I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[doronshadmi]

We're at the point where doronshadmi is claiming to have found meaning in the phrase "has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?", and that it is actually a coherent question despite the fact that it was explicitly posted as a joke.

I think we're done here.

No, now you are simply ignore UFT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory).

 

[doronshadmi]

Yes, we know that

When, exactly?

 

[turingtest]

Yes, we know that, but I really must ask again: has anyone, anyone at all, really, truly been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

I very rarely say this on the Internet (in fact, I find it a little irritating when other folks do); but when I read this whole exchange with doronshadmi trying to dig himself out of a hole, I really did LOL.

 

[Nonpareil]

Yes, we know that

When, exactly?

And this is officially where I have to get off this crazy train. Entertainment value aside, we have now gone so far down the rabbit hole that all meaningful conversation has ceased, since it is impossible to tell if doronshadmi is trolling, being trolled, both at the same time, or neither.

While I have enjoyed this brief foray into the magical realm of objective subjectivity, in the interest of keeping this entire thread from being relegated to AAH, I will stop here.

 

[Nonpareil]

I very rarely say this on the Internet (in fact, I find it a little irritating when other folks do); but when I read this whole exchange with doronshadmi trying to dig himself out of a hole, I really did LOL.

I do my best.

 

[doronshadmi]

I very rarely say this on the Internet (in fact, I find it a little irritating when other folks do); but when I read this whole exchange with doronshadmi trying to dig himself out of a hole, I really did LOL.

It is not a rare thing that somebody says something (a joke, in this case) and someone else can take it and move forward beyond what was firstly said, so?

 

[doronshadmi]

in the interest of keeping this entire thread from being relegated to AAH, I will stop here.

Why, just because you now ignore UFT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory)?

 

[Belz...]

Once again:

The only way to get concrete evidence of it (and not just writing, drawing, talking or thinking about it) is by actually practicing techniques like Transcendental Meditation.

As long as you are not actually practicing it, you are not going to get your requested evidence.

Exactly what I said: you are denying the possibility of objective evidence, and are instead relying on anecdote. You refuse to prevent anything tangible, even a working hypothesis or mechanism for this.

The simplest state of existence is not objective or subjective, but it is the substance of both of them.

That makes no sense unless you don't know the meaning of those words. Subjective is a subset of objective. Asking for objective evidence is simply asking for evidence that is true under ALL points of view. You answer by telling me to seek subjective evidence, which doesn't work.

You lose.

 

[Dancing David]

(this line of reasoning) doesn't deny the possibility of knowledge, only admits that knowledge is modulated by our current state of consciousness. In this regard, we can agree, that Materialism appears true from the POV of human waking state. And, if it helps to get a good night sleep, the inquiry can end right there.

Um and the other stuff is superfluous and speculation.

 

[Dancing David]

such speculations are not a necessary component of remaining skeptical

yes and no, here is the point which most ignore.

What is different in idealism than materialism.

What observable phenomena make an apparent difference between the two?

Anything?

 

[ctamblyn]

Why, just because you now ignore UFT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory)?

I'll attempt a sensible comment on the subject of UFTs and symmetry.

The central theme in most unified field theories is spontaneous symmetry breaking. You try to model the laws of physics we see by guessing that perhaps the laws long ago were invariant under such-and-such a specific set of transformations, but that that symmetry was spontaneously broken in the very early universe, giving us what we have today.

Rather than being some vague undefined bunch of things, the symmetries in question are specific ways of mapping the fundamental fields to new fields in such a way that the mathematical form of the Lagrangian density (which encapsulates the equations of motion for the fields) is unchanged.

To emphasise: The symmetry transformations in question form a specific set with specific mathematical properties and relationships (they'd form a Lie group or Lie supergroup if you're curious). While the symmetry groups posited in unified field theories are indeed larger than the symmetries of the Standard Model used today, the rather vague claim earlier that "any possible set is a transformation" is definitely a false statement in such a context.

Invoking UFTs as support for doronshadmi's ideas makes about as much sense as far as decided to use even go want invoking set theory to do more look binary tree.

 

[Dancing David]

That is my point . . . so we state the world is material as a concession to our not being able to verify it.

No, the point is that phenomenological naturalism is the only valid ontology. the universe behaves as it does, and it doesn't give a damn what we label it, it looks as though it is 'material' on one level, but on others it is irrational chaotic and probabilities.

All there is is what is observed. There is no ideal or material, the question is which labels are useful.

 

[LarryS]

No, the point is that phenomenological naturalism is the only valid ontology. the universe behaves as it does, and it doesn't give a damn what we label it, it looks as though it is 'material' on one level, but on others it is irrational chaotic and probabilities.

All there is is what is observed. There is no ideal or material, the question is which labels are useful.

we agree, materialism is a model useful in answering specific questions

 

[realpaladin]

I very rarely say this on the Internet (in fact, I find it a little irritating when other folks do); but when I read this whole exchange with doronshadmi trying to dig himself out of a hole, I really did LOL.

*Out*???? Man, we are talking about someone who will rent a backhoe to dig deeper the one he fell in to!

EDIT: It may be a lucrative idea to make a collection of Doron's antics and bundle them into a booklet...

 

[abaddon]

Once again:

The only way to get concrete evidence of it (and not just writing, drawing, talking or thinking about it) is by actually practicing techniques like Transcendental Meditation.

As long as you are not actually practicing it, you are not going to get your requested evidence.

And there we have it. You have to Truly Belive^TM in order to believe it. The epitome of circular reasoning.

Why, exactly, should I or anyone else engage in a practice which has no detectable benefit? If you want to convince anyone to engage in any practice, you should be able to prove the tangible benefits which will result from such practice a priori. Yet you cannot. All you claim is that benefit will accrue only by means of doing it and such benefit is not measurable in any way.

 

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
I very rarely say this on the Internet (in fact, I find it a little irritating when other folks do); but when I read this whole exchange with doronshadmi trying to dig himself out of a hole, I really did LOL.

*Out*???? Man, we are talking about someone who will rent a backhoe to dig deeper the one he fell in to!
EDIT: It may be a lucrative idea to make a collection of Doron's antics and bundle them into a booklet...

It's the Chief Wiggum tactic- "no, no, dig up, stupid!"

 

[Belz...]

we agree, materialism is a model useful in answering specific questions

All specific questions.

 

[doronshadmi]

Asking for objective evidence is simply asking for evidence that is true under ALL points of view.

Wrong, both subjective and objective evidences are variant by nature.

Please show me even a single objective evident that is absolutely invariant.

If you can't provide such an evidence then (by using your terms) it is not true under ALL points of view.

So, I am waiting to your objective evidence that is true under ALL points of view (where this evidence is definitely not material, because matter is a variant space\time phenomena).

 

[doronshadmi]

All specific questions.

No, only space\time variant questions.

 

[doronshadmi]

I'll attempt a sensible comment on the subject of UFTs and symmetry.

The central theme in most unified field theories is spontaneous symmetry breaking. You try to model the laws of physics we see by guessing that perhaps the laws long ago were invariant under such-and-such a specific set of transformations, but that that symmetry was spontaneously broken in the very early universe, giving us what we have today.

Rather than being some vague undefined bunch of things, the symmetries in question are specific ways of mapping the fundamental fields to new fields in such a way that the mathematical form of the Lagrangian density (which encapsulates the equations of motion for the fields) is unchanged.

To emphasise: The symmetry transformations in question form a specific set with specific mathematical properties and relationships (they'd form a Lie group or Lie supergroup if you're curious). While the symmetry groups posited in unified field theories are indeed larger than the symmetries of the Standard Model used today, the rather vague claim earlier that "any possible set is a transformation" is definitely a false statement in such a context.

Invoking UFTs as support for doronshadmi's ideas makes about as much sense as far as decided to use even go want invoking set theory to do more look binary tree.

Please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10417706&postcount=936 , in order to understand better my UFT view.

Fortunately you are a reasonable poster that I can communicate with him in this thread.