Quote:If you are going to define ethereal, formless, energetic entities as "matter,"

Who does that?

Quote:then what are we going to call fairies?

...un-evidenced?

(early/late LOL, by chance?)

(September 22, 2015 at 10:03 am)Rhythm Wrote:

Quote:If you are going to define ethereal, formless, energetic entities as "matter,"

Who does that?

How else would you define QM particles?

(September 22, 2015 at 10:34 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(September 22, 2015 at 10:03 am)Rhythm Wrote: Who does that?

How else would you define QM particles?

The problem with QM is that the very name (mechanics) implies a world of particles and after Feynman released his diagrams on the world, we seem to re-affirm the world from the perspective of mechanincs.  

It maybe that our world is not fundamentally particles but fields (both force and matter fields). But fields are real physical entities, where under QFT the propogation of an excitation in the field (which moves as a wave) can condense out to look very particle like (ie when it is absorbed by another quantum system).  And at that point all of the excitation and wave in the field is simulataneously aborsbed.  These properties are neither formless nor ethereal - but they are energetic of course.

I'd say "matter fields" is an oxymoron. But you say QM "particles" aren't formless, which I find interesting; what is their form?

(September 22, 2015 at 12:14 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I'd say "matter fields" is an oxymoron.  But you say QM "particles" aren't formless, which I find interesting; what is their form?

Why would a "matter field" be oxymoronic, unless you can only envision matter as a "particle" or tiny ball bearing.  Maybe matter is condensed energy from an excitation in a field (propogating as a wave).  I am open to these ideas and am agnostic on materialism a) because of the baggage it carries implying the world is made of tiny ball bearings b) I do not know what matter really is and neither does QM, QFT, string theory et al.  So I am happy to wait for a more comprehensive view. However this doesn't mean realism and naturalism are not true.

In QFT asking what forms do "particles" take? is a malformed question.  There are no particles, but the interesting thing to me is that it describes not classical but quantised fields.  Quantised fields behave differently in that they come in chunks (much like you can only have the whole sugar lump not the individual grains) but propogate through space as a wave.  Once the field interacts with something the whole quanta, chunk of that field crystallises out (to give it a particle look).  The form and time evolution of those fields are described in the maths which alas is less penetrable to me, but it is there if you are interested ie the forms exist. There is some information out there on it. Rodney Brooks does a decent summary of it in "Fields of Colour" and explains in laymans terms Julian Schwingers QFT.  

That is not to say I am personally committed to it, it is one of many inetresting interpretations.

As I mentioned to Rhythm, the terminology used in materialism is rooted in billiard balls. If you have a formless field which cannot be represented unambiguously in 3D space, and which seems not to behave deterministically-- then this seems to me not to be a thing, but the idea of a thing.

There's also the issue of photons and time. . . photons seemingly having a broken reference point in which no time passes (for the photon). So now we have not only a field which does not exist in a specific space or volume, we also have one which both does and doesn't exist for a duration, when viewed from our reference and a hypothetical one.

When perspective so vastly changes the nature of a thing, or when a thing is expressible only in math but cannot be modeled even in theory, I'd again argue that the thing may not be a thing at all, but rather an idea.

(September 22, 2015 at 3:29 am)RaphielDrake Wrote: - Abstract concepts will always have physical counterparts and physical effects. Mathematics especially requires a baring in a physical world to make any sense because it is the language of matter. When used correctly you can calculate matter exactly and even predict its behavior. It was conceived by physical beings, it is used by physical beings and it effects physical beings. It is a mental tool, one which we could measure the moment someone summons it within their brain. Even thoughts are measurable, physical phenomena and to deny it as simply correlation is like denying my bones hold me up or my saliva digests food. If you challenge that you have to challenge those too.

ok... i'm trying not to be rude as you put it... but sometimes I wonder if you try. abstract concepts by definition are not physical... abstract- "existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence." and no... mathematics is not a 'language of matter.' if it was, then you would 'have' to associate a number to an object. but you don't. you can think of a number without thinking of an object it represents. and yes... it's a mental tool. but that's the point isn't it? you said "You cannot comprehend something that has no physical properties or effects." numbers don't have physical properties or effects. they do nothing except help us understand implications by means of calculation. they're really just a certain type of logic. that makes them a counter example that proves you wrong...
and no... you don't get to try and sidestep the issue by saying "but all thoughts correspond to brain activity.' that's irrelevant. your argument is we cannot comprehend anything that has no physical properties or effects. even if I grant you're right, that still doesn't change abstract concepts themselves have no physical properties or effects but are nonetheless understood.

RaphielDrake Wrote:- "Beyond reality" is in the definition of metaphysical wherever you look. You just made a metaphysical claim, one that discounts part of its very meaning as "incoherent".

no it's not. there may be some controversy on who metaphysical is defined... but no one has ever used the words 'beyond reality' to define it. go ahead and try to prove me wrong. here's my source:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaph...rMetConMet

RaphielDrake Wrote:Epistemology figured out the very basics which philosophy is good at doing. It also made a tremendous amount of mistakes before it even touched upon the basics which philosophy is also good at doing and even when it did there was no indication to outright demonstrate which was right and which was wrong. You are engaging in confirmation bias. You are ignoring all of the misses.

first, you haven't pointed out any 'mistakes.' second, even if there were mistakes that's how information develops in science isn't it? theories and hypothesis get disproven all the time... third, epistemology has done more than just make unverifiable claims. I suggest you look into topics before you share your ignorance on the topic.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

RaphielDrake Wrote:The thing which is different now is that we have syatems which work infinitely better. When you clicked the mouse did it explode and maim you? Did the fibre optics randomly transform in a snake? Did anything other than what you predicted would happen occur? No? *Science* accepts your thanks.

really... science doesn't 'cause' reality to conform to a regulated pattern thus preventing my mouse from randomly exploding... I mean really? look up non sequitur... then don't do that...

RaphielDrake Wrote:Whatever your metaphysical leanings they may have entertained you for hours but they have not served you practically in any way or proven anything true or false "Materialism" has and you have no problem with it usually, do you.

I don't think something needs to be useful to be true. personally I prefer to have true beliefs rather than false ones. if you want to argue against the logic, then do so... stop dodging with these irrelevant sidetracks...

RaphielDrake Wrote:- The comparison is apt. They both have as much proof or use in the real world.

i'm not going to grant you that just because you stated it...

RaphielDrake Wrote:And excuse me? Loons? How do you know they're not correct in some metaphysical way we can't demonstrate?

yes, loons. I would call flat earth theorists loons. I know of no other group more deserving of the name. and the fact that they can't demonstrate it is exactly the point... the flat earth theory is a physical claim anyways. you obviously don't see the difference... a physical claim is about the behavior or appearance of matter. a metaphysical claim is concerning an explanation for the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it. see the difference? see why flat earth theory is not a metaphysical claim?

RaphielDrake Wrote: No. It wouldn't. The firing between synapses at the same time as thoughts and actions occurring is sufficient physical evidence. Evidence we have acted upon and successfully treated patients with. Thats a demonstration  of physical causes and physical effects.

yes... but that's physical causes and effects concerning the physical components alone. the evidence does nothing to establish there is no immaterial component.

RaphielDrake Wrote:This is what the entire debate is about. You claim the mind is partially metaphysical. You have yet to demonstrate this. Would you please do so.

I did present an argument. would you care to address it?

RaphielDrake Wrote:Alot of people don't visualize their leg muscles when they walk. Should I assume theres something metaphysical at work there too?

first, acting and conceptualizing are not the same thing. performing a tedious action many times enables you to perform it without thought. second, you're right in the first half. you don't have to picture leg muscles when thinking about walking. but you do have to picture legs... which are material...

RaphielDrake Wrote:Your point is circular. There is no metaphysical claims on it therefore I will make no metaphysical claims on it. The mind has demonstrably physical counterparts that correlate with each other just like the flame example does.

why are you repeating this? we already established mind has physical counterparts it correlates to... move on.

RaphielDrake Wrote:The difference is that you've decided you don't like one of these being solely physical and have decided to challenge the premise.

lol. I didn't challenge anything based on what I like or don't like... I presented the argument because I think it's sound... not because of what I like...

RaphielDrake Wrote:However this challenge could be raised for anything and everything. Why solely the mind?

you'll have to demonstrate to me how the argument with its given premises with minor alterations can apply to... anything and everything...

RaphielDrake Wrote:By definition proof is tied to both physical components and logic.

do I really have to throw a dictionary for every word you sputter out? proof- "the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning."

RaphielDrake Wrote:If you don't like that then lend me some metaphysical proofs we can work with.

the argument in the OP doesn't work because...

RaphielDrake Wrote:I would wager you did not spend an hour wondering if the enter key will do exactly the same thing it did last time or launch a death trap before you sent this. You didn't because you have physical evidence to suggest that wouldn't happen and it was good enough for you.

this same non sequitur argument again? what is with you and straw manning my position to be 'we don't know anything at all'? and you don't even need physical evidence to reasonably come to that conclusion... it's simply reasonable to presume you repeat the same action... and you get the same results... to think otherwise is quite literally insane.

RaphielDrake Wrote:At no point did you ponder whther the metaphysical had changed its function.

that's not how metaphysical works... non sequitur...

RaphielDrake Wrote:Effects is not the same as produces?

look them up... tell me the difference... i'm tired of looking up definitions for you...

RaphielDrake Wrote:Would the brain damage be there five minutes before you cut out 3/4 of your brain? No? Would it occur five minutes after? No? Then in what sense is it "effecting" it? It would have to already be present to "effect" it.

what does any of this have to do with what I said? all I said was correlations between mind and brain don't establish causation. and you go off on whether brain damage occurs at the time of brain damage or not? do you see a connection? because I don't...

RaphielDrake Wrote:That is not denying it. That is stating what has been proven by physical evidence.

making a statement that contradicts another is the same as denying... unless you're proposing both contradictory statements could be true...

RaphielDrake Wrote:No, what you started this argument for was to make claims on what is or isn't metaphysical. In this case the mind. These claims need to be defended as they so far have no strength to them.

it wasn't just to make claims... it was to prove it. the conclusion is defended by the premises. do you deny the premises? do you deny the validity of the logic?

RaphielDrake Wrote:Unless you mean "possible world" with the implication we occupy a multiverse then this is not even remotely proving anything even if I were willing to take solely your words as evidence.

by possible world, I mean a hypothetical situation that can be conceptualized. and you can't take the first part and say "this doesn't prove anything." of course it doesn't... it's the first premise. you don't get to proof until you get to conclusions...

RaphielDrake Wrote:"Possible world" is not an "actual world"

exactly right. nor was it meant to be conveyed as such.

RaphielDrake Wrote:That term was never made to outright prove something exists but to ponder the consequences if something did exist as with most philosophy.

and that's exactly what premises 1-2 do... did you stop reading after the first sentence of that brief overview of the argument? because you would know what I meant if you saw where I said "there's no difference between mind in a possible world and mind in the actual world (by Leibniz Law), thus mind is not reducible to matter."

RaphielDrake Wrote:Does that mean you can then proceed to ponder things and then assume they're true on the basis you can think of them?

tell me exactly what part of the argument is assumption or bias?

RaphielDrake Wrote:I got irritated by the quoting system and given the sheer volume this is easier.

well it was hard to know which statements were addressing what when they're expressed as bullet points without putting the quote it's responding to. I had to go back and forth several times to see what you were addressing.

(September 22, 2015 at 4:20 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: Certain inequalities (you mention Leggatt-Garg but you might as well add Bell inequalities in as well) reject the implications of realism but are compatible with idealism

the violations of the Leggett-Garg inequality proved that macro objects still have QM implications... Bell's inequality was a method of falsifying the local hidden variable theory concerning entangled particles. if the inequality is violated, then the local hidden variable theory is falsified. it was confirmed that the inequality was in fact violated. thus the spooky action at a distance (AKA quantum entanglement) Einstein proposed was real and it is determined by measurement. so these are to show that matter has no definite state prior to measurement, and rather exist as a wave of potential states. everything is in quantum superposition prior to measurement.

Captain Scarlet Wrote:Kochen-specker theorem has the same implications as 1.

the Kochen-specker theorem confirms the outcome of observed reality depends on the measurements made at the time and cannot be predicted prior. what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision of what to measure. this was also confirmed by the non-local delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. no model of realism is compatible with the findings of QM.

Captain Scarlet Wrote:4. is identical to denying your own existence

why? is your 'self' equivalent to matter? if your mind exists, then why not your self? mind is really what you refer to as self.

Captain Scarlet Wrote:5. simply does not follow

since I haven't presented any arguments for 5, I think it's unfair for you to determine it doesn't follow without any knowledge of how I got to it.

Captain Scarlet Wrote:It is fully deterministic and realistic, namely Bohmian Mechanics.  I am not saying that Bohmian mechanics is true, just that it is a valid non-local, hidden variables interpretation

nice try. but non-local hidden variables were also falsified by violations of the Leggett inequality.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news...to-reality

Captain Scarlet Wrote:There are other interpretations such as Many Worlds, Information, Qbism

the many worlds interpretation is riddled with numerous problems. it doesn't fit with the Kochen-specker theorem or double slit and delayed choice quantum eraser experiment results. it doesn't explain the measurement problem. it doesn't make sense to say one outcome is more probable than the other if both possibilities are equally real just split into different worlds, which doesn't fit with the born rule. it also has the core basis problem.
quantum information theory would be the interpretation i'm arguing for. I would say it is very compatible with idealism, and it's just about implied.

Captain Scarlet Wrote:Both string theory and Quantum Field Theory deny that there are point particles at all (meaning that mechanics do not apply in the sense we understand them and that viewing only through the lens of QM can only lead to an approximation).

both string theory and loop quantum gravity seem to be going in the direction of quantum information theory.

Captain Scarlet Wrote:I agree and stated that the macroscopic world emerges from the quantum world.  But to move from the quantum world is inherently uncertain to therefore the macroscopic world (a bridge) is inherently uncertain is a huge leap.

I do acknowledge that there is a difference between macro and quantum objects. with quantum particles, there are set probabilities that determine their behavior in superposition. but these probabilities become smaller as you look at bigger objects, and to the macro level they become pretty much negligible. this is why cars don't just quantum shift into other people's garages. but nonetheless, the implications of the functioning of QM still apply to the macro level.

Captain Scarlet Wrote:I think there is also a general tendency in your perspective to make the mistake of assuming ‘the observer’ is a conscious agent.

Rhythm also brought this up, and I addressed it. yes, there are things that aren't a conscious agent that cause collapse. but a conscious agent would count as something that causes collapse. and from an idealistic perspective that all is mind, I don't distinguish collapse by mind from collapse by material interaction (since all are fundamentally mind).

Captain Scarlet Wrote:All you know is that you are a mind conscious of your own consciousness.

well... you wouldn't be conscious of just your own consciousness. there is an external world, but it comes from a different mind.

Captain Scarlet Wrote:This is inherently absurd as consciousness is, consciousness of something.

so you don't count as 'something'?

Captain Scarlet Wrote:It starts by being aware of things outside of itself to recognise that it is conscious in the first place.

why do you need specifically external awareness for consciousness? internal awareness isn't an option?

Captain Scarlet Wrote:what is existence without physicality?

what within the definition of 'existence' entails physicality?

Captain Scarlet Wrote:Do minds exist in time and within the confines of the natural world?

well, our minds certainly have temporal existence. but I don't think a mind generally necessitates temporality.

Captain Scarlet Wrote:what is the difference between your position and the claim that you do not exist?

my position is that matter doesn't exist. but a reference of self is not equivalent to a reference of your body.

Captain Scarlet Wrote:When did consciousness arise in evolutionary history?

consciousness was created apart from evolution of the universe. our consciousness was put at a particular point corresponding to a temporal location in the physical universe. the history we observe is matter behaving materialistically because it is being observed. thus the history didn't exist until the first conscious life form was put in it, then all the billions of years of history materialized at once.

Captain Scarlet Wrote:I would argue that consciousness is an emergent property of higher functioning structures in the brain, which are dependant on micro brain structure, compounds, molecules, atoms….all the way back to the QM systems.  I would also argue that QM can be understood from a realist perspective and that I am perfectly justified in claiming that I really do exist, in a natural physical realm.

I don't agree for reasons previously stated.

Captain Scarlet Wrote:On point 5. You are arguing that the mind behind existence has no reasons for wanting to fool you or deceive you.  But under Idealism this is the same mind that has set us up to live in a ‘fantasy world’ rather than in our ‘true state’.

it's not a fantasy world in the sense it's whatever you want it to be. it has a predetermined function determined by predetermined probabilities. and since this world is a mental construct, it can be referred to as a 'true state.'

Captain Scarlet Wrote:Also that this ‘fantasy’ is so persistent and convincing that we can hold to a realist position.  That seems at least mildly capricious to me.

what it convinces you of is irrelevant. you believe realism because of your perspective, that your bed will still be there even when you leave your room. stuff goes on regardless of whether you see it, but it's an assumption to apply that to unobserved matter.

Captain Scarlet Wrote:If this god is conscious, omniscient and omnipresent and if consciousness collapse the wave function. No quantum effects can be observed because all wave functions would be collapsed.

certainly a valid point that deserves a serious answer. the answer is God is not observing material interactions apart from our observations. God doesn't care for material events, he only observes us. material interactions are only determined by God to the extent that they fulfil his plan, but the position of certain quantum particles would not be a factor.

(September 22, 2015 at 5:30 pm)bennyboy Wrote: As I mentioned to Rhythm, the terminology used in materialism is rooted in billiard balls.  If you have a formless field which cannot be represented unambiguously in 3D space, and which seems not to behave deterministically-- then this seems to me not to be a thing, but the idea of a thing.

There's also the issue of photons and time. . . photons seemingly having a broken reference point in which no time passes (for the photon).  So now we have not only a field which does not exist in a specific space or volume, we also have one which both does and doesn't exist for a duration, when viewed from our reference and a hypothetical one.

When perspective so vastly changes the nature of a thing, or when a thing is expressible only in math but cannot be modeled even in theory, I'd again argue that the thing may not be a thing at all, but rather an idea.

If fields do not 'seem' to you to represent not represent matter but ideas, this maybe a failure of your imagination but not of materialism or QFT.  I agree that the concept of a field is more nebulous than a particle description especically from a Newtonian standpoint.  But strip materialism back to its bare metal and it proposes that the world is made of stuff.  I see no reason why a world of fields is not stuff.  Fields:

- are not formless (you continue to represent that view). Fields have values, eg value x, in spacetime vector y.
- equations govern them and their time evolution and these are deterministic
- really exist

Under QFT a photon is a quantised region of the EM force field, an electron is a quantised region of the Lepton matter field etc.  The field explanation does not add mystery to a photon but help explain relativistic anamolies: 

- Why do things slow down when we move faster? If space is made of fields then in a moving interaction things need to travel greater distances, much like a relay runner hands over the baton in motion needs a distance to effect the handover
- Why if I push a photon does it not travel faster.  A photon does not interact with Higgs field meaning they travel at the limit of the ability of a their fields to oscillate (ie speed of light "c").  This comes out of field equations
- Why do things contract at higher speeds? If space is made of fields then in motion those fields contract, contracting space itself

I find this an interesting and compelling view of nature but it is way beyond my maths skills to comprehend beyond a superficial understanding.  It is not the only view that is inetersting however.  I am also interested in the view of nature offered by string theory, bohmian mechanics and many worlds.  So I repeat I am not wedded to any one interpretation and remain agnostic on materialism as a result.

However, I am not agnostic on either realism and naturalism, both of which I hold to, ie Existence, exists.  Suggesting nothing exists but the immaterial, which has no models, interpretations, maths nor definition, to me is incoherent.  The only definition I have heard of the immaterial is that it is "not material", which assumes that material things exist in the first place.  Therefore the sentence "only the immaterial exists" defeats itself.  It is the same as saying "the only things that exist are not the things that can be shown to exist".

(September 23, 2015 at 4:19 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: But strip materialism back to its bare metal and it proposes that the world is made of stuff.  I see no reason why a world of fields is not stuff.  Fields:

- are not formless (you continue to represent that view). Fields have values, eg value x, in spacetime vector y.
- equations govern them and their time evolution and these are deterministic
- really exist

You have responded to my insistence that particles are describable not as things but as ideas by enumerating the mathematical ideas by which they are described.

If you want to say that a particle (or a field) isn't formless then fine; show me what form a photon (for example) has.

Are you sure they only exist? I think you mean to say, "They really, really exist ya gotta believe me, cuz everyone knows it's true."