My argument against materialism

Dancing David said:
Yup and slaves were part of it, the subjugation of women was part of it, letting people starve was part of it.

Buddhist metaphysics directly contradict the teachings of the alleged historic buddha.
Click to expand...

Mystics did not practice slavery.

This not the place to get into who said what or if about the Buddha.
 
punshhh said:
My point is there may be more than one universe we don't know.

There is lots of evidence around us that nature does stuff in quantity, not much that it does things in ones.

More seriously the observable fact that one universe exists is evidence of universes, I would find it hard to accept that there were only one.

To apply some reason to this I suggest there are only two cenarios;

1; there are no universes
or
2;there are an infinite number of universes.

Saying there is only one or two, or three or any finite number of universes does not account for the possibility that there might be an unbounded number of universes.
Click to expand...

I've seen one universe, so scenario one is out. I've never seen an infinity of anything, but lots of examples of finite objects, so I'd need some good evidence to persuade me of scenario two. You seem to have discounted the possibility of a finite number of universes by claiming never to have seen one of anything, but you're happy to accept two other possibilities that you've never seen either.
 
1. All empirical observations are dependent upon consciousness.


I disagree. Experiencing and experimenting exists within microorganisms lacking consciousness..
 
punshhh said:
When you say unbounded does this mean it goes on for ever(infinity), or is there a boundary of some sort?
Click to expand...
I don't think you read what he said properly. He said that something could be finite but unbounded.

In this case it would not go on to infinity and it would have no boundary.

That was the question I asked you earlier but I think you missed - do you think that something finite would necessarily have boundaries?
 
punshhh said:
My point is there may be more than one universe we don't know.

There is lots of evidence around us that nature does stuff in quantity, not much that it does things in ones.

More seriously the observable fact that one universe exists is evidence of universes, I would find it hard to accept that there were only one.

To apply some reason to this I suggest there are only two cenarios;

1; there are no universes
or
2;there are an infinite number of universes.

Saying there is only one or two, or three or any finite number of universes does not account for the possibility that there might be an unbounded number of universes.
Click to expand...

So it really is about an unbounded number of angels on the haad of a pin?

Duality of universes, sure, whatever.
 
Um, this is not the place for this, the medical defintion of consciousness is empirical.

The non- medical ones suffer froma huge problem, people assume they know they are conscious. The same behaviors that allow for the medical defintion of consciousness are capable of being applied internally. The others aren't.

People assume they are conscious, but they are all just p-zombies. They are machines that display all the behaviors of consciousness, but they aren't.

:D
 
punshhh said:
Now seriously one mans drivel is another mans elixir of youth.

Is there a paradox here, or is a better phrase I'm stumped?

The Hindu's reached this point 2000 years ago and most of what became Hindu philosophy and science was written after they had reconciled this problem and the implications ther'in.
Click to expand...
No.
 
punshhh said:
My point is there may be more than one universe we don't know.

There is lots of evidence around us that nature does stuff in quantity, not much that it does things in ones.

More seriously the observable fact that one universe exists is evidence of universes, I would find it hard to accept that there were only one.

To apply some reason to this I suggest there are only two cenarios;

1; there are no universes
or
2;there are an infinite number of universes.

Saying there is only one or two, or three or any finite number of universes does not account for the possibility that there might be an unbounded number of universes.
Click to expand...
Try counting them.
 
punshhh said:
Now seriously one mans drivel is another mans elixir of youth.

Is there a paradox here, or is a better phrase I'm stumped?
Click to expand...
You have yet to present a paradox or problem.

And I am not sure what you are stumped about
The Hindu's reached this point 2000 years ago and most of what became Hindu philosophy and science was written after they had reconciled this problem and the implications ther'in.
Click to expand...
If the Hindus reconciled the problem 2,000 years ago then why are you not able to tell us exactly what the problem is?
 
punshhh said:
Perhaps if you google "Brahman wiki" you will find a good introductory summary of what I have in this thread been describing as "infinity".
Click to expand...

I've just been popping into and out of this thread occasionally, but I'm wondering whether the word you want, instead of "infinity," is the "transcendent." That seems more in line with what you're trying to say.



punshhh said:
Could you explain "finite but unbounded" this sounds a bit like a yes to 1,
or possibly a yes to 2.

When you say unbounded does this mean it goes on for ever(infinity), or is there a boundary of some sort?
Click to expand...
"Finite but bounded" means that it is limited in size, but has no edge. Our brains can't properly imagine curved 3D space, but the equivalent idea reduced down to two dimensions is the surface of a sphere.

The surface of a sphere is a two-dimensional object, but you can wander all over it and never come to an edge. The idea is that space is like that but three dimensions instead of two.
 
CurtC said:
"Finite but bounded" means that it is limited in size, but has no edge. Our brains can't properly imagine curved 3D space, but the equivalent idea reduced down to two dimensions is the surface of a sphere.

The surface of a sphere is a two-dimensional object, but you can wander all over it and never come to an edge. The idea is that space is like that but three dimensions instead of two.
Click to expand...
I am assuming that you mean finite but unbounded.
 
So from this:
punshhh said:
1; Does the universe continue into infinity?
2; Or is the universe finite?
Click to expand...
It could be no to 1 and yes to 2 and have no beyond the universe and no turtles all the way down.

I have asked you for a while - why do you think that a finite universe implies that there must be something beyond it?

Just give the outline of your reasoning on this.
 
punshhh said:
1; Does the universe continue into infinity?

If the answer is yes, then there is no "beyond the universe"
Click to expand...
And supplementary question - why do you think there could be nothing beyond an infinite universe?
 
punshhh said:
To apply some reason to this I suggest there are only two cenarios;

1; there are no universes
or
2;there are an infinite number of universes.
Click to expand...
Please show the reasoning that you claim you are applying.

It could be just one finite universe and nothing beyond that.
Saying there is only one or two, or three or any finite number of universes does not account for the possibility that there might be an unbounded number of universes.
Click to expand...
Give me one reason why anybody has to account for that possibility (if it is a possibilty).

You seem to want to apply a sort of reverse Occam.
 
Last edited:
Robin said:
I don't think you read what he said properly. He said that something could be finite but unbounded.

In this case it would not go on to infinity and it would have no boundary.

That was the question I asked you earlier but I think you missed - do you think that something finite would necessarily have boundaries?
Click to expand...

Yes I didn't address this at the time, I am finding it difficult to interpret the meaning of "finite but unbounded".

It sounds to me that this is trying to have it both ways.

1; finite as in not infinite.

while at the same time

2; unbounded as in not finite.

Now I understand the arguments about the geometry of the universe and there being no time or space "outside" the universe.

I still don't understand how something unbounded can be both;

finite and

not finite

at the same time.

At the beginning of this discussion I looked up the definition of infinite, which was;

unboundedness
 
Robin said:
You have yet to present a paradox or problem.

And I am not sure what you are stumped about

If the Hindus reconciled the problem 2,000 years ago then why are you not able to tell us exactly what the problem is?
Click to expand...

I am not stumped. I am quite happy with an infinite universe*.

The problem hinges on this "finite but unbounded" statement, now I don't know how the Hindus arrived at the problem. But it was probably with a similar phrase.

I have already stated the problem twice;
1;


1; Does the universe continue into infinity?

If the answer is yes, then there is no "beyond the universe"

2; Or is the universe finite?

If the answer is yes, I would argue;

1; there is a beyond the universe or

2; its turtles all the way down(which is equivalent to a yes to question 1).

2;


1; Does the universe continue into infinity?

(hence an infinity relating to matter).

2; Or is the universe finite?

(if finite it can be defined as an "object")


If there is one object, why not two or three or an infinite number?

turtles all the way down.

Both these arguments hinge on the issue of can a finite thing be described as an object, ie have theoretical boundary.

If a finite thing can have no theoretical boundary then it must be; unbounded=unboundedness=infinity.


*This is not entirely true, but to continue with this line of reasoning I am adopting the position of an infinite universe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom