My argument against materialism

[punshhh]

As pi is a concept held in our thoughts, where does it live?

Next to e and i?

There are no Platonic transcendants, the concept exists when someone uses it.

Now yes the concepts can be derived by different people at different times, but they don't exist outside of thoughts in people's heads.

This is interesting, are you saying that Pi cannot be measured by a notional artificial intelligence, which observes the universe from outside?

Or in another notional universe unlike ours?

I was leading to Platonic transcendents, but with difficulties in discussion I have not got very far on these topics.

 

[PixyMisa]

This is interesting, are you saying that Pi cannot be measured by a notional artificial intelligence, which observes the universe from outside?

What?

Or in another notional universe unlike ours?

What?

Why would you be measuring pi?

 

[PixyMisa]

I agree, do you consider that such a thing may exist?

In an infinite universe, sure. We don't know if our Universe is finite or infinite, though.

A finite Universe can hold infinities, but not infinite quantities.

Sorry I should define "form", I use it so much I sometimes assume others know what I mean.

By "form" I mean;

something finite, ie; something which has a "form" as apposed to being "formless".

(something "formless" may not be finite or identifiable in any way).

Anything which is a thing has a form,rather than "nothing" which has no form.

The contents of consciousness can be described as having forms of various kinds.

Numbers can be described as having forms of various kinds.

Sorry, it's late here, but I can't make heads nor tails of any of that. Maybe I'll try again in the morning.

 

[dlorde]

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.

Yes. That's what I said.

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?

No reason why not. If you had bothered to follow the links I gave you previously, you'd have found several hypotheses for multiverses.

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

No. We may be one 'universe' in a multiverse, or we may not - it's all speculation, as I and others have explained in previous posts.

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

If you mean a black-hole type of singularity, it would get shredded by tidal forces ('spaghettified') like anything else. Other than that, it's just a looped strip with a twist, it will just sit there until you mess with it.

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

How can the big bang singularity be 'more than one'? The question is oxymoronic. I can imagine an oscillating or cyclic universe, where a big bang is eventually followed by a 'big crunch' and a new big bang, in a repeated cycle. This has been proposed, but last I heard, physics suggests it wouldn't be sustainable in general, and our universe in particular appears to be heading for an ever-expanding heat-death, so there will be no big-crunch.

Yes, well a spacetime event is a finite form

No, it's an event. Earlier in the post you used 'form' for the topology of Earth and the universe. A spacetime event is not a topological 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.

You're back to nonsense/gibberish. An extension of what? Two spacetime events are just two spacetime events. You hit 'submit' there at 08:22 GMT, I facepalm here at 14:34 GMT. Where's the 'extension'?

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

Frankly it will be a waste of time. Finite has a perfectly adequate definition. If you want to define something else, by all means do so.

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.

Really.. do tell.

 

[punshhh]

Just so you know the considered number of energy waves in the universe is 10⁷²-10⁸⁷, so no not an infinitude of matter.

Depends upon the meaning here, some conceptions of space tace are infinte, some are not.

Um the contents are infinite how?

I appologise if I am being obtuse, it is not easy to put these ideas into words.
I do also appreciate that such things may have been discussed at length before.

I see what you are saying about there being no infinitude of matter in the known universe. Perhaps there are untold numbers of universes beyond the known universe.

I will try to describe the position I am adopting in this thread;

I refer to Cantors "absolute infinite"

My position is similar to his, I consider an absolute infinity if it exists to be formless, not subject to time or space. This formlessness would include an infinitude of forms potentially.

Also that, say the energy forming all matter was somehow an expression of this potentiality and that time and space were a consequence of this formation, ie a relativity necessary for the form of matter to be manifest.

If one considers that spacetime is some kind of dimensional construct, the impression of time and space is an illusion or abstraction. all points of time and space are actually in the formless point of potentiality.

There is no distance or time between the forms and the infinite form of potentiality.

This concept is well understood in more theological ideas and is known as God imminent.

It has occured to me that ideas such as this should be considered by materialists, if not as a reality at least a model to be played around with.

 

[yy2bggggs]

By "form" I mean;

something finite, ie; something which has a "form" as apposed to being "formless".

(something "formless" may not be finite or identifiable in any way).

Anything which is a thing has a form,rather than "nothing" which has no form.

So an infinitely long rod would have no form and would not be a thing?

FYI, to say that nothing has no form sounds like a reification.

 

[Dancing David]

This is interesting, are you saying that Pi cannot be measured by a notional artificial intelligence, which observes the universe from outside?

I am not sure what you are asking, in this case I would say that the notional being does not exist. So it is a mott point.

If a notional being were to exist, and that is big if, then teh concept would exist as a thought construct of said existing notional being.

But a specularive being is not real, therefore no.

Or in another notional universe unlike ours?

I was leading to Platonic transcendents, but with difficulties in discussion I have not got very far on these topics.

Transcendent Platonics don't exist, outside of anyone conceptualizing them. The Etruscan language was gone until someone found it and and succesfully translated it. Then it had meaning in the concepts in that person's head.

It did not exist in meta-space, it was gone.

Meta-space is speculation.

 

[Dancing David]

It has occured to me that ideas such as this should be considered by materialists, if not as a reality at least a model to be played around with.

At least as a speculative model to be played around with.

 

[Belz...]

I'm also sorry that I don't agree.

I do understand most of what you guys are saying, however I am saying(or trying to say) something else.

We are trying to explain reality to you. You are clinging to fantasy. This is not about agreeing or not. You just won't or can't learn these things.

My point in this thread is that materialism does not address the position I am adopting.

That's because your position makes no sense.

Materialism doesn't adress the Great Brown Chicken, either.

 

[punshhh]

At least as a speculative model to be played around with.

Of course, ideas are only ideas after all.

 

[punshhh]

If we describe an actual thing as "finite" we are using the mathematical meaning of "finite".

So if we described an actual thing as "infinite" then we would also be using the mathematical meaning of "infinite".

If we are not using the mathematical meaning of either term then our statement would have no precise meaning.

Yes I was thinking of that yesterday.

Are there any terms in metaphysics which approximate to finite and infinite in the way I am using them?

 

[punshhh]

We are trying to explain reality to you. You are clinging to fantasy. This is not about agreeing or not. You just won't or can't learn these things.



That's because your position makes no sense.

Materialism doesn't adress the Great Brown Chicken, either.

Point taken(not the fantasy thing though).

 

[punshhh]

I am not sure what you are asking, in this case I would say that the notional being does not exist. So it is a mott point.

If a notional being were to exist, and that is big if, then teh concept would exist as a thought construct of said existing notional being.

But a specularive being is not real, therefore no.


Transcendent Platonics don't exist, outside of anyone conceptualizing them. The Etruscan language was gone until someone found it and and succesfully translated it. Then it had meaning in the concepts in that person's head.

It did not exist in meta-space, it was gone.

Meta-space is speculation.

I can't agree that "transcendent platonics" don't "exist" in some form.

I think Robin has a point here, Pi has a value which must always remain the same. Provided one accepts the existence of circles and spheres.

If we imagine our known universe never existed and another universe popped into existence, very different to ours.
If there were spheres and circles present, Pi would be present also in a latent form.

Pi would be as fundamental in the manifestation of this imaginary universe as time or space. You cant have one without the other.

You can't have space without Pi.

 

[punshhh]

Yes. That's what I said.


No reason why not. If you had bothered to follow the links I gave you previously, you'd have found several hypotheses for multiverses.


No. We may be one 'universe' in a multiverse, or we may not - it's all speculation, as I and others have explained in previous posts.


If you mean a black-hole type of singularity, it would get shredded by tidal forces ('spaghettified') like anything else. Other than that, it's just a looped strip with a twist, it will just sit there until you mess with it.


How can the big bang singularity be 'more than one'? The question is oxymoronic. I can imagine an oscillating or cyclic universe, where a big bang is eventually followed by a 'big crunch' and a new big bang, in a repeated cycle. This has been proposed, but last I heard, physics suggests it wouldn't be sustainable in general, and our universe in particular appears to be heading for an ever-expanding heat-death, so there will be no big-crunch.


No, it's an event. Earlier in the post you used 'form' for the topology of Earth and the universe. A spacetime event is not a topological form.


You're back to nonsense/gibberish. An extension of what? Two spacetime events are just two spacetime events. You hit 'submit' there at 08:22 GMT, I facepalm here at 14:34 GMT. Where's the 'extension'?


Frankly it will be a waste of time. Finite has a perfectly adequate definition. If you want to define something else, by all means do so.


Really.. do tell.

With respect you should allow for there being more than one big bang in existence. I see no evidence for there being one of anything.

 

[punshhh]

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.

I understand this and would have to agree that "nothing" is impossible given your definition.
However I think I would refine that to;

"nothing" cannot "exist", but may be possible provided no thing were to exist.

I maintain my position that "nothing" is the most logical state of affairs and things are problematic.

Why do we have things/existence atall?

 

[punshhh]

So an infinitely long rod would have no form and would not be a thing?

FYI, to say that nothing has no form sounds like a reification.

So an infinitely long rod would have both infinite qualities while also having form.
Given general relativity the rod would inevitably curve around and join its beginning forming a ring, in order to be truly infinite as the rod were being measured the "person" taking the measurement would become locked in a pattern of infinite revolutions around the ring and would never reach the end.

I can conceive of no other way in which a finite thing could also be an infinite thing.

I agree about "nothing", it sounds odd, but I think it can exist as a concept.

 

[punshhh]

Sorry, but that's not helpful. "Everything" does not mean "absolute infinity".

Sorry I should have been more precise.

If there were an infinity of forms/things there would be every conceivable thing, plus an infinite number of inconceivable things.
ie; the opposite of "nothing"

 

[Robin]

I maintain my position that "nothing" is the most logical state of affairs and things are problematic.

It is pretty easy to show that you are wrong here.

"Nothing" cannot be the most logical state of affairs because, by definition, "nothing" is not a state of affairs at all

Why do we have things/existence atall?

As I have already said more than once, if "nothing" is possible then there can be no reason at all that there is something rather than nothing. It just is.

I don't see any room for doubt in this and am puzzled why you keep asking.

 

[Robin]

I can't agree that "transcendent platonics" don't "exist" in some form.

I think Robin has a point here, Pi has a value which must always remain the same. Provided one accepts the existence of circles and spheres.

If we imagine our known universe never existed and another universe popped into existence, very different to ours.
If there were spheres and circles present, Pi would be present also in a latent form.

Pi would be as fundamental in the manifestation of this imaginary universe as time or space. You cant have one without the other.

You can't have space without Pi.

And let me clarify here and say that I don't believe that "transcendent platonics" exist.

Pi is the logically necessary result of applying certain operations to certain axioms and it would be that logically necessary result in any possible world.

There does not need to be any transcendent realms to store logically necessary results.

 

[Belz...]

Point taken(not the fantasy thing though).

Of course not.