My argument against materialism

[PixyMisa]

Anthropic principle.

 

[dlorde]

By finite I means a space time event consisting of more than one constituent part.
ie more than one "atom"/indivisible form (atom may not be a precise enough term) involving any expression of time.

An event indicates a physical situation or occurrence, located at a specific point in space and time, so any 'expression of time' is implicit. What your multiple 'atomic forms' are supposed to be escapes me. I'd ask you to explain, but I doubt I'd get a sensible answer - care to try?

I am refering to a strictly physical infinity, treating space and time as integral (two sides of the same coin).

What do you mean by a 'strictly physical infinity'? Such as?
Btw space and time are 'integral' under relativity - a continuum, i.e. spacetime.

.. The effect of which is an infinite complexity of form.

What do you mean by that - the 'fractal nature of reality' or something equally vague?

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

String Theory is not a definition of anything - the clue is in the name.

No offense, but you just seem to be shuffling around a bunch of vague, or meaningless, or nonsensical, or ill-informed ideas around because you like the way they sound. What are you hoping to achieve?

 

[punshhh]

[

QUOTE=dlorde;6900540]An event indicates a physical situation or occurrence, located at a specific point in space and time, so any 'expression of time' is implicit. What your multiple 'atomic forms' are supposed to be escapes me. I'd ask you to explain, but I doubt I'd get a sensible answer - care to try?

Thankyou for making the effort to discuss something with me.
Lets see if we can at least agree on something, thats a start.

I appreciate the difficulty you are having here, I am not accustomed to using language in the way it is used here. I presume it is derived from scientific method.

I suggest that if there is something, you don't understand you point it out and I will attempt to explain. If you give me some idea of what you don't understand or what doesn't make sense. It should be fairly easy for me to explain from there.

I assure you there are theories,concepts and thoughts behind the words, you are not wasting your time.

This appears to be the problem, I have theories and thoughts as you do.
I can only communicate with you through written language. The words are quite limiting when it comes to subjects such as this, as it is the theories and thoughts themselves which I am trying to communicate. The words are a hindrance until one has a common understanding of what they represent.

I have developed ways of discussing these ideas for many years, using metaphor.I may not be able to do this here, I will drop a few in here and there and see if anyone can grasp what I am trying to impart through the metaphor.

What do you mean by a 'strictly physical infinity'? Such as?
Btw space and time are 'integral' under relativity - a continuum, i.e. spacetime

.

Yes I mean integral(ie spacetime) however we only know them in finite form. I am suggesting two things;

an infinite quantity(and or variation,or complexity) of finite forms.

An infinite potential of finite forms, (ie, the potential for more than one outcome during the big bang) potentially many or an infinite number of possible outcomes.


As regards my definition of the finite(apart from "anything which is not infinite");

something which can be measured, observed, known to exist.(ie any form/thing found in the universe).

More precisely any "thing" or any "spacetime event" which comes into existence.

I don't want to go into any more detail, being understood is my only aim here.

String Theory is not a definition of anything - the clue is in the name.

Yes your right to pull me up on this one, I mentioned string theory as a theory or model of a universe which approximates my own position.

For universe, lets settle with the known universe and perhaps a few others similar for now.

No offense, but you just seem to be shuffling around a bunch of vague, or meaningless, or nonsensical, or ill-informed ideas around because you like the way they sound. What are you hoping to achieve?[/QUOTE]

Yes, I can understand this, from your perspective this may be how it appears. However from my perspective it all makes perfect sense

 

[punshhh]

Anthropic principle.

I read it the first time, no explanation.

 

[punshhh]

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 ?

I doubt I has successfully imparted an idea yet.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

I hate to say this and I am not meaning to be offensive, but you are using a strawman of materialism. The current naturalism, is not the universe constructed by Democritus, it is not the strawman constructed by Berkley and others. It is not the strawman erected by scores of posters here, who don't ask us materialists what we think but cram us into straw boxes.

The universe appears to be energy, it is governed by quantum mechanics, everything is energy waveforms all the time. There are no properties of matter that are not an expression of these energy wave forms, period, full stop.

Matter is merely a classical set of conventions that implies certain aspects of the wave forms, some are better modeled than others:

Lack of interpenetration: the fact that you can sit in a chair and rest a book on the table is the result of the EM forces of the electrons the atomic shells around atoms.

Transfer of momentum in collisions: same as above

Mass, as in falling: this is an effect of gravity, still not an established model in QM, with some good start

Mass as in inertia: perhaps one of the greatest lack of a models we have. Objects in motion tend to stay in motion, objects at rest tend to stay at rest. the models of inertia are still very tentative.

Chemistry: all explained very well by the wave forms of QM


Materialism has not evaporated under QM, it has transformed, the people who are materialists here will all tell you that matter is energy.

It is the philosophers who keep characterizing the materialists by the ideas of Democritus and Aristotle.

 

[Dancing David]

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?

Shessh, matter is energy. Period. Full stop.

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.

Maybe

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.

That is your idiom again, not string theory

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).

No you don't, the BBE is a post facto reconstruction, you are using your private idiom again, not teh BBE

You have no evidence, you have speculation solely.

 

[Dancing David]

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

It exists.

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".

The universe is.

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

Materialsim describes what can be observed.

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

 

[Dancing David]

I read it the first time, no explanation.

Um, there is no answer to the question "Why does the universe exist?"

That is a human contruct (anthrpomorphism) placed upon an object which evidently acting in many ways that are outside the classical notions used to define reality by humans.

The universe is vast, it is huge in scale and time, it acts as it does.

 

[punshhh]

I hate to say this and I am not meaning to be offensive, but you are using a strawman of materialism. The current naturalism, is not the universe constructed by Democritus, it is not the strawman constructed by Berkley and others. It is not the strawman erected by scores of posters here, who don't ask us materialists what we think but cram us into straw boxes.

The universe appears to be energy, it is governed by quantum mechanics, everything is energy waveforms all the time. There are no properties of matter that are not an expression of these energy wave forms, period, full stop.

Matter is merely a classical set of conventions that implies certain aspects of the wave forms, some are better modeled than others:

Lack of interpenetration: the fact that you can sit in a chair and rest a book on the table is the result of the EM forces of the electrons the atomic shells around atoms.

Transfer of momentum in collisions: same as above

Mass, as in falling: this is an effect of gravity, still not an established model in QM, with some good start

Mass as in inertia: perhaps one of the greatest lack of a models we have. Objects in motion tend to stay in motion, objects at rest tend to stay at rest. the models of inertia are still very tentative.

Chemistry: all explained very well by the wave forms of QM


Materialism has not evaporated under QM, it has transformed, the people who are materialists here will all tell you that matter is energy.

It is the philosophers who keep characterizing the materialists by the ideas of Democritus and Aristotle.

Thankyou, that is most informative.

I too regard all as energy and I have left behind many of the more usual or traditional physical models. However my thinking and language is more theologically based and I do not have the scientific language to discuss these things easily with scientists and materialists.

This is why I keep talking about infinity as a universal concept in an attempt to discuss ideas freed from the 3 dimensional classical euclidian thought structures.

For example my theology is almost entirely based on concepts dealing directly with "infinity". The Judao christian God plays no part in my thinking.

I will take a longer look string theory and hope to discuss this new naturalism at some point once I have familiarised myself with it.

Can you offer any links to this?

 

[Belz...]

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

Punshhh, read this carefully:

That we don't actually KNOW why/how there's something doesn't give you a lisence to make up the explanation.

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.

What if "nothing" was impossible ? I already mentioned this but you ignored it.

The laws of physics, maths etc would all be there as usual, however just "invisible".

No. The laws of physics wouldn't exist.

 

[Belz...]

I doubt I has successfully imparted an idea yet.

You didn't answer my question.

I'm getting more and more the impression that you're not really here to learn.

 

[Dancing David]

Thankyou, that is most informative.

I too regard all as energy and I have left behind many of the more usual or traditional physical models. However my thinking and language is more theologically based and I do not have the scientific language to discuss these things easily with scientists and materialists.

This is why I keep talking about infinity as a universal concept in an attempt to discuss ideas freed from the 3 dimensional classical euclidian thought structures.

Geometry left Euclid a while back as well Non-Euclidean_geometry^WP

For example my theology is almost entirely based on concepts dealing directly with "infinity". The Judao christian God plays no part in my thinking.

I will take a longer look string theory and hope to discuss this new naturalism at some point once I have familiarised myself with it.

Can you offer any links to this?

Links to what? The quantum revolution began with Bequerel in 1896, or do you mean when did the philosophy of materialsim become the modern form of science?

That mainly comes down to Einstein, Feynman and Gell-Mann, energy is matter.

The history of matter as energy is arther complex. You could read Quantum Generations by Helge Kragh but it is sort of advanced layman material, I would suggest reading the wiki on QM , especially Planck, Bohr and Schroedinger, then read about Einstein. Then Feynman and Gell-Mann, but there are hundreds of other DeBroglie, T'Hooft, Rutherford, Heisenberg, etc...

 

[punshhh]

Punshhh, read this carefully:

That we don't actually KNOW why/how there's something doesn't give you a lisence to make up the explanation.



What if "nothing" was impossible ? I already mentioned this but you ignored it.



No. The laws of physics wouldn't exist.

I have noted all your posts in this thread, I have no argument with your position, I just disagree.

Ok I do accept that "nothing" may not exist and the laws of physics may not not exist in any form if that were the case. Would this also apply to mathematics? in such a scenario.

 

[Robin]

Ok I do accept that "nothing" may not exist and the laws of physics may not not exist in any form if that were the case.

What?

You will have to explain how you get from ' "nothing" may not exist' to 'the laws of physics may not exist in any form'

The second does not seem to even remotely follow from the first.

 

[Belz...]

I have noted all your posts in this thread, I have no argument with your position, I just disagree.

Ok I do accept that "nothing" may not exist and the laws of physics may not not exist in any form if that were the case. Would this also apply to mathematics? in such a scenario.

Mathematics is a language we invented. We've already told you this so you haven't actually noted anything.

Forgive me but my patience is wearing thin.

 

[dlorde]

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

No (depending on the thing and the boundaries). For example, many people think the universe may be finite but unbounded. This is a simple topological description; a consequence would be that following a geodesic across the universe would eventually bring you back to where you started, much like following a great circle around the Earth will bring you back to your departure point - the Earth's surface is finite but unbounded.

Personally, I find the immediate reality of a Moebius strip just as challenging and more educational.

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

If it is finite in space/time, how can it extend infinitely in space/time? Of course, you can run around infinitely far/long in a padded cell, but that would be interminable

Please, think about what you're posting. The beauty of the forum format is that it is asynchronous (like email) - you can take your time and consider your response. Let's try to think within the unbounded yet finite space of rationality and meaning.

 

[Belz...]

What?

You will have to explain how you get from ' "nothing" may not exist' to 'the laws of physics may not exist in any form'

The second does not seem to even remotely follow from the first.

He's trying to reword what I said, namely that "nothing" my not be possible, and that obviously, if nothing at all existed, there would be no such thing as "laws of physics".

 

[Robin]

He's trying to reword what I said, namely that "nothing" my not be possible, and that obviously, if nothing at all existed, there would be no such thing as "laws of physics".

OK. He made it sound like there would be no law of physics if "nothing" was impossible.

 

[Robin]

I hate to say this and I am not meaning to be offensive, but you are using a strawman of materialism. The current naturalism, is not the universe constructed by Democritus, it is not the strawman constructed by Berkley and others. It is not the strawman erected by scores of posters here, who don't ask us materialists what we think but cram us into straw boxes.

The universe appears to be energy, it is governed by quantum mechanics, everything is energy waveforms all the time. There are no properties of matter that are not an expression of these energy wave forms, period, full stop.

Matter is merely a classical set of conventions that implies certain aspects of the wave forms, some are better modeled than others:

Lack of interpenetration: the fact that you can sit in a chair and rest a book on the table is the result of the EM forces of the electrons the atomic shells around atoms.

Transfer of momentum in collisions: same as above

Mass, as in falling: this is an effect of gravity, still not an established model in QM, with some good start

Mass as in inertia: perhaps one of the greatest lack of a models we have. Objects in motion tend to stay in motion, objects at rest tend to stay at rest. the models of inertia are still very tentative.

Chemistry: all explained very well by the wave forms of QM


Materialism has not evaporated under QM, it has transformed, the people who are materialists here will all tell you that matter is energy.

It is the philosophers who keep characterizing the materialists by the ideas of Democritus and Aristotle.

In fact Materialism is in more robust shape now than it has ever been. You would be hard pressed to find a Materialist philosopher in the 100 years preceding the advent of QM.