Has anyone seen my neutral pointer?

[The Grand Nudger]

Are we diving headfirst into "you can't explain x, checkmate" territory?  Does it matter that you've had a photons relationship to matter explained to you many times?  You tell me, does a photon have material properties?  Are photons interacting with you right now, as you stare at the screen?  Are we describing a physical relationship?  

Honestly, Bennyboy.  Why even talk about photons if you're looking for a way to criticize materialism?  Photons are a material explanation of material phenomena from a necessarily materialistic framework.  They -can- refer to nothing else.  You'll need some other example.  What you're asking, and you know it, is whether or not a photon is a billiards ball.  No one thinks they are, certainly not materialists.   That's what -you- need materialism to be to grind your little axe.  How many times and how many ways does this have to be said? This is nothing more than "materialism is wrong because light exists." Pointless.

[bennyboy]

Look, if you insist that whatever we can experience is necessarily material, then crow about how we perceive things, and so they must be material, what knowledge is gained from this? I know about photons. I know we perceive them. What I don't know is whether they, or the framework they are in, have an independent objective reality. I really think we need to put this discussion on hole while you go watch a few Youtube videos about quantum erasers in double-slit experiments. Then we'll talk about what "material" really means, hopefully with more precision and less hand-waving. Or better yet, since you are so confident, ask Alex what "materialism" means to an educated physicist.

[Angrboda]

Okay, tell me ANY of the material properties of a photon.  What's it's mass?  It's volume?  What color is it?  What shape?  What it the mechanism by which it does any of the things it does?

What happens in double-slit experiments with quantum erasers?  What are the material properties of a photon during that process?  Most important-- does it HAVE material properties, other than a wave function and a result when it collapses onto a photographic plate?

Photons have no mass, but they have energy E = hf = hc/λ.

Under the photon theory of light, a photon is defined as a discrete bundle (or quantum) of electromagnetic (or light) energy. Photons are always in motion and, in a vacuum, have a constant speed of light to all observers, at the vacuum speed of light (more commonly just called the speed of light) of c = 2.998 x 108 m/s.

http://physics.about.com/od/lightoptics/f/photon.htm

Photons are energy.  They aren't going to have the same measurables as matter.  But that's what we're talking about: measurement.  It's mass, it's volume, it's color.  These are all measurements.  The formulas depicting the behavior of the material world is founded on these measurements and in part defined by them.  The measure of a photon is described by the theory.  Implying that photons have no measurements is simply nonsensical.  You're simply defining the acceptable measurements as ones which apply to macroscopic phenomena (volume, color) and when the measurement is given in terms of quantum equations, you resist it.  That's how we measure things in the subatomic world.  Get over it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Look, if you insist that whatever we can experience is necessarily material,

-I don't...you see I don't have to - as a materialist, lol. I'm simply reminding you that your examples which you take to be counterfactual to materialism almost invariably end up being descriptions of material interactions arising from a necessarily material framework.  If you'e going to suggest that the framework is not true, then it makes little sense to point to the truth of it's own propositions..such as photons, as an example of that.  You;re essentially saying "I agree with this material description of material phenomena from a material framework - therefore materialism is false.  

Can you see why that would be a problem?  

then crow about how we perceive things, and so they must be material, what knowledge is gained from this?  I know about photons.  I know we perceive them.  What I don't know is whether they, or the framework they are in, have an independent objective reality.

Yeah I know, brain in a vat, can't really know this can't really know that.  

I really think we need to put this discussion on hole while you go watch a few Youtube videos about quantum erasers in double-slit experiments.  Then we'll talk about what "material" really means, hopefully with more precision and less hand-waving.  Or better yet, since you are so confident, ask Alex what "materialism" means to an educated physicist.

No, we won't.  QM is necessarily materialistic.  It is nothing -other- than a description of material interactions at a specific scale of resolution.  It self describes as such, self limits as such, and is defined by and as such. I'm sure Alex would have plenty of interesting things to say. It;s interesting to note that materialism is -not- necessary to physics, even though it -is- fundamental to QM (and to modern physics). That's what makes it such a terrible example.

[Alex K]

As I said above, I'm not 100% sure what Materialist means. What Quantum mechanics does is call into question whether anything is in a definite state (informally speaking) before observations are made, and whether outcomes of experiments are determined by anything or fundamentally random. Is e.g. the wave function real or just a statistical bookkeeping device? But has that to do with materialism yes/no?

[Excited Penguin]

As I said above, I'm not 100% sure what Materialist means. What Quantum mechanics does is call into question whether anything is in a definite state (informally speaking) before observations are made, and whether outcomes of experiments are determined by anything or fundamentally random. Is e.g. the wave function real or just a statistical bookkeeping device? But has that to do with materialism yes/no?

Is there anything else other than matter in the universe?

I believe that is what materialism proposes - that no, there isn't.

[The Grand Nudger]

A subset of materialism proposes something -like- that.  That all that exists is made of matter and energy.  Another subset proposes that non-material assumptions are not to be made.  Yet another proposes that we can ascribe no confidence to "immaterial" explanations by means of material tools designed to collect material data. Put another way, would a mass spectrometer pick up ghosts? Would our eyes?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Now, if I want to ask myself what is in the box, I don’t want to say “what kind of cat is in the box?” No.   I want a “neutral pointer” – a way of referring to what is in the box while implying as little as possible about its nature....The neutral point SAYS NOTHING about what is in the box.

Not to strain the metaphor too much, but what is the nature of the box?

[Angrboda]

I would say there are no neutral pointers. All references embed assumptions about the object or subject. It's a little like how anthropologists are cautioned to be aware of their biases. The point is not that by doing so they can perceive in an unbiased fashion. That is impossible. But the point is to try to understand how our biases contribute to the final image, not so that we can recreate the original sans our biases, but so that we can understand our observations as a composite between the original and our biases. If we are doing the same in attempting to derive a 'neutral pointer', then the goal is not to uncover a presuppositionless state, but to deeper understand how the pointer is a product of our own theories and biases. Thus the quest for a neutral pointer is futile. Instead, we should focus on uncovering our assumptions and biases that contribute to our understanding of the object, in hopes to better understand our reference to the subject. By convincing ourselves that there is a neutral pointer, and that we have it, we are simply covering over our assumptions with a veneer which hides them. Roland Barthes said, "Beware the natural sign." By this he meant, beware those things that are described as natural, because that label hides their true nature, their actual unnaturalness. In the same way, we should beware the neutral pointer, because it cloaks our actual biases and assumptions.

[Alex K]

A subset of materialism proposes something -like- that.  That all that exists is made of matter and energy.  Another subset proposes that non-material assumptions are not to be made.  Yet another proposes that we can ascribe no confidence to "immaterial" explanations by means of material tools designed to collect material data.  Put another way, would a mass spectrometer pick up ghosts?  Would our eyes?

If it did, Ghosts would simply become part of an extended version of physics, the same way radio waves were incorporated into our understanding in 1886 or so. I don't understand where "immaterial" would come into play.