Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[The Grand Nudger]

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.   

Yes.  I know that the materialist position relies on evidence, and I'm showing that that foundation is non sequitur.  The observations you make do not, and cannot, arrive at a materialist world view, unless you've already assumed that your observations say more than they do.  It's a toxic term, but I guess I have to float it here: begging the question.

What claim am I making?  Only that you've stolen a concept in order to support your default composition fallacy.  Understand? I don't -know- whether or not we live in a metaphysically material world. I only know that if we don't..it behaves as though it is. I'm not trying to establish the ultimate truth of reality here, how likely do you think it would be for me to do so on these boards? I'm attempting to explain the problems with your stated line of reasoning. It's not an issue of whether or not either is true...you're being unreasonable.

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. 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.

[bennyboy]

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.   

I'm not refuting materialism, since I'm substance agnostic. I'm refuting that materialism has sound foundations.

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.

 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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, you did...and that reason is/was an explicit invocation of a fallacy of composition.   

I'm not refuting materialism, since I'm substance agnostic.  I'm refuting that materialism has sound foundations.

No...you aren't, if the manner in which you choose to do so is QM/QFT.  Nevertheless this has nothing to do with what you quoted..it is not a response -to- what you quoted.

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.

No, this is not an opinion, it's a condition of the system you are using, Benny. Stolen......concept. But who cares.....that you have a problem with your own description of QM and QFT as being amenable to materialism doesn't matter much, since that description bears little resemblance to QM or QFT. You "do not accept" x y and z...but these things aren't described as x, y, or z. If you think that "Benny's QM™" argues against materialism, present Benny's QM™..otherwise, get your hand out of the cookie jar. Electrons push back, that's just what we observe. If they aren't really pushing back..if they aren't actually there at all, if they're just ideas...then QM and QFT mean -nothing-...it's just some strange but effective illusion.

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.

Then you are not an idealist, and it is -still- a fallacy of composition. In any case, you don't actually remove any assumptions here - it;s just another dodge you won't remain consistent to. You assume that QM and QFT (regardless of how poorly you understand either) are informative of and referent to something other than just your mind...or you wouldn't feel comfortable making -any- metaphysical claims - nor would/could you offer QM as evidence of such regardless of what you think they are referent to .

Logic is an unyielding system, learn the damned rules. Science is a very specific endeavor - learn what it actually says.

[bennyboy]

Electrons push back, that's just what we observe.

Okay, you are focusing on the first part of this statement. But I'm with the second part.

I'm not sure what electrons pushing back has to do with this discussion. You seem to have the impression that when I take the idealistic position that I'm saying everything is a dream and nothing's real. But this isn't my argument, nor do I believe it. Fine. Electrons push back, and we observe them, and neither one of us has a problem with that. So. . . ?

Logic is an unyielding system, learn the damned rules.  Science is a very specific endeavor - learn what it actually says.

I'm ready to learn, and I will bow down to your superior knowledge. What is a QM particle, really, and what is the foundation for its existence, according to science? I bet you're going to tell me about a super well-defined and totally unambiguous material system upon which QM particles and everything else supervene, and I will be soooo embarrassed.

[bennyboy]

Instead of going back and forth about the same ideas, I'd like to introduce a new perspective: the relationship between principles and expressions of those principles. Would you argue (without regard whether we're talking about the current view on QM/QFT) that the most fundamental building blocks of reality "just are," and that everything we say about them is purely descriptive? Or would you argue that anything that exists is an expression of some underlying principle, which we may or may not be able to infer?

I'd argue that whatever exists is preceded (logically if not temporally) by some kind of framework which has the capacity to bear that existence, and which has embedded in it those rules or principles by which things may be brought into existence. However, those rules and principles cannot be said to "exist," because the framework cannot also be the members whose existence it supports without a nasty paradox.

Would you guys agree with this?

[Pizza]

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.

You are going beyond arguing against physicalism and are arguing against realism.
You are exaggerating the simplicity of idealism and the complexity of realism. Assuming a world external to thoughts and experiences which is somewhat knowable through thoughts and experiences isn't really too much of an assumption. If that's "too much" all the worst for Occam's razor. Occam's Razor is a rule of thumb not the end all be all of inquiry and is moot for there is good reason for realism. Realism back up by strong intuitions about how objects behave when we aren't looking at or thinking about them. I don't think that's a knock down argument but it shows realism to be rational.

Subjective idealism is self defeating, because if all that is required for existence is being comprehended by a mind and my mind comprehends to some degree the idea of "something beyond conception" then things beyond conception exist.

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,"

So what? Then the external world is somewhat knowable via our ideas and experiences. That doesn't refute realism at all, yet alone physicalism.

[The Grand Nudger]

Electrons push back, that's just what we observe.

Okay, you are focusing on the first part of this statement.  But I'm with the second part.

I'm not sure what electrons pushing back has to do with this discussion.  You seem to have the impression that when I take the idealistic position that I'm saying everything is a dream and nothing's real.  But this isn't my argument, nor do I believe it.  Fine.  Electrons push back, and we observe them, and neither one of us has a problem with that.  So. . . ?

Logic is an unyielding system, learn the damned rules.  Science is a very specific endeavor - learn what it actually says.

I'm ready to learn, and I will bow down to your superior knowledge.  What is a QM particle, really, and what is the foundation for its existence, according to science?  I bet you're going to tell me about a super well-defined and totally unambiguous material system upon which QM particles and everything else supervene, and I will be soooo embarrassed.

You've been given that description..and decided instead to reject -your- x, y, and z as though you were rejecting that description.  If QM/QFT  weren't well defined as material systems then they would be unacceptable as scientific theories.  If a particle was not well defined it would be unacceptable as the driving component of that scientific theory.  It would be pilloried in peer review on those grounds alone, but that's not what's happened, is it? Science rolls on the wheels of methodological materialism necessarily, so what you're asking for -as though it didn't exist, despite it being presented to you in this thread, could be no other "x" to begin with...........regardless of whether or not there -is- some other "x".

You should be embarrassed, you've been given what you're asking for and decided to reject it anyway in favor of the x, y, and z of your own choosing -which you then reject as well-. Why is our observation of an electron pushing back so important..well, gee...without stealing a material concept...tell me what "pushing" is, what is it that we're observing -that we've both agreed to just now-, again? That's why. You're making those "assumptions" you criticize others for making without realizing it.

Instead of going back and forth about the same ideas, I'd like to introduce a new perspective: the relationship between principles and expressions of those principles. Would you argue (without regard whether we're talking about the current view on QM/QFT) that the most fundamental building blocks of reality "just are," and that everything we say about them is purely descriptive? Or would you argue that anything that exists is an expression of some underlying principle, which we may or may not be able to infer?

Neither.

I'd argue that whatever exists is preceded (logically if not temporally) by some kind of framework which has the capacity to bear that existence, and which has embedded in it those rules or principles by which things may be brought into existence. However, those rules and principles cannot be said to "exist," because the framework cannot also be the members whose existence it supports without a nasty paradox.

Our models may attempt to describe reality, but that doesn't mean that our models -are- reality. Not really as deep or divergent a thought as you seem to be fishing for...since this is the elephant of mind from pages ago all over again. There isn't enough room in my skull for an elephant. Likewise, there isn't enough room in my skull for the entire universe. What -will- fit in my head is a model of the universe, a model of the elephant. We could test this empirically, if you'd like to help me cram an elephant up my noise, or the universe into my ears. I predict failure on both counts.

[bennyboy]

You've been given that description..and decided instead to reject -your- x, y, and z.  If QM/QFT  weren't well defined then they would be unacceptable as scientific theories.  If a particle was not well defined it would be unacceptable as the driving component of that scientific theory.

I've been given nothing of the sort. I haven't been told whether a "particle" is really a particle, or a wave, or a field. I haven't been told its size or shape. Most importantly, given that I've said an idealistic world view happily subsumes all of science, I haven't been told exactly what about any of these (experienced ideas we call) observation demonstrate that ANY of it requires the view that these super-well defined particle/wave/fields which we cannot model in spatial dimensions, whose position we cannot predict (lol) are more than an expression of fundamental ideas.

 An electron -is- a QM particle..and we observe them pushing back.  Both bubble chambers and the LHC provide us with the results that they do by means of observing those particles in a decidedly material fashion, within a decidedly material substrate, in a decidedly material framework.    There's nothing ambiguous in this.  If there's no matter...the electron is -not- doing what we observe it to be doing, and QM/QFT cannot then be argued to be true.

You keep saying "decidely material" and I keep hearing "assumedly material."

You should be embarrassed, you've been given what you're asking for and decided to reject it anyway.

Awww man, there I was saying that particles were only describable in mathematical (specifically, statistical) terms, and could not be represented unambiguously in 3D space, and it turns out that they are totally observable, unambiguous and unmysterious. Now I have to go back through all these pages and find where you linked the picture.

[bennyboy]

Our models may attempt to describe reality, but that doesn't mean that our models -are- reality.  Not really as deep or divergent a thought as you seem to be fishing for...since this is the elephant of mind from pages ago all over again.  There isn't enough room in my skull for an elephant.  Likewise, there isn't enough room in my skull for the entire universe.  What -will- fit in my head is a model of the universe, a model of the elephant.  We could test this empirically, if you'd like to help me cram an elephant up my noise, or the universe into my ears.  I predict failure on both counts.

There's no demonstrable link between any theory and ultimate reality. The models describe a coherence among a set of common ideas, experiences, inferences and assumptions. Whether they represent any reality beyond the experiencing is a. . wait for it. . . total mystery.

[The Grand Nudger]

If they weren't observable...then what are we observing in bubble chambers and the LHC - and how did we observe electrons doing -anything-..as you've just agreed that we did? Methodological materialism is -necessary- to science....for you to claim that some scientific theory does not represent that position is to claim that it is not science. Do you understand? Are QM and QFT not science, in your estimation? Simply claiming that idealism "happily subsumes" all of science..is a fallacy of, wait for it....stolen concept. What is the electron doing, that we've observed, again...... if you would be so kind?

If there were a way to answer a metaphysical question by science it wouldn't be called meta-physics...justs physics. We create models that explain our observations. This is reason to accept that those models are descriptive of whatever reality -actually is-..but it's not proof. The link is demonstrable in the success of those models to predict outcomes in this world -either the explanation is true or the universe behaves as though it were-, the metaphysical proof is not.

You're just as convinced by this link as I am...you reference QM -a necessarily material explanation- when considering metaphysical claims.