The "ultimate substance"

[Mobyseven]

Our standard physical senses are limited in the well understood manner to perceiving a certain limited range of vibratory energy in the universal spectrum.

So? How can you know that there is anything outside of what we are able to perceive? How can you know that the reason we can only perceive what you describe as a limited range isn't because there is nothing outside of that range.

By simple inference, the same way we know there must be something out there we can label "dark matter/energy" even if we have no clue yet what it is, or the way we know there must be certain massive objects in some parts of space even though we can't yet detect them.

Different kettle of fish. While my eyes are capable of only seeing in the visible EM spectrum, that does not mean I cannot perceive outside of that. I can perceive UV radiation because of the effect it has on my (very fair) skin. Using special detectors it is possible for me to perceive radio waves and gamma rays, electrons and positrons. And by observing the universe we are able to perceive the existence of dark matter and dark energy (for otherwise how would we know it exists?)

That we don't know exactly what dark matter or dark energy is yet is a completely different kettle of fish. We are able to perceive its existence, and thus it is not outside of our range of perception.

 

[Elind]

Maybe those of you who are materialists would say that quarks are "made of matter", and thats your choice. I honestly don't see the point.

Your point would, might, be better understood if you attempted to explain your alternative.

Can you define quarks in the context of no quarks?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Neither. As Piggy has been saying, science is ultimately pragmatic. The experimentalists - and Aristotle was arguably among the first of these - won out over the pure philosophers because it worked.

Of course science is ultimately pragmatic, but it arises from a framework of theory. That is the ground for hypotheses to be tested, allowing the practical side of science to exist. We cannot deny the existence of theory as a framework for all scientific work. It isn't just pragmatism. Scientific revolutions do involve significant changes in the way we view the world -- not completely different views as some people try to argue Kuhn's paradigms (if they were completely and utterly different then we couldn't ever get there), but different views all the same. We don't see the world the same way after Einstein as we did before. This is not simply because of the data. We had the data before Einstein. It was his way of understanding how the data fit into a new way of seeing the world.

Now, there are interesting philosophical questions about what it means that science works, as discussed by philosophers such as Hume and Popper, but they came after the scientific revolution was already well under way. First we discovered that the method worked, then we examined the implications.

I would argue that the whole process was much more complicated than that. We developed a whole new view of the world that served to create a new set of words and altered definitions for older words. I don't think you can say that we just discovered that the method worked and went with it. Aristotle lived in the 4th century BCE. His way of looking at the world didn't simply disappear overnight. He had a particular way of looking at the world that included part of what we call the scientific method, but some of which did not. He, after all, supplied the teleological view that structured much of Western thought for centuries. The scientific revolution in the more recent past depended critically on a new way of viewing the world and a new approach to information that came from below rather than from above. We had to learn to jettison authority as the primary source of information first of all.

Kuhn is a fine example of an interesting idea stretched too far. I'll take Popper any day.

Kuhn has definitely been stretched too far. Even by himself. But there is an important and critical lesson in his primary formulation.

Older definitions, I'd say, rather than older vocabulary.

I'm using Rorty's word. It doesn't just mean new words, but new definitions of old words that create new ways of looking at the world.

BDZ is clinging to a distorted version of a pre-scientific version of materialism when he raises his objections. Words matter, yes, but meanings change with understanding. That he clings to outdated - or simply false - definitions in his argument is not a problem with the terms as they are normally used, it's a problem with his argument.

Perhaps, but I'm not seeing it. I think he may be pushing it a bit far, but I think he is trying to introduce this issue -- that this particular word (matter) should change. It's really just that simple. I think we can cut through all the rest of the BS and just discuss that issue. I'm not sure that it really matters since it's just a word for something that can only be labelled.

Well, no. Maybe we are, but that will be happenstance; the current terms serve perfectly well. We know what they mean. We simply know better what they mean now than we did fifty or a hundred years ago.

As far as the current discussion is concerned, as I said, I'm not sure that it is important that terms change. But I think much is going to have to change in our basic conceptions in the next few centuries. We'll know more once the CERN collider finally goes online. If we don't find the Higgs boson then we've got a lot of friggin' work to do.

 

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
Our standard physical senses are limited in the well understood manner to perceiving a certain limited range of vibratory energy in the universal spectrum.

So? How can you know that there is anything outside of what we are able to perceive? How can you know that the reason we can only perceive what you describe as a limited range isn't because there is nothing outside of that range......

Because the universal energy vibratory spectrum extends infinitely beyond that range of vibrations corresponding to our phenomenal sensory perception.

 

[PixyMisa]

Of course science is ultimately pragmatic, but it arises from a framework of theory.

In a historical context, this is simply not true.

That is the ground for hypotheses to be tested, allowing the practical side of science to exist.

The thing is, science works whether or not you understand the underlying principles of methodological naturalism. If you do things this way, you get better results than any other way.

The philosophical understanding came later.

I don't think you can say that we just discovered that the method worked and went with it.

Why not? That is, after all, what happened.

We had to learn to jettison authority as the primary source of information first of all.

Yes. And that is not new, nor unique to science.

I'm using Rorty's word. It doesn't just mean new words, but new definitions of old words that create new ways of looking at the world.

That's backwards. New information creates new definitions.

Perhaps, but I'm not seeing it. I think he may be pushing it a bit far, but I think he is trying to introduce this issue -- that this particular word (matter) should change. It's really just that simple. I think we can cut through all the rest of the BS and just discuss that issue. I'm not sure that it really matters since it's just a word for something that can only be labelled.

If that is his sole point, then he's wasted 2600 posts attacking a strawman.

We know what materialism means. He doesn't. He needs to look it up. The end.

As far as the current discussion is concerned, as I said, I'm not sure that it is important that terms change. But I think much is going to have to change in our basic conceptions in the next few centuries. We'll know more once the CERN collider finally goes online. If we don't find the Higgs boson then we've got a lot of friggin' work to do.

Yes, that's true enough. And it has nothing to do with anything that BDZ has said.

 

[Elind]

1... The whole range of vibratory actions in nature outside those our material senses perceive and interpret: Those aspects of the thing in itself in its entirety - the vibratory action in nature - beyond or outside the perceptive capacity of our material senses.

You are philosophizing about something like string theory I gather; but what is your point?

2... This is but an article of belief of reductionist scientism: There is no evidence that mind is a strictly material brain function, and the endless claims to the effect it has been established as true are a fiction.

Perhaps, but would you care to provide your proof that eluded all others so far?

3... Yes, true science will continue to enlarge our knowledge and understanding of phenomena, but it has no access to or means of measuring those noumenal aspects of nature it cannot respond to.

Noumenal? Non Material?

You misunderstand the concept of science if you think you are providing a proof of anything. If the "noumenal" aspects of nature can be defined, as you presume to do, then they can be measured, as you presume to do, and then they can be responded to, as you presume not to do.

 

[PixyMisa]

Ahh Pixy... you simply cant' cease to amaze me, always with your colorful "I know it all" attitude.

You are dead wrong my dear, and you are one of the self proclaimed authorities of materialism in the forum. Quarks are descriptions of behavior. For convenience, we ascribe them a simple name (from rather a simple concept) this is, we call them "particles".

Let's illustrate this a bit better. "Fundamental" particles, like quarks, are NOT extended in space (one of the key categories for matter that you, and others have eluded). Reason is simple, they are charged, and if they had extension they would exert a repulsive force against each others.

False premise and non-sequitur. They do exert a repulsive force against each other.

They are viewed more like "geometrical points" than little particles (a very small piece or part of something, by definition). Now, since geometrical points cannot spin (this would mean it has an extension in space) quantum spin cannot be understood as macroscopic spinning. We use mundane concepts and words to illustrate things that are in the verge of our grasping abilities.

There's a reason that quantum angular momentum (the property we measure as the spin of a particle) has the same name as classical angular momentum: it follows the same laws. It's not "in the verge of our grasping abilities"; it's well understood and has a number of practical applications.

At the same time, ALL PARTICLES can be understood as waves instead of localized particles.

Yes. And?

Waves do have extension, but they have this strange property of being in two (or more) different places at once.

No.

For consistency with the way we do experiments we must think that (whatever they are) we most measure them as waves, or as particles, depending on the context. (the genius Bohr called this Complementarity principle). But they are, arguably, not particles nor waves.

Thanks for the 9th-grade physics lesson.

Well, my point. We describe behaviors, we use common terms like "particles" to denote them but that "stuff" is in another league (to use another common expression). Now... it is my belief that we lack the concepts to think about them as other than particles, or matter (extended in space, solid, etc) because our brains are designed to deal with macroscopic objects.

It's beyond me how you can even write such an absurd statement.

You were just lecturing in this very post on early 20th-century physics, and now you are claiming we are unable to understand 20th-century physics?

Terrific.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

In a historical context, this is simply not true.


The thing is, science works whether or not you understand the underlying principles of methodological naturalism. If you do things this way, you get better results than any other way.

The philosophical understanding came later.

Again, of course, the philosophical understanding came later. But the philosophical understanding explains the formation on which changes occur. Change does not occur in us willy-nilly. It always occurs within a signification system. That is just how our brains work. Interpretations of information can occur only within an interpretive framework.

We aren't discussing that data is what data is. We are discussing ways of interpreting data, and that only occurs within a framework. There is simply no other way for meaning to occur. Science doesn't work if you are the one doing it and have completely different ideas about how to interpret the data than what we currently use (say, the way a creationist interprets the same data we see). We have amazing powers to neglect information that does not fit our preconceptions.

Why not? That is, after all, what happened.

What? We started collecting data for no apparent reason and changed the whole way we viewed the world based on the results of these observations which we began for no apparent reason.

There was a reason why we started to view the world in a new way. It is not a simple matter of just looking and poof it all transformed.

That's backwards. New information creates new definitions.

No. New definitions create new ways of looking at the world. And new information creates new definitions. And new definitions create new ways of looking at the world and suggest new experiments. They share a reciprocal relationship.

If that is his sole point, then he's wasted 2600 posts attacking a strawman.

It is not a simple point.

We know what materialism means. He doesn't. He needs to look it up. The end.

Then communicate to him that materialism does not mean that we know what the ultimate substance *is* in some final absolute sense, but that we label it as matter so that we can talk about it. That it is just a description within a scientific process that examines how the rules of the system works. He would probably respond to that approach. I agree that he has been harsh with you.

 

[PixyMisa]

Just a couple more points:

You are dead wrong my dear, and you are one of the self proclaimed authorities of materialism in the forum. Quarks are descriptions of behavior. For convenience, we ascribe them a simple name (from rather a simple concept) this is, we call them "particles".

That's what I said. Quarks are particles.

Let's illustrate this a bit better. "Fundamental" particles, like quarks, are NOT extended in space (one of the key categories for matter that you, and others have eluded).

This is your strawman. There is nothing in the definition of "matter" or of "materialism" that requires fundamental particles to have a well-defined size.

 

[PixyMisa]

Science doesn't work if you are the one doing it and have completely different ideas about how to interpret the data than what we currently use (say, the way a creationist interprets the same data we see). We have amazing powers to neglect information that does not fit our preconceptions.

It works if you follow the rules, precisely as far as the rules take you. If you take valid experimental evidence and misinterpret it, that's a misapplication of science, but the science still worked.

What? We started collecting data for no apparent reason and changed the whole way we viewed the world based on the results of these observations which we began for no apparent reason.

"No apparent reason?"

We gradually rejected the old authorities because they were wrong, because they didn't bother to actually look at things. People look at things all the time, and if what they see contradicts the way things are "supposed" to be, something's gotta give.

What's more, reliability is valuable. Being able to produce, say, gunpowder, consistently and repeatably, without killing yourself or your customers, is worth money. And to get that money, you have to pay attention to what is.

No abstract philosophical framework is needed here. Just keep on applying the exact same logic you would for everyday life. And then, as you find out what works and what doesn't, you gradually formalise it.

No. New definitions create new ways of looking at the world. And new information creates new definitions. And new definitions create new ways of looking at the world and suggest new experiments. They share a reciprocal relationship.

Yes, there's a cycle. But information creates definitions. Definitions without information are sophistry.

It is not a simple point.

It is a simple point, and it's wrong.

Then communicate to him that materialism does not mean that we know what the ultimate substance *is* in some final absolute sense, but that we label it as matter so that we can talk about it.

I have. So have dozens of others here. He has reality on ignore.

That it is just a description within a scientific process that examines how the rules of the system works. He would probably respond to that approach. I agree that he has been harsh with you.

He's harsh with everyone who cuts through his waffle. I've encountered him many times previously, and he's always like this. Well, actually, he's usually even worse.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

It works if you follow the rules, precisely as far as the rules take you. If you take valid experimental evidence and misinterpret it, that's a misapplication of science, but the science still worked.

Data is meaningless without an interpretive framework. The rules constitute one type of interpretive framework.

"No apparent reason?"

We gradually rejected the old authorities because they were wrong, because they didn't bother to actually look at things. People look at things all the time, and if what they see contradicts the way things are "supposed" to be, something's gotta give.

Yes, creationists do it all the time. Science is what gives. The data is not the end. The way data is interpreted within a framework is. The history of scientific development is much more complicated than that.

What's more, reliability is valuable. Being able to produce, say, gunpowder, consistently and repeatably, without killing yourself or your customers, is worth money. And to get that money, you have to pay attention to what is.

No abstract philosophical framework is needed here. Just keep on applying the exact same logic you would for everyday life. And then, as you find out what works and what doesn't, you gradually formalise it.

Yes, an interpretive framework is needed. If you don't see that then we have a real problem. I know Piggy was trying to make a point earlier and stated things a little forcefully, but interpretive frameworks are indispensable. Logic itself is an interpretive framework. Illogic is the framework that many creationists seem to use.

We must have a particular relationship to the world to see things in a particular way. Those views can change all the time, and it is never the case that we are completely blind without the *proper* way of viewing the world. But we must see things from some perspective or we cannot make sense of anything.

Yes, there's a cycle. But information creates definitions. Definitions without information are sophistry.

Definitions do not exist without information. They are empty without it.

It is a simple point, and it's wrong.


I have. So have dozens of others here. He has reality on ignore.

It's a simple point and it's wrong and you have told him that point and he has ignored it?

It is a point that many people don't think about very often. It is not simple. It is not wrong.

 

[maatorc]

You are philosophizing about something like string theory I gather; but what is your point?
Perhaps, but would you care to provide your proof that eluded all others so far?
Noumenal? Non Material?
You misunderstand the concept of science if you think you are providing a proof of anything. If the "noumenal" aspects of nature can be defined, as you presume to do, then they can be measured, as you presume to do, and then they can be responded to, as you presume not to do.

You are picking up on the chain of comments and their source references out of context: It may help if you back check this thread postings some more.

 

[Piggy]

I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I'm afraid this point hasn't been answered on either thread.

BDZ, is this not what your beef with the material model boils down to?

I think BDZ's argument comes down to something like this (using "the sky is blue" rather than "the world is made of matter"):

Naive blueskyists may claim that "the sky is blue", and I'm not claiming to have any alternative to that, but I have no use for that concept, because it's an empty concept.

When they claim the sky is blue, they must believe that there is some ultimate blueness out there. But there's not. Because first of all, blue is an illusion of our senses and brains, and secondly, if you go up in the sky and look you're never ever going to find a piece of blue.

So I just want to subtract that notion of an ultimate blue from the equation. And when you do that, the statement "the sky is blue" makes no sense.

I don't know why you can't understand this.

And yet this is how BDZ's arguments have run of late. To sum up / paraphrase:

Naive materialists may claim that "the world is made of matter", and I'm not claiming to have any alternative to that, but I have no use for that concept, because it's an empty concept.

When they claim the world is made of matter, they must believe that there is some ultimate material substance out there. But there's not. Because first of all, the material objects we experience are an illusion of our senses and brains, and secondly, if you examine "matter" close up at the subatomic level you're never ever going to find a chunk of matter.

So I just want to subtract that notion of an ultimate material substance from the equation. And when you do that, the statement "the world is made of matter" makes no sense.

I don't know why you can't understand this.​

Isn't your argument based on those 2 points?

1. Objects as we know them are illusions of our senses.

2. At the most fundamental levels, there are no chunks of matter.

Therefore, there is no "final substance" or "ultimate substance".

Therefore, it makes no sense to say "the world is made of matter".

Isn't this the core of your argument?

If not, then what is?

Thanks

 

[Elind]

You are picking up on the chain of comments and their source references out of context: It may help if you back check this thread postings some more.

Perhaps, but your post was pretty specific in its apparent statement and appeared to want to stand on its own without unstated "contextual" qualifications.

Unfortunately I don't have time to always read all posts in a thread. I'm glad you do. Sometimes quick reading finds something that strikes a thought and warrants a comment; but you are free to ignore if it seems irrelevant.

 

[Mobyseven]

Because the universal energy vibratory spectrum extends infinitely beyond that range of vibrations corresponding to our phenomenal sensory perception.

How do you know that? You claim that the universal energy vibratory spectrum - an explanation of what that is would be handy, by the way - extends infinitely beyond the range of vibrations we can perceive.

If you cannot perceive any vibrations outside of the spectrum we can perceive, how do you know that vibrations outside of the perceivable spectrum exist? How do you know that the reason we cannot perceive outside of the spectrum we see isn't because there is nothing outside of that spectrum for us to see?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

He's harsh with everyone who cuts through his waffle. I've encountered him many times previously, and he's always like this. Well, actually, he's usually even worse.

Sorry, didn't respond to this earlier. Yes, it seems so. I think it best that I bow out then, since I've just been trying to act as a go-between. The harshness of many replies is simply un-called for. I do salute you and Piggy for sticking with it after what you've been called.

 

[PixyMisa]

Sorry, didn't respond to this earlier. Yes, it seems so. I think it best that I bow out then, since I've just been trying to act as a go-between. The harshness of many replies is simply un-called for. I do salute you and Piggy for sticking with it after what you've been called.

No worries. I didn't respond to your last post either, because some of my irritation with BDZ was spilling over to our side debate (where we actually agree on far more than we disagree) and you didn't deserve the sharp answers I was tending towards. Maybe we can pick that up another day.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

No worries. I didn't respond to your last post either, because some of my irritation with BDZ was spilling over to our side debate (where we actually agree on far more than we disagree) and you didn't deserve the sharp answers I was tending towards. Maybe we can pick that up another day.

Perhaps another thread about the correspondence theory of truth? I'll have to think about it. My guess is that we actually disgree about next to nothing but are expressing things in slightly different ways.

 

[Tricky]

Do not cross PixyMisa. He's a mean SOB who does not suffer fools gladly. I speak as one fool who learned that lesson the hard way. It was one of many things I've learned from him.

 

[Robin]

I will argue against the need of this "ultimate subtance" as I believe that the question about what the universe is "made of" is absurd. Lets take for example, materialism (as it is the theory of choice for most forum members).

What is "Material"? Most of you will argue that it is precisely "the final substance" we are talking about. The "stuff" that the universe is made of. Now, for starters, even the wording seems medieval to me (but this is not an argument), and in the end I believe it is essentially a void concept.

The final substance wording is a lot older than Medieval. Aristotle, for example, was talking about it. The Materialists were among the first to challenge the usefulness of the concept.

Now my challenge to you is the same. Name me a Materialist philosopher, major or minor, living or dead, in the past 1,000 or so years that even mentions the subject of the "final substance" (unless it is to pour scorn on the concept as d'Holbach did).

Again (and I know you will never listen to this) you are simply misrepresenting Materialism.

You are simply taking little snippets of what people say here and there and slotting it into this unshakeable and completely erroneous pre-conception you have about the subject.