Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Lagayscienza]

All true.

[Sy Borg]

We simply don't have enough evidence to understand the ultimate nature of reality, but we tend to be too impatient to know what's going on to admit that we simply don't know. Who is to say that the universe does not exist within much larger structures, even sentient ones? Not so long ago, we believed that the Milky Way was the only galaxy.

Further, given the longstanding inability to reconcile GR and QM, either GR is incomplete, QM is incomplete, both have issues, or dualism is true.

[Lagayscienza]

There are certainly gaps in our understanding and probably always will be. But that doesn't necessarily mean that we are on the wrong track entirely. Physicists are working to reconcile GR and QM and I don't think we should take the fact that they are currently not reconciled to mean that they never will be. However, there is no denying that progress has been slow. Maybe it will again take someone to have eureka moment like Einstein did with GR or like Planck, Schrodinger et el who laid the foundations for QM. And maybe we will never arrive at an final understanding of ultimate reality. Who knows, the universe might be just one great thought, all mind-stuff, but here is not a scrap of empirical evidence to support such a notion. So until there is, I am forced to stick with materialism.

[Belinda]

We simply don't have enough evidence to understand the ultimate nature of reality, but we tend to be too impatient to know what's going on to admit that we simply don't know. Who is to say that the universe does not exist within much larger structures, even sentient ones? Not so long ago, we believed that the Milky Way was the only galaxy.

Further, given the longstanding inability to reconcile GR and QM, either GR is incomplete, QM is incomplete, both have issues, or dualism is true.

But empirical evidence , except for quantum physics, is not how we form ideas about ultimate reality. Apart from those remaining few individuals and cultures whose world view is theist, ontologists form their world views by pure reason, not empirical evidence.

How we can know stuff is the epistemological branch of metaphysics and the other branch of metaphysics is ontology, i.e. what may be held to exist. The big words is not my fault, and I try to use ordinary English whenever I can.

[Sy Borg]

We simply don't have enough evidence to understand the ultimate nature of reality, but we tend to be too impatient to know what's going on to admit that we simply don't know. Who is to say that the universe does not exist within much larger structures, even sentient ones? Not so long ago, we believed that the Milky Way was the only galaxy.

Further, given the longstanding inability to reconcile GR and QM, either GR is incomplete, QM is incomplete, both have issues, or dualism is true.

But empirical evidence , except for quantum physics, is not how we form ideas about ultimate reality. Apart from those remaining few individuals and cultures whose world view is theist, ontologists form their world views by pure reason, not empirical evidence.

How we can know stuff is the epistemological branch of metaphysics and the other branch of metaphysics is ontology, i.e. what may be held to exist. The big words is not my fault, and I try to use ordinary English whenever I can.

There is always the option of withholding an opinion until satisfying evidence arrives. We don't need to know everything. We are allowed not to know. Reason is fine, but it only works in our domain, at our scale. In the realms of the very large and the very small, reality is different, things interact differently; the rules are different.

[Belinda]

.
I’ve been reading a lot about Idealism in its various forms lately. I know there is already a thread here called: Best arguments for idealism? However, I'm hoping to discuss not just the best arguments for idealism but also the best arguments against it.

I got interested in idealism after discussions here with Hereandnow and Count Lucanor in the “On the nature of religion " thread. I realized that in order to be able to understand Hereandnow’s phenomenology and Count Lucanor’s arguments against it, I would need to understand Idealism because phenomenology is based in Metaphysical Idealism. I have also been doing an online course, along with Chewybrian, in Analytic Idealism. So, I’m waist deep in idealism right now.

But, first, a bit of background. I came to this forum as a dyed-in-the-wool materialist. I thought everything ought to be explicable in terms of matter and energy doing their stuff in space-time, supplemented with the science of evolution to explain the details of life on earth. But being here on this forum has made me think twice about this. I have been driven to explore areas of philosophy which I had once dismissed as mere metaphysical nonsense.

To be clear, what has driven me to explore metaphysics and, in particular, Idealism, is not a lack of belief in the power of science to reveal things that are true about the universe. Nor is it due to a lack of wonder at the universe that science reveals. Far from it. I am gobsmacked when I look at the latest pictures from the surface of Mars and at images from the JWT, and when I consider how a mindless process such as evolution by natural selection can result in “endless forms most beautiful”, and in brains that can begin to understand and wonder at the whole amazing show. If a thinking person is not in awe of what science has revealed about the universe and its workings, then they cannot be thinking clearly. So, no I have absolutely nothing bad to say about science. What has driven me to explore metaphysics is what seems to be a simple truth. Namely, that science, whilst it explains so much and is applicable to everything and anything in respect of the material world, does seem to I come up against a limit beyond which the only recourse seems to be to metaphysics.

Here is an illustration of what I mean by the limits of science.

When I look at the transparent glass paperweight on the desk in front of me and ask what it is, my questioning and answering go as follow: What shape is it? Spherical. What’s it made of? Glass. What is glass made of? Silica, with maybe a of bit of lead and other elements. What are silica and these elements made of? Atoms. What are atoms made of? Well, mostly empty space but there are also protons, neutrons and electrons… And what are they made of? Well, science tells me these particles are made of quarks. And what are quarks? I’m no physicist, but this is where we seem approach some sort of limit. I’ve read that elementary particles are akin to “excitations” in fields of unlimited spatiotemporal extent. But what does that mean? That the whole universe is just mostly empty space with excitations is the fields that pervade it? Ok, well, I can sort of take that on board but what are these excitations and what is space? Mathematical physicists might have some answer to this. But what do those answers look like? They look like equations composed of strings of symbols. And what are those symbols? They are references to features occurring in the mathematical theory, in the mathematical model of the universe. But is the universe just a mathematical model? Just equations? How can this be the case? Those equations are not what I see when I look out at the universe or at my paper weight. They are nothing like the phenomena that are given in consciousness.

As I hope to have made clear, there is an explanatory gap here. Science cannot tell me what the universe is in itself. The best it can do is equations. Therefore, if I want more, I am driven to metaphysical theorizing and the only version of metaphysics that seems to answer is some form of Idealism that posits mind as, if not primary, then at least somehow contributory, in the structure of the universe we see.

Here is how physicist/cosmologist Steven Hawking poses the question: “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”

That is the question.

If I have understood what I have been reading about idealism, there need be no conflict between Idealism and science. One does not seem to absolutely preclude the other. At least, I'm hoping that is the case.

So, everything from materialism to Idealism is on the table for me right now. And that is what I would like to discuss. What are the pros and cons of idealism and of materialism. Need they be mutually exclusive?

That which " breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe " is the interpreter. There are as many interpreters as there are living systems with brainminds.

[Lagayscienza]

The only thing that can be said for Idealism is that, like religion and mysticism, it cannot be entirely disproved. But that is not saying much. Yes, the universe might be just one great thought, all mind-stuff, but there is not a scrap of empirical evidence to support such a notion.

There was a period on this forum when I got interested in continental philosophy, Phenomenology in particular, which is based in Idealism. But I have come to realize that it is a dead end - it's mostly navel gazing and word weaving that ends nowhere useful in terms of telling us what is true about the universe. It is, by and large, anti-science. Materialism and Idealism are antithetical. I am a materialist.

[Belinda]

Phenomenology has a direct bearing on morality by way of how we do or do not judge other people. So idealism and phenomenology are very important if not necessary to the moral principles of a man who thinks we should not judge another unless we have walked a mile in their shoes.

[Lagayscienza]

Idealism and phenomenology are entirely artificial constructs. They emerged from minds which depend entirely on physical brains. Idealism and phenomenology are errors of mentality the way that phenylketonuria and trimethylaminuria are error of metabolism. In healthy brains and minds, Idealism and phenomenology, are a hindrance. They have no future and await only a cure.