(January 30, 2015 at 7:46 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I think you are biased toward thinking idealism is "but a dream," with no logic or consistency to it, but this isn't right. It does NOT mean that there's no chemistry, or molecules, or no process of evaporation. It means that the paint, the process of drying, and the universe in which it dries are ultimately reducible only to concepts. A physicalist sees information as descriptive of real things, but an idealistic sees information AS the reality, and "things" as a virtual expression of the underlying information. Or, I should say, I see it that way, and assume other modern idealists probably do, too.Where do these conceptions reside? The physicalist would say nature simply is, and abstractions are a leftover glimmer after a phenomenon has been cut and divided to single out a particular aspect of it. Nature as a whole isn't reducible to concepts but as humans, fortunately, at our very best, we can examine parts and construct a formal system that is mathematically---and hence logically---consistent, and that's why we often discover that our previous concepts were, in fact, wrong.
(January 30, 2015 at 7:46 pm)bennyboy Wrote: We describe all these things, including QM particles, the four basic interactions, etc. in mathematical forms. You've heard the saying "It's turtles, all the way down. . ." Well, I'd say that in a math-based idealistic reality, "It's math, all the way down." Eventually, you give up on finding "things," and just say "Fuck it. . . it's math only from here on in." And I think we are probably at that point right now with QM."It's math only from here on in" in terms of technological, and therefore, experimental limitations, but it's not as if numbers exist distinct from material objects, allowing ourselves a conception of matter that involves force fields and empty space that jitters.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza