• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

My argument against materialism

The material world does not go away just because it becomes irrational in places to human understanding. The idea that there are finite boundaries to the universe, or an infinite universe, or a period without time pre Big Bang,... this doesn't mean the material world is suddenly able to be thrown out and spiritual answers or theistic answers are fair game once those topics come up.

It just demonstrates the human mind developed to only understand part of the universe. Using symbolic concepts, like math, we can transcend those limits. But there are barriers to rational thought due in part to us being an animal who developed to judge the distance between tree limbs and later balance on two legs and until very recently nothing more. We find fruit and occasionally meat. Once we learned about meaning and we learned to make things important, we learned that some things have purposes and reasons. We evolved to be animals that use meaning and purpose the same way birds evolved to fly and use their wings. As a result, humans have a tendency to look for meaning everywhere we look. Your foot got wet because you stepped in a puddle. Things just happen. The gods did not arrange for you to step in a puddle. The same applies to all things that exist. But your human instinct wants to find purpose and meaning in it. But just because you find things like infinity and before the Big Bang to not make rational sense, doesn't mean they fall outside of the natural material universe.

It doesn't matter what is before or after the universe, or if we're in a void or in a chamber. Those are still behaviors of material reality that just break the mold of human limits. We're stuck looking at things through linear time and logic.

You say you straddle both, but this other view you're espousing is nothing but imagination and fancy. It's not real. It's just novelty. And it's wrong to compare it with what we can verify.

I love mythology and fantasy and every crazy idea under the sun. I paint fairies and elves and dwarfs all day. But I care about the truth and knowing what's real way more than I care about what makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside.
 
punshhh said:
By its nature it can't be proven either way. My point in this thread is that the possibility of an unbounded infinity in relation to physical reality or existence, is not addressed by materialism
Click to expand...

Punshhh, my point is that if there is NO known infinite quantity, and you've just admitted there isn't, then there is NO reason to adress it, is there ?
 
punshhh said:
Basically my point in this thread is that materialism has not presented a logical understanding/explanation of our existence.
Click to expand...

Yes it has. What you're complaining about is that it doesn't explain why/how there's something at all, and not nothing.

Theism doesn't explain that either. It just adds turtles. In fact, there is no theory or ontology that makes any explanation for why there's something. Perhaps it's just an unknowable. Does that matter ?

Maybe "nothing" is impossible.
 
Talking about the origins of the universe: I don't know how to argue the following point:

I am agnostic as to the origin of the universe. A theist I know argues that logically the universe must be created (not eternal), by an uncaused cause, a creator.... citing 'cause and effect' as the reason that this must logiocally be so..... the universe could not have caused itself out of nothing because that is illogical, if there is truly nothing then there can be no agent to cause anything, nothing will always remain nothing. And yet, we are here, and thus due to 'cause and effect', the universe is an effect and so must have been caused, and therefore that cause must have been not part of the physical universe and must itself have been uncaused.

ANd so my counter argument is.... so if we speak of 'universe' as encompassing EVERYTHING then god (or whatever the 'uncaused' agent is) is SOMETHING and is thus part of that everything (we simply must widen the bounds of what we have defined as universe, as not limited to physical)....so inventing such an explanation as God (as immaterial outside of material) doesn't actually resolve the paradox of 'first cause' or eternity, and substance -----, because there is still the question "then what caused god"? Simply just to plead a special case that "god is eternal, uncaused", does not explain anything more than saying "the physical universe is eternal, uncaused", because they are both SOMETHING and even if they are different categories of 'something' you still have not provided a basis to say that one substance (immaterial) is any more amenable to being eternal that the other substance (physical material). So, what is your basis here? Do you have one? ----- and his reply is, the physical universe operates according to 'cause and effect', we can see this, we base everything upon this as a consistent behaviour of physical things. The uncaused agent, by defintion of forfilling the necesasry criteria for creating the physical, is NOT physical and is not subject to cause and effect (it is uncaused), and why should it be in the same way thay the physical universe is.... it is NOT physical, so why expect it to be subject to physical laws, it is only logical to expect physical things to be subject to laws observed to pertain to physical things. He says to think otherwise is illogical.

And I don't know what's wrong with his logic? It doesn't satisfy me, I feel hoodwinked, but I can't see why, and I do think he has a point. Any good people help me?
 
punshhh said:
Basically my point in this thread is that materialism has not presented a logical understanding/explanation of our existence.
Click to expand...
It has provided some dandy ones in terms of geology, evolution and cosmology.
I see a paradox in that (a) a possibly infinite extension of finite universes/dimensions is considered reasonable. Alongside (b) little consideration of an 'infinite source' of existence.
Click to expand...
Ah the old chestnut. The universe comes from "We don't know", that is a reasonable stance, and under general relativity there is no current way to see before the BBE or outside the universe. Now with string theory and the possibility of GUT (grand unified theory), there would be the possibility of trying to determine conditions prior to the BBE and outside the universe.

The fact that a question does not have an answer under the current model is always a strong possibility.

Does that bother you?
Now (a) defies logic and (b) is surely dictated by logic.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, in the realms of speculation possibility is what it is, you can not apply logic in this situation. It could be that there is a recursive set of hyperinflating universes, it could be that there are intersecting branes.

We don't know.
I just want to point out before I discuss singularities, that I am not justifying or explaining the existence of any kind of God in this thread. I am not going to turn round and shout GWIMW!
However I will draw on the teachings of the religion in which infinity was first considered and discussed by humanity, as a template for a definition, to help illustrate my ideas.

When I attempted to define an 'infinite singularity', I was viewing it as a physical reality, rather than in the realm of the mind or of consciousness.

So we have a universe existing in space-time, consisting of finite 'atoms' their associated subatomic particles and energies.
We gather that all these atoms originated/sprang from a singularity, at a point in time.
Click to expand...
that is where the theory breaks down, we do not have an accurate model of what happens at that singularity, both GR and QM break down there, Our models do not work.

If GUT is developed that will be a possible model for the inside of description of the material within the Planck length of the singularity.

Right now you here, 'space time foam' and the like. And also we do not know what the BBE was, it could have been a singularity, it might not have been.
A singularity where QM and GR 'breakdown', (are meaningless), (perhaps point in time is also meaningless).

Perhaps this is our infinite creator?
Click to expand...
Perhaps it was a Great Crumbsnatcher dropping Afternoon Nummies to the Floor of Existence?

That is the problem with speculation. No way to test the models.
Anyway, to me this process is important, as it is 'hard evidence'(c), for the 'existence' effectively of an infinite creator/generator.
Click to expand...
Or is it proof of the Junior Supreme Being's Science Fair Project.

See that is the problem with this speculation, there is no way to come up with a way of testing the different models.
It supports my claim that logic dictates that finite existence is created/generated from singularities.
Click to expand...
It also supports the model of the Cosmic Coyote Eating the Great Burrito and producing the Vast bang.
Now if this singularity is not infinite spatially and temporally, then we are back to square one, ie a finite number of forms, this time singularities rather than atoms.
Click to expand...
It is defined very well from the outside of any singularity that is not the BBE, we Do Not Know, if the BBE came from a singularity or not. The idea of outside our universe is not one we can model at the point.
As stated the current theory breaks down a t <10-36[36] seconds, it is doing very well up to that area.
Logic would (going from the evidence we have (c)), dictate that these finite singularities must have been created/generated by some kind of 'greater' singularity themselves, ad infinitum.
Click to expand...
Logic need not apply, the mechanics of QM adequately demonstrate the problem of applying classical models to aspects of reality. Logic is also a product of culture and society. Boolean logic is different as it is mathematical construct and totally divorced from reality.
Hence we are left with an infinite(spatially, temporally) singularity, I would argue infinitely infinite in every way.
Click to expand...
We don't know.
If I am wrong, could anyone please offer me another logical explanation of finite existence?
Click to expand...
We don't know. Yes the Cow licks the Yglem.
 
laca said:
Seen how? Where? When? And more importantly, on what drugs? Also, do you still have some? :eye-poppi
Click to expand...
Uhm... I might take a guess that punshhh saw it by clicking on it and the associated additional pieces, here:

...some time after Halfcentaur posted it in #410 of this thread.

I won't take a gander at the drug question, but I suspect it's not so important.
 
punshhh said:
Yes I was aware if this distinction, I was saving that particular knutshell for further down the line.

Thanks anyway, it helps me to word things more clearly and conversely it might help the skeptics to 'think outside the box';)
Click to expand...

Um, you do know that part of critical thinking is actually undersatnding the arguements being made, there is no box. To understand an idealist or theist argument one can not dismiss it apriori, one needs to understand it to critique it. many here have considered these ideas at great depth.

Many here know a great deal about a variety of ideas and thoughts, it is usually the ones who come here to bait and argue that are in a box.
 
punshhh said:
Its not a problem, rather a working hypothesis.

I dispute the idea that there is no way to find evidence of a creator, it is all around us, as described by the laws of physics. This is a semantic distinction between a 'creator' and how physics describes the origin of existence.
Click to expand...

And as I pointed out existance implies and equal number of uncreated scenarios, none of which can be tested for.

It could all be a Byproduct of Something Grander.
 
punshhh said:
Did the known universe originate 'in' the singularity of the big bang?
Did it originate immediately afterwards?
Or did it arise from nothing?
Click to expand...

We don't know. Most likely not nothing for various reasons. Especially Guth's hyperinflation, if the universe is at some equilibria of existing energy fields, then they are likely prexisting.
 
punshhh said:
Logic would (going from the evidence we have (c)), dictate that these finite singularities must have been created/generated by some kind of 'greater'
singularity themselves, ad infinitum.

Hence we are left with an infinite(spatially, temporally) singularity, I would argue infinitely infinite in every way.

If I am wrong, could anyone please offer me another logical explanation of finite existence?
Click to expand...

Your logic here is incorrect; you're assuming not only that a thing can only come from a "greater" thing, but that there must be a chain of greater things ad infinitum.

A complex thing can come from a much simpler thing; furthermore, we know some complex things do.

Another aspect of this is that when you imagine that logically the universe must be a certain way, then chances are that logic doesn't really do that. Instead, you're simply trying to fit the universe into a particular kind of skeleton because you feel you can understand it. Always ask in such cases if there's a possibility you're just not seeing. Be wary of such "logic" prescribing reality, because reality doesn't pay attention to such debates.

This is why so many people here are evidence based.
 
Belz... said:
Nobody's talking about agency, here.
Click to expand...
You're not using the word, but you are in fact addressing agency.
You are aware of your decisions after they've been made for you, and you don't have a say in it. Consciousness is awareness of oneself.
Click to expand...
Oversimplification.

Tell me when you disagree.
1. A part of the brain makes decisions.
2. A part of the brain is conscious.
3. A part of the brain is aware of itself.
4. A part of the brain is aware of decisions.
5. The part of the brain that is aware of itself does not make decisions.

Now, you're referring to a "you" that is conscious (the part in 2), and this "you" is aware of itself (the part in 3), and this "you" is aware of decisions (the part in 4) but has no say in them (is not the part in 1, per 5).

Is that correct?

If so, that "you" is probably agency. If not, tell me which part you disagree with.
 
Robin said:
If time began with the Big Bang then there is no such thing as before the Universe. If time is a property of the Universe then there is no such thing as after the Universe.

If the Universe were the only thing to exist then there would be no void in which to "float".

You appear to be ruling out the possibility that a finite reality might be all that exists.

You seem to feel that if the Universe is finite then it must be encapsulated in some sort of infinity.

It may be. But it does not necessarily have to be so.
Click to expand...

Yes a space-time bubble, and presumably the time the universe would end, would be on re-entering a singularity, hence foam?

Perhaps it doesn't re-enter a singularity and continues for an infinite period of time.

Yes I had not considered in my posts the possibility that a finite reality is all that exists, it may be so. I generally do not consider this, as at face value the laws of physics suggest to me that there is an involvement of infinity.
 
yy2bggggs said:

Your logic here is incorrect; you're assuming not only that a thing can only come from a "greater" thing, but that there must be a chain of greater things ad infinitum.

A complex thing can come from a much simpler thing; furthermore, we know some complex things do.

Another aspect of this is that when you imagine that logically the universe must be a certain way, then chances are that logic doesn't really do that. Instead, you're simply trying to fit the universe into a particular kind of skeleton because you feel you can understand it. Always ask in such cases if there's a possibility you're just not seeing. Be wary of such "logic" prescribing reality, because reality doesn't pay attention to such debates.

This is why so many people here are evidence based.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree, logic just shrank in size when I read that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom