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

[Alun]

Meleagar, I am not (yet) arguing that materialism, even WMaterialism, is true. What I want to understand is which sort of materialism you believe is not true. (It may be that when I fully understand what you mean by 'materialism,' I agree with you.)

So for example, if you're disproving WMaterialism of the sort I described, one way you might do so is to claim that quanta are an irreducible feature of any explanation of the world, but they have been shown not to have well-defined causal properties, and therefore cannot really be 'matter.' (I am guessing that your answer is a little more interesting than this, from the OP.)

By 'well-defined,' I think I mean fully predictable (not just reliably probable). Also, keep in mind that if you are claiming to have disproven WMaterialism, existence is not the issue--only explanation of phenomena.

Just to clarify, my questions were not rhetorical; I actually would like to know how you answer them, so that I can correctly interpret your argument.

reflected_light, is that a book by Wilhelmus Luijpen? If so, good luck--and bring some aspirin! Continental philosophy is, in my opinion, far more difficult than Analytical. They tend to take things holistically, meaning you may not be able to break down thoughts into bite-sized premises and conclusions. Existential Phenomenology is inspired by Martin Heidegger, who is notoriously hard to understand--some people think he's a quack, others a genius, and others just indecipherable. (Also he had a brief stint with the Nazis.)

[Meleagar]

By 'well-defined,' I think I mean fully predictable (not just reliably probable). Also, keep in mind that if you are claiming to have disproven WMaterialism, existence is not the issue--only explanation of phenomena.

Since science has shown that quanta cannot be "well-defined" by the above definition (fully predictable), and since all of your versions of materialism rest upon this definition of "matter", then science has disproven all of your listed descriptions of "materialism".

No interpretation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leaves the door open to quanta predictability, even though location and momentum can be well defined in the past via sequentialized observations; those observations cannot be used as causal predictors.

No interpretation of wave collapse allows for any "well defined" state of any observed quanta which would predict a future location or state other than stochastically.

Therefore, since quanta do not have "well-defined causal properties", they cannot be said to be "matter"; since quanta are the most fundamentally known "substance", materialism has no rational basis. The world as we know it is not comprised of "matter" in the above-defined sense, which is also what the esteemed quantum physicists I have quoted have directly stated.

Thus, as much as science can prove or disprove anything, science has disproved materialism by showing it has no basis in fact.

[Alun]

From what I know of quantum physics, knowing basic features of a quanta is indeed not enough for predictability. However, isn't it possible to explain the universe as stemming from something even more fundamental than quanta? E.g., string theory?

If so, do you think that string theory is sort of an attempt to salvage materialism by positing implausible features of reality? (For example, M-theory requires 11 dimensions of spacetime.)

[Meleagar]

From what I know of quantum physics, knowing basic features of a quanta is indeed not enough for predictability. However, isn't it possible to explain the universe as stemming from something even more fundamental than quanta? E.g., string theory?

In the scientific sense, proving or disproving is never an absolute - it's just a statement of current scientific understanding. There may be all sorts of things going on we have no idea of, but if one is basing their views on currently known scientific facts, one can hardly say that a metaphysics of materialism is valid, when at the currently-known fundamental level, there is no "matter", as previously defined, to be found.

At best, materialism would be a speculative metaphysic not based on current empirical knowledge. A faith, if you will. It might be true, but right now the evidence contradicts it.

If so, do you think that string theory is sort of an attempt to salvage materialism by positing implausible features of reality? (For example, M-theory requires 11 dimensions of spacetime.)

I don't see how such speculation is germane to the point. As far as I know, there is no significant evidence that supports string theory.

[Alun]

So you are not disproving materialism so much as disproving a particular candidate for the substance in materialism, and thus relegating materialism to the status of a dogmatic or otherwise unproven ideology?

If that's the case then I think your argument was successful. At the same time, I do not know whether disproving materialism really has very drastic implications--it's a worldview which may flavor other positions, but itself is just a characterization that has little more implications than determinism. Do you think other ideas use specifically materialist assumptions as their foundation?

[Marabod]

By 'well-defined,' I think I mean fully predictable (not just reliably probable). Also, keep in mind that if you are claiming to have disproven WMaterialism, existence is not the issue--only explanation of phenomena.

Since science has shown that quanta cannot be "well-defined" by the above definition (fully predictable), and since all of your versions of materialism rest upon this definition of "matter", then science has disproven all of your listed descriptions of "materialism".

No interpretation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle leaves the door open to quanta predictability, even though location and momentum can be well defined in the past via sequentialized observations; those observations cannot be used as causal predictors.

No interpretation of wave collapse allows for any "well defined" state of any observed quanta which would predict a future location or state other than stochastically.

Therefore, since quanta do not have "well-defined causal properties", they cannot be said to be "matter"; since quanta are the most fundamentally known "substance", materialism has no rational basis. The world as we know it is not comprised of "matter" in the above-defined sense, which is also what the esteemed quantum physicists I have quoted have directly stated.

Thus, as much as science can prove or disprove anything, science has disproved materialism by showing it has no basis in fact.

When discussing quanti, wave collapse, predictability etc, you disregard certain conditions of these happenings, as what happens with quanti is not spontaneous but reflects the circumstances in which they are observed. It is approximately the same as if you do not have the idea of the temperature/pressure scales, and talking about water say that water at random can be a liquid, a gas and a solid matter. "Random" here would be the same indeterminism as you use discussing Quantum Mechanics, and comes only from yourself, not from the scientific data!

[The Belief Doctor]

When discussing quanti, wave collapse, predictability etc, you disregard certain conditions of these happenings, as what happens with quanti is not spontaneous but reflects the circumstances in which they are observed. It is approximately the same as if you do not have the idea of the temperature/pressure scales, and talking about water say that water at random can be a liquid, a gas and a solid matter. "Random" here would be the same indeterminism as you use discussing Quantum Mechanics, and comes only from yourself, not from the scientific data!

Wrong.

The Uncertainty Principle is independent of however you measure. It's inherent in the deeper nature of reality. If this weren't the case, then mathematical expressions could be used to far greater effect and predictability for every particle (not just collectives of them over time, and number). If you were to more fully understand quantum theory (particularly the work of Dr David Deutsch of Oxford) you would appreciate that no amount of prodding and probing will tease out both variables (e.g. position and momentum at the same time) since they arise from deeper collective-possibilities that reach beyond physicality. In other words, measuring the tip of an iceberg will do little to understand the extent of the sea from which it came.

As for string theory, they are partially headed in the right direction (multi-dimensional underpinnings of this 3 or 4 dimensional reality, but they lose the plot by trying to work with limited dimensions).

There's probably a pun or two in the above, but who's counting.

[Muddler]

Belief Doctor-
I think Marabod is right. The experimenter only has one shot at a particular quantum; he can precisely measure position or he can precisely measure momentum. If he adjusts his experiment to measure both at the same time, he gets only a rough approximation of each, and that is the source of the uncertainty.

[The Belief Doctor]

Belief Doctor-
I think Marabod is right. The experimenter only has one shot at a particular quantum; he can precisely measure position or he can precisely measure momentum. If he adjusts his experiment to measure both at the same time, he gets only a rough approximation of each, and that is the source of the uncertainty.

I believe your reply is typical of many who misunderstand the implications of quantum theory -- the misunderstanding that a 'particular particle' can have some independent objective identity independent of the wave of possibilities upon, and within which it rides.

That's like saying a person can have identity and existence independent of the community and cosmos that carries or enables that individual to live.

It's a misunderstanding of quantum theory (of wave-particle duality) that some objective universe exists, independent of the underlying possibility-fields that give rise to said particles.

The Uncertainty Principle simply telegraphs the inability to measure the sea upon which the particles 'float'.

It's not due to clumsy scientists with fat fingers or anything physical. It's the deeper nature of reality.

Once again, where is the divide between the 'particle' and the whole of the possibility-field of which it is part?

[Meleagar]

So you are not disproving materialism so much as disproving a particular candidate for the substance in materialism, and thus relegating materialism to the status of a dogmatic or otherwise unproven ideology?

I think what the thread shows is that many people believe in materialism for the same reason many people believe in traditional ideas of a god: it's what they're programmed to believe in, and no amount of evidence to the contrary makes any difference whatsoever.

Do you think other ideas use specifically materialist assumptions as their foundation?

I think that western culture is essentially collapsing on iteself due to the slow mental/spiritual, degrading influence of materialism/determinism. Science, for example, IMO, is currently being post-modernized (read: becoming an entirely corrupt political mechanism) because of the lack of any significant spiritual compass.

[Alun]

I think what the thread shows is that many people believe in materialism for the same reason many people believe in traditional ideas of a god: it's what they're programmed to believe in, and no amount of evidence to the contrary makes any difference whatsoever.

Your evidence is in contradiction to one particular sort of materialism, not against the possibility of materialism. Do you think they're ignoring evidence which favors something else, like idealism? (By they, I guess I mean the people who have responded to this thread.)
____________________________

Hi The Belief Doctor,

Is it possible that the "deeper nature of reality" is some objective universe of particles which we are only capable of detecting, ultimately, as "possibility-fields"?

[Meleagar]

Your evidence is in contradiction to one particular sort of materialism, not against the possibility of materialism.

I certainly can't argue against endlessly equivocated terminology.

[Alun]

What I'm saying is only that you've shown that quarks and photons are not metaphysically fundamental. That doesn't imply that no external particle may be fundamental. So people who believe that quarks are fundamental are indeed upholding an article of faith in contradiction to evidence. But I don't see how this means all materialists are denying the evidence.

Just as if someone were to believe an invisible unicorn gallops around the far side of Mars, they wouldn't be believing this in contradiction to evidence. They'd just be upholding an article of faith.

[Rajaroux]

The question of free will arises because the ego, deterministically, questions itself. Higher awareness, lucid wakefulness, is still, by nature and cannot direct or originate causality under the term 'intention' as that would imply change and hence the fourth dimension of determinism. (There is always 'intention because'.) The ego perceives this higher awareness only by negating itself, an evolution of self enquiry, not by naming it's origin as 'intention'. Higher awareness is like the centre of the body, a reference point that in practical purposes is non existent, but a reference for the ego to negate itself, not left, not right. With the ego negated, we are absorbed into the to natural order. The ego fantasy and the need for a sense of personal free will, no longer holds sway in, or influences, the deterministic universe. Life becomes real, awareness is unchanged and everything becomes the centre.
Determinism is not named as such in order to imply that we can find, name, map or in any meaningful way work out causes. Causation is infinitely complex so there can only ultimately be no cause, just a web with no weaver. Also randomness can never be truly random but the idea is a reference for extreme complexity. Therefore determinism and randomness are not required to be sufficient to'explain' everything.
Quantum delayed choice does not disprove determinism for two very important reasons. Determinism is infinitely complex and if you think you understand quantum dynamics, you probably don't. Certainly the 4 dimensions of the Newtonian world are currently insufficient to describe quantum phenomena, but that's no reason to retreat into the (so far) not proved world to gain credence or proof for divine free will or prime mover. Everything is the prime mover, the infinite deterministic universe, PhysiGod. QED Determanism is spiritual.

[The Belief Doctor]

_________

Hi The Belief Doctor,

Is it possible that the "deeper nature of reality" is some objective universe of particles which we are only capable of detecting, ultimately, as "possibility-fields"?

No.

Simple reason: anything that is objective in any form is not that which is whole, interconnecting all.

Furthermore, whatever is "thought" is not that which is whole, interconnecting all, since 'thinking of all' requires one to think again and again ... ad infinitum (such is the nature of the infinite).

Where these sorts of discussions go wrong is to believe that one's thinking can in any way make sense of that which remains beyond reasoning: reason and rational thought both have the Latin root, ratio - thus to be reasonable requires one to separate oneself from (i.e. be in ratio to) that which is interconnecting, whole. Ipso facto, reason will not ever get you 'there'.

Instead, if you wish to make any sense of that which is beyond thought, you'll need to make like any sage, artist or spiritual guru and feel into 'it' since feeling is the only connective ability we have with that which remains beyond what goes on in our heads.

Finally, feeling enables us to feel 'at-one' and at-once (i.e 'parallel process' sideways, forwards and backwards in time), thus enabling some sense of 'wholeness' that defies easy rational description.

I suppose another way of saying this is that the frequent reports of euphoric states of bliss, or sense of 'God' by various spiritual sects is a feeling that defies easy categorisation - as is common of such reports it is an expansive feeling of wholeness and connection beyond one's usual sense of self.

Unfortunately, what gets assigned to those feelings are invariably limited conceptualisations -- since to put into words any subjective experience requires thought, hence we're back into old territory.