My argument against materialism

[punshhh]

No, we understand it.... it is just meaningless.

I'm refering to the meaning behind the words, one side describes the appearance of things the other the inherent nature.

 

[PixyMisa]

I have been posting for a few weeks now and it has become apparent(not unexpected) that the materialists* don’t understand the language people like me and likewise yourself use.

You're writing in English. We understand that just fine.

You're writing drivel in English.

That's your problem, not ours.

I drew an analogy the other day, I felt like a God of the gaps, my point in the thread kept falling through the “net” of materialist understanding.

The God of the Gaps is an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy. Perhaps you would like to rephrase that.

Or... Perhaps not.

The larger holes are the separate disciplines or sciences, smaller ones are the mesh or framework of what can be described or known in materialist language or formulae. Yet finer is the mesh of materialist comprehension( or should it be reduction).

The net is cast wide, while remaining ever finite, it is cast deep into dark depths where the light of reason cannot see. Blind to the subtle truths that might pass right through even the finest of holes.

No. All you are doing is making an excuse for your complete failure to produce an argument.

Here we have two languages, I see little progress being made until a Rossetta stone of translation can be forged between us.

We have sense - that's us - and nonsense - that's you and annnoid. You cannot translate nonsense into sense; you can only abandon it.

*I still don’t know with certainty what this group I am debating with is called.

Team Termite.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes I know,

my infinite is formless

That's not what the word means.

my finite has form

That's not what that word means.

Now do you require a lack of assumption or an explanation or justification of the assumption?

You've just replaced one fallacy with another; now it's equivocation.

As I am effectively blind to how this logic is formulated it is probably going to be easier if you actually construct the formulae itself and I help with the definitions I am trying to use.

No. Just stop talking nonsense and you'll do fine.

 

[PixyMisa]

Let me consider the infinitely long rod again;

My argument is that there can be no such thing, as the infinite length in itself would have to take the three dimensional rod with it into infinity.

Now when I imagine this, this is the result:

The rod would inevitably over a very great length curve around and meet itself "where it started" due to the curvature of space.

Only if space is finite but unbounded. Why are you positing an infinite object in a finite universe?

 

[Robin]

yes perhaps, I have yet to see a mathematical model describing an actual infinity.

That is because we know of no actual infinity.

If there were an actual infinity then there would be no problem in having a mathematical model to describe it.

Yes, however my point is that the unbounded quality of the thing(x) is only unbounded as a property of that finite thing(x). Its unboundedness is necessarily bounded by its being an aspect of a finite (x)

I have no idea what that could mean.

You are saying that the absense of boundaries has boundaries?

I think you need to rephrase.

And the fact still remains - if by "finite" you mean "describable by a mathematical model" then a finite thing can have no boundaries.

 

[Robin]

Yes I know,

my infinite is formless

my finite has form

Now do you require a lack of assumption or an explanation or justification of the assumption?

No, I don't need justification for a definition but as I said it inconvenient that you use these common words to mean something quite different to their widely accepted meaning.

It would be like me saying that whenever I say "Universe" I mean "hamster".

It is especially inconventient when you arbitrarily start using them in their conventional sense without warning.

I don't understand why, when you want to say "formless", you don't just say "formless".

It would make things a great deal easier.

 

[Dancing David]

You get used to that pretty fast, with annnnoid.

I don't know about annnoid but it is a common rant meme, especially amongst the crank science types

 

[Dancing David]

The points on which the discussions break down are rather trivial on inspection and I see little meshing of ideas on which to build a bridge of understanding.

That is the JREF and it happens in all discussions here about 75% of the conversations are about the defintions of words.

It happens in almost all the thread.

I drew an analogy the other day, I felt like a God of the gaps, my point in the thread kept falling through the “net” of materialist understanding. The larger holes are the separate disciplines or sciences, smaller ones are the mesh or framework of what can be described or known in materialist language or formulae. Yet finer is the mesh of materialist comprehension( or should it be reduction).

Ah, more condecension, I often can assume I know what you are talking about but your inability to articulate your concepts is your issue.

The net is cast wide, while remaining ever finite, it is cast deep into dark depths where the light of reason cannot see. Blind to the subtle truths that might pass right through even the finest of holes.

Crap

The very matter of materialism is so often discussed as some mental abstraction, while failing to find a purchase on the actual material itself.

Duh, you have a rather large beam in your eye.

There is no truth dude, all we have are perceptions and words, are you sure you have actually studied spirituality? This is like Mysticism 101

Here we have two languages, I see little progress being made until a Rossetta stone of translation can be forged between us.

It is up to you to articulate your idiom in a coherent fashion.

We all learn to do it here everyday.

*I still don’t know with certainty what this group I am debating with is called.

That is silly, we are a mix of people, more Reality 101, gosh ten people have ten opinions, I am an objective monist and a naturalist

 

[Dancing David]

Yes I know,

my infinite is formless

my finite has form

Now do you require a lack of assumption or an explanation or justification of the assumption?

As I am effectively blind to how this logic is formulated it is probably going to be easier if you actually construct the formulae itself and I help with the definitions I am trying to use.

Nope, you will learn to delve your own thoughts and articulate them, that is your job here, we all do it every day.

As my blessed mother used to say "Well dear, if you can't write clearly, then you don't really know what you think.", I have great sympathy for all her students.

 

[dafydd]

I have been posting for a few weeks now and it has become apparent(not unexpected) that the materialists* don’t understand the language people like me and likewise yourself use.

It is rather peculiar that we use the same words, we are discussing the same things(at least on the surface, the same) and yet there is no meeting of minds.

The points on which the discussions break down are rather trivial on inspection and I see little meshing of ideas on which to build a bridge of understanding.

I drew an analogy the other day, I felt like a God of the gaps, my point in the thread kept falling through the “net” of materialist understanding. The larger holes are the separate disciplines or sciences, smaller ones are the mesh or framework of what can be described or known in materialist language or formulae. Yet finer is the mesh of materialist comprehension( or should it be reduction).

The net is cast wide, while remaining ever finite, it is cast deep into dark depths where the light of reason cannot see. Blind to the subtle truths that might pass right through even the finest of holes.

The very matter of materialism is so often discussed as some mental abstraction, while failing to find a purchase on the actual material itself.

Here we have two languages, I see little progress being made until a Rossetta stone of translation can be forged between us.


*I still don’t know with certainty what this group I am debating with is called.

You have an amazing talent for stringing perfectly good English words into gibberish.

 

[Dancing David]

I'm refering to the meaning behind the words, one side describes the appearance of things the other the inherent nature.

Excuse me, that is not what words are, they refer to external referents in a mutual system of communication. there is no essence of dog, there is no buddha nature.

Noumena are always unattainable and unexpressable, Philosophy 101

It is why I am a nihilist:

All thoughts, concepts and words are equally true and equally false, some have greater validity in reference to reality than others.

 

[Dancing David]

Um, the form of the electron is formless, ie a probablistic area of potential, yet it is finite in mass.

 

[Nonpareil]

I have been posting for a few weeks now and it has become apparent(not unexpected) that the materialists* don’t understand the language people like me and likewise yourself use.

Funny, then, that you're incapable of explaining where we've misinterpreted what you said.

 

[tsig]

Let me consider the infinitely long rod again;

My argument is that there can be no such thing, as the infinite length in itself would have to take the three dimensional rod with it into infinity.

Now when I imagine this, this is the result:

The rod would inevitably over a very great length curve around and meet itself "where it started" due to the curvature of space.
However it wouldn't be where it started as an infinitely long rod cannot have an end at either end.

So on meeting itself it would follow a course to one side of the previous loop, as arguably it could not occupy the same space simultaniously.

After an infinity of curving around, all the space in the universe would be occupied by an infinite number of loops.

Now for the rod to remain infinite it would require to be in an infinitely large universe to accomodate all the loops.

Hence we have an infinitely large universe consisting entirely of solid steel.

This is only an analogy, my point is any finite thing cannot have an aspect which extends infinitely in space or time. Or we end up back here, rather like the turtles all the way down.

So the unbounded finite thing must be bounded in some way.

What's this unbounded finite thing?

 

[yy2bggggs]

Now when I imagine this, this is the result:

The rod would inevitably over a very great length curve around and meet itself "where it started" due to the curvature of space.

This sounds drastically different than the argument you gave before.

Nothing observed about the universe's curvature suggests the infinite rod need do this. Nothing inferred from the mathematics of curved spaces suggests the infinite rod need do this. One would have to wonder what's left to suggest that the rod needs to twist and turn and fill all of space in order to have an infinite length.

The only thing left is your imagination.

Your argument about its inevitability is simply an odd metaphor for the extent to which you are prepared to connect form to the infinite.

None of this had to do with the aforementioned explanation of how a thing can be boundless and finite. If you could travel 60 billion light years in a straight line in any direction and only meet up with your original departure site, then there would be no point in space at a boundary.

 

[punshhh]

No, I don't need justification for a definition but as I said it inconvenient that you use these common words to mean something quite different to their widely accepted meaning.

It would be like me saying that whenever I say "Universe" I mean "hamster".

It is especially inconventient when you arbitrarily start using them in their conventional sense without warning.

I don't understand why, when you want to say "formless", you don't just say "formless".

It would make things a great deal easier.

Thank you Robin,

I will try to do this, from your last few replies to me I am forming an understanding of how you treat such words. I appreciate the value in such an approach and will modify my approach accordingly.

I will have a bit more time this week and will take more care in the points I am trying to make.

 

[punshhh]

Can you cite the source?

This is my replacement quotation;

Bhagavad Gita chapter13 verse11.

avibhaktam...without division; tat...that Ultimate Truth;sthitam...appears;vibhaktam iva...to be divided; bhutesu...among all the various living entities; ca...and; jneyam...is to be known; bhuta-bhartr...as the preserver of all living entities; grasisnu ca...and the destroyer; prabha-visnu ca...as well as the creator.

Translation

Without division that Ultimate Truth appears to be divided among all the various living entities and is to be known as the preserver of all living entities and the destroyer as well as the creator.

If one considers;
"without division" as formless
"appears to be divided" as with form
"living entities" as physical things
"preserver of all living entities" as formless substrate of infinite potentiality
"destroyer as well as the creator" as "big crunch" or black hole and singularity in the big bang respectively.

All that I am offering for debate in this thread is covered.

The question "is there something beyond the universe" was only a hook to encourage debate on these points.

My various references to infinity are for the purpose of addressing a definition or description of the "formless"

 

[PixyMisa]

This is my replacement quotation;

Bhagavad Gita chapter13 verse11.

avibhaktam...without division; tat...that Ultimate Truth;sthitam...appears;vibhaktam iva...to be divided; bhutesu...among all the various living entities; ca...and; jneyam...is to be known; bhuta-bhartr...as the preserver of all living entities; grasisnu ca...and the destroyer; prabha-visnu ca...as well as the creator.

Translation

Without division that Ultimate Truth appears to be divided among all the various living entities and is to be known as the preserver of all living entities and the destroyer as well as the creator.

If one considers;
"without division" as formless
"appears to be divided" as with form
"living entities" as physical things
"preserver of all living entities" as formless substrate of infinite potentiality
"destroyer as well as the creator" as "big crunch" or black hole and singularity in the big bang respectively.

Why should we consider any of these things?

All that I am offering for debate in this thread is covered.

So you've taken some mystical twaddle, redefined words at random, and are now presenting it as if it were an argument?

That's it?

My various references to infinity are for the purpose of addressing a definition or description of the "formless"

The word infinity means infinity. As Robin said, if you want to say formless, say formless.

 

[The Norseman]

Holy schnikes, dude, could you not have possibly just simply posted this?

Chapter 13, Verse 8-12.
Humility, pridelessness, nonviolence, tolerance, simplicity, approaching a bona fide spiritual master, cleanliness, steadiness and self-control; renunciation of the objects of sense gratification, absence of false ego, the perception of the evil of birth, death, old age and disease; nonattachment to children, wife, home and the rest, and even-mindedness amid pleasant and unpleasant events; constant and unalloyed devotion to Me, resorting to solitary places, detachment from the general mass of people; accepting the importance of self-realization, and philosophical search for the Absolute Truth--all these I thus declare to be knowledge, and what is contrary to these is ignorance.

 

[PixyMisa]

He actually means verse 17.

It's still mystical twaddle, but at least the words match.