RE: A Conscious Universe
February 8, 2015 at 8:14 am
(This post was last modified: February 8, 2015 at 8:14 am by bennyboy.)
(February 8, 2015 at 1:17 am)Pizz-atheist Wrote:No, that's circular. Physicists study reality, and so in this sense saying that reality is physical is just restating a definition.(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.
Since this thread is about idealism vs. non-idealism, then you can call it materialism, physicalism, or whatever you want.
My definition of physicalism has been restated a few times, but maybe not so recently: a physical universe is one in which forces and things interact in an independently-existent 3D space, and that "things" should be unambiguously expressible in that space.
(February 8, 2015 at 1:36 am)Surgenator Wrote:What shape is a photon?(February 8, 2015 at 12:51 am)bennyboy Wrote: 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 [...]
What makes you think this?