My argument against materialism

[PixyMisa]

Then I come back to my question;

what is beyond the universe?

We don't know, can't know, and it's doubtful if it's even a coherent question.

1; Does the universe continue into infinity?

Perhaps.

2; Or is the universe finite?

Perhaps.

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

We counted.

turtles all the way down.

Turtles are turtles.

This seems paradoxical to me.

This is because, as has been pointed out, you don't understand what a paradox is.

 

[PixyMisa]

Not anthropic principle then?

Buddhist and Hindu mysticism? No, they're drivel.

Buddhist philosophy contains some insights, though nothing unique. Their mysticism doesn't. They're not unique in that either.

 

[PixyMisa]

When you say unbounded does this mean it goes on for ever(infinity), or is there a boundary of some sort?

Guess.

 

[punshhh]

Guess.

Shall we guess together;

 

[punshhh]

Buddhist and Hindu mysticism? No, they're drivel.

Buddhist philosophy contains some insights, though nothing unique. Their mysticism doesn't. They're not unique in that either.

Now seriously one mans drivel is another mans elixir of youth.

Is there a paradox here, or is a better phrase I'm stumped?

The Hindu's reached this point 2000 years ago and most of what became Hindu philosophy and science was written after they had reconciled this problem and the implications ther'in.

 

[tsig]

I've edited the post to Dafydd and numbered two questions which address Dafydd's question; "how can matter have infinities?"

1; Does the universe continue into infinity?

If the answer is yes, then there is no "beyond the universe"

2; Or is the universe finite?

If the answer is yes, I would argue;

1; there is a beyond the universe or

2; its turtles all the way down(which is equivalent to a yes to question 1).

No, the giant primordial turtle is swimming in the infinite sea.

 

[Mashuna]

Now seriously one mans drivel is another mans elixir of youth.

This is very true. However, the people who claim that the drivel is the elixir of youth still get old and die.

 

[yy2bggggs]

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

Are you sure this is even a meaningful question? That, say, if there are three of those objects, there would be a correct explanation at all for why there are three objects as opposed to four, other than simply that there are (or a mutation of the same theme, that the universe is such that there are)?

 

[Dancing David]

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

Sorry Punshhh that is like saying

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

 

[Dancing David]

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

Um materialism is an ontological stance, science or naturalism has no need to address them,

 

[Dancing David]

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.

With all due respect, and I was trained by a harsh mistress, it may be that you don't actually know what you think. That is part of the process of the forum, learning to express ideas coherently and precisely. I truly have sympathy for all of my mother's students.

For example 'the hard problem of consciousness' is not really a problem is is more the Vague Usage of Terms and Assumptions about Consciousness.

And it is the problem of analogy, like when someone stated that idealism requires less to explain consciousness than materialism, consciousness becomes consciousness,like the way way acorns become oaks.

Except an acorn rquires the substrates of soil, water,warmth and light to become a tree. So no consciousness does not make consciousness like acorns make oaks.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Um, maybe the paradox is in asking a question with no answer.

 

[Dancing David]

Not anthropic principle then?

Please feel free to provide an "answer" to the "paradox" I have just posed to Dafydd.

It is not a paradox, it is a set of questions that are about something other than the universe and therefore not answerable. That is not a paradox.

Things are what they are: naturalism.

Again you are abusing the term paradox.

The universe can continue into infinity, with the distribution of eneregy becomes thinner sand thinner, that is not a paradox.

No the universe is not an object in teh sense of common usgae, we do not know.

We don't know.

 

[Dancing David]

Fine lets change paradox to question.

Any answers to the question?

We don't know

 

[dafydd]

Buddhist and Hindu mysticism? No, they're drivel.

Buddhist philosophy contains some insights, though nothing unique. Their mysticism doesn't. They're not unique in that either.

Can you point me toward some drivel that has kept a person eternally young?

 

[Dancing David]

I accept this, however I think the value of Pi can be arrived at through measurements of spheres in the universe without prior knowledge of conceptual geometry.

And then it still exists as a concept.

 

[Dancing David]

I agree, I can conceive of no nothing in nature either. I am reluctant to rule it out though.

Ah, only silly people talk about rule outs. There are no absolutes, the best we can say is that there is strong evidence to say that nothing does not exist.

The hypothesis 'nothing exists' has much contradictory evidence.

 

[Dancing David]

My argument goes like this;

If the universe is finite(not infinite), it can be described as an object(a very large object).

If we have one object, why not two, three or an infinite number of such objects?

Hence turtles all the way down.

Seems likely, we don't know.

 

[Dancing David]

Now seriously one mans drivel is another mans elixir of youth.

Is there a paradox here, or is a better phrase I'm stumped?

The Hindu's reached this point 2000 years ago and most of what became Hindu philosophy and science was written after they had reconciled this problem and the implications ther'in.

Yup and slaves were part of it, the subjugation of women was part of it, letting people starve was part of it.

Buddhist metaphysics directly contradict the teachings of the alleged historic buddha.

 

[punshhh]

Are you sure this is even a meaningful question? That, say, if there are three of those objects, there would be a correct explanation at all for why there are three objects as opposed to four, other than simply that there are (or a mutation of the same theme, that the universe is such that there are)?

My point is there may be more than one universe we don't know.

There is lots of evidence around us that nature does stuff in quantity, not much that it does things in ones.

More seriously the observable fact that one universe exists is evidence of universes, I would find it hard to accept that there were only one.

To apply some reason to this I suggest there are only two cenarios;

1; there are no universes
or
2;there are an infinite number of universes.

Saying there is only one or two, or three or any finite number of universes does not account for the possibility that there might be an unbounded number of universes.