My argument against materialism

[yy2bggggs]

In conclusion, I erred but so did others ... it's not all about gravity.

Who said it was all about gravity?

 

[Trent Wray]

I'll let the theists speak for themselves: Faith is belief in things unseen. In other words, beleif in the absence of evidence, or in contradiction of the evidence.

Though really in my mind faith isn't about the evidence at all--it's about the conclusion, and the evidence is considered irrelevant to that conclusion. If a person has faith that, say, Jesus existed the evidence truly doesn't matter one way or another. The conclusion wasn't arived at via evidence, and while the theist will gladly use any evidence they find to persuade others their own belief is not influenced by it one way or another.

Deluge Geology is another great example. People come at this from exactly the wrong perspective from a scientific perspective: They arive at the conclusion that there was a great Flood prior to looking at the evidence, and in truth (despite what Creationists claim) the evidence is irrelevant to their arguments. You can see that in the fact that no Deluge Geology advocate provides examples of flood stratigraphy (there are many, many, many examples in geology--it's a rather common topic in sedimentology lectures, as they are specific, definite events on a human scale and therefore easy to analyze). However, show a hammer that's been mineralized by solute-rich groundwater and they'll present that as evidence for rapid fossilization. The evidence is irrelevant; at best it's window dressing, at worst it's ignored. They've already come to their conclusion.

So I think discussing criteria for accepting a concept and faith as two different aspects of the same concept is incorrect. Once you agree that there should be a certain criteria for accepting a concept (theory, hypothesis, argument, what have you) you've accepted that the proper mode of thinking is that the conclusion should be based on the evidence. Faith rejects that mode of thinking. These aren't two different points on the same graduated scale, but rather two different scales orthogonal to one another.

Hmm.

Well, I actually do use the word faith in a non-religious way. The wiki definition is good enough I suppose:

Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing.

I think you're using the term "faith" more akin to the biblical definition of faith: the substance of things hoped for and things unseen.

Because by the wiki definition of faith, I could say that defining knowledge as 95% certainty is synonymous with having faith.

Now ... further clarifying this: I come from no religious upbringing, so it's hard for me to view the term "faith" as being exclusive to religious constructs. If I get into a plane to fly from New York to London, I have "faith" it will arrive there safely. If I wanted to break this down further ... my faith rests on the previous successful flights I've been on, the small amount of annual crashes with whatever company I'm flying with, etc and so forth. But there is that uncertainty that two missing rivots later will spell my demise lol. Nevertheless, it's faith in my eyes. If I didn't have it, I wouldn't get on that flight. Or in that car. Or marry that person. Or take that pill. Or believe my teacher. Or reach out to pet that dog. Etc and so forth.

Now, all of this is backed by "evidence" of some kind. None of the evidence is "proof" until events unfold. It's merely building up a statistical probability that what I'm trusting as knowledge to be sound and trustworthy. Say, 95%. In this sense, I still see faith as being synonymous with knowledge.

Now, the way you are describing faith, seems to be the type that is exclusive to a certain kind perhaps? Where the probability doesn't even fall within a percentage. It is outside of the 0 and 100% range lol. There is no 1% possibility or 99% possibility. There isn't even a 0%. There is no evidence whatsoever for the focus of the faith: it's completely IMAGINARY. The only place it exists, is within the human mind in the form of imagination. Thus, the person has faith in their imagination. This would border into delusion, which is also distinct from basing a perception on false or incomplete information.

Which leads to another point (just to toss an extra two cents in there). Arguably, many religious ideas come from archetypes, and are based on incomplete information. I don't know of any mainstream religions that will acknowledge their beliefs spur only from imagination as the sole source. Therefore, the "evidence" for the religion (like the personnage of Jesus) might be evidence of SOMETHING .... an original person who did exist, or someone who did create something from imagination, or an actual event. This is why I am a proponent for anecdotes being a form of evidence ... they are not definitive proof, but they might allude to something real. "I saw a UFO fly over my ranch" was really a sun-dog in the sky, for example. The anecdotal account is evidence there might be something the person saw ... and without definitive proof of ET's perhaps the most logical explanation would be a sun-dog and not aliens. Nevertheless, the might not even be definitive proof that it was a sun dog if no one can produce pictures of the event that weren't faked ...

But anyway I'm chasing a rabbit hole. The point, is that by your comment about knowledge, I saw no difference between that definition and one essentially synonymous with faith.

Now, one thing I've noticed ... is that "faith" is almost always viewed as a "bad word" around here. It's something I've never understood unless it's because it's so entrenched with religion that it's impossible to detach it from religious speech. Every now and then when I use the word, I don't understand why the convesation always has to go directly to religion and not remain in the realm of "neutral semantics" or philosophical ideas. I have no desire to defend any religion .... but faith is seemingly something we all live by, everyday, on some level. Otherwise we would never leave our padded cells lol. To me, if someone says, "I have no faith in anything," then that means that they definitively know all knowledge perfectly at all points relative to them at any given moment (i.e. they are individually perfect), or they are completely and utterly random in their response to reality with no coherence to anything in particular. IOW, being correct or incorrect is irrelevant across the board.

Can I ask you .... do you have a personal aversion to the word, or would you use it to describe yourself if the word could be "salvaged" amongst the skeptics? lol. I almost want to open a thread on this question ....

 

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by kenkoskinen
We know matter can arise from energy but we don't yet know the how & why questions. Nothing can come out of or arise from a singularity.

"That's not exactly true, but near enough."

In science we discover the "what" happens before the "how & why" answers. A singularity is a theoretical concept that stems from General Relativity. It's a point of infinite energy

Specifically, infinite energy density. It may well have been finite, just as black holes are today.

and a zero volume of space/time. This is nonsense to physics as all known laws breakdown.

Sort of. Black holes contain singularities. Black holes are predicted by general relativity. The conditions inside the event horizon of a black hole are intrinsically unknowable, but we can still observe what's going on outside.

He have hit a pesky infinity and nothing can emerge from such a point.

False. Of course things can emerge from such a point. (Singularities in general, not black holes.) The problem is, it's a singularity, so we can't say a priori what will emerge from such a point.

This is a major anomaly or break down in the Big Bang model.

No. It's just an asymptote.

If there was an early universe singularity the universe shouldn't be here.

Nonsense.

We need a fix to this problem.

What problem?

Yes ... the detections the BB accounts for, do not have anything to do with the early singularity. The problem is swept aside or ignored.

What problem?

Anytime you want to include the singularity it screws everything up. I hope I chose enough words so you understand it now.

Well, I understand you, even if punshhh doesn't. The thing is, the singularity only shows up if you trace the Big Bang backwards. We can't see it; we have no direct evidence of it; it's not required by any theory. It's simply the logical result of projecting observations backwards in time.

 

[PixyMisa]

An equivalence relation is not an identity relation.

Ding!

 

[PixyMisa]

dlorde If the electromagnetic force were instantly suspended on Earth all molecular things on the planet would crumble. The planet would lose volume but gravity could still hold the mass together. However the left-over planet would have lost some mass, since E = Mc2 and the deflated world's orbit would change. It would drift further away from the Sun until a new orbital equilibrium was reached. This means that both gravity and the electromagnetic force play a role in holding our world together. I have been commenting on the EM side of the debate as it is primary in maintaining the form of our present world.

The tensile strength of a body as large as the Earth over its entire size is essentially zero. In other words, the Earth as a body is held together by gravity; the electromagnetic force simply doesn't signify at that scale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit

 

[PixyMisa]

Ok Ok I got the message, so our known universe is composed of activity and any kind of solid/substance/physical presence is an illusion/false.

Wrong.

It's entirely real. You can tell it's real by how it acts.

How can activity occur in space and time, or is that also not what it seems?

Where else is activity going to occur?

 

[PixyMisa]

The tensile strength of a body as large as the Earth over its entire size is essentially zero. In other words, the Earth as a body is held together by gravity; the electromagnetic force simply doesn't signify at that scale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit

Actually, to correct myself there:

Gravity holds planets together. The electromagnetic force keeps them from collapsing into tiny little neutron stars.

It does signify, but only as a repulsive force, not as an attractive one.

 

[kenkoskinen]

Specifically, infinite energy density. It may well have been finite, just as black holes are today.


Sort of. Black holes contain singularities. Black holes are predicted by general relativity. The conditions inside the event horizon of a black hole are intrinsically unknowable, but we can still observe what's going on outside.


False. Of course things can emerge from such a point. (Singularities in general, not black holes.) The problem is, it's a singularity, so we can't say a priori what will emerge from such a point.


No. It's just an asymptote.


Nonsense.


What problem?


What problem?


Well, I understand you, even if punshhh doesn't. The thing is, the singularity only shows up if you trace the Big Bang backwards. We can't see it; we have no direct evidence of it; it's not required by any theory. It's simply the logical result of projecting observations backwards in time.

PixyMisa Singularities are theoretical concepts predicted by General Relativity, in both black holes and at the Big Bang. For you to say something can come out of one is nonsense. Cosmologists are well aware of the early universe singularity problem, firstly exposed by Stephen Hawking, but clearly you are not. It makes your one-worder/liner answers appear to be foolish since you don't offer a solution. Its as if you can say, "nonsense" and the problem vanishes. That's something like a magical incantation; but can you do any better than that?

 

[PixyMisa]

PixyMisa Singularities are theoretical concepts predicted by General Relativity, in both black holes and at the Big Bang. For you to say something can come out of one is nonsense.

Yes and no.

Theoretically, yes, something can come out of a singularity. Theoretically, singularities can do whatever they please.

Cosmologists are well aware of the early universe singularity problem, firstly exposed by Stephen Hawking, but clearly you are not. It makes your one-worder/liner answers appear to be foolish since you don't offer a solution. Its as if you can say, "nonsense" and the problem vanishes. That's something like a magical incantation; but can you do any better than that?

[citation needed]

 

[kenkoskinen]

Who said it was all about gravity?

yy2bgggs, read it again. I did NOT write that anyone "SAID it was all about gravity." In your post #1771 you imply that gravity keeps large objects like planets held together. dlorde in #1822 implied that gravity would be overwhelmingly stronger than EM in holding planets together.

I erred in my point that it was about EM. Okay I checked it out and corrected myself (like some others do on the forum). I saw that on Earth gravity and EM are involved in holding our planet together. My conclusion (beyond correcting myself) is essentially that no one else was giving any (or very much) credence to EM. Hence my comment ... it's not all about gravity. PixyMisas post #1867 contains double talk but also claims that gravity holds planets together and downplays EM (but I'll answer her separately).

So I hope your okay ... I am.

 

[yy2bggggs]

So I hope your okay ...

Sure, I'm less confused now.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[kenkoskinen]

Actually, to correct myself there:

Gravity holds planets together. The electromagnetic force keeps them from collapsing into tiny little neutron stars.

It does signify, but only as a repulsive force, not as an attractive one.

PixyMesa Your http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit reference is not about any comparisons in the gravity vs. EM discussion. The Roche limit is where gravitational tidal forces succeed in breaking up orbiting bodies. Gravity is assumed to be the only glue ... but it's immaterial; orbiting bodies break up where they do.

You claim that gravity holds planets together and the electromagnetic force keeps them from collapsing into tiny little neutron stars. Do you have any idea what it takes to create a neutron star? You need a large star to go supernova and a neutron star is left in the aftermath. If the star were larger yet, it would form a stellar black hole. A planet can't become even a tiny neutron star and the EM bonds in molecules couldn't possibly prevent it. (reference required, preferably citing astronomic observations)

On earth there are lots of molecules. EM force binds atoms and molecules together. It acts like an atomic glue holding things together. It works along with gravity in holding our world together. http://videolectures.net/mit802s02_lewin_lec01/

 

[PixyMisa]

PixyMesa Your http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit reference is not about any comparisons in the gravity vs. EM discussion. The Roche limit is where gravitational tidal forces succeed in breaking up orbiting bodies. Gravity is assumed to be the only glue ... but it's immaterial; orbiting bodies break up where they do.

Read the rest of the article. It discusses explicitly where the electromagnetic force is sufficient to hold a body together inside the Roche limit - and that's only for bodies less than 1/100th the diameter of the Earth.

Edit: Specifically, you can see that some of the smaller moons of the gas giants are inside the Roche limit for a fluid body, but outside an estimated Roche limit for a rigid body of that size. These small moons are being held together by the electromagnetic force. That doesn't work for larger bodies, because the tensile strength doesn't scale but the tidal stresses do.

You claim that gravity holds planets together and the electromagnetic force keeps them from collapsing into tiny little neutron stars. Do you have any idea what it takes to create a neutron star? You need a large star to go supernova and a neutron star is left in the aftermath. If the star were larger yet, it would form a stellar black hole. A planet can't become even a tiny neutron star and the EM bonds in molecules couldn't possibly prevent it. (reference required, preferably citing astronomic observations)

On earth there are lots of molecules. EM force binds atoms and molecules together. It acts like an atomic glue holding things together. It works along with gravity in holding our world together. http://videolectures.net/mit802s02_lewin_lec01/

Yes. Was there a point to all that?

 

[punshhh]

An equivalence relation is not an identity relation.

I understand that the energy constituting an atom is a different kind of energy to the energy interacting through and between atoms.

It is all energy though is it not?

 

[punshhh]

Wrong.

It's entirely real. You can tell it's real by how it acts.


Where else is activity going to occur?

Yes I agree, my point was reality itself is illusory by nature.

Now we agree that atoms are energy in a different form to other energy?

with the appearance/behavior of particles?

So a single "thing", energy has formed into two things particles and the energy working between particles?

 

[laca]

Yes I agree, my point was reality itself is illusory by nature.

No.

Now we agree that atoms are energy in a different form to other energy?

No.

with the appearance/behavior of particles?

Atoms are particles. So, no.

So a single "thing", energy has formed into two things particles and the energy working between particles?

No.

Why even bother? You've not understood anything anybody said to you so far. And it looks like you're incapable to.

 

[punshhh]

No.



No.



Atoms are particles. So, no.



No.

Why even bother? You've not understood anything anybody said to you so far. And it looks like you're incapable to.

I do understand I'm just looking for clarification, if an atom is not energy what is it?

And if its a particle, a particle of what?

 

[Robin]

Thankyou for your analogy, I agree with Albell about the mass, I see this as the elastic.
So the energy stretch of the elastic is exchanged with other pieces of elastic via force.
Does the energy only have a presence as the extension of elastic?
and presumably the elastic is composed of a different form of energy, which forms the atom?

No, that is not what I meant at all.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes I agree, my point was reality itself is illusory by nature.

What does that mean?

Now we agree that atoms are energy in a different form to other energy?

with the appearance/behavior of particles?

So a single "thing", energy has formed into two things particles and the energy working between particles?

No. For example, light - which is energy - is made of particles - photons.

 

[punshhh]

What does that mean?


No. For example, light - which is energy - is made of particles - photons.

so a photon is a form of energy like a packet of energy, a particle of energy?

What does that mean, I am refering to what appears to be real as a whole, not just the atoms, I am including spacetime and our understanding of reality.