I don't know. — Purple Pond
No, just because I don't have an explanation of the physical universe it doesn't follow that my materialism posits a brute fact. And even if did posit a brute fact, I don't see any reason why there can't be any brute facts.Thank you for your honest answer.
In other words, then, your Materialism posits a brute-fact. — Michael Ossipoff
I did not see a clear and concise answer.That’s my answer to your question, Why is there something instead of nothing. — Michael Ossipoff
I certainly do not agree to that. It isnt “like” a religion either. — DingoJones
.Thank you for your honest answer.
.
In other words, then, your Materialism posits a brute-fact. — Michael Ossipoff
.No, just because I don't have an explanation of the physical universe it doesn't follow that my materialism posits a brute fact.
.And even if did posit a brute fact, I don't see any reason why there can't be any brute facts.
.”That’s my answer to your question, Why is there something instead of nothing.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
I did not see a clear and concise answer.
.You cannot prove anything using only a dictionary.
."No, just because I don't have an explanation of the physical universe it doesn't follow that my materialism posits a brute fact. And even if did posit a brute fact, I don't see any reason why there can't be any brute facts."—Blue Pond
.
I don't either. The "brute fact" that I start with is something like reality exists.
.It's just kind of a given in my thinking
., based on the evidence of my life.
.Terms like "physical universe" and "materialism" create difficulties.
.What is the distinction between "physical" and "non-physical"? "What is "matter" and what is "materialism" really asserting?
.I guess that materialism originated in the idea that the only thing that exists is tangible "stuff", not unlike the tables and the chairs. So we got those 17'th century theories of mechanistic materialism where reality consists of hard little unchanging lumps like billiard balls and that all change is the result of the dynamical motions of those atoms.
.Physicalism seems to be an extension of materialism that holds that reality consists of nothing beyond the inventory of current physical theory. So objects only have physical properties, things like spatial-temporal location, mass, size, shape, motion, hardness, electrical charge, magnetism, and gravity.
.What's more, all of reality can be understood in terms of those kind of concepts.
.So reality need not be restricted to little lumps of physical matter (and time and space, I guess), but can also includes things like fields (and even spooky quantum entanglement). A difficulty that arises there is that we can't really know the outermost boundaries of 'physical' conception, what may or may not be posited by future physics.
.I suppose that the best justification for a belief like this might be epistemological. Our windows to reality around us seem to be our senses. So one might want to argue that reality only consists of those things that we can know, either directly through our senses or indirectly by inference from sensory information. Empiricism may or may not embody that idea.
.So one might want to argue that reality only consists of those things that we can know, either directly through our senses or indirectly by inference from sensory information. Empiricism may or may not embody that idea.
.Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any good argument for why reality has to be limited to what can be known by beings like us.
.Purple Pond says:
.
"You cannot prove anything using only a dictionary. I repeat you cannot wholly trust the dictionary. People use words incorrectly and their meanings are often added to the dictionary."
.I couldn't agree more. The first thing they tell students studying philosophy at the university level is don't try to philosophize by quoting dictionary definitions.
.Besides, anyone who has studied the philosophy of religion knows that scholars have been trying to define the word 'religion' for well over a century, without notable success. So I'm hugely skeptical that a dictionary editor is in any position to solve philosophical problems simply by fiat
.…, problems that philosophers (and theologians and anthropologists) have been arguing about for generations.
No, a brute is a fact that cannot be explained in principle. A brute fact doesn't mean a fact that yet eludes my explanation.A brute-fact is an alleged fact whose advocate(s) can’t explain, or tell an origin or cause of. — Michael Ossipoff
This isn't logical. Even if your metaphysics don't posit any brute facts nor assumptions(which I doubt) doesn't give me reason to prefer yours over mine. My metaphysics may be better in other ways.Brute-facts are disapproved-of when they’re unnecessary. If there’s a metaphysics that needs and posits a brute-fact, &/or other assumptions, and if there’s one that doesn’t, then there’s no need for the one that does. — Michael Ossipoff
It's not a faith based belief, but it's a rational belief. What's faith based about not including extraneous things into my ontology until further evidence calls for it?You can disagree with those two dictionaries’ definitions, and that’s fine. But, regardless of definitions, Materialism is a faith-based belief in a certain particular version of ultimate-reality. — Michael Ossipoff
What other examples are there that provides evidence for something supernatural? — Purple Pond
.”A brute-fact is an alleged fact whose advocate(s) can’t explain, or tell an origin or cause of.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
No, a brute is a fact that cannot be explained in principle. A brute fact doesn't mean a fact that yet eludes my explanation.
.”Brute-facts are disapproved-of when they’re unnecessary. If there’s a metaphysics that needs and posits a brute-fact, &/or other assumptions, and if there’s one that doesn’t, then there’s no need for the one that does.” — Michael Ossipoff
This isn't logical. Even if your metaphysics don't [He means “doesn’t”] posit any brute facts nor assumptions(which I doubt)…
.…doesn't give me reason to prefer yours over mine. My metaphysics may be better in other ways.
.It's not a faith based belief,
.…but it's a rational belief.
.What's faith based about not including extraneous things into my ontology until further evidence calls for it?
.As for you metaphysics, you'll excuse me…
...for not delving into into your particular metaphysics.
It all depends on what you mean by an "outside reason". If by "an outside reason" you mean something other than what's included in the physical universe i.e. something immaterial, then no. If that's what you mean by an "outside reason", I believe you are equivocating 'any reason at all' with 'an outside reason', because it's not clear at all that they are identical.Using your definition, you’re saying that the objective fundamental existence of this physical universe, as the ultimate-reality, all of reality, and the basis of all else, on which all else supervenes—is something for which an outside reason might, in principle, be found? — Michael Ossipoff
Again, what do you mean by "anything else"? Do you mean something immaterial? I think you are equivocating here again. Surely there is a difference between "something other than what's in the physical universe", and "any explanation at all".That’s odd, because Materialism, by definition, doesn’t allow for there being anything else by which to explain there being the physical universe that I described in the paragraph before this one. — Michael Ossipoff
Such as being more parsimonious.…such as? — Michael Ossipoff
It never was intended to be.Sorry Purple Pond, but saying that you doubt something doesn’t count as an argument against it. — Michael Ossipoff
You keep saying that, as if the more you say it, the more likely it is to be true.There’s no evidence to support your belief. It’s faith-based because it’s a belief in an unverifiable, unfalsifiable brute-fact. — Michael Ossipoff
You are. You're suggesting that I include immaterial things into my ontology which I see no reason for.No one’s suggesting that you “include” any assumptions. The uncontroversial premises of my metaphysics aren’t assumptions, and don’t call for “including” anything. …such as the brute-fact assumption that you “include” and believe in. — Michael Ossipoff
No, but if society observing the universe far and wide for years and years and not finding anything that is immaterial that is a good reason to adapt materialism.And, by the way, maybe you think that observation of this physical universe is evidence for Materialism. It isn’t. — Michael Ossipoff
This is a non-sequitur.It typically isn’t possible to distinguish between metaphysics on the basis of physical experiments and observation of the physical world. Your Materialism amounts to a brute-fact assumption that is an unfalsifiable proposition. — Michael Ossipoff
.”Using your definition, you’re saying that the objective fundamental existence of this physical universe, as the ultimate-reality, all of reality, and the basis of all else, on which all else supervenes—is something for which an outside reason might, in principle, be found?” — Michael Ossipoff
.
[…]
.
“That’s odd, because Materialism, by definition, doesn’t allow for there being anything else by which to explain there being the physical universe that I described in the paragraph before this one.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Again, what do you mean by "anything else"? Do you mean something immaterial? I think you are equivocating here again. Surely there is a difference between "something other than what's in the physical universe", and "any explanation at all".
.As an atheist I'm trying to think of examples of what would convince me that there is a god and that the physical world is not all there is.
..
[in response to a statement that there are reasons to believe that your metaphysics (Materialism) is better] :
.
“…such as?” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Such as being more parsimonious.
.There’s no evidence to support your belief. It’s faith-based because it’s a belief in an unverifiable, unfalsifiable brute-fact. — Michael Ossipoff
.
You keep saying that, as if the more you say it, the more likely it is to be true.
.”No one’s suggesting that you “include” any assumptions. The uncontroversial premises of my metaphysics aren’t assumptions, and don’t call for “including” anything. …such as the brute-fact assumption that you “include” and believe in.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
You are. You're suggesting that I include immaterial things into my ontology which I see no reason for.
.I see that you already made a thread about your metaphysics, yet from what I saw they seem [He means “it seems”] far from uncontroversial as you claim.
.But I digress, I don't think this the place to discuss your metaphysics.
.As an atheist I'm trying to think of examples of what would convince me that there is a god and that the physical world is not all there is.
.I have a question for you: Why is there something rather than nothing?
.You can discuss it here, obviously, it isn't against the rules, but they will fall on deaf ears.
.”And, by the way, maybe you think that observation of this physical universe is evidence for Materialism. It isn’t.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
No, but if society observing the universe far and wide for years and years and not finding anything that is immaterial that is a good reason to adapt [He means “adopt”] materialism.
.”Using your definition, you’re saying that the objective fundamental existence of this physical universe, as the ultimate-reality, all of reality, and the basis of all else, on which all else supervenes—is something for which an outside reason might, in principle, be found?” — Michael Ossipoff
.
It all depends on what you mean by an "outside reason". If by "an outside reason" you mean something other than what's included in the physical universe i.e. something immaterial, then no.
.If that's what you mean by an "outside reason", I believe you are equivocating 'any reason at all' with 'an outside reason', because it's not clear at all that they are identical.
"Supernatural" could just be advanced technology. Advanced technology can appear to contradict the laws of physics as we understand them. What would the essence of a supernatural thing be that distinguishes it from natural things? — Harry Hindu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.