My argument against materialism

[Dancing David]

Yes, can you offer any theories about the universe which tackle the problem I am getting at with the banana?

You have a problem with "We don't know."? Why is that a problem, it may be solved it may not.

ETA:
Q:
How is a banana like a universe?

A:

Shortening

 

[Dancing David]

I constructed the paradox/problem, in order to discuss how materialism accounts for such problems.

I don't see a paradox/problem of this nature in the universe.

So materialism has questions with no answers. Not a problem for me.

 

[Dancing David]

But what exactly is the problem?



essentially yes but more specifically;

1; something finite exists, how can this be?

2; Must "something" infinite also exist or not?

3; If the answer to '2' is not how do you account for the question 'what is beyond the finite universe?

Lets give that a whorl.

the answer is:

It appears to exist, in the case of the banana and the observable universe, with contingent history.

 

[punshhh]

Anthropic principle.

String theory, Anthropic may be be too restrictive.

 

[punshhh]

Finite in what sense?

By finite I means a space time event consisting of more than one constituent part.
ie more than one "atom"/indivisible form (atom may not be a precise enough term) involving any expression of time.

Such as? time? space? the number of reals? our patience?

I am refering to a strictly physical infinity, treating space and time as integral (two sides of the same coin). The effect of which is an infinite complexity of form.

If the answer to '2' is not what?
The question is easily accounted for - it was made up and asked up by you on this forum. If you want an answer to the question, assuming the universe is finite, then my answer would be 'we don't know', but what do you mean by 'universe'? Our observable universe could be a brane in a higher dimensional space, part of a multiverse or single, self-contained and closed, with nothing outside because there is no outside.

The only suitable definition I have found for universe in a cursory look at scientific definitions would be string theory.

 

[punshhh]

Why does there have to be something beyond it?

There doesn't need to be something beyond, provided provision is made in the theory for no hypothetical beyond, in consideration of a possible infinite complexity of forms.

 

[punshhh]

You have a problem with "We don't know."? Why is that a problem, it may be solved it may not.

ETA:
Q:
How is a banana like a universe?

A:

Shortening

I have no problem either with "we don't know", I do feel that an infinity as I defined in my reply to dlorde a moment ago, may be a possibility.

Yes very short, but quite wide.

 

[punshhh]

So materialism has questions with no answers. Not a problem for me.

I may have questions which science can answer.

Sometimes a lack of answer can be revealing.

 

[punshhh]

the answer is:

It appears to exist, in the case of the banana and the observable universe, with contingent history.

I would certainly agree with this observation, I have no objections regarding the contingent history, as I understand it.

I do as you might expect think the answer to 2, is must exist.

 

[punshhh]

Infinity is impossible.



There is no such thing as "beyond the universe". Space only exists within its context.

Perhaps we are at a disagreement at this time.

 

[tsig]

There is no banana problem either. The problem, as I've already said before, is your lack of understanding.

No banana either 'cause I just ate it. Thus I refute the banana conundrum.

 

[tsig]

You have a problem with "We don't know."? Why is that a problem, it may be solved it may not.

ETA:
Q:
How is a banana like a universe?
A:

Shortening

It's yellow, it tastes good and it was made just for mankind.

 

[tsig]

The only suitable definition I have found for universe in a cursory look at scientific definitions would be string theory.

I may have questions which science can answer.

Sometimes a lack of answer can be revealing.

You may want to take more than a cursory look.

 

[Halfcentaur]

I may have questions which science can answer.

Sometimes a lack of answer can be revealing.

When? How is a lack of an answer revealing? When has a lack of an answer been revealing before?

You must reconcile with the fact that ultimately we are limited beings. We can describe things beyond our limits with symbolic language, like math, but even in a material universe we find things that do not make sense to the linear human mind. Quantum physics seems to show that some things which seem a paradox to the human mind none the less still happen.

The idea of a bound universe seems impossible to you because there seems like there has to be something beyond the boundary, because how could nothing exist? We are stuck thinking in linear terms because for whatever reason we evolved in an aspect of reality that functions in that way.

But it just may be that ultimately everything is happening at once and there is no real time, we are only functioning and perceiving a linear universe out of some mechanic beyond our rational limit of knowing.

What does this mean to you?
Are you under the impression this in any way suggests or calls for a creator?
Are you saying there has to be a paradox somewhere in all this, and the only concept you think immune to paradox is a God?

A material world view does not stop working just because there are aspects to the material world that don't make sense to us.

 

[laca]

Please offer another description of the banana problem, if you would prefer not to use paradox.

It's not about preference, Banana Guy II. It's about precision. Don't say "paradox" when you only mean "problem". The two are not synonyms.

I would have been happy with 'problem' rather than paradox, I cant see what all the fuss is about.

You can't see what the fuss is about? That's rich.

 

[laca]

I constructed the paradox/problem, in order to discuss how materialism accounts for such problems.

I don't see a paradox/problem of this nature in the universe.

Please stop saying paradox. You obviously have no idea what it means.

 

[laca]

The only suitable definition I have found for universe in a cursory look at scientific definitions would be string theory.

So string theory is a definition of the universe now? Struggling again with meaning of words? Tip: don't use words you don't know the meaning of.

 

[laca]

I may have questions which science can answer.

Is this again about bananas?

Sometimes a lack of answer can be revealing.

That's deep, bro. Supa' deep!

 

[laca]

I would certainly agree with this observation, I have no objections regarding the contingent history, as I understand it.

I do as you might expect think the answer to 2, is must exist.

You also thought that 'paradox' meant 'problem'. Or vice versa. Who knows? Either way, you have to do better than 'I think so'. Much better.

 

[Dancing David]

String theory, Anthropic may be be too restrictive.

try again, that makes less sense than usual. String theory may lead to GUT.