(February 8, 2015 at 8:14 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(February 8, 2015 at 1:36 am)Surgenator Wrote: What makes you think this?

What shape is a photon?

It's most likely a point particle.

(February 8, 2015 at 9:15 am)bennyboy Wrote: A bit of a diversion, but damn.

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/86

Cool article, but the article interchanges the shape of the wave-packet with the shape of the photon. The two are not the same. Here is the paper they actually submitted where they refer to the shape of the wave function.

(February 8, 2015 at 11:40 am)Pizz-atheist Wrote:

(February 8, 2015 at 8:14 am)bennyboy Wrote: No, that's circular. Physicists study reality, and so in this sense saying that reality is physical is just restating a definition.

You are using a non-standard definition of physics. By your definition metaphysics would count as a branch of physics. I don't see how this definition of physicalism is circular unless you're already defining reality as physical, which is not what idealist define reality as.

Ummm, except that wasn't my definition. I was responding to the idea that whatever physicists happen to be studying constitutes a physical monism. A subject with a name and a philosophical position are not the same thing.

---

(February 8, 2015 at 1:18 pm)Surgenator Wrote:

(February 8, 2015 at 8:14 am)bennyboy Wrote: What shape is a photon?

It's most likely a point particle.

And yet. . . interference.

---

(February 8, 2015 at 1:17 am)Pizz-atheist Wrote:

(February 8, 2015 at 12:51 am)bennyboy Wrote: No, I disagree that the current state of physics actually fits the idea of a geometric space. This is because at least some objects (like the photon) cannot be expressed in geometrical terms, and because mind cannot be directly observed, even though in a physical monist reality, nothing should be unobservable in this way.

I'm confused by your usage of the term physical monist since it seems philosophers use the term physicalism to mean different things. I know one modern usage of physicalism is that [full in the blank] is dependent on or reduces to the things physics is about. Philosophers seem to define physical properties as the things physics is about. Is Rhythm arguing for some weird version of physicalism?

This is not, then, a statement about the nature of reality, which is what this thread is supposedly about. If whatever physisicts study is defined as physical, then an idealistic universe is ALSO physical, and the term really has no meaning.

But this thread isn't about physics. Whatever word you use, my point is that if whatever you take as "real" cannot be expressed unambiguously as a thing, then it isn't one. And a universe which, under the hood, consists of such non-things is better seen as an expression of ideas than things.

(February 8, 2015 at 6:56 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(February 8, 2015 at 1:18 pm)Surgenator Wrote: It's most likely a point particle.

And yet. . . interference.

Interaction length vs particle size. These two are not the same.

(February 8, 2015 at 7:51 pm)Surgenator Wrote:

(February 8, 2015 at 6:56 pm)bennyboy Wrote: And yet. . . interference.

Interaction length vs particle size. These two are not the same.

Hey. . . that's my line!

--edit--
Also, +1 rep to you for digging up an actual original paper. How often do we see that on these forums?

(February 8, 2015 at 6:56 pm)bennyboy Wrote: This is not, then, a statement about the nature of reality, which is what this thread is supposedly about. If whatever physisicts study is defined as physical, then an idealistic universe is ALSO physical, and the term really has no meaning.

If that's the case then both physicalism and idealism are vacuous positions making all arguments about them hot air.

(February 8, 2015 at 9:49 pm)Pizz-atheist Wrote:

(February 8, 2015 at 6:56 pm)bennyboy Wrote: This is not, then, a statement about the nature of reality, which is what this thread is supposedly about. If whatever physisicts study is defined as physical, then an idealistic universe is ALSO physical, and the term really has no meaning.

If that's the case then both physicalism and idealism are vacuous positions making all arguments about them hot air.

Are you trying to derail this thread with semantics, or do you have ideas about the nature of the universe that you'd like to discuss?

(February 8, 2015 at 8:53 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(February 8, 2015 at 7:51 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Interaction length vs particle size. These two are not the same.

Hey. . . that's my line!

I don't understand how this supports your idealism.

Quote:--edit--
Also, +1 rep to you for digging up an actual original paper. How often do we see that on these forums?

Thanks

(February 8, 2015 at 10:47 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(February 8, 2015 at 9:49 pm)Pizz-atheist Wrote: If that's the case then both physicalism and idealism are vacuous positions making all arguments about them hot air.

Are you trying to derail this thread with semantics, or do you have ideas about the nature of the universe that you'd like to discuss?

That was already happening. Example:

(February 8, 2015 at 12:10 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You seem to be describing us as information machines...while I'm describing us as physical machines. It's an awfully fine line...I certainly don't understand the resistance from you given this vast common ground.

So I don't see how your disagreement with Rhythm is anything other than you disagreeing over words like "physical." If there is no difference between "physical" or "mental" in idealism I'm not sure why we should care. It would make no difference practically or little difference conceptually.

Stop saying there's no difference between physical and mental in idealism. Nobody's saying that, unless you are. Are you?