My argument against materialism

[PixyMisa]

Right. Again, idealism makes sense if you ignore the Universe. Since it's attempting to explain what the Universe is, this seems counter-productive.

 

[yy2bggggs]

If, at a more accurate level of examination, the universe can be described as (a very large quantity of) massless information then we have to ask ourselves what kind of existence can information even have without some consciousness or other experiencing it?

Why do you suppose that there's a link at all between information being massless and its requiring an underlying conscious experience to exist? And why do you implicitly apply to this consciousness properties such as cohesiveness, singularity, and apparently agency? And...

And what would time even mean to a conscious God-being that was outside of spacetime?

...a time-like analog, and said time-like analog's being outside of space time, and that constituting a mystery that somehow needs to be solved? Most of the properties I named so far seem eerily like attempts to project the properties of your own conscious mind upon reality.

But there are other things you seem to assume that is odd, such as:

Such a question is unanswerable because it is outside of our level of comprehension.

In other words, you presume that it's beyond our capability to comprehend a time-like analog working outside of time.

Anyhow, most of this seems very odd to me. Hopefully I'm conveying a little bit why. The fact that you try to insist that we cannot make any metaphysical assumptions simply highlights how odd this sounds.

 

[gentlehorse]

All you really know about the universe and all therein is that it's objectively independent of you in some way (realism) and that it works just fine according to chemical/physical laws and processes (naturalism).

But that's all you know. You don't know what it's ultimate nature is.

I'm certain that I have made no claims regarding the ultimate nature of the universe. Rather, I have drawn conclusions based on observations.

Furthermore, as soon as you accept that all the things we experience about the universe are filtered through our senses - which they are - you're accepting that we can never truly know the ultimate nature of neumenal reality.

I've said as much. I'm beginning to wonder if you might not have me confused with another poster.

So I'm left to wonder. We have:

A) A magical self-perpetuating and self-generating non-conscious powder or power behind it all.

Or

B) A magical self-perpetuationg and self-generating consciousness behind it all.

Without any way to conclusively answer the question I'm wondering why you don't just apply Occam's razor instead of multiplying unknown entities?

Applying Occam's razor leads me to conclude that a mind-independent, consistent, probabilistically predictable universe, the "ultimate nature" of which is a mystery, exists. Adding "and the fundamental nature of the universe is consciousness" not only adds an unnecessary entity, it flies in the face of the evidence.

Is it really logical to assume that a Universe (composed ultimately, of massless wavy-gravy information) is more likely produced by an unknown thing (that is pure conjecture) than a consciousness which has a firm theoretical grounding being based upon something we do know exists (i.e. our own individual consciousnesses)?

I have made no claim regarding anything that produced the universe.

 

[PixyMisa]

I think everyone in this thread has said that we cannot know the ultimate nature of reality, making it hard to determine who HypnoPsi is arguing against.

 

[PixyMisa]

And apart from that observation: What gentlehorse said.

 

[punshhh]

What is/are your conclusion(s)?

My opinion before I joined this forum has not changed;

Materialism only deals with the physical world, it along with science explains this very well.

It is blind to aspects of reality which are not based on known processes in the physical world.

It is also blind to any considerations of how we got here, if we actually are here and if being here makes sense or can be justified intellectually.

I am intrigued by this 'critical thinking', which has been mentioned. It appears to be a series of boxes designed to box in an argument and then invalidate it.

The 'GWIMW' argument is another example, it is a sort of smoke and mirrors form of argument.

I am more used to discussions in which participants have a genuine interest in each others point of view and cooperate to develop or refine arguments.
Rather than shoot them down from a bunker, or debunk them.

 

[punshhh]

I think everyone in this thread has said that we cannot know the ultimate nature of reality, making it hard to determine who HypnoPsi is arguing against.

No

 

[punshhh]

I do not understand the combined use of those metaphors. You're saying we have a blind spot for an elephant in the room? That what is obviously there is fundamentally unknowable?

The blind spot is acknowledging the presence of the elephant.

 

[punshhh]

No. You are still misunderstanding what "evidence" means.

An observation cannot be evidence for A rather than B, unless it is more probable that we would make that observation if A is true than it is probable we will make that observation if B is true.

There is no evidence that we are ideas in the mind of some "God", because every observation you could ever make even in theory is equally good evidence for materialism.



It deals with it as well as or better than competing theories like idealism or theism, which is all one can ask.

Pretending to have an answer to a big problem isn't the same as solving a big problem, you see. The person who first said "I believe that the Sun is a flaming ball being pushed by a magic dung beetle" was dumber than the person next to them who said "Buggered if I know what the Sun is, I suspend judgment". Pretending to have some answer to "the enigma of infinity" is a backwards step from honest ignorance, not a forward step.

Yes, regarding evidence, let me put it better;

The last post in 'Omnipotence a serious question'

"My post is leading to what one might deduce in consideration of an “infinite omnipotent God”.

In my opinion such a God cannot be comprehended or limited by logic in any hypothetical way, as in the OP.

However one may be able to study Gods creation (the known universe) as an example/expression of the nature of God, especially as the existence of God is assumed in the OP.

Hence I conclude that this omnipotent God would be infinitely ‘involved’ in any and every aspect of his creation (the known universe) fully at any and all points of time (with all that this may imply).

As such the known universe could in theory be ‘read as a book’ or ‘story’. The subject of which would be the nature of God expressed in finite form.

This is a kind of empiricist view I suppose and is to me an interesting line of inquiry.

I appreciate what you say about uses of infinity in math’s. I have little knowledge of such things, however I would think that an omnipotent God if one exists would be far ‘removed/irrevelent’ from/to such work".

 

[punshhh]

Science cannot offer any explanations for the origins of fundamental principles, because by definition, a fundamental principle has no origin; that is, if there's an explanation at all for the origin of a principle P, then P is not a fundamental principle. The same is true about "ultimate nature".

Both of these presume that there's such a thing as a fundamental principle or ultimate nature in the first place; that's not a guaranteed state of affairs (it could easily be the case that P can be described in terms of Q and R, Q can be described in terms of P and R, and R in terms of Q and P, and neither are really more fundamental in any reasonably meaningful sense, for example).

"A fundamental principle has no origin"?

 

[punshhh]

First off, science is not materialism, is philosophically neutral naturalism. The two ate not equal sets, materialism is an abstract that says there are no unknown factors that do no present themselves as the physical manifestation of the universe.

Science is neutral to ontology.

two issues here:
-the concept of infinity is a concept.
-the universe is what it is, it does not meet our expectations of it

In terms of math you can certainly have infinity and finite together.

Take the real numbers whole 1,2,3,4,5 , they are finite, there are five in that set, however if we start to parse the sets between them by say 1/2 then we have another set of numbers 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, 4.5, and again by 1/4 we have 1.25, 1.5, 1.75....4.75, 5.

Now we can continue this series say with .1, .01 and , .001, where we will have correspondingly higher numbers in the sets between the real number something like 999 x 3 in the third set series (.001), right so far all finite.

Now we can continue to parse the intermediate sets for as long as we want using correspondingly fine divisions 10^-4 , 10^-5...10^-11,000,000, and so on, mathematically there will always be a series of numbers in between the selected numbers. And so the set of rational number between whole numbers will always be larger than the finite set of a series of whole numbers.

Now because this is math we can ask the question, what happens in we continue the iterations. Between any two rational numbers there will always be more rational numbers and therefore there is no end to the iterations that could be carried out. Therefore the limit of this series in infinity.

Therefore there are an infinite number of possible rational numbers between any two whole numbers.

We have infinite and finite together.

Well in terms of space time it is the universe not needing to meet out expectations of it, there is an estimate that the universe contains ~ 10⁷⁰ elementary particles of the boson variety in it. It is a finite number and it appears that the universe may have a finite start.

However the bounds of the universe can be infinite. It can extend forever forward in time, maybe not but it could.

neither has an apiriori requirement capture, science only has to model and predict or try to explain. In fact the renormalization of the infinities in gauge theory by Gerard_'t_Hooft^WP is a good example of this. It uses infinity as a concept to explain the finite values of forces.

Not really some of them are infinite with finite boundaries.


I think you are not using the standard definition of empirical.

Thankyou, I am beginning to see how infinity is regarded in science and Maths.

As I suspected my definition of infinity is different from this and also I presume from infinity as regarded by materialism.

Perhaps definitions are in order;

In my consideration logic can be used to define infinity.

"unboundedness/unboundlessness" (unb) is a good starting point;

unb singularity

with subsets;

unb spacetime
unb dimensions
unb forms
unb principles
unb realities
unb other (unknown or unknowable)

I treat the subsets as 'potencialities' in the singularity.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi View Post
Yes, it is special pleading in the most extreme sense!

The basic problem is the materialist's conflation of methodological materialsm with metaphysical materialism.

Nope.

Methodological naturalism works.

That means that metaphysical materialism is true.

Nope. Not in the slightest. Realism and naturalism only mean realism and naturalism are 'true' or, certainly, methodologically workable.

Until you can show real evidence for your magic powder or power underlying neumenal all you have is belief and faith.

However, absolutely none of this entails metaphysical materialism is the ultimate "truth".

Because that's meaningless. Metaphysical naturalism doesn't speak to "ultimate truth", but to behaviours.

So now it is only about appearances?

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

That's nothing more than handwaving.

Nope, unlike you, I address arguments. I'm not entirely sure you even understand them to be honest...

Naturalism is correct; that is how the Universe behaves.

And methodological naturalism and realism are fully justifiable descriptors of our empirical observations about the regular 'behaviors' of 'things', to use your term.

What empirical observation does not tell us - and cannot tell us - is the true neumenal essence of things. Consequently, all metaphysical positions are ultimately nothing more than conjecture and theory.

So now we're left with the choice of a purely hypothetical non-conscious magic stuff (that we've never seen anything like) behind it all or a conscious mind behind it all (and we all have conscious minds).

It's very simple, Pixy. Why don't you get it? Don't you like it?

Materialism is reasonable, it's merely the assertion that the Universe is how it acts.

Idealism is just the addition of another fundamental reality underneath that for no reason whatsoever.

Oh dear... it really may be the case that you reallly just don't get it after all...

Rejecting the existence of the world, just when it suits you, is not skepticism, it is lunacy.

lol How exactly am I rejecting the existence of the world? I fully accept the world is both real and natural (in the sense that it works on it's own absent my consciousness).

We simply infer that the fact that the Universe behaves as if it were material in all respects suggests that it is.

Oh... so you infer? Why should anyone share your faith when consciousness can store, retrieve and create information and nobody has ever seen any of this non-conscious magic powder/power stuff??

naturalism and materialism are the same.

So you're not making any statement about neumenal reality when you use the term materialism? Okay. But that still leaves us with the question about what neumenal reality is?

and theistic phenomenalism (sometimes known as pantheism or panentheism) doesn't somehow deny the existence of reality or that it works in a fairly machine like fashion.

That's exactly what they do. They take what we observe and invent fairy tales.

So that's it for you is it? That's your whole argument? No matter how much people say they do believe in the real, regular, universe you're going to just stick with your straw man that they don't?

Ahh.... poor, Pixy. You've become the most debase of creatures among online debaters - a denialist who's just going to argue their straw man ad nauseum. How sad.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[PixyMisa]

Nope. Not in the slightest. Realism and naturalism only mean realism and naturalism are 'true' or, certainly, methodologically workable.

Until you can show real evidence for your magic powder or power underlying neumenal all you have is belief and faith.

No, see below.

So now it is only about appearances?

It's only about behaviours. If that's all you can ever know - something everyone on this thread agrees on - then all else is piffle and materialism is true.

 

[PixyMisa]

What empirical observation does not tell us - and cannot tell us - is the true neumenal essence of things.

Right. Because that doesn't mean anything.

 

[PixyMisa]

No

Ah, sorry.

 

[yy2bggggs]

The blind spot is acknowledging the presence of the elephant.

Sorry, you simply repeated one of the metaphors. That doesn't help at all.

The idiom "elephant in the room" refers to something that is extremely obvious. If something is obvious, you know it's there. The elephant in the "elephant in the room" is an idiomatic symbol representing something really big; "in the room" implies that the really big thing is where you can see it. Being both really big and where you can see it is supposed to mean that it's obviously there. The evidence for the elephant in the room is your seeing the elephant in the room.

To say that this is an unknowable elephant in a room is a contradiction--that defeats the idiomatic purpose of having the elephant be so big, and right there for you to see. An "unknowable" elephant in the room is something you cannot possibly see no matter where you look. You're not helping to alleviate the contradiction by saying that the unknowable elephant is obviously there.

You say in another reply:

It is blind to aspects of reality which are not based on known processes in the physical world.

This implies that you might be arguing about a world that is not physical. However, when you also refer to the entity as unknowable, then that particular nuance goes away, and you're basically trying to say something about an invisible elephant not quite in the room.

"A fundamental principle has no origin"?

Exactly, by definition. If it has an origin, you cannot call the principle a fundamental principle.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes, regarding evidence, let me put it better;

The last post in 'Omnipotence a serious question'

"My post is leading to what one might deduce in consideration of an “infinite omnipotent God”.

In my opinion such a God cannot be comprehended or limited by logic in any hypothetical way, as in the OP.

Unfortunately, that's the logical fallacy of special pleading. If this God cannot be comprehended by logic (to use your phrase), you can't discuss the topic logically.

And if you abandon logic, then I can just say, Heliobats nya nya I win! Then I get to paint you purple and fire you out of a cannon into the core of a frozen star.

Do you see the problem here?

It's logic, or it's nothing.

 

[PixyMisa]

Exactly, by definition. If it has an origin, you cannot call the principle a fundamental principle.

Yep. I thought you'd made that pretty clear before, but to restate it even more explicitly:

If a principle has an origin, then it's that origin that's fundamental, not the principle itself.

 

[yy2bggggs]

I am intrigued by this 'critical thinking', which has been mentioned. It appears to be a series of boxes designed to box in an argument and then invalidate it.

Yes, that's pretty much what critical thinking is. You say that as if it's a bad thing.