My argument against materialism

[Dancing David]

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

And this mean what? Try again. String theory may or may not lead to an explanation of the BBE. Even if it explains the BBE is may never say what or if the BBE came from.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Hi, this is still just you saying "I want to speculate". Sure go ahead.

the theory has to make no provisions about anything outside the theory.

These are silly mental requirements to satisfy your hanging onto ontological models it is like saying,

"Germ theory is adequate, provided provision is made in the theory for no hypothetical beyond, in consideration of a possible infinite complexity of forms."

"Plate tectonics theory is adequate, provided provision is made in the theory for no hypothetical beyond, in consideration of a possible infinite complexity of forms."

"Cognitive behavioral theory is adequate, provided provision is made in the theory for no hypothetical beyond, in consideration of a possible infinite complexity of forms."


You are saying that the theory must presuppose something outside, when in fact all it presupposes is to model a specific thing.

You are saying that a non-ontological model must meet your need to have ontology explained.

 

[Dancing David]

I may have questions which science can answer.

Sometimes a lack of answer can be revealing.

Sometimes it means you are taking the flashlight of enlightment and staring into it, naturalism does not claim to answer ontology.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

No, it appears to exist. If you are a naturalist.

 

[Dancing David]

Perhaps we are at a disagreement at this time.

We don't know if there is an outside the universe.

 

[Nonpareil]

There doesn't need to be something beyond

Then why is there a problem?

provided provision is made in the theory

What theory?

for no hypothetical beyond

What is a "hypothetical beyond", and why do we need to make provisions for a lack of one in the as-yet-unnamed theory?

in consideration of a possible infinite complexity of forms.

And what are you talking about now?

 

[dafydd]

And what are you talking about now?

Who knows? He seems to be stringing words together at random,e.g., the spheres of the body.

 

[Lowpro]

Hi, this is still just you saying "I want to speculate". Sure go ahead.

the theory has to make no provisions about anything outside the theory.

These are silly mental requirements to satisfy your hanging onto ontological models it is like saying,

"Germ theory is adequate, provided provision is made in the theory for no hypothetical beyond, in consideration of a possible infinite complexity of forms."

"Plate tectonics theory is adequate, provided provision is made in the theory for no hypothetical beyond, in consideration of a possible infinite complexity of forms."

"Cognitive behavioral theory is adequate, provided provision is made in the theory for no hypothetical beyond, in consideration of a possible infinite complexity of forms."


You are saying that the theory must presuppose something outside, when in fact all it presupposes is to model a specific thing.

You are saying that a non-ontological model must meet your need to have ontology explained.

This deserves to be repeated...

 

[Robin]

1; something finite exists, how can this be?

See my answer to "why is there something rather than nothing" above.

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

Not necessarily

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

If there is no "infinite" then there is no such thing as "beyond the finite". The question would then be meaningless.

The question you have got to ask yourself is why you think that there must be something beyond the finite.

Are you thinking along the terms of "If a spaceship started travelling out from Earth in a straight line would it keep going forever or reach the end of the Universe?"?

If so then maybe that is the question you should have asked that professor, you would probably have gotten a better answer.

Naturally when people ask themselves that question they naturally ask next "if the spaceship reaches the end of the Universe, then what is on the other side?"

These are interesting questions and they lead to more interesting questions about the shape of the Universe and what is a straight line in space.

The next question is interesting metaphysically as well as scientifically: "does something finite necessarily have boundaries?" That is probably the relevant question here.

 

[Robin]

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.

No theory has to make provision for metaphysics.

By the way, if there was an infinity beyond our universe - an infinity of what?

Certainly not space (although I bet you are visualising it that way).

So an infinity of what?

 

[Robin]

And the other question is - if there is something infinite beyond the finite - why would that be a problem for Materialism?

In other words - what exactly is the problem here?

 

[punshhh]

Then why is there a problem?

I am not saying "there is a problem", I am suggesting there is a problem as a way of addressing a position regarding existence which I consider on occasion.

What theory?

I am using "theory" to describe a contemplation or speculation of the question at hand. Any "theory" provided by the respondent to my question would be acceptable for this purpose.

What is a "hypothetical beyond", and why do we need to make provisions for a lack of one in the as-yet-unnamed theory?

I am offering a beyond for discussion, please feel free to discuss.

And what are you talking about now?

Simply in a consideration of an infinite physical universe there would by definition be an infinite complexity of forms.

 

[ynot]

My argument against materialism reality

Fixed that for you.

 

[punshhh]

Who knows? He seems to be stringing words together at random,e.g., the spheres of the body.

'spheres of the body' was an aside in another thread.

google 'chakra wiki'

 

[punshhh]

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

Pixy stated anthropic principle, I considered what anthropic principle was and concluded that it was an unsatisfactory way to describe my position, too restrictive.

So I offered a scientific theory which better approximated my position.

 

[punshhh]

And this mean what? Try again. String theory may or may not lead to an explanation of the BBE. Even if it explains the BBE is may never say what or if the BBE came from.

Again in offering a definition of universe to Dlorde, I refered to string theory as an example of a theory of the universe approximating my position on this.

Perhaps I should have defined universe in my own terms, I will address this on Monday.

 

[punshhh]

Hi, this is still just you saying "I want to speculate". Sure go ahead.

the theory has to make no provisions about anything outside the theory.

These are silly mental requirements to satisfy your hanging onto ontological models.

I agree with this point, I was using such arguments to explore how science regards ideas, theories or speculation regarding what has not been explained by science.

 

[punshhh]

And the other question is - if there is something infinite beyond the finite - why would that be a problem for Materialism?

In other words - what exactly is the problem here?

I do not have time to answer these questions right now, I will tomorrow.

We are probably coming to the nub of my "problem"/argument against materialism now.

 

[laca]

punshhh, please learn to use the quote function properly, if you write inside quotes, it is more difficult for other posters to respond to you. Thanks.

 

[Dancing David]

Simply in a consideration of an infinite physical universe there would by definition be an infinite complexity of forms.

Nope in an infinity of universe, there are those where the laws of phyiscs crash and burn and produce a homegeous universe or a disipated universe, say the EM force is too high or too low, and so everything sticks together or nothing sticks together, gravity too high, all black holes, too low, nothing hangs around anything else.