My argument against materialism

punshhh said:
Can you only discuss these ideas through maths?
Click to expand...
That late, great visualiser and communicator of physics, Richard Feynman, said that one of the great difficulties of explaining physics to the public was that the underlying concepts were mathematical and that there are no useful analogies to familiar everyday concepts with which to explain them. Without maths it is possible to get a rough, broad-brush overview of physics, but not a detailed knowledge & understanding.

However, ISTM a rough, broad-brush overview is adequate for the physics we're talking about here. That's all I have at present, and I don't yet feel out of my depth here...
 
punshhh said:
I use horizon specifically because I am considering those aspects of reality which constitute the framework or foundations of our physical reality.

For example physicists have described the behavior of energy very well and how our entire phenomenal world is structured and works through the action of energy through time.
But what is this energy?
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics

what is this time? what is this space?
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

what are these laws of nature?
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law

is there any way of understanding how these laws originated or developed?
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology

are we actually what we appear to be?
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics

this can be a very long list.
Click to expand...
That's okay. We've got a lot of answers.

This materialistic view I am being presented with does have the appearance of a boat with no sail, cast adrift in a sea of darkness with no sight of land.
Everything in the boat is fully explained and hunky dory. Don't look to hard over the side of the boat there are fantastical imaginary delusions over there.
Click to expand...
No.
 
Dancing David said:
There are such models, speculation is wonderful, as long as it is labelled as such. The problem is that with speculation when it can not be tested is that it is not productive in creating valid predictive models.

(See here is teh issue punshhh, we have been down these paths before, just not with you. We are not ignorant bashers, or at least not all of us. We have discussed tehse issues ,many times with many different people, who come in and try all sorts of bizzre arguments to trash materialism. they don't realize that it is an objective monist model in most ways and that most of us do not use it as dogma.

We even have talks about Nonoverlapping Magisteria )
Click to expand...

Thankyou,

I appreciate that you are attempting to answer my questions however bizare or unintelligible they may seem to be.

As far as I can see I have no argument with what you have presented.
 
Robin said:
A mathematical definition of God? It seems that it should be possible.

God is supposed to be:

- irreducibly simple
- have no successive states
- not part of any state that was part of a succession
- capable of being, at least indirectly, the cause of any observable phenomenon.

I am sure that someone could formalise that.
Click to expand...

I agree although, I would have to modify the second and third points.

I would not attempt it myself.

Thankyou by the way for tackling the issue over "unbounded" with me, it was informative.
 
Pure Argent said:
Not enough gibberish.
Click to expand...

Voice :
Whatever it is -
Can't have a name -
Since it makes no difference
what you call it -
Edgar!

Calliope Bill :
So late there is light
At the edge of the lake.
Bullfrogs are
Having their throats
Cut.
You pick hysters -
Hys -

Lion :
Hysterically at
Your memory.

Viva :
Tell the scheme to you?
Who grow on us like falling hair?
O Rawalpindi.

Mutant :
It's again.
[Escalator Over The Hill - Carla Bley & Paul Haines, 1970]
 
punshhh said:
Why would you assume that I had read nothing of science?
Click to expand...

I didn't. As you will recall, I said:
.. either you're not reading relevant and useful science (in respect of this topic), or simply reading science isn't enough, you need to understand what you've read - your abuse of the terminology here suggests that you don't.
Click to expand...
 
punshhh said:
But what is this energy? what is this time? what is this space? what are these laws of nature? is there any way of understanding how these laws originated or developed? are we actually what we appear to be? this can be a very long list.
Click to expand...

Science describes and models how the universe behaves, it doesn't address the nature of reality.

If you think you know something that does, kindly share it with us.
 
dlorde said:
Science describes and models how the universe behaves, it doesn't address the nature of reality.

If you think you know something that does, kindly share it with us.
Click to expand...

He will not reveal his sources.
 
dafydd said:
He will not reveal his sources.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah - I forgot.

IIRC he's scared of Pixy's termites(?) demolishing his cherished illusions, or something... Reminds me of the way religions seem to feel threatened by rationalism and/or atheism. Surely if you have solid and unshakable belief in your dogma, no argument can threaten it, and questions, discussions, etc., can serve only to reinforce it and bring others on board? :D
 
dlorde said:
I didn't. As you will recall, I said:
Click to expand...

I didn't assume that you had not read much Hinduism either.

I am new to this kind of science based language, I have a good enough understanding of science to debate something which isn't science.
 
dlorde said:
Science describes and models how the universe behaves, it doesn't address the nature of reality.

If you think you know something that does, kindly share it with us.
Click to expand...

This is addressed by theology along with some areas of philosophy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom