My argument against materialism

[PixyMisa]

PixieMisa RE: #2146 You haven't answered the objection, you didn't even frame it completely. Just get the specific references and/or write a paper and get it peer reviewed. Stop fussing, post your own thinking (or theory). I don't have anything to do with it! It's nonsense.

You said:

Physicists commonly and simply explain the reason why Jupiter, for example, doesn't collapse is it doesn't have enough mass.

This means that some force is counteracting gravity and preventing the collapse. What is that force?

 

[dafydd]

You said:


This means that some force is counteracting gravity and preventing the collapse. What is that force?

You know he doesn't answer questions.

 

[PixyMisa]

I'm hoping that at some point he'll learn the first rule of holes.

 

[dafydd]

I'm hoping that at some point he'll learn the first rule of holes.

I've been having a look at his site,it's hilarious. He takes himself so seriously and that makes it all the funnier. His prose style is a real tonic.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed off topic content

And this!

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed off topic content

 

[Dancing David]

You are of course free to believe that.

I no more know what an idealist's ideas are made of than you know what a materialist's quarks and bosons (the current "atom" level ala Democritus) are made of. What one chooses to believe at that level is one's of choice of ontology.

If the world is ideal, it would still behave exactly the same way. We would still have all four forces, and teh zoo of partilces, so it is moot. It would behave just as it does now, with quarks, hadrons, bosons, fermions, and leptons.

The thoughts are exactly the same, the result of interaction of ideal or material neurons. The interaction of ideal or material biochemistry.

Same:Same.

 

[kenkoskinen]

Boo

I've been having a look at his site,it's hilarious. He takes himself so seriously and that makes it all the funnier. His prose style is a real tonic.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed off topic content

And this!

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed off topic content

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed response to off topic content

 

[kenkoskinen]

Nonsense

Originally Posted by kenkoskinen
PixieMisa RE: #2146 You haven't answered the objection, you didn't even frame it completely. Just get the specific references and/or write a paper and get it peer reviewed. Stop fussing, post your own thinking (or theory). I don't have anything to do with it! It's nonsense.

Originally Posted by kenkoskinen
Physicists commonly and simply explain the reason why Jupiter, for example, doesn't collapse is it doesn't have enough mass.

PixieMisa said:

This means that some force is counteracting gravity and preventing the collapse. What is that force?

Nonsense, it means there isn't enough mass. Mass gravitates and if Jupiter ever acquires enough matter it would become a star. However, it's hard to imagine how that could happen.

 

[dafydd]

PixieMisa said:



Nonsense, it means there isn't enough mass. Mass gravitates and if Jupiter ever acquires enough matter it would become a star. However, it's hard to imagine how that could happen.

It's easy. You imagine Jupiter gaining more mass. Anything else we can help you with?

 

[PixyMisa]

Nonsense, it means there isn't enough mass. Mass gravitates and if Jupiter ever acquires enough matter it would become a star. However, it's hard to imagine how that could happen.

Okay, there isn't enough mass. What does that actually mean? There isn't enough mass to do what, and why?

Mass gravitates, as you say. That's a force pulling all that mass into the common centre.

Since Jupiter hasn't collapsed, there must be another force countering gravity. What is that force?

 

[yy2bggggs]

This means that some force is counteracting gravity and preventing the collapse. What is that force?

Nonsense, it means there isn't enough mass.

No, it's not nonsense. PixyMisa is correct, and it shouldn't be controversial.

In post #2115 I was responding to punshhh about how difficult a why question was, and referenced this video:

Oddly this same video applies to this conversation.

@5:13

You can't put your hands through the chair--that's taken for granted. But that you can't put your hand through the chair--when looked at more closely, why--it involves the same repulsive forces that appear in magnets.

It shouldn't be hard to see that the same force that resists my muscles to keep my hand from going through the chair is the force that resists my gravitational pull to keep my derriere from passing through the same chair, and keeps the same chair from passing through the concrete foundation. It might take a little imagination for you to see that this force also applies to liquids and solids, but this should, again, by no means be controversial.

 

[punshhh]

We don't have to factor in all the unknowns to think about a single concept.

If that were true then nobody could even decide what to eat for dinner today.

The question of an infinity existing in this physical universe is imaginable even if not possible.

One way it could happen is if reality was continuous rather than discrete. Then we could have an infinite number of moments contained in a one second interval - or an infinite number of gaps of space between your eyes and the terminal.

And we don't have to conceive this universe in order to conceive an infinite thing.

Yes I see the distinction here, my use of "unimaginable", is not quite what I was trying to say.

I am introducing a subtle distinction here, I am as I stated in my point to pixy where I use the phrase "rose tinted glasses", suggesting that everything that "man" can think, say or conceive of is theoretical. These theories may not be a true representation of existence. They may appear to be, however I would not ingore the "possibility" that, subtle distinctions in existence are not perceived or comprehended by "man" and we may be mistaken to a greater or lesser degree.

As such I would not presume that "man" can conceive of what an actual existing infinity might be be or entail.

 

[punshhh]

The same reason that Materialists are not interested in enquiring whether a bachelor's wife can wear green.

I know what you are saying here, are you saying that what existence consists of is meaningless

No, it is a known unknown. Because the question is ultimately meaningless. For the reasons I have been trying to get you to understand.

I do understand your point, however I am seeking a "truth" of existence, this is what I am alluding to. In order to further this aim, I go beyond what the limitations of theory can say on this.

From my position and from your position.

And from anyone else's position.

Unless you can show me otherwise.

You were going to provide me with an example of how mystics are dealing with the question of what things are. Did you have any luck finding any?

Unfortunately due to a lack of time, my library currently in storage and living in a house I am renovating I have not been able to research this. I will eventually, as it should not be a difficult task.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes I see the distinction here, my use of "unimaginable", is not quite what I was trying to say.

I am introducing a subtle distinction here, I am as I stated in my point to pixy where I use the phrase "rose tinted glasses", suggesting that everything that "man" can think, say or conceive of is theoretical. These theories may not be a true representation of existence. They may appear to be, however I would not ingore the "possibility" that, subtle distinctions in existence are not perceived or comprehended by "man" and we may be mistaken to a greater or lesser degree.

Argument from ignorance.

As such I would not presume that "man" can conceive of what an actual existing infinity might be be or entail.

punshhh, we know that you have a problem with the concept. This is highlighted by the fact that you think "almost infinite" is meaningful. This does not mean that mathematicians and physicists have a problem with it.

 

[punshhh]

If the world is ideal, it would still behave exactly the same way. We would still have all four forces, and teh zoo of partilces, so it is moot. It would behave just as it does now, with quarks, hadrons, bosons, fermions, and leptons.

The thoughts are exactly the same, the result of interaction of ideal or material neurons. The interaction of ideal or material biochemistry.

Same:Same.

I would add another "same", regarding divinity.

It would also be exactly the same.

 

[punshhh]

Argument from ignorance.


punshhh, we know that you have a problem with the concept. This is highlighted by the fact that you think "almost infinite" is meaningful. This does not mean that mathematicians and physicists have a problem with it.

Feel free to cling to your rose tinted blinkers of the mind pixy.


Its odd that computationalists endow the mind with the "power" to to understand, rather than just perform chemical machinations.

 

[PixyMisa]

Feel free to cling to your rose tinted blinkers of the mind pixy.

As I said before, you keep asserting this without ever showing any evidence or logic to support the assertion.

Its odd that computationalists endow the mind with the "power" to to understand, rather than just perform chemical machinations.

Not odd at all. Understanding is just calculation.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Pixy, knock him out and put him to bed. He's punch drunk and won't go down.

 

[kenkoskinen]

Gravity Doesn't Hold Your Derriere Together

No, it's not nonsense. PixyMisa is correct, and it shouldn't be controversial.

In post #2115 I was responding to punshhh about how difficult a why question was, and referenced this video:

Oddly this same video applies to this conversation.

@5:13

​

It shouldn't be hard to see that the same force that resists my muscles to keep my hand from going through the chair is the force that resists my gravitational pull to keep my derriere from passing through the same chair, and keeps the same chair from passing through the concrete foundation. It might take a little imagination for you to see that this force also applies to liquids and solids, but this should, again, by no means be controversial.

yy2bggggs, I haven't yet viewed the video but plan to when I find time. You should know that I'm well aware of the EM force and don't disagree with your examples. However, know this; they do not have anything to do with the discussion. Gravity doesn't hold a chair together, your body &/or your derrierre. The EM force does. The discussion is about planets and Jupiter is the current example. Gravity does hold Jupiter together. Pixy thinks the EM forces prevents it from collapsing. Main stream physics claims it doesn't have enough mass to start collapsing such as it would if it had enough mass to become a star.

I will write more later but know that gravity interacts with all of the Standard Model particles: fermions that build matter and the bosons that carry the forces. This means all Standard Model forces including EM gravitate. It also means their presence adds to the mass/energy count. EM or the other two Standard Model forces do not repulse gravity. That's equal to a magical transference of mass into some hypothetical anti-mass that would subtract from the mass/energy count. It's nonsense & her thinking (I call it a new theory since it isn't supported in mainstream physics) includes more nonsense.

 

[kenkoskinen]

Nit Picking Before Spring?

It's easy. You imagine Jupiter gaining more mass. Anything else we can help you with?

NO ... I'm good to go. Can I have my check?

There's not enough matter around Jupiter for that to happen therefore it's extremely unlikely it will; at least any time soon. I was not literally referring to imagining the event in my mind. People imagine that Santa Claus comes down chimneys and that Jesus walked on water etc.

Is there anything else I can help you with?

 

[yy2bggggs]

yy2bggggs, I haven't yet viewed the video but plan to when I find time. You should know that I'm well aware of the EM force and don't disagree with your examples. However, know this; they do not have anything to do with the discussion.

Nonsense!

Gravity doesn't hold a chair together, your body &/or your derrierre. The EM force does.

Nonsequitur.

Gravity pulls on my derriere while it's in the chair. It pulls my derriere down to the earth. I exert an equal and opposite gravitational force on the entire planet earth pulling the entire planet towards my chair.

So my derriere, my chair, and the planet are all squashing together. But something keeps us from being a big pile on the floor.

That is EM--acting as a repulsive force. And it's the same thing that keeps the chair from going through the floor, the floor from going through the foundation, the foundation from going through the ground, the ground from going through the mantle, and so on.

The discussion is about planets and Jupiter is the current example.

Yes. The entire planet earth gravitationally pulls on my derriere, and my derriere likewise pulls on the entire planet earth. But my derriere, over an extremely small gap, pushes on that tiny little chair, and that tiny little chair pushes against my derriere, and the result is a repulsion equal and opposite to the attraction of my derriere to the entire planet earth. And that is why my derriere is in the chair and not in the floor.

All of this is not the Theory of PixyMisa, but mainstream physics. And that is what keeps Jupiter from collapsing more than it is.

I will write more later but know that gravity interacts with all of the Standard Model particles: fermions that build matter and the bosons that carry the forces. This means all Standard Model forces including EM gravitate. It also means their presence adds to the mass/energy count. EM or the other two Standard Model forces do not repulse gravity.

Of course it does! My derriere does not go through that chair. Again, the tiny little chair's repulsive EM force on my tiny derriere keeps the gravitational attraction between my derriere and the entire planet earth at bay.

If it didn't, we'd sink into the earth like a rock in a pool. And gravity would be the force tugging us down.