My argument against materialism

[punshhh]

You are stringing words together to make gibberish yet again. What does ''infinite substrate'' mean?

sub·strate
n.
1. The material or substance on which an enzyme acts.
2. Biology A surface on which an organism grows or is attached.
3. An underlying layer; a substratum.
4. Linguistics An indigenous language that contributes features to the language of an invading people who impose their language on the indigenous population.

Yes I have studied physics

I was using substrate in your 3rd definition.

 

[PixyMisa]

Are the way light and dimensions manifest in an unrelated notional universe the same as in our universe?

No need for them to be.

If there were for sake of argument a notional universe, infinitely 'removed/distant/unrelated' and infinitely different in nature to ours, would math and logic manifest there the same?

Yes.

What are the properties of a universe where 1=2? The question doesn't even make sense.

Also what is the agency by which the force of gravity is exercised between bodies in our universe?

Theoretically, gravitons are the gauge boson of the gravitational force. Practically, it is almost impossible to detect individual gravitons; their interactions are far rarer than neutrinos, which are already pretty damn elusive.

Detecting gravitational waves would provide significant support for the theory, and there are a couple of ongoing experiments working on that.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes that sounds reasonable, try getting it past these folks though.

Mathematics doesn't exist. It's not an object or a process. It's abstract.

 

[Dancing David]

I know I (punshhh) exist, I can demonstrate that.
I have no proof that I am finite, it might be the illusion of being finite.

Nope, there is the appearance you exist. That is true for all reality.

The question is what evidence is there, there is evidence of the finite.

 

[punshhh]

Exactly if time started at the big bang these had to have had a description already.
IF you could stop time would the knowledge also stop?

Yes in principle, these guys are going to have to admit one of two things;

1,Math, logic and knowledge are figments of the human imagination(plus a few animals)

2,Math, logic and knowledge are figments of a creators imagination and can be observed manifest/expressed in physical form in the universe.

Of course they have a get out clause, they can say;

"sorry we don't know, it cannot be known"

"there's no point in speculating about what can't be tested for"

etc.

 

[Belz...]

Alright, let's extend.

Suppose I were to say, "I make decisions". Presumably I'm just mistaken. But there's a bigger issue here. As the part that is aware does not make decisions, the part that is aware is not the thing that says "I make decisions". This means that the part of me that says "I make decisions" must be the part of me that makes decisions.

That's only if you define "I" as "the conscious part of me". I define it as the larger "I", so again, there's no problem. It's all semantics anyway.

My account is that it's affected by the part that is aware, which is sensing the part that is making decisions. And this is enough to describe them as an interactive unit.

Sure, as Pixy said (in this thread or another, I'm not sure), there's some feedback loop somewhere in there. But it doesn't change what's been said about this.

 

[Belz...]

What are the properties of a universe where 1=2? The question doesn't even make sense.

That's sig worthy, again. You're a veritable gold vein of quotes, and I intend on getting the rights to strip mine you, sir.

 

[Belz...]

1,Math, logic and knowledge are figments of the human imagination(plus a few animals)

2,Math, logic and knowledge are figments of a creators imagination and can be observed manifest/expressed in physical form in the universe.

3. Math and logic and conventions created by people to understand the universe through abstract means. They represent something extant, but do not themselves exist.

See Pixy's question about a universe where 1=2.

Knowledge exists, however. It's stored data.

 

[Nonpareil]

That's sig worthy, again. You're a veritable gold vein of quotes, and I intend on getting the rights to strip mine you, sir.

That sounds... rather disturbing.

 

[marplots]

I said,

And as weird as it sounds, I do not think I control what I think about. I couldn't, for instance, create now the thoughts I will be thinking five minutes from now or even predict them generally. I don't control my brain, my brain creates and controls me.

Perhaps you need to re-consider where 'you' fit in there.

I didn't mean it in any technical way at all, just a manner of communicating an idea. Same with "I" and "me." This is how I might use "the weather" to refer to some general lumping together of multiple atmospheric processes, some of which I am unable to pin down completely. So, if I say, "the weather is nice today" it would be inappropriate to think that I have any concrete thing in mind that exists outside of what underlies meteorology. It is a handy linguistic device only.

 

[marplots]

snipped to get to this part: ...Could be onto something here. You must be an advanced skeptic. Most skeptics seem anathema to any suggestion that something other than them is in control, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Maybe because its (….oh no…) nothing but metaphysical. No science there, just…’…oh my, it would seem I have to put away my calculus books and conclude that I don’t actually control my own life…’. Don’t worry, I’ve found this thing….beer it’s called…makes all your troubles go away.

I can't speak for skepticism at large, but I would argue that something other than me is in control. Except control is a bad concept, because it embodies the sense of purpose and direction towards some outside goal not part of the process itself.

Certainly you at least find yourself "acting on automatic" at times, where you are doing what would appear to be intelligent and directed actions, but free from a sense of volition? And aren't there, as well, dozens of bodily processes that you perform with no conscious thought or effort? Do you ever yawn; digest; grow hair?

I think the sticking point might be the loss of responsibility that comes with accepting a reactive, emergent mind rather than some hidden "me" in the mix. I'll grant that it seems to harm the idea of morality, but you can map responsibility onto an idea of "defective" or "abnormal" rather than an idea of morality springing from a non-biological/non-psychological something.

If you take that route, you will end up with something similar to how we treat dangerous dogs. We evaluate them not on the basis of morality or responsibility, but by what we think their innate characteristics are. We don't blame them so much as understand that dogs come in different packages with different behaviors.

My viewpoint does do quite a bit of damage to religion however. I don't see how that can be helped, because religion seems to be based on the false idea that we have the ability to choose what to believe in.

 

[Dancing David]

Are bananas illusory, a mirage?

Fine, say the question does not make sense,

Does sense/logic/math/the laws of physics exist as principles of existence?
ie, as principles existing in their own right, which an observer would encounter identical in some other notional finite universe.

Or would this notional universe exhibit a random assemblage of laws of physics entirely different to the laws we know?

Um, what? The three logic , math and the theories about physics are not equivalent sets.

 

[Dancing David]

Foam;
singularities spewing out universes and sucking them in again, like bubbles(spacetime bubbles).

Singularities sub atomic particles, both foamy bubbles.

I have evidence of the involvement of infinity, black holes and the singularity in the big bang.

Actually the theory does NOt say the BBE came from a black hole, that is speculative.

 

[Dancing David]

Its amazing how much information you can distill into a two letter word ("no").

So we can have two notional universes exhibiting the same math and logic.

By what agency do these "universal" systems, logic and math manifest in two unrelated notional universes?


Also could these same notional universes, manifest without something approximating or equivalent to gravity?

What do you mean, thought universes? They can have whatever laws you want.

The real one does what it does.

 

[Dancing David]

Logic and mathematics had to be in place before the universe existed, the word, and the knowledge, before the big bang...had to be in place for the universe to have shapes.

So where does the knowledge come from, Mathematical equations had to be in place before the universe came into existence we just figured them out at this point and most is still just theory.
This points to something being in place before the universe existed.

Maybe, maybe not.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes that sounds reasonable, try getting it past these folks though.

Racism sounds reasonable too, as does the notion tha God choose the king.

Reasonable and best fit with the data are two things.

 

[Dancing David]

Exactly if time started at the big bang these had to have had a description already.
IF you could stop time would the knowledge also stop?

Anthropomorphize much.

QM demonstrates that the universe does not care what we think.

 

[marplots]

Alright, let's extend.

Suppose I were to say, "I make decisions". Presumably I'm just mistaken. But there's a bigger issue here. As the part that is aware does not make decisions, the part that is aware is not the thing that says "I make decisions". This means that the part of me that says "I make decisions" must be the part of me that makes decisions.... snipped

I don't think the part I highlighted follows. As you started out saying, "Presumably, I'm just mistaken." The question is whether the feeling of having made a decision is the same as the deed.

I'd like to point out that our minds do lie to us to make a sensible world. If you touch your toe with your finger (or better, your ear) the feeling will be that both are felt as having happened at the same time. But you know that nerve transmission times vary and you should feel them happen at different times. Maybe just dropping something on your foot would work better. The experience will be that you felt the object touch your foot at the same time that you saw it touch your foot -- when you know that light travels much faster than nerve impulses.

There are many other examples where we can catch our minds reconstructing reality. If the argument is simply one of "it happens to fast to distinguish" then I might propose the pair, "invisible decision-making"/"awareness of having made a decision" would also fit into that gap.

The advantage seems to be that investigating mind with analogies to biological processes that we understand better grounds us in the material instead of the metaphysical. When you work the other way round, there seems to be too much guesswork and not enough discovery, experiment and data.

 

[punshhh]

What do you mean, thought universes? They can have whatever laws you want.

The real one does what it does.

No not thought universes, It is probably not worth fishing those out in this thread, we'll see.

I was fishing in Pixy's mind.

 

[The Norseman]

Why can't I accept that anything finite can actually exist?

Well I see no difference between a space-time bubble(the known universe) and any other finite form, say a banana.

They are both finite, if finite, presumably they have a beginning and an end, both spatially and temporally(I am viewing the space time bubble from outside the bubble(subjectively)).

Or do they not have a beginning or end?

Now lets consider for sake of argument that nothing exists, there is no existence of anything. Fine no paradox, but I have evidence that something does exist, I am holding a banana in my hand.

How did that banana arise?

Could it have popped out of a state of total non existence of anything?

Or does it have no beginning or end?


You may have misunderstood my position regarding first cause, that is not my position. I threw the first cause argument out at the age of about ten.

I recollect an occasion at about that same time, I was about nine or ten. I went on a school trip to Birmingham university, my local font of knowledge. We had been told that we were to attend a lecture by a well renowned professor of physics and we should each think of a question to ask him.
Now I was already a budding philosopher and I already had my question, a question I had been asking folk for sometime.

During the lecture, the group of children I was in were wispering to each other asking who had a question to ask at the end, no one did, apart from me. When I told them what it was, they all said no! no! you cant ask that.
When the time came, they were trying to hold me down. I nearly faltered, being a shy child I didn't want to stand up amongst hundreds of school children and ask a question of this high and mighty professor, not least if it was a silly question, as I was being told.

Something inside me impelled me to stand up, I new this was my one chance to ask my question to some one who might be able to enlighten me as to the answer.

I stood up with my hand in the air, suddenly everyone looked round, the professor looked up at me and asked me for my question. So I said it,
"what is beyond the universe?", there was silence and gasps around me.

The professor realising there was a silence, said, "well we just don't know, its a good question though, thankyou for asking". I was treated as a fool and mocked for a few days after that.

Now I'm asking it again, because I still do not have an answer from a physicist.

Any answers?

Sounds interesting. So you asked a perfectly legitimate question, one which the professor praised, in fact, and you were teased for it. Since it's fun to speculate, I wonder if that interaction set the tone for you in years to come.

At any rate, you *did* get an answer, the only true answer. "We don't know at this point." That's your answer. It's the only answer and many, many people on JREF have given you the same answer over and over again.

Now perhaps you are left wondering "is that all there is" and are dismayed at the thoughts which arise?

Logic and mathematics had to be in place before the universe existed, the word, and the knowledge, before the big bang...had to be in place for the universe to have shapes.

So where does the knowledge come from, Mathematical equations had to be in place before the universe came into existence we just figured them out at this point and most is still just theory.
This points to something being in place before the universe existed.

So the pattern a snowflake takes on as it forms has already been "put in place" before the raindrop begins to fall?

Yes in principle, these guys are going to have to admit one of two things;

1,Math, logic and knowledge are figments of the human imagination(plus a few animals)

2,Math, logic and knowledge are figments of a creators imagination and can be observed manifest/expressed in physical form in the universe.

Of course they have a get out clause, they can say;

"sorry we don't know, it cannot be known"

"there's no point in speculating about what can't be tested for"

etc.

1. Math, logic, and knowledge are figments of the human imagination which best explain the processes that we can see (detect, become aware of, whatever).

2. Seems like a false dichotomy to me, but maybe I'm reading it wrong.

Not quite right on your get out clause:

"sorry, we don't know, maybe we'll know someday"

"there's no point in basing decisions on or formulating hypotheses about things which cannot be tested for"

HTH