Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[PoeticUniverse]

Now and Then

The universe began with what then led to the 25 elementaries (and possibly more as discovered in the future) of the Standard Model, each of the entities of a type being identical to one another, and each elementary entity having to be of a specific unit energy level called a quantum.

In another thread, the “what led to them” is explained by quantum fields, but that is of little concern here, but for that there was energy in the beginning, too, and that there was simplicity at the beginning also.

From this conglomeration of stuff became all the higher wonders of complexity that we see about us now.

Nothing more was added in between the start of the universe and now. The recipe is ever as it was at the beginning.

Thus all that happened and became in between the beginning and now has to be purely physical from the base ingredients of the elementaries, as forming atoms to stars to molecules to cells to life to brains to consciousness and whatnot.

That shows in a nutshell that the going-ons in the universe had to have been purely physical.


The Transcendental Temptation

The desire to find purpose and meaning in a scientifically explained universe that otherwise seems "soulless" is likely the very human factor motivating spiritual seekers. People mistakenly assume that a purely naturalistic physical universe is devoid of purpose, meaning, and morality, and that only a universe infused with supernatural or paranormal magic can supply these qualities.

"The imagination draws a fanciful picture of a transcendental reality, some kind of celestial kingdom. Time and again the theistic myth appeals to the hungry soul; it feeds the creative imagination and soothes the pain of living. There must be something beyond this actual world, which we cannot see, hear, feel, or touch. There must be a deeper world, which the intellect ponders and the emotions crave. Here is the opening for the transcendental impulse. Yes, says the imagination, these things are possible.

— Paul Kurtz, The Transcendental Temptation: A critique of Religion and the Paranormal

[JackDaydream]

@PoeticUniverse
I don't see how you can possibly 'know' that the events in the universe are only physical and your description is only your own point of view. I also read your quotation from Kurtz and I can see his point of there being a temptation to see the transcendental, but it is a matter of perspective whether to see come from a materialist perspective or otherwise. That was why I started the thread on belief and knowledge, as while I don't adopt the logical positivist position, I think there is a danger in thinking that certain ideas are definitive while they are just beliefs, or perspective.

With the question of idealism and materialism, some people think matter is more real and others that mind is more essential, and it is down to opinion. It reminds me of the diagram in psychology textbooks of an image which can be seen as two faces or as a vase.it depending on which aspect one perceives. I am not even sure that it makes that much sense to try to split mind and matter, trying to decide which is primary because they are interconnected in a complex way, like two sides of a coin.

[PoeticUniverse]

I don't see how you can possibly 'know' that the events in the universe are only physical

The universe tells us, in that it began with stuff that then had to do it all, with naught else added, science confirming it.

Science explains how, when particles randomly interact, complex systems can result, and those systems often acquire novel properties not possessed by their more elementary constituents. The properties of the system as a whole, which emerge as a result of the interactions between the constituents, are frequently entirely unexpected and unpredictable—even when we know all the properties of the elementary constituents from which they are comprised. Complex systems, in turn, interact with each other and self-organize further to produce systems of ever greater complexity.

One of science’s most important insights is that non-random processes such as self-organization and evolution can in fact arise naturally, entirely unguided, out of fundamentally random processes. Complexity and order can arise spontaneously out of chaos. This sounds mysterious and even mystical, but the mechanisms are well understood. And they achieve this without contravening the second law of thermodynamics, which dictates that the universe as a whole proceeds inexorably toward greater disorder.

Over eons of time, these processes led from elementary subatomic particles to atoms to molecules to complex adaptive systems—both non-living and living (i.e. cells). And from there to multicellular organisms, to complex animals, to social groups of animals (ranging from insects to primates), to societies, cultures, and economies.

[Terrapin Station]

@PoeticUniverse
I don't see how you can possibly 'know' that the events in the universe are only physical and your description is only your own point of view. I also read your quotation from Kurtz and I can see his point of there being a temptation to see the transcendental, but it is a matter of perspective whether to see come from a materialist perspective or otherwise. That was why I started the thread on belief and knowledge, as while I don't adopt the logical positivist position, I think there is a danger in thinking that certain ideas are definitive while they are just beliefs, or perspective.

With the question of idealism and materialism, some people think matter is more real and others that mind is more essential, and it is down to opinion. It reminds me of the diagram in psychology textbooks of an image which can be seen as two faces or as a vase.it depending on which aspect one perceives. I am not even sure that it makes that much sense to try to split mind and matter, trying to decide which is primary because they are interconnected in a complex way, like two sides of a coin.

If we're going to posit something other than physical stuff, we need to start with being able to give some plausible account of what nonphysical existents would even be, exactly.

And if we're going to suppose that mental phenomena aren't physical, then we'd better have pretty good reasons, pretty good evidence for that, especially if we can't even make sense of what nonphysical things are supposed to be, exactly.

[3017Metaphysician]

@PoeticUniverse
I don't see how you can possibly 'know' that the events in the universe are only physical and your description is only your own point of view. I also read your quotation from Kurtz and I can see his point of there being a temptation to see the transcendental, but it is a matter of perspective whether to see come from a materialist perspective or otherwise. That was why I started the thread on belief and knowledge, as while I don't adopt the logical positivist position, I think there is a danger in thinking that certain ideas are definitive while they are just beliefs, or perspective.

With the question of idealism and materialism, some people think matter is more real and others that mind is more essential, and it is down to opinion. It reminds me of the diagram in psychology textbooks of an image which can be seen as two faces or as a vase.it depending on which aspect one perceives. I am not even sure that it makes that much sense to try to split mind and matter, trying to decide which is primary because they are interconnected in a complex way, like two sides of a coin.

If we're going to posit something other than physical stuff, we need to start with being able to give some plausible account of what nonphysical existents would even be, exactly.

And if we're going to suppose that mental phenomena aren't physical, then we'd better have pretty good reasons, pretty good evidence for that, especially if we can't even make sense of what nonphysical things are supposed to be, exactly.

TC:

Your statement is misleading and intellectually dishonest. It should read: "And if we're going to suppose that mental phenomena aren't physical, then we'd better have pretty good reasons, pretty good evidence for that, especially if we can't even make sense of what [physical and non-physical} things are supposed to be, exactly.

Yes/No?

I'm afraid we're back to the question that I'm not sure you're up to answering. But to call your bluff, I'll see if you're up to the task now:

What does it mean for something to exist?

[3017Metaphysician]

Now and Then

The universe began with what then led to the 25 elementaries (and possibly more as discovered in the future) of the Standard Model, each of the entities of a type being identical to one another, and each elementary entity having to be of a specific unit energy level called a quantum.

In another thread, the “what led to them” is explained by quantum fields, but that is of little concern here, but for that there was energy in the beginning, too, and that there was simplicity at the beginning also.

From this conglomeration of stuff became all the higher wonders of complexity that we see about us now.

Nothing more was added in between the start of the universe and now. The recipe is ever as it was at the beginning.

Thus all that happened and became in between the beginning and now has to be purely physical from the base ingredients of the elementaries, as forming atoms to stars to molecules to cells to life to brains to consciousness and whatnot.

That shows in a nutshell that the going-ons in the universe had to have been purely physical.


The Transcendental Temptation

The desire to find purpose and meaning in a scientifically explained universe that otherwise seems "soulless" is likely the very human factor motivating spiritual seekers. People mistakenly assume that a purely naturalistic physical universe is devoid of purpose, meaning, and morality, and that only a universe infused with supernatural or paranormal magic can supply these qualities.

"The imagination draws a fanciful picture of a transcendental reality, some kind of celestial kingdom. Time and again the theistic myth appeals to the hungry soul; it feeds the creative imagination and soothes the pain of living. There must be something beyond this actual world, which we cannot see, hear, feel, or touch. There must be a deeper world, which the intellect ponders and the emotions crave. Here is the opening for the transcendental impulse. Yes, says the imagination, these things are possible.

— Paul Kurtz, The Transcendental Temptation: A critique of Religion and the Paranormal

P-AH-U!

Don't think I'm singling you out, but I think you are too used to doing your poetry prose PU. You've added Existential dilemma but nothing about consciousness itself. You may need more practice here. To the reader, I think you've created a false dichotomy by only providing either/or possibilities. Firstly, here's an analogous example of the fallacy you've advanced:

A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. The source of the fallacy lies not in an invalid form of inference but in a false premise. This premise has the form of a disjunctive claim: it asserts that one among a number of alternatives must be true. This disjunction is problematic because it oversimplifies the choice by excluding viable alternatives. For example, a false dilemma is committed when it is claimed that, "Stacey spoke out against capitalism; therefore, she must be a communist". One of the options excluded is that Stacey may be neither communist nor capitalist. False dilemmas often have the form of treating two contraries, which may both be false, as contradictories, of which one is necessarily true. ….Our liability to commit false dilemmas may be due to the tendency to simplify reality by ordering it through either-or-statements, which is to some extent already built into our language. This may also be connected to the tendency to insist on clear distinction while denying the vagueness of many common explanations.

In your model, consider trying to reconcile the nature conscious existence (I don't even think you've talked about it)?

[PoeticUniverse]

either/or

OK. What is your proposal beyond this?

[3017Metaphysician]

either/or

OK. What is your proposal beyond this?

P-AH-U!

Gosh, where should we start. A few glaring things are missing:

1. Explain emergence of self-aware biological creatures and how conscious experience is exclusively physical. And explain why we should care to ask why.
2. Reconcile how and why material objects move through natural (metaphysical) phenomena: gravity, space and time? (Is gravity itself physical?)
3. Explain the concept of eternity (speed of light, etc.) and timelessness.
4. What was happening before the BB?

There's more, but you've presented a pseudo 'creation' model that only includes physical matter...we could go on forever (no pun intended), but there's a good start I think.

Thanks!

[JackDaydream]

@Terrapin Station

You are coming up with a scientific description and I am not saying that the scientific perspective is not important because it is. However, while the theories are important they are only models and must not be mistaken for reality itself. As human beings, looking back at the origins of the universe there is so much which we do not know, We don't know if there were universes before this one or not, and if it part of endless cycles. Also, when people do adopt a view of a transcendent reality behind it, this does not mean that it has to be something like a god in the sky, but more of an underlying source. It is possible to think of an underlying invisible source, from which all that is manifest emerges. Science is about the invisible as well as visible, and I think that materialists often do not consider fully the nature of the unseen.

[PoeticUniverse]

Gosh

Your 'proposal' doesn't look like a proposal. What is your proposal?

(1-4 All physical)

[PoeticUniverse]

some people think matter is more real and others that mind is more essential, and it is down to opinion.

Minds came about later on.

The physical Earth had physical potential when it formed 4.543 billion years ago. It physically orbited a physical 3rd generation metal rich star that we now call the sun, and it had a physical moon, too, since 4.425 billion years ago, give or take 25 million.

At some point, physical bacteria and plants made our physical oxygen rich atmosphere over two billion years that no one had asked for, for there wasn’t anyone physical who could breathe physical oxygen mixed with nitrogen.

All was physical then and so is it all now, with our physical life, 5 billion years later. Physical events happened in between, obviously. There were even physical dinosaurs before the great physical Permian extinction happened.

Have a physical day!

[Count Lucanor]

Now and Then

The universe began with what then led to the 25 elementaries (and possibly more as discovered in the future) of the Standard Model, each of the entities of a type being identical to one another, and each elementary entity having to be of a specific unit energy level called a quantum.

In another thread, the “what led to them” is explained by quantum fields, but that is of little concern here, but for that there was energy in the beginning, too, and that there was simplicity at the beginning also.

From this conglomeration of stuff became all the higher wonders of complexity that we see about us now.

Nothing more was added in between the start of the universe and now. The recipe is ever as it was at the beginning.

Thus all that happened and became in between the beginning and now has to be purely physical from the base ingredients of the elementaries, as forming atoms to stars to molecules to cells to life to brains to consciousness and whatnot.

That shows in a nutshell that the going-ons in the universe had to have been purely physical.


The Transcendental Temptation


The desire to find purpose and meaning in a scientifically explained universe that otherwise seems "soulless" is likely the very human factor motivating spiritual seekers. People mistakenly assume that a purely naturalistic physical universe is devoid of purpose, meaning, and morality, and that only a universe infused with supernatural or paranormal magic can supply these qualities.

"The imagination draws a fanciful picture of a transcendental reality, some kind of celestial kingdom. Time and again the theistic myth appeals to the hungry soul; it feeds the creative imagination and soothes the pain of living. There must be something beyond this actual world, which we cannot see, hear, feel, or touch. There must be a deeper world, which the intellect ponders and the emotions crave. Here is the opening for the transcendental impulse. Yes, says the imagination, these things are possible.

— Paul Kurtz, The Transcendental Temptation: A critique of Religion and the Paranormal

Makes all the sense in the world!! Is there any other possibility? I mean, idealists clinging on to the idea of a non-physical realm implies promoting the intelligibility of something unintelligible. They cannot tell you anything about it without using the already experienced world as a frame of reference.

[Terrapin Station]

What does it mean for something to exist?

Can you explain why you simply dropped out of responding to me the other two or three times I addressed this with you already?

[JackDaydream]

@PoeticUniverse

I think that I your point 'minds came later on' is important one, because as far as known, human beings are the most developed conscious living beings. Yet, an underlying question, which I believe has been apparent in a few of the threads created by 3017Metaphysican, is whether there is any consciousness underlying the development of nature and historical developments. This has been touched upon not simply in those threads but goes back to Hege and his idea of 'spirit', which is about consciousness, including that within culture, rather than spirit being about disembodied entities.

However, taking this back to your point about the universe and its events being 'purely physical', it could be asked what is matter exactly, and from what did it arise in the first place. Here, it gets to the point of asking did matter or some underlying consciousness or purpose exist first?

[JackDaydream]

PoeticUniverse
My entry above referring to 'Hege', should read as Hegel.