(September 16, 2016 at 9:40 pm)Jesster Wrote: The reason to believe in more than the material world is that there is a material world?

I'm not sure why you say "more than." First, we need a compelling reason to believe in the material world AT ALL. Then we can start the work of deciding whether there's more than it.

(September 16, 2016 at 9:43 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Can this discussion be moved to the philosophy section?

Yeah, I think it's officially philosophy now.  Can a mod relocate it maybe?

(September 16, 2016 at 9:50 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(September 16, 2016 at 9:40 pm)Jesster Wrote: The reason to believe in more than the material world is that there is a material world?

I'm not sure why you say "more than."  First, we need a reason to believe in the material world AT ALL.  Then we can start the work of deciding whether there's more than it.

Believing in the material world is the starting point. If you don't start by assuming that, we can't go anywhere at all. Since I personally observe that on some level, I'm going to go ahead and leave that as a given. Anything beyond the material world doesn't even have that much to work with yet. That's where I will need more evidence.

I'm not going to get into the holographic universe hypothesis with you if that's where you are going.

If this is going to lead to wild philosophical rambling, then never mind. I'm out at that point. I choose to cling to what little sanity I have left.

(September 16, 2016 at 9:55 pm)Jesster Wrote: Believing in the material world is the starting point. If you don't start by assuming that, we can't go anywhere at all. Since I personally observe that on some level, I'm going to go ahead and leave that as a given. Anything beyond the material world doesn't even have that much to work with yet. That's where I will need more evidence.

This is the "assumption that begs the question" that I was talking about. You keep talking about "more than" the material world, and now "beyond" it. You need to start with your belief in a material world at all. Is it based on your experiences? The apparent solidity of objects you interact with? If so, then do you experience them as 99.99999% empty space, and the .00000001% being only describable as a mathematical function? I'm guessing not.

So if you want to start there, you'll have to explain why you think it's the start. As I said, since anything we "know" starts with experience, then reality-as-experience must be the default position, and anything else must be supported with some pretty watertight reasoning.

Yeah, philosophical rambling. I'm definitely out. Have fun, benny.

(September 16, 2016 at 9:56 pm)Jesster Wrote: If this is going to lead to wild philosophical rambling, then never mind. I'm out at that point. I choose to cling to what little sanity I have left.

I'm hoping it leads to an examination of science and how it will shape our world view.  Have you watched those links I recommended?

(September 16, 2016 at 9:40 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(September 16, 2016 at 9:14 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: Okay. And then what?

. . . and then we let this new view serve as a guide for science-- what avenues we will or will not pursue next.  Science has effectively killed materialism, and "physics" is in essence a set of mathematical relationships in a VIRTUAL space.  It is no longer a tool which can be used to establish our instinctive material world view as correct.

I'd like to humbly suggest for anyone reading this that you MUST google "double slit experiments," "quantum entanglement" and "quantum eraser" before you even attempt to take a materialist position.  It's modern science, and it must be the starting point for any meaningful discussion of reality, IMO.

Chomsky once said something like, 'Before you start asking questions about the relation between 'physical' and 'non-physical', you have to define what physical even means.'

(September 16, 2016 at 10:01 pm)Jesster Wrote: Yeah, philosophical rambling. I'm definitely out. Have fun, benny.

I'm thinking more like science and logic.  But if not accepting a position just 'cuz it feels right is "rambling," then call it that if you want.

(September 16, 2016 at 10:03 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: Chomsky once said something like, 'Before you start asking questions about 'physical' and 'non-physical', you have to define what physical even means.'

It's a good question. Did he provide an answer?

My answer is that whatever is or isn't "out there," the human experience of it is purely experiential/idealistic. In other words, the study of physics is a category of idea-- about the nature of and relationship among objects. It doesn't really require a position on the underlying nature of reality. But I'm happy defining "physical" as "whatever physicists are studying today," as I know what rich fields lay in that direction.