My argument against materialism

[Dancing David]

Pixy stated anthropic principle, I considered what anthropic principle was and concluded that it was an unsatisfactory way to describe my position, too restrictive.

So I offered a scientific theory which better approximated my position.

String theory is a theory unrelated to what you have said so far. Please expand, and not by just using associative connections without relation to string theory. It is a theory about the possible use of harmonic oscillators as models for energy physics.

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

 

[Dancing David]

I agree with this point, I was using such arguments to explore how science regards ideas, theories or speculation regarding what has not been explained by science.

Um, then you misundestand science, theory , predicition and testing.

That is all, you make a model, you test the model against reality.

Science does not explore speculation about ontology or metaphysics, unless they can be tested.

 

[PixyMisa]

Pixy stated anthropic principle, I considered what anthropic principle was and concluded that it was an unsatisfactory way to describe my position, too restrictive.

No, the anthropic principle tells you why there is something instead of nothing. It may not be satisfying, but that's because you need to ask better questions.

 

[punshhh]

See my answer to "why is there something rather than nothing" above.

Not necessarily

If there is no "infinite" then there is no such thing as "beyond the finite". The question would then be meaningless.

The question you have got to ask yourself is why you think that there must be something beyond the finite.

Are you thinking along the terms of "If a spaceship started travelling out from Earth in a straight line would it keep going forever or reach the end of the Universe?"?

If so then maybe that is the question you should have asked that professor, you would probably have gotten a better answer.

Naturally when people ask themselves that question they naturally ask next "if the spaceship reaches the end of the Universe, then what is on the other side?"

These are interesting questions and they lead to more interesting questions about the shape of the Universe and what is a straight line in space.

The next question is interesting metaphysically as well as scientifically: "does something finite necessarily have boundaries?" That is probably the relevant question here.

Yes, I was happy with your answer to '1',
I can't argue with your answer to '2', perhaps what a physical infinity implies might be worth consideration.
I was happy with your answer to three, which pointed out something I had overlooked. "if there is no "infinite" then there is no such thing as "beyond the finite". This makes sense but doesn't answer what I wanted to ask, as I did not ask the right question.

Yes "does something finite necessarily have boundaries?", this is closer.

It leads me to ask;

If something finite has no "boundaries" perhaps it extends infinitely?

 

[punshhh]

No theory has to make provision for metaphysics.

I realise now that materialism does not concern itself with such things, this is a metaphysical question.

By the way, if there was an infinity beyond our universe - an infinity of what?

Certainly not space (although I bet you are visualising it that way).

So an infinity of what?

If say our infinity were the singularity in the big bang, I would visualise the infinity in terms of an infinite potentiality, imminent in the singularity.

This might be visualised as a dice with an infinite number of sides, the side it lands on is that which determines the form of reality resulting from the big bang event.

But also, I see a physical infinity as a point, a singularity. something without form, its existence only evident by the finite event horizon around the point.

 

[punshhh]

And the other question is - if there is something infinite beyond the finite - why would that be a problem for Materialism?

It appears that my problem does not concern "materialists", as they are not interested in anything other than matter.
I have been reading up on materialism and it appears to be morphing into "physicalism", as its foundations are "disappearing in a puff of smoke" due to advances in Quantum theory.

Also I realise that physicists are also not interested in metaphysics and my "problem" has become categorised as addressing metaphysics.

In other words - what exactly is the problem here?

I don't have a problem with metaphysics, least not the same problem.

There appears to be no problem.

 

[punshhh]

No, the anthropic principle tells you why there is something instead of nothing. It may not be satisfying, but that's because you need to ask better questions.

Perhaps you should have explained that when you stated "anthropic principle".

You can't expect me to read your mind.

Please explain how it tells this , or provide an appropriate link.

 

[punshhh]

Nope in an infinity of universe, there are those where the laws of phyiscs crash and burn and produce a homegeous universe or a disipated universe, say the EM force is too high or too low, and so everything sticks together or nothing sticks together, gravity too high, all black holes, too low, nothing hangs around anything else.

Interesting, I do have a genuine interest in these aspects of physics.

I must point out though, that I was thinking of a hypothetical infinity of universes. This would include an infinite set of universes, not governed by the laws of nature as we recognise them.

 

[punshhh]

String theory is a theory unrelated to what you have said so far. Please expand, and not by just using associative connections without relation to string theory. It is a theory about the possible use of harmonic oscillators as models for energy physics.

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

I am not a physicist, I understand the string theory as it is described in this link and other literature I have read. Unfortunately I am unable to understand the mathematics involved and have to take the word of others on the specifics.

However, I have a "metaphysical" position along with a "spiritual" position on possibilities regarding existence and the form existence might take.

I contemplate theoretical scenarios which are similar to string theory as I see it. From an entirely conceptual rather than mathematical perspective.

 

[punshhh]

Um, then you misundestand science, theory , predicition and testing.

That is all, you make a model, you test the model against reality.

Science does not explore speculation about ontology or metaphysics, unless they can be tested.

I take your point, I was finding it difficult to distinguish between science and materialism. I think materialism is shrinking out of all recognition at the moment.

It does occur to me though that string theory does involve speculation.

 

[Robin]

It appears that my problem does not concern "materialists", as they are not interested in anything other than matter.

Where did you hear that?

I have been reading up on materialism and it appears to be morphing into "physicalism", as its foundations are "disappearing in a puff of smoke" due to advances in Quantum theory.

Where did you read that nonsense?

Quantum theory is the greatest gift to Materialism yet.

Physicalism was Otto Neurath's attempt to unify science on a linguistic model.

There appears to be no problem.

So no paradox, no problem.

What was your point?

 

[laca]

Where did you hear that?

Where did you read that nonsense?

Quantum theory is the greatest gift to Materialism yet.

Physicalism was Otto Neurath's attempt to unify science on a linguistic model.

So no paradox, no problem.

What was your point?

"But the banana... I mean... OK... But how do magnets work?"

 

[punshhh]

Where did you hear that?

Where did you read that nonsense?

Quantum theory is the greatest gift to Materialism yet.

Physicalism was Otto Neurath's attempt to unify science on a linguistic model.

So no paradox, no problem.

What was your point?

Sorry,

I have to blame wiki for that, I have trouble seeing the wood for the trees, with all these categories.

I would be interested in how quantum theory is usefull in materialism?

My point may be mute now, I will state it as you ask.

Simply I would point out that there may be factors/conditions in the material world which are "shaped" or determined by the presence of infinity in existence.

Indeed the whole "house of cards" of physical existence may only stand on a foundation of some infinite prerequisite. Like the strings animating a puppet.

I have evidence in the big bang theory of the physical universe being created in some mysterious way out of a singularity(perhaps infinite in some sense).

 

[Belz...]

The only suitable definition I have found for universe in a cursory look at scientific definitions would be string theory.

And yet string theory isn't going anywhere, for now.

 

[Belz...]

Perhaps we are at a disagreement at this time.

You say this as though it's a matter of opinion. It isn't. There is NO SPACE except in the context of the universe. Same with time.

You've admitted that there are no known infinite quantities. The only argument you have in favour of the existence of such quantities is because things seem to make more sense to you that way. Perhaps you already see my objection to that:

The universe does not conform to your wishes.

 

[Belz...]

Simply in a consideration of an infinite physical universe there would by definition be an infinite complexity of forms.

And an infinite word salad, apparently.

 

[PixyMisa]

Perhaps you should have explained that when you stated "anthropic principle".

You can't expect me to read your mind.

Fair enough. I'll leave that to the Chaos Magic thread.

Please explain how it tells this , or provide an appropriate link.

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

If you ask, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" or "Why is the Universe structured so that consciousness is possible?", a perfectly sensible answer is that if this weren't the case, you wouldn't exist to ask the question.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, I was happy with your answer to '1',
I can't argue with your answer to '2', perhaps what a physical infinity implies might be worth consideration.
I was happy with your answer to three, which pointed out something I had overlooked. "if there is no "infinite" then there is no such thing as "beyond the finite". This makes sense but doesn't answer what I wanted to ask, as I did not ask the right question.

Yes "does something finite necessarily have boundaries?", this is closer.

It leads me to ask;

If something finite has no "boundaries" perhaps it extends infinitely?

Why do you cling to those ideas ? We've already told you they don't make sense. No matter how many times you repeat them and your questions, the cosmos will not bend and become the way you think it is. Isn't it more productive to learn how the universe works and go with that ?

 

[PixyMisa]

Sorry,

I have to blame wiki for that, I have trouble seeing the wood for the trees, with all these categories.

I would be interested in how quantum theory is usefull in materialism?

Materialism says that reality is material.

Quantum mechanics describes how matter behaves.

 

[punshhh]

Fair enough. I'll leave that to the Chaos Magic thread.


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

If you ask, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" or "Why is the Universe structured so that consciousness is possible?", a perfectly sensible answer is that if this weren't the case, you wouldn't exist to ask the question.

I already know that something exists, I have not been given an explanation for this.

I would find it much easier to understand existence(or not) if nothing existed(or not as the case may be), as all would be consistent and logical. The laws of physics, maths etc would all be there as usual, however just "invisible".

I'm rapidly coming round to Belz's position as a account of this state of affairs as would be stated by a "materialist".

I don't include Robin, as we are managing to discuss something I hope.