My argument against materialism

[Robin]

I would find it much easier to understand existence(or not) if nothing existed(or not as the case may be), as all would be consistent and logical. The laws of physics, maths etc would all be there as usual, however just "invisible".

I am not sure that you are really attempting to get to grips with the concept of absolute non-existence.

For example you say "the laws of physics, maths etc would all be there as usual"

Where is "there"?

If nothing existed there would be no "there".

I think people keep visualising "nothing" as this big empty void. But a big empty void is not "nothing".

"Nothing" would not even be a big empy void.

No laws of physics, no laws of anything, no maths, no anything.

A complete absense of existence or essence.

 

[Robin]

So as I say there are only two possibilities:

a) "nothing" is impossible or,
b) There is no reason at all why there is something rather than nothing, there just is.

Can you think of another alternative?

So if you hold that "nothing" is possible then there is ultimately no reason at all why the banana you are holding exists.

 

[punshhh]

What?

You will have to explain how you get from ' "nothing" may not exist' to 'the laws of physics may not exist in any form'

The second does not seem to even remotely follow from the first.

Sorry, it came out the wrong way round.

I would follow by asking Belz if Pi would remain the same if nothing existed.

But I think it is best I don't as we clearly disagree.

 

[Robin]

Sorry, it came out the wrong way round.

I would follow by asking Belz if Pi would remain the same if nothing existed.

I would answer that Pi would not remain the same if nothing existed. It would not remain at all. It would not be. Nothing would be.

But I think it is best I don't as we clearly disagree.

I think you have it the wrong way round. There would be no point asking if you didn't disagree.

 

[dlorde]

I am not accustomed to using language in the way it is used here. I presume it is derived from scientific method.

No, it's plain English. It is the arguments that relate to scientific method. Einstein said "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough".

I suggest that if there is something, you don't understand you point it out and I will attempt to explain. If you give me some idea of what you don't understand or what doesn't make sense.

I have. That's why my last post was full of questions for you.

I assure you there are theories,concepts and thoughts behind the words, you are not wasting your time.

I don't recall seeing them. It would really save some time if you presented them, clearly and concisely.

I can only communicate with you through written language. The words are quite limiting when it comes to subjects such as this, as it is the theories and thoughts themselves which I am trying to communicate. The words are a hindrance until one has a common understanding of what they represent.

The written word revolutionised human communication quite a while ago now - you shouldn't still be struggling with it. Dictionaries and thesauri provide the common understandings of words - and now they're online, there's no excuse for not knowing what 'paradox' means, for example.

I have developed ways of discussing these ideas for many years, using metaphor.

Forgive me if I am sceptical - with whom did you develop these ideas?
The evidence doesn't suggest years developing anything. Metaphor is a way to finesse a description by analogy. It is not an excuse for muddy or confused thinking.

...being understood is my only aim here.

Dang! my irony meter...

from my perspective it all makes perfect sense

Well of course it does. Have you wondered why no-one else thinks so?

 

[punshhh]

I am not sure that you are really attempting to get to grips with the concept of absolute non-existence.

For example you say "the laws of physics, maths etc would all be there as usual"

Where is "there"?

If nothing existed there would be no "there".

I think people keep visualising "nothing" as this big empty void. But a big empty void is not "nothing".

"Nothing" would not even be a big empy void.

No laws of physics, no laws of anything, no maths, no anything.

A complete absense of existence or essence.

I am aware of this, I am trying to engage other posters in a consideration of these ideas, with remarkably little success.

I would not have used the same phrasiology with you as I did in this case with Pixy.

These materialists really do not like to discuss this, perhaps even to acknowledge such considerations.

In your consideration of nothing, could there be a something in existence aswell?
and if not would Pi remain?

 

[Robin]

I am aware of this, I am trying to engage other posters in a consideration of these ideas, with remarkably little success.

Probably because you keep talking as though you thought that "nothing" was something.

Perhaps if you tried to reflect your understanding of the concept in the language you used you would get further.

These materialists really do not like to discuss this, perhaps even to acknowledge such considerations.

Looking back they seem to be both acknowledging and discussing these considerations.

In your consideration of nothing, could there be a something in existence aswell?

Of course not.

and if not would Pi remain?

Of course not.

For a start the word "remain" is meaningless in the context of "nothing", as it implies that something was.

I could rephrase your question as "would Pi be?".

Again, no - nothing would be. By definition.

 

[Robin]

Yes, I can understand this, from your perspective this may be how it appears. However from my perspective it all makes perfect sense

This is the problem though.

When I was attending lectures in maths, sometimes I would be listening and thinking "I understand this all perfectly". Then when I tried to do the exercises I got nowhere. I had to go back and read the whole chapter and every example carefully before I could do the exercises.

I have concluded that there is a difference between the feeling of understanding and actual understanding.

In maths or science we have reality checks to reconcile the two things. In metaphysics there is no such reality check.

If you have an idea in metaphysics but have no way of demonstrating it is true, no practical use for it, no way of imparting understanding of it to others and even no way of expressing it in a rigorous form, then what is your basis for believing that you understand it?

 

[PixyMisa]

I read it the first time

Apparently not.

 

[laca]

I am aware of this,

Oh really? Let's see if you can contradict yourself within the same post...

In your consideration of nothing, could there be a something in existence aswell?
and if not would Pi remain?

Yep, as expected. Obviously you're not "aware of that".

I am trying to engage other posters in a consideration of these ideas, with remarkably little success.

...

These materialists really do not like to discuss this, perhaps even to acknowledge such considerations.

Why could that be? Is it perhaps because you demonstrated on multiple occasions that you don't even know the meaning of the words you're using, let alone being capable of forming a coherent idea? And I'm not even considering whether those "ideas" are interesting or not...

So, after a few times of pointing out glaring errors in your posts only for you to keep on repeating them, after having to explain something to you over and over again it gets really boring.

I commend Robin for taking the time and patience to respond to you, those posts have been most interesting.

 

[punshhh]

Apparently not.

I presume you know where this discussion is leading.

 

[punshhh]

No (depending on the thing and the boundaries). For example, many people think the universe may be finite but unbounded. This is a simple topological description; a consequence would be that following a geodesic across the universe would eventually bring you back to where you started, much like following a great circle around the Earth will bring you back to your departure point - the Earth's surface is finite but unbounded.

When I imagine an unbounded universe, I do visualise something along these lines, for example the surface of the earth appears flat, but due to the curvature you would never reach the edge.
However, I then think well fine, however this universe just imagined is a form, a finite form like the earth.
If there is one such form why not another and another?
Infact an infinite number of such universes(I remember something about turtles all the way down).

Can you not see that whatever "form" is considered you end up back here with the turtles?

Personally, I find the immediate reality of a Moebius strip just as challenging and more educational.

Thats an interesting shape and concept, I wonder how it behaves when in the vicinity of a singularity?

In this topologically bounded universe, are you imagining one singularity, or more than one? I am refering to the singularity in the BBE.

If it is finite in space/time, how can it extend infinitely in space/time? Of course, you can run around infinitely far/long in a padded cell, but that would be interminable

Yes, well a spacetime event is a finite form, if there were two spacetime events there would be arguably twice as much extension. If there were an infinite number of spacetime events there would be an infinite extension.

We're back with the turtles.

Now perhaps you will consider what I mean when I define the finite.

Please, think about what you're posting. The beauty of the forum format is that it is asynchronous (like email) - you can take your time and consider your response. Let's try to think within the unbounded yet finite space of rationality and meaning

.

I agree, I will post a question relating to finite things later today.

However there is a very good reason why I have been discussing the finite and the infinte, apart from the fact that it is my very point in this thread.
That is I am in total agreement with the scientific/materialist position as put forward by the majority of posters on this forum, I have no argument with it.

 

[punshhh]

Oh really? Let's see if you can contradict yourself within the same post...



Yep, as expected. Obviously you're not "aware of that".



Why could that be? Is it perhaps because you demonstrated on multiple occasions that you don't even know the meaning of the words you're using, let alone being capable of forming a coherent idea? And I'm not even considering whether those "ideas" are interesting or not...

So, after a few times of pointing out glaring errors in your posts only for you to keep on repeating them, after having to explain something to you over and over again it gets really boring.

I commend Robin for taking the time and patience to respond to you, those posts have been most interesting.

and if I weren't here what would you be discussing? At least I have instigated some discussion.

 

[punshhh]

This is the problem though.

When I was attending lectures in maths, sometimes I would be listening and thinking "I understand this all perfectly". Then when I tried to do the exercises I got nowhere. I had to go back and read the whole chapter and every example carefully before I could do the exercises.

I have concluded that there is a difference between the feeling of understanding and actual understanding.

In maths or science we have reality checks to reconcile the two things. In metaphysics there is no such reality check.

If you have an idea in metaphysics but have no way of demonstrating it is true, no practical use for it, no way of imparting understanding of it to others and even no way of expressing it in a rigorous form, then what is your basis for believing that you understand it?

Thankyou for your description of nothing, I was hesitant to describe it myself for fear of ridicule(not from you).

Now perhaps we will be able to consider an absolute infinity as the other polarity. I am sure you are aware of the meaning, I would rather arrive at a meaning with one of the other posters if someone is game.

Yes, I have also had similar problems with maths.

You are right regarding metaphysics, presumably when you say "demonstrating it is true" you are refering to logical testing of the idea?

Ah, I don't know if you have read any of my posts in other threads, but I have stated that I don't "believe" anything already.

I consider all angles/perspectives regarding an idea. I don't always know that I understand something, it generally becomes obvious after a while.

 

[punshhh]

Does anyone think they know what infinity means in addressing/discussing "matter", or something "real"?

Please no mathematical descriptions of infinity, that is already well documented.

 

[laca]

Thats an interesting shape and concept, I wonder how it behaves when in the vicinity of a singularity?

Here we go again... How what behaves? The concept? Or the shape? Doesn't matter, both questions are nonsensical. Maybe you were thinking about a third one?

In this topologically bounded universe, are you imagining one singularity, or more than one? I am refering to the singularity in the BBE.

The gravitational singularity? In that case, the above question makes even less sense, if at all possible.

However there is a very good reason why I have been discussing the finite and the infinte, apart from the fact that it is my very point in this thread.
That is I am in total agreement with the scientific/materialist position as put forward by the majority of posters on this forum, I have no argument with it.

Could someone translate that for me, please?

 

[laca]

and if I weren't here what would you be discussing? At least I have instigated some discussion.

The arguments against the materialist position were refuted pretty quickly, so I imagine we would be tending to other -- quite possibly more important -- stuff than hopelessly trying to educate you. Especially since you recently admitted to totally agreeing (??) with the materialist position.

Also, don't kid yourself, you're not the only kook on this forum. There are others, even more entertaining ones.

 

[PixyMisa]

Does anyone think they know what infinity means in addressing/discussing "matter", or something "real"?

It means infinity.

Please no mathematical descriptions of infinity, that is already well documented.

Then what's the problem?

 

[laca]

Thankyou for your description of nothing, I was hesitant to describe it myself for fear of ridicule(not from you).

Someone said that ridicule is not an inappropriate answer to the ridiculous. I agree.

Now perhaps we will be able to consider an absolute infinity as the other polarity. I am sure you are aware of the meaning, I would rather arrive at a meaning with one of the other posters if someone is game.

What is an "absolute infinity"? What does it mean to be "the other polarity" of "nothing"?

 

[punshhh]

The arguments against the materialist position were refuted pretty quickly, so I imagine we would be tending to other -- quite possibly more important -- stuff than hopelessly trying to educate you. Especially since you recently admitted to totally agreeing (??) with the materialist position.

Also, don't kid yourself, you're not the only kook on this forum. There are others, even more entertaining ones.

I am open to new ideas when ever they come along, I have picked up a few here, which have made this worthwhile already.

Let me state my position regarding materialism again;

I am in complete agreement in respect of current knowledge and understanding in materialism regarding matter and other physical processes. I reserve judgement in the areas of consciousness and its contents.
This is of course while remaining open minded to other thoughts which may have some bearing on materialism.

Please give me the names of some kooks sounds interesting.