My argument against materialism

[dlorde]

You explain what you mean and I'll explain what I mean.

Anthropic Principle

 

[punshhh]

By infinitely long, I mean that given any unit of measurement, and any finite number M, no matter how large, this rod is bigger than M.

No. You misinterpret me. I said the paragraph does not make sense. You're saying you agree that "an infinite finite thing does not make sense". You can't agree with me on something unless I first agree to it.

Your paragraph didn't make sense because GR doesn't entail any particular geometry of the universe, nor is a line in an elliptical geometry universe aptly described as being of infinite length.
GR doesn't constrain the possibility at all.

Not until you define "form". But when you say "I cannot accept that such a rod can exist", that should be a giant red flag. Nature doesn't care if you accept her or not. This is your hangup and yours alone.
Okay, and I can accept that I can walk in a straight line around the earth for an infinite amount of time. But I can also walk around in circles for an infinite amount of time, or trace a square for an infinite amount of time, or even walk back and forth along a line two meters long for an infinite amount of time. None of those exercises establish the metric of those shapes.

Besides, you're saying that you can accept that an ant could trace an infinite coarse around your finger--would you then say that because the ant could do this, your finger is formless?

Then why do you say "form" and not "finite"? And why do you say that the fact that form means finite means that a rod cannot be shaped such that x^2+y^2<r^2 for any point on the rod in a Euclidean universe?

Calling something finite "form" is just a label; presumably all it does is classify objects. But stating that rods cannot be shaped like x^2+y^2<r^2 is prescriptive--that is a claim about the possible universes you can have.

You cannot make things true by defining them into being true.

I am aware that finite things have qualities which can be interpreted as being an example of an "infinity".

In my definition of infinity* any kind of finite thing is excluded.
Anything that is a thing even when it has an infinite aspect to its "form"(taking your definition) is excluded.
Any kind of existence that can be conceived of is excluded.

It is rather like "nothing" with a nuance of difference.

I am not a mathematician, maths is a mental construct and may be able to "quantify" an infinity. However being a content of mind it is irrelevant to my definition.

I have deliberately steared clear of the mind as this thread is in reference to materialism.

*I am discussing a strictly physical infinity, refering only to infinities which relate to matter.

 

[punshhh]

Anthropic Principle

Explanation?

 

[dlorde]

Explanation?

What part of it don't you understand?

Given that we are here to look, it's a logical explanation for why we see what we see (something rather than nothing)...

Your problem is that the evidence (we exist) contradicts your default state of 'nothing', that you claim to have arrived at logically (care to share the logic?). When the evidence contradicts your hypothesis, you either retract the hypothesis, or rework it to fit the evidence.

Note: you should not invoke magic or the supernatural, as that will invalidate or render useless any rational hypothesis.

 

[Dancing David]

I hope I was not putting words in your mouth about transcendent platonics.

I agree there is no need for a transcendent realm here. The implication is that the relation between the circumference of a circular or spherical object and the diameter of said object if measured, would be Pi in any possible world.

Thus the value of Pi is intrinsic in all spherical or circular objects.

We have evidence of spherical objects in the known universe including "matter".

I can only conclude that Pi is as intrinsic in the formation of matter as say space or time is an intrinsic requirement.

No because pi is defined as the relationship between a circle's radius and the circumfrence of a circle.

The relationship is defined by the word, it is not intrinsic. That property of circles exists in conceptual space only in people's minds.

 

[Dancing David]

You see I don't rule out the "existence" of "nothing" as a potentiality in some form.

I should point out that when considering such things I also consider them as a reality in nature.

It is my opinion that we can only occasionally apply logical arguments directly, if atall to nature. I would not rule out "nothing" in nature.
As a rule of thumb I don't rule anything out.

There is no nothing in nature that we can see or model.

Care to point to it?

Even there there will be the vacum energy.

 

[Dancing David]

Explanation?

Why ask why?

 

[dafydd]

I am aware that finite things have qualities which can be interpreted as being an example of an "infinity".

In my definition of infinity* any kind of finite thing is excluded.
Anything that is a thing even when it has an infinite aspect to its "form"(taking your definition) is excluded.
Any kind of existence that can be conceived of is excluded.

It is rather like "nothing" with a nuance of difference.

I am not a mathematician, maths is a mental construct and may be able to "quantify" an infinity. However being a content of mind it is irrelevant to my definition.

I have deliberately steared clear of the mind as this thread is in reference to materialism.

*I am discussing a strictly physical infinity, refering only to infinities which relate to matter.

How can matter have infinities? What are you talking about?

 

[laca]

Well, punshhh, we all enjoy a good laugh now and then. But let's get back to the topic, which is arguments against materialism. Got any?

 

[Nonpareil]

I am aware that finite things have qualities which can be interpreted as being an example of an "infinity".

In my definition of infinity* any kind of finite thing is excluded.
Anything that is a thing even when it has an infinite aspect to its "form"(taking your definition) is excluded.
Any kind of existence that can be conceived of is excluded.

<snip>

I am discussing a strictly physical infinity, refering only to infinities which relate to matter.

That kind of infinity does not exist in this universe, and as such is not a challenge to materialism.

So what are you talking about?

 

[yy2bggggs]

punshhh:

I do not know what you mean by infinity now. Could you explain? If so, please do. If not (you're referring to conceivable things as being finite?), then how can you be sure you're even making meaningful statements?

 

[punshhh]

Well, punshhh, we all enjoy a good laugh now and then. But let's get back to the topic, which is arguments against materialism. Got any?

I have to concede I don't any more have an argument against materialism. I stated that a few pages back to Robin.
My argument falls within metaphysics, materialism doesn't address metaphysics.

However the point I made in the beginning still remains in my eyes but is rather mute now;

Materialism should take account of metaphysics, rather than ignore it.

 

[punshhh]

That kind of infinity does not exist in this universe, and as such is not a challenge to materialism.

So what are you talking about?

Yes I agree, it appears that I am now in a gap. Rather like the God of the gaps

I am talking about something which originates in theology and mysticism.

These ideas fit perfectly well with materialism, I see no argument from the perspective of these disciplines.
I feel we have come full circle to what I have been seeking to explore in this thread.

Which is;

In what way if any does materialism address these ideas? if it even acknowledges them as "serious" ideas worthy of consideration?

 

[punshhh]

punshhh:

I do not know what you mean by infinity now. Could you explain? If so, please do. If not (you're referring to conceivable things as being finite?), then how can you be sure you're even making meaningful statements?

I have been trying to explain throughout this thread, it seems there is a difficulty with a "theoretical language" here.

Let me try to put the infinity I am refering to into some kind of context.

I feel there has been some confusion with infinity as described by maths and the ways it is understood in the western academic tradition. I have no argument with these views and enjoy using them. However the infinity I am trying to refer to comes from an entirely different tradition which in many ways uses a different "theoretical language".

I am refering to what could be described as the "eastern mystical tradition". However the ideas can more easily be accessed through a study of Hinduism and Buddhism.

Perhaps if you google "Brahman wiki" you will find a good introductory summary of what I have in this thread been describing as "infinity".

 

[laca]

I have to concede I don't any more have an argument against materialism. I stated that a few pages back to Robin.
My argument falls within metaphysics, materialism doesn't address metaphysics.

OK. Then please start another thread where you can discuss whatever you want to discuss.

However the point I made in the beginning still remains in my eyes but is rather mute now;

Materialism should take account of metaphysics, rather than ignore it.

Not enough facepalms.

 

[laca]

Yes I agree, it appears that I am now in a gap. Rather like the God of the gaps

Umm, what? How are you in a gap? Gap between what? And, more importantly, how would that even be anything like "God of the gaps"? Just because the word "gap" is in both sentences, you can't just say one is like the other. Why am I even explaining this to you? This should be obvious to every thinking person.

I am talking about something which originates in theology and mysticism.

These ideas fit perfectly well with materialism, I see no argument from the perspective of these disciplines.
I feel we have come full circle to what I have been seeking to explore in this thread.

Which is;

In what way if any does materialism address these ideas? if it even acknowledges them as "serious" ideas worthy of consideration?

The problem is that except the fact that you don't seem to come to grasps with infinity, I don't see what ideas you're talking about. Anyway, I've got a strong feeling it's not from the domain of reality, so materialism doesn't need to address it other that label it as hogwash.

 

[punshhh]

Umm, what? How are you in a gap? Gap between what? And, more importantly, how would that even be anything like "God of the gaps"? Just because the word "gap" is in both sentences, you can't just say one is like the other. Why am I even explaining this to you? This should be obvious to every thinking person.

My point is that I feel there is nothing I can say here that can be recognised/understood. My words somehow "slip through the net" of terminology and disciplines.

This has a similarity to "God of the gaps", this god somehow slips through the net of scientifically understood reality.

The problem is that except the fact that you don't seem to come to grasps with infinity, I don't see what ideas you're talking about. Anyway, I've got a strong feeling it's not from the domain of reality, so materialism doesn't need to address it other that label it as hogwash.

I do understand infinity as presented by science, I have not been talking about it. I have been talking about infinity as presented by another philosophical tradition.

You mentioned "I've got a strong feeling it's not from the domain of reality"

Is this materialist terminology?

 

[PixyMisa]

I am refering to what could be described as the "eastern mystical tradition". However the ideas can more easily be accessed through a study of Hinduism and Buddhism.

Ah. Meaningless drivel.

 

[PixyMisa]

My point is that I feel there is nothing I can say here that can be recognised/understood. My words somehow "slip through the net" of terminology and disciplines.

No, you're just talking nonsense.

This has a similarity to "God of the gaps", this god somehow slips through the net of scientifically understood reality.

The God of the Gaps argument is an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy. Is that what you're trying to copy?

I do understand infinity as presented by science, I have not been talking about it. I have been talking about infinity as presented by another philosophical tradition.

A tradition of drivel.

You mentioned "I've got a strong feeling it's not from the domain of reality"

Is this materialist terminology?

No. It's snarky comment terminology.

 

[punshhh]

How can matter have infinities? What are you talking about?

Then I come back to my question;

what is beyond the universe?

1; Does the universe continue into infinity?

(hence an infinity relating to matter).

2; Or is the universe finite?

(if finite it can be defined as an "object")


If there is one object, why not two or three or an infinite number?

turtles all the way down.

This seems paradoxical to me.