(September 23, 2015 at 7:45 pm)Rhythm Wrote:I'm not refuting materialism, since I'm substance agnostic. I'm refuting that materialism has sound foundations.(September 23, 2015 at 7:09 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I'm not saying that to refute materialism. I'm using it to say there cannot be any sensible process by which even scientific inquiry can establish that materialism is foundational to reality. If you want to use the exact same argument about idealism, then I'd agree, but I've already explained why I would take idealism as the default position anyway.Yes, you did...and that reason is/was an explicit invocation of a fallacy of composition.
Quote:If some proposition x (in this case QM/QFT) is untrue...then it's truth cannot be evidence or a sound premise upon which to make further claims. If you feel that materialism is untrue...you don't get QM or QFT.Sure I do, since I can accept the observations of modern physicists without accepting their philosophical assumptions. I accept the reality of QM/QFT in terms of describing our experience of the universe as we've so far investigated. However, I do not accept that these squirrely, ambiguous, math-described entities are better represented as things than as ideas.
Quote: That mind, your only means of considering any proposition is "made of ideas" -if it is in the first place-..or that you have no means available in your estimation -except- ideas..would be no indication as to what the universe is made of. What is true of a part may not be true of the whole.That's right-- it may or may not be. However, given that mind is all I really know, and given that all the science we've been talking about is known only through mind, I feel reasonably justified in pulling out Occam's Razor and eliminating what I see as the extra assumption.
