My argument against materialism

[PixyMisa]

Oh your going to sweep it under the carpet then.

Sweep what under the carpet?

If you have a rod of infinite length but finite diameter, not only will it fit within an infinite universe, you can fit infinitely many such rods in such a universe and still have an infinite amount of space left over.

If you are trying to fit it into a finite universe, then of course it won't fit. You don't need to present an argument for that; it's mathematically self-evident.

Anyway unless you want to look into infinity again right now, perhaps we should put it to one side and return to what our entire edifice of existence is made/constituted of.

I am happy with your point that energy and matter are defined by their observable activities.

Okay. That's cool.

Lets have a look at extension ref' Descartes observation that matter is extension in physical space.

It's not an observation.

Perhaps this extension is part of the inflation of spacetime, matter is that "expression" or manifestation of space.

If you want to understand what space and time and matter are, you really need to be looking at 20th century science, not 17th century philosophy.

 

[dafydd]

So we don't have a thing, or "it", we only have actions.

I agree and this is inline with Dancing Davids point.

What the "it" is not addressed by materialism.

The only folk who address what "it" is are theologians and philosophers, oh and lets not forget them, mystics.

What is this ''it''?

 

[dafydd]

My original point was there could not be any infinite things(with a physical presence) in spacetime.

Your point is pointless.

 

[dafydd]

Anyway unless you want to look into infinity again right now, perhaps we should put it to one side and return to what our entire edifice of existence is made/constituted of.
.

Quarks.

 

[Robin]

No, I am not addressing what things are.

You said that philosophers, theologians and mystics addressed what things are. Then you seemed to backtrack on that when I asked for examples.

There is modeling, by its nature it may not make sense to materialists. However it should be comprehensible to philosophers.

Where on earth did you get this idea that Materialists can't be philosophers?

 

[yy2bggggs]

I agree that energy can be viewed as like money, unfortunately, there is a problem in this analogy.

As I see it, the currency or money is has a number or value say £1.50, this remains the same what ever form it comes in, paper, copper or alloy.

£1.50 is not a number. 1.50 is a number. If you ask me how much money I have, and I tell you I have one point five, I have not given you an answer. I have to say one point five pound sterling.

But if I had that much money, I could also say I have 4 reais (let's say that's the exchange rate, since in the analogy there's a constant exchange rate). What I'm telling you isn't a number, but it's a quantity. It tells you how much I can buy.

The paper or metal which the money is made of is the equivalent of matter in my question, which comes in paper, copper, alloy etc.

This is matter.

Matter would be only one form, or set of forms, of currency.

The problem is physicists tell us that matter is energy, so the paper is made somehow made of £1.50 and the copper is somehow made of £1.50.

But when physicists tell you that matter is energy, they are only telling you that you can buy things with it. You're still imagining that they are telling you what matter is made of.

Energy cannot be a number, because a number cannot be a thing only a quantity.

Energy is a quantity. But it's not a number. It's more specific. It tells you exactly how much you can buy. 1.50 isn't an amount of energy. 1.50 pounds is (pun intended).

Are the £1.50s paper, copper or alloy?

Yes. It doesn't matter what it is, as long as you can use it to buy things--say, a particular number of photons at a particular frequency. Energy isn't a kind of thing, it's an amount of currency.

 

[Robin]

You seem to be in agreement with me here, "only if it doesn't have a width".

A physical rod would have a width or it would not have a physical presence, so I stated it would have to be infinitely narrow(again an absurdity). If any imagined section or length of the rod had a width and occupied 3D space, by definition it would require an infinite number of these spaces being infinitely long. Hence it would occupy all the space in an infinite universe(or it would not be infinitely long).

I don't think you understand infinity. Think of Hilbert's Hotel. There is an infinte number of rooms occupied by an infinite number of guests and only one guest can stay in each room.

Another guest arrives. Is there room for that guest?

An infinite number of new guests arrive. Are there rooms for all these guests?

 

[Robin]

Um, what is the difference between phenomena and noumena?

Noumena are unknowable by defintion, insert Russel's Teapot or Undetectable Pink Unicorns or Thoth and Nu create the Hall, whatever floats your boat.

Actually noumena are knowable by definition (Kant's definition in any case).

 

[annnnoid]

I don’t have a lot of time for this right now…but some things are worthy of response.

"Do you love your children" is not a question about how the world works.

No...of course not Belz. Children don't live in the world, their parents don't live in the world, and 'love' of course exists in some other universe.

Sorry you weren't paying attention.

Of course…I do understand what you mean. The only problem is, you don’t.

 

[Robin]

"Noumena are unknowable by definition", energy is such a thing.

Er no. This is like the things that are described as having no description.

If you say energy is unknowable then that would imply that you know it is unknowable. But if you know it is unknowable then you must know something about it. If you know something about it then it is not unknowable.

You and Robin are the only ones here who have stated this.

I certainly did not state that energy was unknowable.

Robin as a philosopher is well aware that regarding existence, "it is what it is"
For myself as a mystic, there are some mysteries of existence of which this is one.

That is no more a mystery than the length of the fourth side of a triangle is a mystery.

Now you other guys are you going to explain what energy is? or continue refering me to literature on the observed activity of energy.

Oh and pixy please don't try to blind me with the unfathomable maths of the standard model, this does not anywhere state what energy is only describes its activity.

If there was an omniscient God he could only tell you what anything is - only what it does.

 

[SusanB-M1]

punshhh

In a post on Page 40, you say you are a mystic. How do you define this and what makes you different from other people who are not mystics?

 

[Mashuna]

I don't think you understand infinity. Think of Hilbert's Hotel. There is an infinte number of rooms occupied by an infinite number of guests and only one guest can stay in each room.

Another guest arrives. Is there room for that guest?

An infinite number of new guests arrive. Are there rooms for all these guests?

There's even room if an infinite number of coaches arrive, all holding an infinite number of passengers.

Just don't get a job as a chaimbermaid there.

 

[punshhh]

punshhh

In a post on Page 40, you say you are a mystic. How do you define this and what makes you different from other people who are not mystics?

A mystic occupies him/herself primarily with the mysteries of reality/existence.

I have pointed out a mystery of existence and am surrounded by posters who deny there is one.

the mystery is,"what is this stuff called energy, of which everything known to exist is constituted?"

The most I've got so far is a "we don't know".

This is one of the most "concrete", easy to explain mysteries. How I'm going to point out some of the more profound mysteries, I don't know.

 

[Robin]

A mystic occupies him/herself primarily with the mysteries of reality/existence.

I have pointed out a mystery of existence and am surrounded by posters who deny there is one.

the mystery is,"what is this stuff called energy, of which everything known to exist is constituted?"

The most I've got so far is a "we don't know"..

The rest you have apparently filtered out.

Have you managed to find any theologian, philosopher or mystic who has addressed the question of what anything is? Mostly philosophers are still trying to work out what "is" means.

 

[dafydd]

A mystic occupies him/herself primarily with the mysteries of reality/existence.

I have pointed out a mystery of existence and am surrounded by posters who deny there is one.

the mystery is,"what is this stuff called energy, of which everything known to exist is constituted?"

The most I've got so far is a "we don't know".

This is one of the most "concrete", easy to explain mysteries. How I'm going to point out some of the more profound mysteries, I don't know.

More obfustication. You have not pointed out any mystery. The only mystery is trying to work out what you are talking about. Please explain the easy to explain mystery. Energy is not stuff,this has been pointed out to you more than once. Are you talking about:
Light Energy
Kinetic Energy
Gravitational Potential Energy
Sound Energy
Electrical Energy
Chemical Energy
Heat Energy
Elastic Energy

Or are you using the word energy in it's meaningless occult sense?

 

[tsig]

A mystic occupies him/herself primarily with the mysteries of reality/existence.

I have pointed out a mystery of existence and am surrounded by posters who deny there is one.

the mystery is,"what is this stuff called energy, of which everything known to exist is constituted?"

The most I've got so far is a "we don't know".

This is one of the most "concrete", easy to explain mysteries. How I'm going to point out some of the more profound mysteries, I don't know.

So explain it then.

Is one of the qualities of a philosopher the inability to answer direct questions?

 

[dafydd]

So explain it then.

Is one of the qualities of a philosopher the inability to answer direct questions?

''The answer that can be answered is not the answer that can be answered'' -Oo Flung Dung,c600 AD.

 

[punshhh]

The rest you have apparently filtered out.

Have you managed to find any theologian, philosopher or mystic who has addressed the question of what anything is? Mostly philosophers are still trying to work out what "is" means.

I concede the point regarding philosophers, I cannot speak for them.

The point I was making in that reply to pixy was that while materialists may not address what energy is, there are other fields of study which do, or at least aught to. If anyone is going to address it one would expect them to be in one of these disciplines.


I have been busy today and have not had much time to address these issues.

Regarding hilberts hotel, I am aware of this. In my analogy of the rod, I was keeping it "small" so as to make my point.

I would point out one of the mystical models I was thinking of earlier, which would have an interesting consequence with hilberts hotel.

I have mentioned this before in this thread;

Time and space may be illusory in nature and all "spaces" and "times" may be "present" in one point at the same "time".
By spaces, I am refering to any form occupying space.

The hotel would be pretty crowded.

 

[dafydd]

I concede the point regarding philosophers, I cannot speak for them.

The point I was making in that reply to pixy was that while materialists may not address what energy is, there are other fields of study which do, or at least aught to. If anyone is going to address it one would expect them to be in one of these disciplines.

I have been busy today and have not had much time to address these issues.

Regarding hilberts hotel, I am aware of this. In my analogy of the rod, I was keeping it "small" so as to make my point.

I would point out one of the mystical models I was thinking of earlier, which would have an interesting consequence with hilberts hotel.

I have mentioned this before in this thread;

Time and space may be illusory in nature and all "spaces" and "times" may be "present" in one point at the same "time".
By spaces, I am refering to any form occupying space.

The hotel would be pretty crowded.

Time to give it up,you are out of your depth. How can a space be form? Which "mystical model'' would have an effect on Hilbert's Hotel and what would the effect be? What idiosyncratic meaning are you giving to the words ''small,spaces,times,and present''? Only physics addresses the subject of energy,the rest is vague claptrap. Which other fields of study should investigate energy?

 

[Dancing David]

Thankyou,

"Noumena are unknowable by definition", energy is such a thing.

You and Robin are the only ones here who have stated this. Yourself as a physicist would be well aware that science can only document the activity of energy, not state "what" it is.
Robin as a philosopher is well aware that regarding existence, "it is what it is"
For myself as a mystic, there are some mysteries of existence of which this is one.

Now you other guys are you going to explain what energy is? or continue refering me to literature on the observed activity of energy.

Oh and pixy please don't try to blind me with the unfathomable maths of the standard model, this does not anywhere state what energy is only describes its activity.

You can't say what anything is punshhh, it doesn't matter what it you are reffering to, seriously.

So what?

Materialism is a description of the observed behaviors. It could be godthought, butterfly dreams or energy, who cares?


there is no way to ever know.