Materialists......

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

MWI claims that in order to escape the apparent paradoxes of QM we need to posit the existence of countless trillions of Universes splitting off from this one every millisecond. Alternatively, one can simply reject local realism and go back to there only be one Universe.

And which of these multiplies entities beyond necessity, as Occam warned us not to do?

Why?

Because you need a mechanism to prevent more than one universe from coming into existence.

Before we apply Occam, we have to have multiple theories that explain the problem at hand equally well. I don't think we're there yet.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Order exists whether "we" define it or not. Your random mechanisms coupled with entropy considerations are subject to the constraints of TLOP at minimum.

And if you want to say that the laws of physics exist because someone wanted them to, then you'll need to offer some evidence.

I continue to find it interesting that wannabe-materialists see no teleological aspects to 'what-is'. Hmmm, perhaps I should say I find that position odd and indefensible, too.

One type of evidence would be a logical proof that deterministic and random processes can't produce whatever objects you think show teleological influence.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Neither will anybody ever. I cannot prove neutral monism is true. All I can do is make a series of inductive arguments aimed at convincing people it is the most likely or the most coherent of the available options.

Then neutral monism will forever remain an appendage to an interpretation of QM.

It doesn't. Darwinism accounts for evolution.

How does neutral monism account for Darwinism?

Perhaps you're not answering my question because you think that consciousness was a lucky accident and not part of the plan of the Being/Mind/Zero thingie.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If you honestly believe that idealism, materialism and neutral monism have no relationship to each other, and are more like 1, 1 and 1 than 1, -1 and 0 then I have nothing more to say to you.

They may appear to have a relationship because they are not fully fleshed out. That is, they do not explain everything we see. Each one being incomplete in itself, they then appear to present a complete picture when taken together.

If philosophers would complete their monistic models of reality, then they would all be equivalent.

But then people defending materialism have a habit of defending statements which look absurd to everyone else.

Even when we are having a conversation where I am clearly not defending materialism, but am claiming that all monisms are equivalent, you cannot stop yourself from throwing in this gratuitous remark. Stop grinding your tedious axe.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I have often hinted that I believe that evolutionary theory leaves the door open for mutations being non-random in certain cases. Specifically, the case I was refering to was the evolution of consciousness. From our POV this suggests that evolution was in some sense always heading towards the emergence of consciousness. The dice had to have been loaded.

Who is it that endows quantum mechanics with all this teleological goodness? Is it Being, Mind, Zero, -1? This is all nothing more than an appeal to qumdidit.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

And which of these multiplies entities beyond necessity, as Occam warned us not to do?

The 2nd one.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I wasn't talking about alternate timelines or whatnot.

No, you can blame Paul for that one.

That seems to me like just a mathematical model rather than an actual reality.

That's why I posted the links about David Deutsch. He, for one, believes that particular model represents the truth.

I was talking about OTHER universes with their own set of physical laws and all.

If ONE universe can spawn from the "singularity", then it's reasonable to assume that others will, as well.

Why?

A beign who's infinite in knowledge, power, presence and intelligence is the ultimate in simplicity ? We're not talking about bizarre branches. We're talking mainstream Christianity.

God has attributes that simply cannot be described as complex. He has emotions, for one, and that's a biological component.

For me, that is one of the major problems with the Christian conception of God. Emotions are human weaknesses.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Geoff. Please. How can something NOT exist and yet NOT NOT exist ?

By being beyond the dichotomy of existence and non-existence.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Then neutral monism will forever remain an appendage to an interpretation of QM.

For some people, yes.

How does neutral monism account for Darwinism?

It doesn't. It allows Darwinism to account for itself.

Perhaps you're not answering my question because you think that consciousness was a lucky accident and not part of the plan of the Being/Mind/Zero thingie.

I'm not sure I think either of these things.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Stop grinding your tedious axe.

~~ Paul

Sorry. I have run out of other things to do. I will go and entertain the sweet spanish thing playing the guitar downstairs.

 

[hammegk]

.... I am clearly not defending materialism, but am claiming that all monisms are equivalent, ...

The ed-like power Stimpy/you/other-wannabe-materialists share that allows you to re-define the meaning of "physical" as suits your needs remains a laugher. Keep at it though if it keeps you/etal 'happy'.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The ed-like power Stimpy/you/other-wannabe-materialists share that allows you to re-define the meaning of "physical" as suits your needs remains a laugher. Keep at it though if it keeps you/etal 'happy'.

You just did it, too. We shall be materialist infidels regardless of what we're talking about.

In any event, I've posted Stimpy's description of scientific naturalism a hundred times. The definition of physical hasn't changed.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

By being beyond the dichotomy of existence and non-existence.

So it no longer matters whether a concept is self-contradictory or not? I thought we'd agreed to keep logic intact.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

So it no longer matters whether a concept is self-contradictory or not? I thought we'd agreed to keep logic intact.

~~ Paul

Is the concept of a paradox self-contradictory?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Let us cultivate our garden.

 

[Robin]

You said the three monisms were equivalent.

Equivalent like 1, 1 and 1 are equivalent?

Or is their relationship more like 1, 0 and -1?

I would say equivalent like 1,1 and 1. Same monism, different terminology. I realised this years ago when I noticed that a textbook definition of Idealism was almost identical to it's definition of Materialism if you only switched the terms.

Looking at your definition of neutral monism I find it difficult to see how it differs from materialism other than that you use "neutral entity" rather than "matter". I can't see anything inherently non-neutral about the concept of matter.

hammegk's chief objection to materialism is that it implies determinism. Yet no materialist would assume everything is deterministic. So this difference evaporates.

I would contend that any precise, minimally sufficient and internally coherent definition of one monism can be transformed into a sufficient definition of any other monism by simply altering one or two terms.

Even eliminative materialism could be brought into the fold if we simplify entities like "the set of phenomena that is commonly thought of as the mind" into "the mind". All the rest of the phrase is padding.

Of course, this is nothing new, Hume made pretty much the same observations.

There are three of them. Two of them look suspiciously like opposites (they are the two halves of Descartes' dualism)

But since most of us appear to agree that Cartesian Dualism is a dead end we should be prepared to back up and abandon these 17th century pre-scientific categories.

and the other is explicitly neutral.

I think Materialist and Idealist would contend that their basis substance was capable of instantiating every state that exists and is therefore, by definition, neutral.

 

[Robin]

Really? Honestly?

If you honestly believe that idealism, materialism and neutral monism have no relationship to each other, and are more like 1, 1 and 1 than 1, -1 and 0 then I have nothing more to say to you.

But then people defending materialism have a habit of defending statements which look absurd to everyone else.

OK, here is the experiment. Get a bunch of competent philosopher professors into a room and divide them into four groups. The first group produce a precise, minimally sufficient definition of Idealism. The second group does the same for Materialism. The third for Neutral Monism.

Then the experimenter substitutes random symbols for terms like "mind", "matter", "physical", "mental", "neutral entity" with a secret code at the top to identify the original monism. The descriptions are then given to the last group and they have to classify the position as "Materialism", "Idealism" or "Neutral Monism". Then the test is scored to see how many identified the original monism.

My prediction is that it would be very close to random.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Let us cultivate our garden.

Well, I try. But I am being oppressed by small white butterflies which really like Nasturtiums. I keep squashing their butterfly eggs. I'd let them grow into caterpillars and feed them to my fish, but they are poisonous to fish. And then there's the blackfly. Which also like nasturtiums. I had to buy BAD BAD insecticide. Then there's the pretty red beetles which lay their eggs on your lillies and give rise to crawly things which eat the lily leaves and disguise themselves in shrouds of their own **** so nothing will eat them. And I have to scrape them off with my fingers and step on them. Then there's the snails I evict to the crematorium that saw the burning of old A.C. and the slugs that crawl in the catflap at night and eat the rotting vegetable matter in the sinkhole.

ALL THAT and my wollemi pine still thinks its winter and won't grow even in the middle of the hottest July England has seen since records began.

Gardening. Phouw!

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

 

[Robin]

I wonder if "non-existence" is really a meaningful concept anyway. For example if I strike a match, let it burn to the end then grind up the carbon and throw it to the wind, does the match cease to exist? Or did it just change? Did the match not exist prior to it's manufacture?

It may be that non-existence is just not possible, only change.

 

[hammegk]

hammegk's chief objection to materialism is that it implies determinism. Yet no materialist would assume everything is deterministic. So this difference evaporates.

How does the materialist remain in that monism and find other than determined, or random?

I would contend that any precise, minimally sufficient and internally coherent definition of one monism can be transformed into a sufficient definition of any other monism by simply altering one or two terms.

Someone in Alice In Wonderland agreed with you. When you assign ~physical attributes -- like intent -- to the physical, you've jumped the shark imo.

I think Materialist and Idealist would contend that their basis substance was capable of instantiating every state that exists and is therefore, by definition, neutral.

Materialistics can once they choose new meanings for old words.