My argument against materialism

[PixyMisa]

They cannot be detected with machines.

People are machines. All our senses are mechanical devices. All you are saying is that they don't exist.

 

[Dancing David]

remaining resolutely silent.

Did you get souveniers?

 

[Dancing David]

They cannot be detected with machines.

Or by people, got it?

Imagination does not equal real.

 

[punshhh]

Imagine a thing which has the structure of the surface of a sphere but is only a two dimensional object.

Yes I can, in my ideas there are such corresponding "geometries" of various kinds.

When I visualise this, my next thought is what is unbounded in one dimension is an aspect of the surface of a bounded form in the next dimension up, and continues in steps.
We are back to the unboundedness always manifesting as an aspect or quality of a definable form in one dimension or another.

So by this reasoning our universe is in 4 dimensions, equivalent to the surface of a sphere in 3 dimensions.

Hence unbounded within a larger bounded geometry.

I have been visualising something akin to this all along.

Now lets consider this notional 4D sphere, is it the only sphere in that 4th dimension?

Or is the sphere embedded in a larger geometry, which in turn is populated by a myriad of other spheres?


I can see us discussing Dafydd's spheres after all

 

[punshhh]

Or by people, got it?

Imagination does not equal real.

Does direct experience qualify?

 

[punshhh]

People are machines. All our senses are mechanical devices.

I agree, I tend to use the word vehicle rather than machines.

All you are saying is that they don't exist.

Not quite, I am saying they are not known to exist through testing with mechanical devices.

 

[dafydd]

Or is the sphere embedded in a larger geometry, which in turn is populated by a myriad of other spheres?

We don't know. You might as well discuss turtles all the way down. Do you actually have a point to make?

 

[dafydd]

Not quite, I am saying they are not known to exist through testing with mechanical devices.

Invisible unicorns,leprechauns and the tooth fairy are not known to exist through testing with mechanical devices. Why the special pleading for these chakras?

 

[dafydd]

Does direct experience qualify?

For what?

 

[punshhh]

Doesn't work for me. Something can be infinite and bounded. Think of the set of real numbers between 0 and 1.

I see your point.

In my opinion, such sets are fine in theory, however I am considering the implications of a physical infinity,ie in space-time.

I can see how a physical infinity can be bounded, ie bounded within the surface of a notional 4D sphere. However it would require an infinity on all the dimensional levels if it were truly infinite.

 

[punshhh]

For what?

evidence of the bodily spheres.

 

[dafydd]

. However it would require an infinity on all the dimensional levels if it were truly infinite.

Do you have mathematical proof of this,or are you just conjecturing again? Get to the point.

 

[Robin]

Yes I can, in my ideas there are such corresponding "geometries" of various kinds.

When I visualise this, my next thought is what is unbounded in one dimension is an aspect of the surface of a bounded form in the next dimension up, and continues in steps.
We are back to the unboundedness always manifesting as an aspect or quality of a definable form in one dimension or another.

But I already stipulated that the object is two dimensional - so there is no "next dimension up". And so even by your reasoning the object I described is unbounded and finite.

So by this reasoning our universe is in 4 dimensions, equivalent to the surface of a sphere in 3 dimensions.

Well let us say that the geometry of our universe is equivalent to a sort of 4 dimensional doughnut.

That would not imply that there was, in fact, a fourth dimension

Or is the sphere embedded in a larger geometry, which in turn is populated by a myriad of other spheres?

Assuming that you are using "sphere" as an analogy for whatever shape the universe is, then it might be the case or then again it might not. Nobody knows. This is the point your professor made all those years ago and the point I have been making all along.

Nobody knows.

It might be that our universe is part of an infinite multiverse that is it self part of a collection of infinite multiverses.

The possiblities are - well - infinite.

 

[dafydd]

evidence of the bodily spheres.

There is no evidence for the existence of chakras. Vague bodily feelings do not count.

 

[punshhh]

We don't know. You might as well discuss turtles all the way down. Do you actually have a point to make?

Yes my point goes right back to my first point in this thread.

Materialism does not consider the implications of an existing physical infinity on and in the very matter itself.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes my point goes right back to my first point in this thread.

Materialism does not consider the implications of an existing physical infinity on and in the very matter itself.

If that meant something, perhaps materialism would consider it.

 

[dafydd]

Yes my point goes right back to my first point in this thread.

Materialism does not consider the implications of an existing physical infinity on and in the very matter itself.

Is that supposed to mean something? Let's try. An existing physical infinity on and in matter would exist so it would be material. I have no idea how a physical infinity could worm it's way into matter. Gibberish.

 

[Robin]

I see your point.

In my opinion, such sets are fine in theory, however I am considering the implications of a physical infinity,ie in space-time.

I can see how a physical infinity can be bounded, ie bounded within the surface of a notional 4D sphere. However it would require an infinity on all the dimensional levels if it were truly infinite.

You have now added another, er, dimension to your personal definition of infinite that it must have infinite dimensions.

You are assuming that physical reality is constrained to that which can be modelled by linear algebra.

Physics got past that assumption some time ago.

 

[Robin]

Materialism does not consider the implications of an existing physical infinity on and in the very matter itself.

I would have to go with the others there. That does not seem to mean anything.

I think that there is a hard and fast rule for Materialists - don't second guess science.

 

[punshhh]

But I already stipulated that the object is two dimensional - so there is no "next dimension up". And so even by your reasoning the object I described is unbounded and finite.

Well let us say that the geometry of our universe is equivalent to a sort of 4 dimensional doughnut.

That would not imply that there was, in fact, a fourth dimension

Assuming that you are using "sphere" as an analogy for whatever shape the universe is, then it might be the case or then again it might not. Nobody knows. This is the point your professor made all those years ago and the point I have been making all along.

Nobody knows.

It might be that our universe is part of an infinite multiverse that is it self part of a collection of infinite multiverses.

The possiblities are - well - infinite.

Thankyou Robin, we have reached the infinity I was refering to in my previous post to Dafydd.

My point is that space-time is an abstraction, a necessary construct for the manifestation of physical matter.

If you deconstruct spacetime by reversing the process of the development of our universe you reach a point where all the atoms and spacetime are reduced to a single point or sphere, in the big bang event.

Likewise all the "collection of infinite multiverses", are at a certain point in their development a single point or sphere.

All these points being outside space and time are the same point.

This point is my definition of infinity and what is refered by the Hindus.