Philosophy Discussion Forums

Online Philosophy Club

From The Mental Universse, Nature, Vol 436,7 July 2005:

Physicists shy from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental Universe is to invoke ‘decoherence’ — the notion that ‘the physical environment’ is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in ‘Renninger-type’ experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The Universe is entirely mental.

Niels Bohr, Nobel Prize laureate in Physics, The Philosophical Writings of Niels Bohr, Vol. I, (Woodbridge, Connecticut: Ox Bow, 1987), p.54:

An independent reality, in the ordinary physical sense, can neither be ascribed to the phenomena nor to the agencies of observation.

Werner Heisenberg, Nobel Prize laureate in Physics, Physics and Philosophy, (New York: Harper and Row, 1962), p.145:

The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct "actuality" of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation is impossible, however.

Page 70:

If one wants to give an accurate description of the elementary particle—and here the emphasis is on the word "accurate"—the only thing which can be written down as description is a probability function. But then one sees that not even the quality of being...belongs to what is described.

Materialism is insufficient to explain the non-local and uncertain behavioral characteristics of quanta. Alain Aspect conclusively proved that unobserved quanta cannot be considered to be discrete material objects, and proved that split photons must be considered to be the same global phenomena regardless of intervening distance since the determining observation of one immediately collapsed the qualities of the other into correspondence.

One of the defining qualities of materialism is that the universe is comprised of discrete objects that have discrete characteristics and are located in a specific place at a specific time; without such objects, or particles, or even physical waves that actually exist in specified locations and as specified things, materialism breaks down into disjoint rationalizations and apologetics.

What does materialism mean when, at the most fundamental level, there is no "material" present? By "material" one must mean an identifiable, locatable, quantifiable thing; but it has been proven that no such "things" actually exist on their own outside of an observational collapse of potential states, have no definite location or characteristics, and can exist as a single global object in different locations.

It seems to me that materialists are clinging via apologetics and denial to a 19th-century Newtonian-era philosophy that simply cannot be supported via modern quantum experimentation.

The question is, with the known results of quantum experiments, why bother calling oneself a "materialist" when the "matter" that justified such a view in the 19th century has, upon closer examination, completely disappeared and has been replaced by informational and consciousness-dependent field theories which bear no significant relationship to the the concept of a "material" universe? Why torture, through twisted apologetics, a continued belief in such a thoroughly discredited ontological view?

How can an experiment "disprove" materialism? Wouldn't the very things one would need to test, in order to "prove" some sort of supernatural "realm", not be possilbe to "test"? Isn't a scientific "test", by its very nature, "materialistic"?

These experiments don't disprove or prove materialism(per the title of the thread); these experiments don't prove or disprove...what ever one finds to be the contrary of materialism. They add depth to both(all).

No, materialism alone can not describe everything; nor can the contrary there of. It is not apt to toss out materialism or do away with it. There are many fruits we can still benefit from by its being.

One bothers to call them self a materialist because it's all they feel/know they can be certain of; even though they must admit there is uncertainty in anything. While a the same time realizing that things can be described in not materialist(other) terms, hopefully; the same is true of other ontological views.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

Keith, Quantum mechanics is figured with math, and is unlike the physics of matter. The proof is in the math.

Meleagar wrote:Online Philosophy Club

From The Mental Universse, Nature, Vol 436,7 July 2005:

Physicists shy from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental Universe is to invoke ‘decoherence’ — the notion that ‘the physical environment’ is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in ‘Renninger-type’ experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The Universe is entirely mental.

Niels Bohr, Nobel Prize laureate in Physics, The Philosophical Writings of Niels Bohr, Vol. I, (Woodbridge, Connecticut: Ox Bow, 1987), p.54:

An independent reality, in the ordinary physical sense, can neither be ascribed to the phenomena nor to the agencies of observation.

Werner Heisenberg, Nobel Prize laureate in Physics, Physics and Philosophy, (New York: Harper and Row, 1962), p.145:

The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct "actuality" of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation is impossible, however.

Page 70:

If one wants to give an accurate description of the elementary particle—and here the emphasis is on the word "accurate"—the only thing which can be written down as description is a probability function. But then one sees that not even the quality of being...belongs to what is described.

Materialism is insufficient to explain the non-local and uncertain behavioral characteristics of quanta. Alain Aspect conclusively proved that unobserved quanta cannot be considered to be discrete material objects, and proved that split photons must be considered to be the same global phenomena regardless of intervening distance since the determining observation of one immediately collapsed the qualities of the other into correspondence.

One of the defining qualities of materialism is that the universe is comprised of discrete objects that have discrete characteristics and are located in a specific place at a specific time; without such objects, or particles, or even physical waves that actually exist in specified locations and as specified things, materialism breaks down into disjoint rationalizations and apologetics.

What does materialism mean when, at the most fundamental level, there is no "material" present? By "material" one must mean an identifiable, locatable, quantifiable thing; but it has been proven that no such "things" actually exist on their own outside of an observational collapse of potential states, have no definite location or characteristics, and can exist as a single global object in different locations.

It seems to me that materialists are clinging via apologetics and denial to a 19th-century Newtonian-era philosophy that simply cannot be supported via modern quantum experimentation.

The question is, with the known results of quantum experiments, why bother calling oneself a "materialist" when the "matter" that justified such a view in the 19th century has, upon closer examination, completely disappeared and has been replaced by informational and consciousness-dependent field theories which bear no significant relationship to the the concept of a "material" universe? Why torture, through twisted apologetics, a continued belief in such a thoroughly discredited ontological view?

I believe this is false.

Im sticking behind my man when I state this obvious fact. Materialism is a docterine which applies to what you've stated here:

"The atom particle"

This is something which does not exist. The universes mentality is not anywhat related to the materialist theories which exist. More importantly the materialistic hypothesises are valid without repose. You can't support these types of staements and leave your evidence existing as an atom.

Further your other thread is remarkablely similar to this in the way in which it refutes the movement known to us as determinism.

Quote:
The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct "actuality" of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation is impossible, however.
Werner Heisenberg
quoted by Meleagar and Stormeyy.

"The atom particle"

(Stormeyy)

The atom particle is a tiny wee solar system in miniature and nothing else is a material fact : or a tiny wee solar system in miniature and nothing else may be your conceptual image. If you believe the first you are a materialist: if you believe the second you are a classical idealist.

However, neither extrapolation is right because both of them are correct. They don't clash with each other, they complement each other, once you have extracted from each definition 'and nothing else'.

Belinda wrote:
However, neither extrapolation is right because both of them are correct. They don't clash with each other, they complement each other, once you have extracted from each definition 'and nothing else'.

The concept of an atom as a miniature solar system comprised of discrete objects has been falsified, so no, both concepts are not correct.

The obections to the empirical disproofs here are nothing more than a form of apologetics seeking to reconcile a faulty concept with the scientific evidence that contradicts it. The interesting question is why the materialist insists on salvaging a theory that is fundamentally rooted in a "material" that has been proved for over 75 years to not exist, and to not behave in a way that can be extrapolated into correlation with that metaphysic.

It seems to me that once science proved that no such mind-independent "material" can be said to exist other than as pure speculation, logical people would simply abandon a philosophy that no long had any empirical support. But, instead of simply moving on, they attempt to justify and rationalize; why?

But, instead of simply moving on, they attempt to justify and rationalize; why?

It is very frightening to doubt what we believe. Also, I think many of us like to appear to know and understand more, than we do. How about beginning with something a little easier to understand and working on our ability to comprehend atomic and quantum reality? I think we need a better comprehension of the transformation of elements, before we can begin to comprehend matter as an expression of energy built on mathematical principles.

What is the first element, and how did Heavier Elements come about?

athena wrote:

But, instead of simply moving on, they attempt to justify and rationalize; why?

It is very frightening to doubt what we believe. Also, I think many of us like to appear to know and understand more, than we do. How about beginning with something a little easier to understand and working on our ability to comprehend atomic and quantum reality? I think we need a better comprehension of the transformation of elements, before we can begin to comprehend matter as an expression of energy built on mathematical principles.

What is the first element, and how did Heavier Elements come about?

But that's the point; there are no independent "elements" outside of observation. There aren't even physical "waves", like one imagines ripples of water. Waves of probability only refer to where the "element" might appear in relation to an observer, not that there is an actual physical "wave". The interference patterns only appear as if there were a wave, but no such wave is "detectable" other than as an interference pattern if one observes a certain way.

"Elements" do not even exist as "energy" unless observation is on the scene, as a reading of the papers offered shows; they simply do not exist other than as informational descriptions when an observer is present; if their history is not even determined until observed, how can they even be said to be actually present or with any characteristics until the observation takes place?

What quantum field theory is showing us is that the fundamental substrate of existence isn't even energy - it's information; and that information is what makes anything appear as anything. It is apparently infinite, omnipresent and timeless. The information exists independent of any medium and in fact generates the appearance and history of whatever it is describing as the medium.

Reality appears to be a information matrix which describes into existence both matter and energy, the description of which seems to rely not on law (which would be the cart before the horse) or on randomness, but on the apparently fundamenatal organizing commodity known as free will. It seems that free will is the actual "mover", and information is what it is moving, and when it does so it describes into existence an experiential world of energy, matter, time, cause and effect, and natural law.

However, even if one does not or cannot fully understand the new quantum reality as shown by modern physics, they can at least understand it enough to realize that materialism no longer has any evidence to support it.

Melegar,
People are not materialists because the view is infallible. They adopt this view because it is practical. It is the antithesis of 'arm-chair' philosophy. Materialism is practical, it brought us the internet. I think all reasonable materialists realize that the view is flawed by now, but they continue to use it because; for better or worse that is our experience. On a practical level all these quarks leptons and the like don't matter; because they are not matter.

If we had the ability to experience the quantum level biologically I would completely agree with you. We however are just beginning to understand the quantum universe. In my opinion the quantum world is not dependent on our observation alone when it forms matter, there must be more to it.

As you correctly assert all matter is a representation of a probability map, if you will. Matter does not have to be the way we see it, but it has the highest probability apparently of being so. This is why things change, this is why no two things can be exactly alike. If things were solely up to observation, things could be the same and would not change because it is more simple to perceive and observe them as such.

wanabe wrote: They adopt this view because it is practical. It is the antithesis of 'arm-chair' philosophy. Materialism is practical, it brought us the internet. I think all reasonable materialists realize that the view is flawed by now, but they continue to use it because; for better or worse that is our experience.

Yes, but what if it is one's experience only because those are the kind of observational experiments one conducts in their daily life?

If we had the ability to experience the quantum level biologically I would completely agree with you.

That is precisely the point. If matter behaves in correlation to the nature of the observer, then perhaps the ablity to have an experience that does not behave according to the "material" paradigm lies in the observer and their perspective.

athena wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

Keith, Quantum mechanics is figured with math, and is unlike the physics of matter. The proof is in the math.

Yes, but often, the mathematical calculations necessary to make the equations balance, have nothing to do with reality...

There is no "what if". The only thing we can OBSERVE is the material world. We can only conceive of(think about) the quantum world(or indirectly observe it). As of yet we can't do anything with the information but theorize with it. We should continue to do so until something can be done with it.

I think your point with that question is to note the bias; noted, but inherently necessary.

Matter doesn't just behave in correlation to observers there is more to it i promise you. My reasoning: ~Matter does not have to be the way we see it, but it has the highest probability[not definite], apparently, of being so. This is why things change, this is why no two things can be exactly alike. If things were solely up to observation, things could be the same, and would not change; because it is more simple to perceive and observe them as such.~

There are certainly instances in our mind that behave contrary to the material paradigm. That however is due to internal doings, not actually affecting the physical world. Though with enough practice, exceptions can be made; one can consciously affect the physical world (or if you prefer the quantum world) with the mind, but those are extremely rare cases.

wanabe wrote:There is no "what if". The only thing we can OBSERVE is the material world.

Well, I don't know about you, but the only thing I can observe is my experience. I might interpret that experience to mean there is a material world, or I might not. I don't.

We can only conceive of(think about) the quantum world(or indirectly observe it). As of yet we can't do anything with the information but theorize with it. We should continue to do so until something can be done with it.

I agree that you cannot. However, I have been doing quite a bit with it myself.

Matter doesn't just behave in correlation to observers there is more to it i promise you.

Your promises are of far less value than my actual experiences, which indicates otherwise.

If things were solely up to observation, things could be the same, and would not change; because it is more simple to perceive and observe them as such.

I fail to see any logic whatsoever in that claim.

There are certainly instances in our mind that behave contrary to the material paradigm. That however is due to internal doings, not actually affecting the physical world. Though with enough practice, exceptions can be made; one can consciously affect the physical world (or if you prefer the quantum world) with the mind, but those are extremely rare cases.

Perhaps it is only rare because there are far fewer free will entities in existence than there are automatons.

If your just going to be insulting and pretend you have some superiority because of your opinion; I guess you have no real argument, we can leave it at that.