My argument against materialism

[dafydd]

What stuff does is the subject of epistemology. What stuff is, is not; ontology, in other words.

So ontology is nothing?

 

[dafydd]

It's evasion by diversion via misinterpretation and misdirection.

When pixy asks about objects with charges, he conveniently 'assumes' electrically charged dipoles -and diverts with a lengthy explanation of dipoles and why they don't exist. When EM repulsion countering gravity is mentioned, he strawmans it (every noun can be verbed) into some kind of global EM force, or some kind of anti-gravity.

Yet he knows that if he steps into a mineshaft the force of gravity will cause him to plummet towards the centre of the Earth, because there's nothing solid to oppose the force of gravity on him. He knows that if he stands on a stone pillar, he won't plummet to the ground because the pillar provides resistance - by holding together, by staying solid, it resists the force of gravity on him. He knows that what holds the pillar together, keeps it solid, resists the force of gravity acting on him, are EM forces. These are the forces that give the pillar strength under compression, hold it together under the force of gravity acting on his mass, countering it. These are the forces that hold the pillar atoms & molecules together in their structures, and his own atoms and molecules in their organic structures; bind them tightly enough together that his matter and the pillar matter can't inter-penetrate. Molecules unable to squeeze between molecules, atoms unable squeeze between atoms. The forces that resist that penetration, stop him and the pillar collapsing, resist the force of gravity, stop him plummeting to ground? EM forces.

But by denying the result, he's dug himself a hole; it seems too deep to climb out, so he's going to keep on digging until he finds another way out.

It would be nice if that was the last word on EM here. Let Ken start another thread.

 

[dlorde]

This explains why there aren't more Zen masters posting on JREF.

ZEN MASTER'S TO DO LIST
Figure out the meaning of life.
Discover the horizon of the infinities.
Proclaim the truth of the illusion of reality.

Fetch water.
Build fire.
Make soup.

How true

 

[AlBell]

So ontology is nothing?

Just a choice of the attributes of stuff, a choice that effects and affects your worldview after making a choice and defending same.

I suspect it possible the naive worldview would be dualism of one sort or another. Either materialism or idealism is in accord with all epistemological results.

 

[dlorde]

Being is the doing, not the stuff.

[james finlayson]He's being and you're doing, you're being and he's doing... doh![/james finlayson]

what's the big to-do?

 

[kenkoskinen]

Pink Elephants

It's evasion by diversion via misinterpretation and misdirection.

When pixy asks about objects with charges, he conveniently 'assumes' electrically charged dipoles -and diverts with a lengthy explanation of dipoles and why they don't exist. When EM repulsion countering gravity is mentioned, he strawmans it (every noun can be verbed) into some kind of global EM force, or some kind of anti-gravity.

Yes PixieMisa's thought experiment involves electric dipoles. Ridiculous, such an object has never been seen. However I answered his question ... why is he asking it again? Yes ... such a thing would have to be global. And yes ... any repulsion that keeps me from falling into the earth can be likened to anti-gravity. Afterall, that's the claim. It fights gravity! Nonsense.

Yet he knows that if he steps into a mineshaft the force of gravity will cause him to plummet towards the centre of the Earth, because there's nothing solid to oppose the force of gravity on him. He knows that if he stands on a stone pillar, he won't plummet to the ground because the pillar provides resistance - by holding together, by staying solid, it resists the force of gravity on him. He knows that what holds the pillar together, keeps it solid, resists the force of gravity acting on him, are EM forces. These are the forces that give the pillar strength under compression, hold it together under the force of gravity acting on his mass, countering it. These are the forces that hold the pillar atoms & molecules together in their structures, and his own atoms and molecules in their organic structures; bind them tightly enough together that his matter and the pillar matter can't inter-penetrate. Molecules unable to squeeze between molecules, atoms unable squeeze between atoms. The forces that resist that penetration, stop him and the pillar collapsing, resist the force of gravity, stop him plummeting to ground? EM forces.

But by denying the result, he's dug himself a hole; it seems too deep to climb out, so he's going to keep on digging until he finds another way out.

You are the one who misunderstands and misdirects. I haven't denied that EM forces bond atoms/molecules and make our world solid. Indeed EM & gravity hold our planet together. I've said it several times, particularly after the thought experiment. I guess you've forgotten. I hope you are listening now and please put it into your memory.

I do not agree that EM repulses neutral matter, study quantum electrodynamics. When I stand on Earth EM doesn't repulse me and thereby prevents gravity from plunging me into the center of our world. EM bonds keep neutral objects/particles from interacting. There is therefore, what one could call a neutral barrier but it isn't generated by quantum interactions or exchanges between the bodies i.e. it's NOT a quantum effect.

There isn't any specific references on this strange EM repulsion. All the links I've seen have been on EM or forces in general, Coulomb's law, vector mechanics, Pauli Exclusion Principle. What's next pink elephants. Why aren't there any specific references and this is supposed to universally understood? EM is a quantum mechanical force. If you attribute any effect beyond Quantum Electrodynamics you have to prove it quantum mechanically, not vector mechanically!

This thing is a stew of strange ideas strung together. I can't critique a theory that doesn't exist. Will you write a concise explanation of what this thing is? I don't think Pixie will. That's not what he does.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes PixieMisa's thought experiment involves electric dipoles.

So what? Electric dipoles are found everywhere. You're only confused because you're looking for an electric dipole particle. I have no idea why.

There isn't any specific references on this strange EM repulsion.

There's nothing strange about it at all. It IS Coulomb's law. It's because you're looking for something strange that you can't see it. If you stopped to consider what we're actually telling you, you'd realise that there are references everywhere. Every physicist, every chemist, every engineer in the world understands this, Ken.

So, once again:

Take two objects, negatively charged at one end and positively charged at the other. The net charge on each one is zero. Not hypothetical particles, any arbitrary object.

If we push the two negatively charged ends together, what is the resulting force (again, considering only electromagnetism)?

1. Attraction
2. Repulsion
3. Zero

 

[Robin]

What stuff does is the subject of epistemology. What stuff is, is not; ontology, in other words.

But since you have agreed that you don't know what ideas are and that I don't know what 'matter' is then we have agreed that neither Idealism nor Materialism are ontological positions. Haven't we?

 

[yy2bggggs]

And yes ... any repulsion that keeps me from falling into the earth can be likened to anti-gravity. Afterall, that's the claim. It fights gravity! Nonsense.

This isn't nonsense at all. We fight gravity every time we pick up an object. A sturdy chair will fight gravity when you sit in it. Don't sit in unsturdy chairs.

I do not agree that EM repulses neutral matter, study quantum electrodynamics.

Richard Feynman, one of the founding fathers of quantum electrodynamics, was in that video I kept asking you to watch. In that video he says quite plainly that the electrodynamic force prevents your hand from going through a chair. If I push into the chair, how can my hand possibly be prevented from going through it if not by a repulsive force?

When I stand on Earth EM doesn't repulse me and thereby prevents gravity from plunging me into the center of our world. EM bonds keep neutral objects/particles from interacting. There is therefore, what one could call a neutral barrier but it isn't generated by quantum interactions or exchanges between the bodies i.e. it's NOT a quantum effect.

There isn't any specific references on this strange EM repulsion.

From the wiki page on Pauli exclusion principle:

The consequence of the Pauli principle here is that electrons of the same spin are kept apart by a repulsive exchange interaction, which is a short-range effect complemented by the long-range electrostatic or coulombic force. This effect is therefore partly responsible for the everyday observation in the macroscopic world that two solid objects cannot be in the same place in the same time.

 

[Robin]

Have you been talking to punshhh?

I think he would probably say that if there is stuff then there must be a Stuffer.

 

[dafydd]

I think he would probably say that if there is stuff then there must be a Stuffer.

Consider the universe as a giant turkey. What is it stuffed with? What is the turkey made of? These are deep waters.

 

[dafydd]

Yes PixieMisa's thought experiment involves electric dipoles. Ridiculous, such an object has never been seen. However I answered his question ... why is he asking it again? Yes ... such a thing would have to be global. And yes ... any repulsion that keeps me from falling into the earth can be likened to anti-gravity. Afterall, that's the claim. It fights gravity! Nonsense.



You are the one who misunderstands and misdirects. I haven't denied that EM forces bond atoms/molecules and make our world solid. Indeed EM & gravity hold our planet together. I've said it several times, particularly after the thought experiment. I guess you've forgotten. I hope you are listening now and please put it into your memory.

I do not agree that EM repulses neutral matter, study quantum electrodynamics. When I stand on Earth EM doesn't repulse me and thereby prevents gravity from plunging me into the center of our world. EM bonds keep neutral objects/particles from interacting. There is therefore, what one could call a neutral barrier but it isn't generated by quantum interactions or exchanges between the bodies i.e. it's NOT a quantum effect.

There isn't any specific references on this strange EM repulsion. All the links I've seen have been on EM or forces in general, Coulomb's law, vector mechanics, Pauli Exclusion Principle. What's next pink elephants. Why aren't there any specific references and this is supposed to universally understood? EM is a quantum mechanical force. If you attribute any effect beyond Quantum Electrodynamics you have to prove it quantum mechanically, not vector mechanically!

This thing is a stew of strange ideas strung together. I can't critique a theory that doesn't exist. Will you write a concise explanation of what this thing is? I don't think Pixie will. That's not what he does.

The onus is on you to propound an alternative theory,which you have singularly failed to do. We do not take you seriously. Do you have anything to say about materialism? That is the topic of this thread.

 

[dafydd]

But since you have agreed that you don't know what ideas are and that I don't know what 'matter' is then we have agreed that neither Idealism nor Materialism are ontological positions. Haven't we?

What is mind? Never matter. What is matter? Never mind.

 

[Dancing David]

1.Gee Ken Koskinen, are there are electrons in the outer shells of atoms? Yes or no?
2.When two atoms come close to each other, will the electrons in the outer shells exert a repulsive force? Yes or no?
3.Have you heard of Coulomb's law^WP? Yes or no?
4.As two molecules or atoms approach each other will the electrons in the outer shells be subject to Coulomb's law? Yes or no?

Mr. Koskinen
Care to address these questions?

They involve neutral particles and Couloumbs law.

 

[dafydd]

Mr. Koskinen
Care to address these questions?

They involve neutral particles and Couloumbs law.

Leave him alone. The poor man does not appear to have the nous to answer simple questions. I hope he proves me wrong.

 

[sol invictus]

I do not agree that EM repulses neutral matter, study quantum electrodynamics.

Quantum EM doen't exactly "repulse" neutral matter. What it does do is bind it together and hold it at a certain (material-dependent) preferred density. If you try to squeeze it to a higher density, it resists. If you try to stretch it to a lower density, it resists. That should be quite familiar to you (think of a sponge, or a spring).

Gravity tries to squeeze everything. Materials resist (up to a point).

In fairness, you're correct that one cannot really understand this behavior without including both quantum mechanics and the strong nuclear force.

 

[AlBell]

But since you have agreed that you don't know what ideas are and that I don't know what 'matter' is then we have agreed that neither Idealism nor Materialism are ontological positions. Haven't we?

No.

I will agree you don't seem to think so.

 

[TmoonII]

Consider the universe as a giant turkey. What is it stuffed with? What is the turkey made of? These are deep waters.

Consider the moon is hollow. How massive of an explanation would relativity require?

 

[Robin]

No.

I will agree you don't seem to think so.

Well maybe I am misunderstanding your punctuation.

Here is what you said:

What stuff does is the subject of epistemology. What stuff is, is not; ontology, in other words

You seemed to be saying earlier that ontology was about what stuff is. Did I misunderstand you?

But here is your quote earlier:

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.

So if ontology is about what stuff is and nobody knows what an idealists ideas are or a materialists quarks and bosons are, then on what basis is either position an ontology?

 

[Belz...]

ehcks, firstly gravity isn't simply a downwards or even an inwards one but I'll explain this later.

You'll educate us later ? Hilarious.

But your assertion and that of similar ones by others: "electromagnetism repels you from the ground, thereby canceling the continuing force of gravity that would otherwise pull you into the core of the earth" is nonsense.

So you keep claiming.