I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

There can be no evidence against materialism because evidence is by definition material, so if any evidence of any kind is found, it would support materialism.

However, there is no evidence for materialism - that is, there has never been found any material outside consciousness. As I sit here in this room, I do not see, hear or taste and etc any matter outside of my being conscious of it. I can not find any matter with intrinsic existence, that is, matter that exists independent of my being aware of it, or matter I can infer from its effects on matter I observe.

I can leave the room and return, and things are as I left them. I need to be again conscious of them to establish they exist, and I can only claim they existed while I was out - but I can't prove it without direct or indirect observation of consciousness.

I can make these claims:
I can not prove there is any matter outside of consciousness.
I make moment by moment concessions to 'reality' - concessions so I don't walk into walls and default on my mortgage. By concessions I refer to this line from William Wordsworth "Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting." where by 'birth' I believe the poet is referring to our constant rising into contents of mind and by 'sleep and forgetting' a necessary error.
 
dlorde said:
That's right - latent, not, "actually existing right now", as you claimed.
Click to expand...
Once again, latent in the Higgs field means that by providing the needed conditions (as done, for example, by using LHC) Higgs bosons are re-discovered as free particles that can be measured.

Moreover, if the needed conditions are found in phenomena like supernova, Higgs bosons are re-discovered as free particles right know even if they are not measured by us.

dlorde said:
<sigh> it's like talking to a small child...
Click to expand...
It is indeed a challenge to talk to a small child by enable him to get the core of things.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
How does the brain get from being aware of the mantra to being aware of the simplest state of existence.
Click to expand...
Similarly as one is directly aware of silence instead of just talking or thinking about it.

As long as you are not actually practicing techniques like Transcendental Meditation you are bounded by the about it.

Belz... said:
You are wasting your time. Doron has no understanding of logic or reason or math or science or anything, not even his own hypothesis. He feels something, and that's all that matters to him.
Click to expand...
This is indeed the best conclusion that one can get by using only about reasoning of the simplest state of existence.

The failure of your about reasoning is already addressed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10377509&postcount=566 and it is too weak in order to deal with http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p269007 and http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p269050.
 
Last edited:
dlorde said:
Yeah, but absolute symmetry is still a property; the 'simplest state of existence' would be the substance. Do you see?
Click to expand...
By being directly be aware of the simplest state of existence, the difference between property or state does not exist, exactly because the simplest state of existence is a non-composed Unity, which is not one_of_many thing.

The difference may appear only at the level of talking or thinking about it, which is never the same as directly being aware of it.
 
Last edited:
LarryS said:
There can be no evidence against materialism because evidence is by definition material, so if any evidence of any kind is found, it would support materialism.
Click to expand...
Unless one directly aware of the simplest state of existence, where no phenomena, materialist, idealist etc., is expressed.
 
Last edited:
ctamblyn said:
OK, well thanks anyway.
Click to expand...
Please explain why the set of all transformations must be a particular non-empty set, if its invariant existence is constantly determined by its outer "{" and "}", whether it is empty or not (again, I am not talking about any particular symbols, but about the fact that the invariant existence of the concept of set, is defined by using some constant symbols)?

Please reply to http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p269052 as a part of your answer.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Even if I don't fly planes, I can understand the principles and techniques. You should be able to explain it, but you can't, because you don't understand it yourself.
Click to expand...
You are still missing the simple fact that really "understand the principles and techniques" is achieved only by actually practicing it and never by only talking or thinking about it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10407778&postcount=840 is a very simple explanation about it, but about it is never actually practicing it and directly be aware of it.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Please explain why the set of all transformations must be a particular non-empty set, if its invariant existence is constantly determined by its outer "{" and "}", whether it is empty or not (again, I am not talking about any particular symbols, but about the fact that the invariant existence of the concept of set, is defined by using some constant symbols)?
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10407914&postcount=845

ETA: You are still misunderstanding. I'm talking about the set of transformations, each element of which is a transformation, not some set upon which the transformations act.

ETAA: To put it another way, I don't care about side-issues regarding multisets, nor your idiosyncratic interpretation of symbols like "{" and "}". What I was originally asking about is the following:

When you said "all possible transformations", you were referring to some collection of particular transformations which act on the "form of existence". That collection is what I'm asking about: what are those transformations? Explicitly, what are they? Are they rotations of 3D space? Translations? What?
 
Last edited:
ctamblyn said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10407914&postcount=845

ETA: You are still misunderstanding. I'm talking about the set of transformations, each element of which is a transformation, not some set upon which the transformations act.

ETAA: To put it another way, I don't care about side-issues regarding multisets, nor your idiosyncratic interpretation of symbols like "{" and "}". What I was originally asking about is the following:

When you said "all possible transformations", you were referring to some collection of particular transformations which act on the "form of existence". That collection is what I'm asking about: what are those transformations? Explicitly, what are they? Are they rotations of 3D space? Translations? What?
Click to expand...
This set includes anything that is not the simplest state of existence, where the simplest state of existence is marked by the outer "{" and "}", which logically can't be one of its members, or in other words, it is not one_of_many thing (where each one of the members is one_of_many thing).

In other words, anything that is one_of_many thing is variant (it is transformable or changeable) w.r.t the simplest state of existence, which is invariant (it is not transformable or changeable).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
This set includes anything that is not the simplest state of existence, where the simplest state of existence is marked by the outer "{" and "}".
Click to expand...

For the nth time, that's not what I'm asking about. I'm asking about the transformations which act on the state, not the state itself.
 
Symmetry means invariance under some particular transformation. Invariance means that the transformation causes no change.

Perfect symmetry, if it has any meaning at all, would have to mean invariance under all possible transformations.

Thus, if the universe were ever in a state of perfect symmetry, it could not possibly change in any way. If it were in that state prior to the Big Bang, then the Big Bang, and every subsequent change of configuration, could not have occurred.

Since many changes did occur and continue to occur, we must conclude that no state of perfect symmetry could possibly have existed.
 
ctamblyn said:
For the nth time, that's not what I'm asking about. I'm asking about the transformations which act on the state, not the state itself.
Click to expand...
For the nth time, my answer is that anything that is not the simplest state of existence, is transformable (it is variant).
 
Myriad said:
Perfect symmetry, if it has any meaning at all, would have to mean invariance under all possible transformations.
Click to expand...
This is the simplest state of existence.

Myriad said:
Thus, if the universe were ever in a state of perfect symmetry, it could not possibly change in any way.
Click to expand...
Wrong, you simply do not comprehend (yet) http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10377509&postcount=566.

Actually, you can't comprehend it unless your are actually practicing techniques like Transcendental Meditation.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
By totally reject https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjT831cjaUY it is clear that you deliberately avoiding the (about) answer to your question.
Click to expand...

That video is not an explanation of the mechanism I am asking you about. You are clearly totally out of your depths, here. You have NO idea how any of this would even work if it were true.

You therefore have no alternative to materialism. Your unevidenced claim is rejected.
 
doronshadmi said:
For the nth time, my answer is that anything that is not the simplest state of existence, is transformable (it is variant).
Click to expand...

That's still not an answer to my actual question.

I didn't ask you what is being transformed, I asked you what the transformations are.


ETA: do your transformations form a group? If so, which group?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom