My argument against materialism

[PixyMisa]

Thanks for the link, pixy had already posted it, just the behaviour of energy I'm afraid.

So? What exactly were you expecting?

 

[punshhh]

So why do you keep asking if you know that it is a meaningless question?

Its not meaningless from my perspective, I am a truth seeker and I'm not going to get very far if I don't know of what the existence I know of is constituted.
Science has explained the physical processes, however it has also explained that there is nothing occupying the physical spaces described by Descartes apart from a few elusive "energies".

This is resembling a mirage.

 

[punshhh]

So? What exactly were you expecting?

I thought you might relate energy to its origin in the BBE and consequently, the origin of space too and the part energy plays in this.

At least then we might have an idea where it came from.

 

[PixyMisa]

Its not meaningless from my perspective, I am a truth seeker and I'm not going to get very far if I don't know of what the existence I know of is constituted.

Then you have a problem, because it is impossible to know that.

Science has explained the physical processes, however it has also explained that there is nothing occupying the physical spaces described by Descartes apart from a few elusive "energies".

If you mean simply that everything is mostly empty space, and leave out any mention of Descartes, then sure.

This is resembling a mirage.

What do you mean, resembling a mirage?

 

[PixyMisa]

I thought you might relate energy to its origin in the BBE and consequently, the origin of space too and the part energy plays in this.

At least then we might have an idea where it came from.

You want cosmology then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology

 

[Robin]

Its not meaningless from my perspective, I am a truth seeker and I'm not going to get very far if I don't know of what the existence I know of is constituted.

But you always avoid the point I make here.

Suppose you have your answer - spacetime is constituted of X. Then you only have another question "of what is X constituted?". Thence you have your next answer "X is constituted of XX" - then the question "of what is XX constituted?". Your next answer "XX is constituted of XXX" ... and so ad infinitum.

So answer the question this time - do you think that it goes on ad infinitum like this?

Or do you think there will be a final answer? An XXX that just is whatever it is?

Either way your question will never be answered.

So why ask a question when you know that it can never, even in principle, have an answer?

It is like asking the name of the wife of a bachelor, or how to calculate the angle between the fifth and sixth sides of a triangle.

If you know the properties of something and it's behaviours then what more is there to know about it?

 

[dlorde]

If it is not a substance(atoms included), or material. How does it operate in a three dimensional space?

That depends upon the sort of energy under consideration. If you check Wikipedia for the energy types listed previously, you'll see how they take effect.

 

[laca]

Thanks for the link, pixy had already posted it, just the behaviour of energy I'm afraid.

It also has the definition of energy.

I'm here for the fun too, looks like I've amused you on occasion, I've seen some funny stuff too

Do point them out, please.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Yes I see this, so matter is a certain quantity of energy, like a purse. It retains/stores it and spends it in different currencies corresponding to different states of energy. The purse is energy arranged in a form like a receptacle (sphere/trajectory) and there are no solid things involved.

Almost. There are solid things involved when there are solid things involved. Otherwise, there's just whatever there is that's involved. Solidity, though, is a particular property whereby particular sorts of things establish classical boundaries preventing other things from occupying them with moderate force (and as a state of matter, solid objects retain their shape). For example, this desk is solid--I can knock on it or "touch" it, but cannot pass my hand through it. But that's another topic.

One thing I can do with energy is lift objects--like take my book off of the floor and put it on a bookshelf. The book in itself is mass, so that's a form of energy. But the very height of that book on the bookshelf is another form of energy--the higher up on the bookshelf, the more energy is there. That's gravitational potential energy, and it basically consists of nothing more than location within a gravitational field, and the mass of the thing being so located. If that book is shoved off of a bookshelf it will fall--and perhaps make a noise. If it's shoved off of a higher shelf, it hits the floor harder, making a louder noise. The noise is also a form of energy. And so on.

So the energy is expressed in waves presumably, like waves on the surface of water(as a two dimensional analogy). Or are you going to say waves on the surface of(out of) nothingness.

Well in quantum mechanics it's a waveform, if that's what you mean. If you want to treat it philosophically, matter is simply whatever it is, and we only understand what it is by playing with it and learning what it does, then having some model in our heads about it. The naive model we "come with" about solid matter is simply a model, and now we know enough about matter to know that solidity itself is simply the way matter behaves in terms of space and other matter.

This sounds interesting, the whole thing could be a mirage.

It sounds like you're trying to figure out what it really is, and are playing with the idea that it's really "just an illusion". But that's the wrong game in the first place. It's more accurate to say that it simply is what it is, and descriptions of what it is must of necessity be simply descriptions of what it does, descriptions being what they are. We only work in the world of descriptions.

Ontology per se is best ignored for the most part. Things should be defined by reference--matter is this stuff here that we are playing with--and by models--this is what happens when we play with it (or it plays with itself, or plays with us). The game isn't so much figure out what matter "really is"; that game is impossible due to the fact that "figuring out" is ipso facto a description game. The game, instead, is to come up with a model that describes what the stuff we are playing with "really does".

For example, the solidity I was talking about above isn't a "really is" game. It's a "really does" game.

 

[Robin]

This is resembling a mirage.

In some ways it does seem that way.

But really, nothing could be less like a mirage.

 

[Belz...]

Ultimately, as Robin and others have told you repeatedly, we don't, and probably can't, know the underlying reality of anything

and even if we did, it would simply beg the question of what it would be.

 

[Belz...]

The noumenon (from Gr. νοούμενoν, present participle of νοέω "I think, I mean"; plural: νοούμενα - noumena) is a posited object or event that is known (if at all) without the use of the senses.[1] Classically, the noumenal realm is the higher reality known to the philosophical mind.[2]

"Higher reality" my ass.

Philosophers truly are poster children for the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[Belz...]

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.

…aaawwwwwwwww, I seem to have upset poor Belz. It’s not my fault Belz, you insist on being full of crap. Tell me….when you take a dump, does your head cave in?

So I’m a….what was that word:

DOUCHBAG!

DOUCHBAG!

…hhmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

…DOUCH….BAG
….DO U CH BAG

…Oh, now I get it. You’re asking me if I ch’bag? Nope, not recently.

Thank you for proving my point so eloquently.

Tell me, does it feel good to belittle everyone else ? Do you feel you need to do this in order to have a sense of value ?

Consult a psychologist.

 

[Belz...]

So energy is essence of great brown chicken then?

If you spent less time trying to be cute and more time understanding other people's posts, this thread would be over by now.

 

[Belz...]

I grapple with concepts like this all the time.

Ah, the joy of unarmed combat.

 

[Belz...]

Its not meaningless from my perspective, I am a truth seeker and I'm not going to get very far if I don't know of what the existence I know of is constituted.

Science has explained the physical processes, however it has also explained that there is nothing occupying the physical spaces described by Descartes apart from a few elusive "energies".

This is resembling a mirage.

This is precisely why you're not going to get anywhere: you're stuck with a wrong premise, namely that there's a "thing" constituting all this, and possibly a "meaning" to it.

Until you shed that thought completely, knowledge is impossible for you.

 

[Dancing David]

Its not meaningless from my perspective, I am a truth seeker and I'm not going to get very far if I don't know of what the existence I know of is constituted.
Science has explained the physical processes, however it has also explained that there is nothing occupying the physical spaces described by Descartes apart from a few elusive "energies".

This is resembling a mirage.

[/lurk]Don't step in front of any busses.
[lurk]

 

[punshhh]

and even if we did, it would simply beg the question of what it would be.

Fine, we have two things

atoms

energy

and x

if a materialist would give me one more thing 'x', maybe we could get onto the next subject. From your last post(1696), it sounds as though we might be getting around to consciousness for 'x'.

 

[devnull]

if a materialist would give me one more thing 'x', maybe we could get onto the next subject.

I dont understand - what is your need for 'x'?

 

[punshhh]

This is precisely why you're not going to get anywhere: you're stuck with a wrong premise, namely that there's a "thing" constituting all this, and possibly a "meaning" to it.

Until you shed that thought completely, knowledge is impossible for you.

I'm quite happy to consider that there is no thing and no meaning to all this existence around us and that there is only what has been revealed to use by scientific enquiry. In fact this is what I have been doing in this thread and I have no difficulty in understanding the answers, its all straight forward.

I did know all that before I asked my two questions. Questions begging in the revealed wisdom of science.

My two questions remain unanswered, apart from "we don't Know", which sounds like a good answer to me.

I have a third question;

What is time?