My argument against materialism

punshhh said:
Thank you for offering an explanation, its a good analogy.

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.

This is energy

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.

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.

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

Or we end up with a universe made up of £1.50s.

Are the £1.50s paper, copper or alloy?
Click to expand...

I give up punshh, you are trolling
 
annnnoid said:
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.
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension fail, again. Of COURSE you are in the real world, but unless by "science can answer the question 'do you love your children ?'" you mean "science can pry inside your brain and detect the changes to your chemistry when asked the question", then "do you love your children" is not a scientific question.

You don't choose the colour of your car with science. You choose it based on preference. Science doesn't deal with that kind of stuff, unless you want to go into pointless detail/derail, but it IS the only tool we have for determining the workings of the universe.

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

Patting yourself on the back with condescension for other posters may be fun, but it does make you look like a douchebag to just about everybody else.
 
dafydd said:
''The answer that can be answered is not the answer that can be answered'' -Oo Flung Dung,c600 AD.
Click to expand...

The answer that will be given will not address the question asked. -tsig,c2011AD
 
Belz... said:
Reading comprehension fail, again. Of COURSE you are in the real world, but unless by "science can answer the question 'do you love your children ?'" you mean "science can pry inside your brain and detect the changes to your chemistry when asked the question", then "do you love your children" is not a scientific question.

You don't choose the colour of your car with science. You choose it based on preference. Science doesn't deal with that kind of stuff, unless you want to go into pointless detail/derail, but it IS the only tool we have for determining the workings of the universe.



Patting yourself on the back with condescension for other posters may be fun, but it does make you look like a douchepunching-bag to just about everybody else.
Click to expand...

ftfy:)
 
Benjayk this is ridiculous! The primary thing that exist in our universe is space/time, matter i.e. subatomic, atomic, molecular particles is way down the list. The perception of matter or anything else depends on consciousness. How did you get so screwed up?
 
punshhh said:
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?"
Click to expand...

That's not a mystery. That's your ignorance speaking.

punshhh said:
The most I've got so far is a "we don't know".
Click to expand...

That is, for lack of a better word, a lie. I don't recall anyone replying to you that they don't know what energy is. On the other hand, I remember a direct and concise answer several times.

punshhh said:
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.
Click to expand...



ETA: Oh, and your usage of the quotation marks reminds me of Joey from Friends.
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hence a mystery

Mysteries are unfathomable, not I or anyone else can provide an answer or truth which explains away a mystery.
 
punshhh said:
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".
Click to expand...
This is simply untrue. You've been told what it is, what it does, some examples of it, that it isn't material 'stuff', and you've been given links to more detailed and complete explanations in case our summaries are insufficient for you. Not everything is 'stuff' - momentum isn't material 'stuff' either, but it can also be measured, and transferred, and is also conserved.

Ultimately, as Robin and others have told you repeatedly, we don't, and probably can't, know the underlying reality of anything, but we can describe and model how things behave, and the concept of energy is the result of that effort.

This is one of the most "concrete", easy to explain mysteries.
Click to expand...
A mystery is something that is difficult to explain or understand.

That you are persistently and/or deliberately obtuse in failing to seriously consider or understand the explanations you've been given may mean it's a mystery to you, but your comprehensive failure of comprehension has no mysterious implications for anyone else.
 
Dancing David said:
Hmm, I thought they could be not knowable, I don't like Kant, I have a really hard time with it all.
Click to expand...
Admittedly I could be reading it wrong. And Kant isn't always consistent in how he uses these terms.

But he defines the noumenon as something known through pure understanding as opposed to known through observation.

But he sees this as a null set - that we know everything through observation.

But since we cannot suppose that we are capable of observing everything, even indirectly then there is a negative sense of noumena to cover everything else.

So it is a little both ways. Kant is trying to clear up what he sees as confusion and ambiguity in this area - but I think he adds to it.

I would agree with Mach who said that the noumenon was a superfluous concept.
 
Last edited:
laca said:
Sadly, I don't think he is trolling.
Click to expand...

It's hard to tell, but if it isn't trolling, there's some other agenda. I too find it difficult to believe someone can be that persistently obtuse. People who honestly don't understand will usually know it and behave accordingly. This has been continuing for so long, and so consistently, it smacks of deliberation. As I said several pages ago, I think he's taking the piss - if it was just an occasional misunderstanding or misinterpretation, Dunning-Kruger would cover it, but this goes beyond that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom