My argument against materialism

[Robin]

Its not surprising as materialists are not interested in enquiring into what anything is or why or how it exists.

The same reason that Materialists are not interested in enquiring whether a bachelor's wife can wear green.

This is an unknown unknown from your position.

No, it is a known unknown. Because the question is ultimately meaningless. For the reasons I have been trying to get you to understand.

From my position and from your position.

And from anyone else's position.

Unless you can show me otherwise.

You were going to provide me with an example of how mystics are dealing with the question of what things are. Did you have any luck finding any?

 

[dafydd]

If there be several working physicists who want me off this forum and onto theirs, how come they don't communicate with me? To me ... this whole thing is a surprise. You guys play and I play in return. I'd say that's fair play. I'm not calling a fowl and none of the wolves have any real grounds to say I've said something outside of their own fashion! Have I shaken up the forum ... a little? So what? ... what can be more stimulating than such action? All of the rants about how physics isn't being discussed here are groundless. Yes ... I've put you on hold ... but only on one topic that I tired on. Sometimes, to stay on the merry-go-round doesn't make sense. I've judged that if you are right ... you should prove it from references and/or a peer reviewed paper. I will not be used to prove you! I already know of several flaws in your new theory. Yes ... yours is a new theory/interpretation & there aren't any specific references to it. Let's get real!

Get back to us when you revolutionize physics and win your Nobel prize. Here's a tip. To win such a prize you have to answer questions.

 

[dafydd]

I'm not saying you're a bad guy or "the bad guy" particularly. Just that Pixy asked you several times to give your understanding on those questions to see if you were both on the same wavelength. That's how I read it and I'm still wondering why you don't simply answer and we can all move on (yes, I'm speaking on behalf of the lurkers).

?

The questions arose because of kenkoskinen's misunderstanding of Em and gravity. Why he won't answer them is a puzzle.

 

[dafydd]

As an acknowledged "Master" if you have something to teach then spell it specifically out. Your comment is totally out of context to the post. Show me where you addressed anything in the quote! Please stop your foolish emoting. Skeptics, I thought were supposed to be rational. Yea ... I know ... you dished it out and I responded in kind. That means you're the good guy and I'm the bad guy! But ... wait ... that's not fair or ... should I say it again ... even rational! As a Master Poster it makes you look foolish, to say the least!

You have such a big head. Do you have any idea of how foolish you are making yourself look? Probably not. A common delusionaut trait. Do you really think that you are the first one ever to come here and teach the real physicists about physics? People like you are a dime a dozen.

 

[dafydd]

You were going to provide me with an example of how mystics are dealing with the question of what things are. Did you have any luck finding any?

Don't hold your breath.

 

[PixyMisa]

Please explain why it is very different.

If you simply answered the questions rather than posting increasingly irrational rants, you'd find out.

So:

What force is it that you think makes water incompressible?

What force is it that you think binds the atoms in water molecules together?

What force is it that you think generates the phenomenon known as surface tension?

And what force is it that you think counteracts gravity and prevents planets from collapsing under their own weight?

You could simply forego the silly questions part and write the conclusions that you are aiming at.

I did.

Why do I have to participate in a process that I think is nonsense?

To learn. Hopefully.

 

[dlorde]

The questions arose because of kenkoskinen's misunderstanding of Em and gravity. Why he won't answer them is a puzzle.

I'm pretty sure he understands them, but he can't bear to acknowledge he misinterpreted the whole thing. Beats me why, it's no biggie really. All this wriggling & squirming and ad-homs just makes it look worse.

 

[Robin]

An infinity which exists in the physical universe is unimaginable, as we would have to factor in all the laws of nature and time and space. Plus an infinite amount of unknown and unknowns unknowns aswell.

We don't have to factor in all the unknowns to think about a single concept.

If that were true then nobody could even decide what to eat for dinner today.

The question of an infinity existing in this physical universe is imaginable even if not possible.

One way it could happen is if reality was continuous rather than discrete. Then we could have an infinite number of moments contained in a one second interval - or an infinite number of gaps of space between your eyes and the terminal.

And we don't have to conceive this universe in order to conceive an infinite thing.

 

[PixyMisa]

I'm pretty sure he understands them, but he can't bear to acknowledge he misinterpreted the whole thing. Beats me why, it's no biggie really. All this wriggling & squirming and ad-homs just makes it look worse.

That's the point, yes. It's clear he knows something about physics, but he's also made some very basic errors. Is that misunderstanding due to language differences, simple mistakes at the moment of reading or posting, or actual lack of knowledge? We don't know, because he's refusing to address the point. If he simply answered the questions, we would understand him and could potentially have a fruitful discussion.

It's not a trick question or a trap. Or if it is a trap, it's a trap of his own making, by his refusal to just answer the questions.

 

[Robin]

The answer depends on your choice of ontology.

There are no ontologies to choose from. The word is meaningless as far as I can tell.

Materialism is not an ontology.

Idealism is not an ontology unless of course you can tell me what ideas are made of.

 

[Robin]

Ontology is the philosophical discipline dedicated to answering the question "What the hell does 'ontology' mean?"

 

[AlBell]

There are no ontologies to choose from. The word is meaningless as far as I can tell.

Materialism is not an ontology.

Idealism is not an ontology unless of course you can tell me what ideas are made of.

You are of course free to believe that.

I no more know what an idealist's ideas are made of than you know what a materialist's quarks and bosons (the current "atom" level ala Democritus) are made of. What one chooses to believe at that level is one's of choice of ontology.

 

[yy2bggggs]

You are of course free to believe that.

I no more know what an idealist's ideas are made of than you know what a materialist's quarks and bosons (the current "atom" level ala Democritus) are made of. What one chooses to believe at that level is one's of choice of ontology.

It doesn't matter that they choose to believe something, though. What matters is whether or not the thing they choose to believe has meaning.

Suppose an idealist and an old school materialist are sitting in a room, and you put a nail in front of both of them. The idealist sees an idea of a nail. The materialist sees a manifestation of a material nail.

But both of them are seeing the same nail. If you ask the idealist to hammer it into the wall, he grabs an ideal hammer and hammers in an idea into the wall. Ask the materialist, and he will grab a physical hammer and hammer in a physical nail into the wall. The materialist would likely pick up the same hammer that the idealist would pick up, and no matter who hammered in the nail, both would likely agree that the nail was hammered into the wall.

In both cases, the nails they see are simply representations of the nail. In neither case is their representation of the nail the actual nail. And in both cases they are able to interact with the same nail.

Before you figure out if the real nail is the idealist's image of the nail, or if the real nail is the materialists image of the nail, there's a bigger question you need to worry about; and that is this.

What does it mean for one of them to be the real nail?

 

[kenkoskinen]

I'm not saying you're a bad guy or "the bad guy" particularly. Just that Pixy asked you several times to give your understanding on those questions to see if you were both on the same wavelength. That's how I read it and I'm still wondering why you don't simply answer and we can all move on (yes, I'm speaking on behalf of the lurkers).

Hell, I'll even answer the questions. I haven't the slightest clue what the correct answers are, but I'm willing to learn.

Wait. I'm willing to learn! Whoa! I can even learn from you if you're willing to teach.

I don't have anything to do with Pixie's theory. She doesn't need me or anyone else to answer her questions. All she has to do is post what she thinks. I included an objection to her thinking in a post reply to Pure Argent see #1967. No one answered my objection. I didn't repeatedly insist that Pixie answer or anyone else answer it. I'm done with it. Let her get specific references that prove her theory is common thinking or write a paper and get it peer reviewed. I don't understand all the fuss!

Be that as it may, in my years on JREF, Pixy is pretty far down the list of people who are willing to play games, or say things just to wind you up.

I can only say I received private notifications to the contrary. Oh ... well ... let her do what she does and I'll do the same.

It may seem that I'm "taking Pixy's side" or vilifying you. Again, I'm not particularly. I'm just to the point when I feel compelled to publicly announce my frustration at the process and I think that you're putting up more of a barrier to communication at this point.

I'm offering this as friendly (or if you may bristle at "friendly" then fill in "well meaning") input to how you're coming across to those not directly in the current debate and the ONLY reason I am doing this is that I think you can make valuable contributions and I really want to understand your position.

Read the post #1967 and the others.

I thought you were referring specifically to the little title under everyone's user name. Other than that, what were you referring to?

I referring to your JREF identity. You are The Norseman. PixieMisa is PixieMisa. etc. These names or "handles" as I maybe incorrectly called them aren't our christened or everyday names. I hope now you understand what I meant.

 

[kenkoskinen]

PixieMisa If you already written your conclusions, (in which post?) fine. It's a done deal!

 

[dafydd]

PixieMisa If you already written your conclusions, (in which post?) fine. It's a done deal!

Not until you answer the questions,if you are capable of answering them. Did you understand the questions? If not,the scientists here can help you.

 

[The Norseman]

I don't have anything to do with Pixie's theory. She doesn't need me or anyone else to answer her questions. All she has to do is post what she thinks. I included an objection to her thinking in a post reply to Pure Argent see #1967. No one answered my objection. I didn't repeatedly insist that Pixie answer or anyone else answer it. I'm done with it. Let her get specific references that prove her theory is common thinking or write a paper and get it peer reviewed. I don't understand all the fuss!

Alright.

I can only say I received private notifications to the contrary. Oh ... well ... let her do what she does and I'll do the same.

All I can talk to is what I see publicly.

Read the post #1967 and the others.

I did. I still don't see what your position is. Perhaps you can elucidate for a layman like myself?

I referring to your JREF identity. You are The Norseman. PixieMisa is PixieMisa. etc. These names or "handles" as I maybe incorrectly called them aren't our christened or everyday names. I hope now you understand what I meant.

Yup, understood.

 

[PixyMisa]

I don't have anything to do with Pixie's theory. She doesn't need me or anyone else to answer her questions. All she has to do is post what she thinks. I included an objection to her thinking in a post reply to Pure Argent see #1967. No one answered my objection.

I have never presented a theory.

I have answered your objection, repeatedly, by asking you what force you think is involved in preventing planetary collapse.

Here you go:

What force is it that you think makes water incompressible?

What force is it that you think binds the atoms in water molecules together?

What force is it that you think generates the phenomenon known as surface tension?

And what force is it that you think counteracts gravity and prevents planets from collapsing under their own weight?

I didn't repeatedly insist that Pixie answer or anyone else answer it. I'm done with it. Let her get specific references that prove her theory is common thinking or write a paper and get it peer reviewed.

I am not presenting a theory.

I don't understand all the fuss!

But you're the one making all the fuss. Just answer the questions.

Read the post #1967 and the others.

I did. That's what lead me to ask those questions in the first place.

Physicists commonly and simply explain the reason why Jupiter, for example, doesn't collapse is it doesn't have enough mass.

Which means that some force is counteracting gravity and preventing the collapse. What is that force?

 

[kenkoskinen]

A Reply From the Bad Guy

I never claimed to be a "Master" of anything. Perhaps you mean the title given automatically by the forum software according to the number of posts? Yeah, you really should have lurked just a wee bit more.

Yes that was the trigger. My main point is you didn't refer to anything that was in the boxed quote. Instead waffled about other things. Now after all of your posts ... you really should have lurked just a wee bit more.

ETA: LOL. Replacing whole words and sentences then calling it "missing characters". Real classy.

I actually did it in two edits. In the first, as I recall, added &/or replaced a sentence. In the second edit I did insert a few missing characters. I fail to see the relevance of this. The end message is after all the one that really counts. You are clearly nit picking. Real classy. (I know now ... I'm the bad guy again and you ... well that's different because ...?)

 

[kenkoskinen]

PixieMisa RE: #2146 You haven't answered the objection, you didn't even frame it completely. Just get the specific references and/or write a paper and get it peer reviewed. Stop fussing, post your own thinking (or theory). I don't have anything to do with it! It's nonsense.