(January 31, 2015 at 11:52 pm)bennyboy Wrote:Me doing the math isn't what make the ball fly. The ball flies because the bat interacts with the ball. Just because we can use math to calculate how the ball will fly, it doesn't mean the math is making the ball fly. Just look how you describe the universe. Your explanations are all physical. Yet you want to say the deeper layer is information because the limitation of your senses. It's not justified but is an argument from ignorance.(January 31, 2015 at 11:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote:That's a lot of questions. Let me answer that, in general, I'd describe most things as you would: momentum is the product of mass and velocity, the speed of light is 300,000km/s., etc. In fact, in all observable cases of physical interactions, I'd accept current explanations: bat has momentum a, ball has momentum b, you do the math, and ball flies toward the outfield.
Quote:The main differences occur at philosophical boundaries. What, for example, is a photon: a wave, a particle, both, neither? As an idea, ambiguity is fine. I would not, however, accept that an ambiguous "particle" is real in a physical sense, because there's no way to map it to the dimension of space which is the framework in which physical monism works.You can map a particle to a specific spacetime. Just because our instruments aren't not capable of measurements doesn't mean the position is ambigious. It mean it is ambigious to us. Here is a video demonstating the pilot-wave intepertation of QM that desolves the ambiguity.
Quote:Another example is the mind. In a physical monism, subjective mind is a (very strange) "bonus" to processes which should be able to tick along just fine without it. And before everyone starts shouting about brain chemistry, consider this: how do we even know what physical systems have the capacity to experience subjectively? We don't.I frankly do not see what the problem is. Your brain takes in some sensory information and assosiates it with a memory. The consciousness (a byproduct of the brain) has access to these memories. So whenever you get the a similiar sensory data, the already existing memory makes you feel like you know what it is. This is subjective, because this is only your memory not anyones else.
Quote:It seems to me much simpler to explain all the universe in terms of an interaction of ideas, than to explain mind in terms of physical elements. This is because we already experience everything we know as a collection of experiences and ideas anyway.
We can generate ideas, I do it all the time. These ideas do not manifest in reality unless I get up and impliment them. If ideas is what this reality is made out of, then there shouldn't be a difference between generating ideas in my head vs ideas in reality.
Consider the situation.
I tell you "here are 10 balls that our now yours." You do not see any balls. You say, "there are no here." I say, "they're clearly there, use your imagination." You humor me and say, "those balls have a nice blueish color." I look at you ad say, "the balls are red, not blue."
In physicalism, my mind cannot create physical objects. So me imagining physical objects have no affect on reality.
In idealism, my mind can create ideas. So I can create the idea of balls using my imagination. You couldn't see my created balls because of ...... umm ..... what is preventing you from seeing them?
