, the odd thing is it's logical.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Logic and mathematics had to be in place before the universe existed,

What does it mean for logic and mathematics to "be in place" at a particular time? I think this is a nonsense claim, as logic and mathematics are not time-bound concepts.

the word, and the knowledge, before the big bang...had to be in place for the universe to have shapes.

Words are human inventions. Knowledge is knowledge of things; the things have to be there first for you to know anything about them. Furthermore, the things have to play a critical role in causing you to know them for whatever it is you believe to actually be "known" (else it's fantasy). So this is backwards.

 

[edge]

What does it mean for logic and mathematics to "be in place" at a particular time? I think this is a nonsense claim, as logic and mathematics are not time-bound concepts.
Words are human inventions. Knowledge is knowledge of things; the things have to be there first for you to know anything about them. Furthermore, the things have to play a critical role in causing you to know them for whatever it is you believe to actually be "known" (else it's fantasy). So this is backwards.

Before time three dimensions had to be discribed in mathamatical forms.
pretty simple and not backwards?

 

[edge]

Knowledge is knowledge of things; the things have to be there first for you to know anything about them.

Exactly if time started at the big bang these had to have had a description already.
IF you could stop time would the knowledge also stop?

 

[Belz...]

If the part that is making decisions is aware of itself, then that part is conscious; and since the way you're using possessives, this would be a part of me, then it follows that this would be a part of "my consciousness". But it's a part you wish to exclude.

As I said, I don't think the agent it self-aware, so there is no contradiction or confusion as far as I can see.

 

[Belz...]

The singularity of the big bang and black holes, I cannot prove that they include infinite quantities. I have to rely on astrophysicists for that.

So you agree that there is no need to "adress" infinite things if we don't know they exist, right ?

 

[Belz...]

Logic and mathematics had to be in place before the universe existed, the word, and the knowledge, before the big bang...had to be in place for the universe to have shapes.

No.

I know, the odd thing is it's logical.

No.

It only seems logical because you have next to no knowledge about anything, including logic.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Exactly if time started at the big bang these had to have had a description already.
IF you could stop time would the knowledge also stop?

No, they don't need descriptions in order to exist. And if you stop the knowers, there's no knowledge.

 

[yy2bggggs]

As I said, I don't think the agent it self-aware, so there is no contradiction or confusion as far as I can see.

Alright, let's extend.

Suppose I were to say, "I make decisions". Presumably I'm just mistaken. But there's a bigger issue here. As the part that is aware does not make decisions, the part that is aware is not the thing that says "I make decisions". This means that the part of me that says "I make decisions" must be the part of me that makes decisions.

So, if that part of me says "I make decisions" is the part that makes decisions, it wouldn't be saying this because it's self-aware, since it's not self aware. But it couldn't be saying this because the part that is aware is making decisions, since that part doesn't really make decisions. So why would it say this? Habit? Imitation?

My account is that it's affected by the part that is aware, which is sensing the part that is making decisions. And this is enough to describe them as an interactive unit.

 

[laca]

Yes that sounds reasonable, try getting it past these folks though.

I know, the odd thing is it's logical.

Birds of a feather, flock together...

 

[dafydd]

I was employing some poetic licence.

So you haven't studied physics?

 

[dafydd]

Yes that sounds reasonable, try getting it past these folks though.

You would find edge reasonable.

 

[dafydd]

I know, I am hinting at an infinite substrate.

You are stringing words together to make gibberish yet again. What does ''infinite substrate'' mean?

sub·strate
n.
1. The material or substance on which an enzyme acts.
2. Biology A surface on which an organism grows or is attached.
3. An underlying layer; a substratum.
4. Linguistics An indigenous language that contributes features to the language of an invading people who impose their language on the indigenous population.