It's All Gap: Science offers no support for scientific materialism

GeorgeTheThird

What follows is a logical argument that science offers no support for scientific materialism.

Scientific materialism rests on this proposition:
It is possible, in principle, to demonstrate by experiment a natural cause for every event, thus scientifically eliminating God as the cause of any event.

At the macro scale, and at smaller scales down to the statistical aggregate of quantum particle events, causes are readily identifiable for a broad range of events. It appears that the gaps in human knowledge are closing.

Every high level event in the universe is the sum of many individual particle events. (Gravity can be ignored in this discussion because there will be no gravity events without massive particles, and massive particles are the result of quantum events.)

Science knows of no cause for the outcome of any individual particle event. So, any given high-level event that has a known cause is the sum of many individual particle events, not one of which has a known cause. (Or has no cause at all, if the prevailing theory of quantum mechanics is correct.)

As a matter of logic, the proposition of scientific materialism fails completely, because no cause can be identified for any event in the universe.

Moreover, the operation of the universe is not comprehended. (And is incomprehensible if the prevailing theory of quantum mechanics is correct.) No one has the least idea how the order and beauty observed in the universe arises out of the chaos of individual particle interactions.

The goal of scientific materialism is to increase our knowledge of the natural world, reducing the gaps, eventually eliminating God as the cause of any event.

As things stand, it's all gap.

tim wood

As things stand, it's all gap. — GeorgeTheThird

Except I can drive a nail with a hammer, and as well do other wonderful things. Not all gap, then.

No one has the least idea how the order and beauty observed in the universe — GeorgeTheThird

Who says it's orderly and beautiful?

leo

I don’t see quantum mechanics as showing that individual particle events do not have a cause.

However where I see physics offering no support for materialism is that it doesn’t show in any way that living beings are solely made of particles behaving according to the laws of physics. Experiments on particles are made precisely on particles (a small number of them), not on living beings, so there is zero evidence that there is nothing that goes on within living beings that breaks these laws. That’s where I see the gap. Materialism is a belief, not a conclusion that follows from the empirical evidence.

khaled

As a matter of logic, the proposition of scientific materialism fails completely, because no cause can be identified for any event in the universe. — GeorgeTheThird

For a single particle quantum effects result in massive uncertainties, but for a large enough aggregate of particles we can know that there is a 99.999999999999% chance that if this aggrigate of particles hits this aggrigate of particles the aggregates will bounce off of eachother and not, say, teleport to the moon (which is technically possible for a particles since its wave function APPROACHES 0 but never reaches it as far as I know). So the thesis is then 99.99999999999999% correct for the majority of situations where we would apply it. Did it really fail then?

god must be atheist

For the closing of each gap, ten new gaps are opened.

Scientific materialism states that everything CAN be explained in the physical world, by physical laws. It does not say everything IS explained.

Scientific materialism is a philosophy, and therefore it does not require evidential support to the tune of, let's say, attributing causes to an effect in the physical world.

The OP is right about science not offering support for scientific materialism.

Scientific materialism is a philosophical concept, and as such, it could exist even if all scientific experiments were unable to point at cause-effect movements in the physical world.

So while it is true that science does not provide complete support to scientific materialism, the OP regretfully omitted that scientific materialism does not REQUIRE any such support by science.

Pantagruel

Scientific materialism rests on this proposition:
It is possible, in principle, to demonstrate by experiment a natural cause for every event, thus scientifically eliminating God as the cause of any event. — GeorgeTheThird

I believe that the original and primary premise of materialism is that everything is the product of material interactions. Materialism doesn't comment directly on the question of God. God appeared in the context of materialism as an objection by religious thinkers. So when you say "scientifically eliminating god" that is very misleading. Not the intent of the theory at all.

deletedusercb

So while it is true that science does not provide complete support to scientific materialism, the OP regretfully omitted that scientific materialism does not REQUIRE any such support by science. — god must be atheist

Anyone arguing from scientific materialism, however would require it. IOW if a materialist argues that God does not exist because it would entail a dualism and 'we already know that materialism is the case, or that we know that a dualism cannot be the case' is now using a philosophical that is undemonstrated as if it is a scientific theory..

And then given that what is considered material is an expanding set, and the properties necessary or possible to have and be considered 'material' has been steadily expanding, the term isn't really a metaphysical stand, though it often is used as if it is one, against other positions, in arguments.

god must be atheist

↪Coben

Please look at and read Pantagruel's post just before yours.

IOW if a materialist argues that God does not exist because it would entail a dualism and 'we already know that materialism is the case, or that we know that a dualism cannot be the case' is now using a philosophical that is undemonstrated as if it is a scientific theory.. — Coben

A sane scientific materialist would never argue what you suggest they would argue.

In fact, no philosopher would argue that god does not exist. And no philosopher would argue that god exists.

God is a concept that has validity in a probable real existence. However, we know nothing about the nature of god. To claim any attribute to be known of god is pure charlatanism. That includes the claim of its non-existence and also of its existence.

-------------

That said, I never thought of this, but some pointed out that materialists would not call themselves scientific materialists; Scientific materialism (I don't want to abbreviate to SM) may be a name coined by the religious, to create a strawman that they can stab with their steely knives of arguments, but they just can't kill the beast, creating magical effects for their congregation to bewitch them into thinking that materialists actually think what the religious paint them with the colours of the devil-figure attributes of what they term scientific materialists. So to speak.

Sorry, I got too metaphoric there.

IOW it may be only the religious (I don't know this, actually), who use the term "scientific materialist" for a purpose to designate those materialists, who argue god does not exist because the science of matter (?) excludes now all gaps of knowledge formerly needed to be filled with a god-worship.

Harry Hindu

If God created the universe, then there is a casual relationship between God and the universe. God and the universe would exist in the same causal (material?) reality. There can be only one reality. Dualism makes no sense.

Pantagruel

Anyone arguing from scientific materialism, however would require it. — Coben

It is ignorable, unless you are point blank looking to argue with the concept of God. In which case, you are not really a scientific materialist, you are an atheist cum scientific materialist.

Arguably there are conceptions of God which do not entail intervening in the mechanics of reality.

deletedusercb

It is ignorable, unless you are point blank looking to argue with the concept of God. In which case, you are not really a scientific materialist, you are an atheist cum scientific materialist. — Pantagruel

Right, but I rarely meet the other kind, at least in forums like this one. In fact the scientists I know would probably say they are materialists if cornered, but don't seem to give a shit about ontology in these sweeping ways. They have problems to solve, more specfic models to work from, and details to fuss with.

Arguably there are conceptions of God which do not entail intervening in the mechanics of reality. — Pantagruel

Deism, or at least, that's a version where God no longer intervenes after making it all.

deletedusercb

A sane scientific materialist would never argue what you suggest they would argue. — god must be atheist

Then I've met a good number of scientific materialists who are insane in philosophy forums. Perhaps you will say they are not really scientific materialists. If one pops up here and I remember, I will try to connect you three for that conversation.

In fact, no philosopher would argue that god does not exist. And no philosopher would argue that god exists. — god must be atheist

I guess I disagree with both assessments. This is a bit like when the Republicans say the Democrats have no morals or values. I understand, you think they don't have good epistemological grounds for their conclusions. But then, most philosophers draw different conclusions, about something, and these conclusions will be based on differences, however slight or grand, between epistemologies.

IOW it may be only the religious (I don't know this, actually) — god must be atheist

Oh, I think it is generally used by the religious. It shouldn't be pejorative to scientists, who would tend to be materialists, though some cosmologists and many mathematician scientists are Platonists. Likely other exceptions. I prefer the term physicalists, though this has the same problem as materialists, which is that both physical and material are expanding concepts. They pretty much mean anything real and verified, as far as we can tell, regardless of the qualities. It looks like a claim about substance, but it no longer is.

GeorgeTheThird

Except I can drive a nail with a hammer, and as well do other wonderful things. Not all gap, then. — tim wood

The question is not whether a hammer can be used to drive a nail. The question is what causes the nail to move when it is struck by the hammer.

Quantum theory holds that a force is transmitted from the electrons in the hammer to the electrons in the nail via photons. The total force, which is predictable to a finite number of decimal places, is the sum of many individual interactions between electrons and photons. Examined individually, not one of those interactions has a predictable outcome: the cause of the result of each and every particle interaction is unknown.

If no cause can be identified for the result of any single interaction in the set of interactions that constitutes the force, then no cause can be identified for the force. No one knows how the force comes to be. It is all gap. (And if the assertion of fundamental probability is correct, no cause can be known, and it will always be all gap.)

Who says it's orderly and beautiful? — tim wood

The order is expressed mathematically as the laws of physics. Its existence is demonstrated at every stroke of hammer against nail, and at every occurrence of other wonderful things.

Some folks see beauty in the abstract patterns of mathematics, and of course there are other kinds of beauty in the world. But the success of the argument is not dependent on the existence of beauty.

GeorgeTheThird

I don’t see quantum mechanics as showing that individual particle events do not have a cause. — leo

The assertion of "orthodox" quantum mechanics is fundamental probability: the laws of physics are statistical only; there is no cause for the outcome of any individual quantum interaction.

See Chapter 6 of “The Quantum World”, by Kenneth W. Ford (Harvard University Press,2004)

John Wheeler put it this way: “Society charges science with the task of prediction.Science makes some progress with the task. In the individual quantum process, however,prediction comes to the end of the road. Science does not have to be ashamed of its finding. It only has to be honest about it. Why demand of science a cause when cause there is none?”
(Article, Law Without Law, in “Quantum Theory and Measurement”,Princeton University Press, 1983. The article is also available at:https://www.scribd.com/document/397679925/Wheeler-law-without-law-pdf)

However, I have been careful to found the argument on the current lack of knowledge as to cause of outcome of individual particle iteractions.

GeorgeTheThird

For a single particle quantum effects result in massive uncertainties, but for a large enough aggregate of particles we can know that there is a 99.999999999999% chance that if this aggrigate of particles hits this aggrigate of particles the aggregates will bounce off of each other and not, say, teleport to the moon (which is technically possible for a particles since its wave function APPROACHES 0 but never reaches it as far as I know). So the thesis is then 99.99999999999999% correct for the majority of situations where we would apply it. Did it really fail then? — khaled

Yes, it completely fails to explain why the aggregate of particles behaves predictably even though not one of the individual particles behaves predictably.

The question is how order at the macro level comes out of complete chaos at the individual particle level.

Banno

...no cause can be identified for any event in the universe. — GeorgeTheThird

Then god does not cause any events in our universe, either.

The baby went out with the bath water.

GeorgeTheThird

Scientific materialism states that everything CAN be explained in the physical world, by physical laws. It does not say everything IS explained.

Scientific materialism is a philosophy, and therefore it does not require evidential support to the tune of, let's say, attributing causes to an effect in the physical world.

The OP is right about science not offering support for scientific materialism.

Scientific materialism is a philosophical concept, and as such, it could exist even if all scientific experiments were unable to point at cause-effect movements in the physical world.

So while it is true that science does not provide complete support to scientific materialism, the OP regretfully omitted that scientific materialism does not REQUIRE any such support by science. — god must be atheist

The [alleged] strength of scientific materialism is in the experimental demonstration of cause and effect. Without demonstration of cause and effect, there is only materialism.

Perhaps it will help to present the statement from which the proposition in the OP is adapted:

"All these [aforementioned] space-like concepts already belong to pre-scientific thought, along with concepts like pain, goal, purpose, etc. from the field of psychology. Now, it is characteristic of thought in physics, and of natural science generally, that it endeavors in principle to make do with “space-like” concepts alone [emphasis Einstein’s], and strives to express with their aid all relations having the form of laws. The physicist seeks to reduce colors and tones to vibrations, the physiologist thought and pain to nerve processes, in such a way that the psychical element as such is eliminated from the causal nexus of existence, and thus nowhere occurs as an independent link in the causal associations. It is no doubt this attitude, which considers the comprehension of all relations by the exclusive use of only “space-like” concepts as being possible in principle, that is at the present time understood by the term “materialism”."
Albert Einstein, “Relativity”, 1916. Appendix to 15th edition, 1952: “Relativity and the Problem of Space.”

The proposition is an adaptation of Einstein’s statement, rather than a condensation of it, because the proposition states explicitly what Einstein only implies: that it is possible in principle to scientifically eliminate God as the cause of any event.

GeorgeTheThird

Then god does not cause any events in our universe, either. — Banno

The context is a discussion of scientific experiment, which by definition seeks natural causes for natural events.

No natural cause has been found for the outcome of any individual particle event. Therefore, whenever someone says, "God has caused this event", the materialist cannot point to the experimental evidence and say, "No, this is the cause of the event."

god must be atheist

The [alleged] strength of scientific materialism is in the experimental demonstration of cause and effect. Without demonstration of cause and effect, there is only materialism. — GeorgeTheThird

no cause can be identified for any event in the universe. — GeorgeTheThird

Then there is only materialism.

I agree with that. I said that already. Precisely the same thing as you are saying. I said in a post here, that scientific materialism is a philosophical concept, that stands alone by itself, without dependence on reality, on observations, on anything.

god must be atheist

No natural cause has been found for the outcome of any individual particle event. Therefore, whenever someone says, "God has caused this event", the materialist cannot point to the experimental evidence and say, "No, this is the cause of the event." — GeorgeTheThird

If your faith is strong enough, you can discard the entire history of human endeavour to get to know how natural forces operate.

"God made it happen," you can say this to explain any event. And if you believe in God proper enough, your stance can't be wrong.

The ultimate Occam's razor.

You can discard even your elaborate proofs and descriptions and appeal to reason. This is where the buck stops: "God made it happen." The alpha and the omega.

This still covers over and bridges the two sides of all gaps. If you believe it strong enough.

god must be atheist

No natural cause has been found for the outcome of any individual particle event. Therefore, whenever someone says, "God has caused this event", the materialist cannot point to the experimental evidence and say, "No, this is the cause of the event." — GeorgeTheThird

I would have written the above as
"No natural cause has been found for the outcome of any individual particle event. Therefore, whenever someone says, "God has caused this event", everyone in the room breaks up in spontaneous laughter."

khaled

↪GeorgeTheThird

Yes, it completely fails to explain why the aggregate of particles behaves predictably even though not one of the individual particles behaves predictably. — GeorgeTheThird

That's just false. It does so through statistics. Say in economics: you have 1 billion humans in a simulation. Even if you give each human a small chance to behave against his programming, the overall trend of 1 billion humans will behave the same way as without that chance. When you have a small chance for deviation in a huge sample size the deviation doesn't do much.

The question is how order at the macro level comes out of complete chaos at the individual particle level. — GeorgeTheThird

That's a purely statistical question.

khaled

↪GeorgeTheThird

No natural cause has been found for the outcome of any individual particle event. Therefore, whenever someone says, "God has caused this event", — GeorgeTheThird

The materialist can say "No natural cause has been found for the outcome of any event so God didn't cause this either"

Is what banno is saying I think

god must be atheist

The question is how order at the macro level comes out of complete chaos at the individual particle level. — GeorgeTheThird

I don't think there is a chaos on the individual particle level.

Electrons and atomic nuclei are pretty stable at our operating temperature range.

If some weird thing is happening, such as a quick half-life of an element, chances are that that element is rare, or can't be found freely in nature.

But for those elements that have a somewhat weird, and relatively not too slow nuclear change, such as carbon atoms, their nuclear deformation does not manifest in a change on the chemical reaction level.

Now, on the other hand, if you put a whole bunch of uranium atoms together, then you get a fission chain reaction, which is a near-random occurrence, and indeed the outcome is an unstable state of matter.

leo

The assertion of "orthodox" quantum mechanics is fundamental probability: the laws of physics are statistical only; there is no cause for the outcome of any individual quantum interaction. — GeorgeTheThird

Yes I know, but that’s a belief, they haven’t proven it. It is possible that probabilities in quantum mechanics are not fundamental, that they are due to incomplete knowledge.

However as I explained, even if they aren’t fundamental, there is also something important that they haven’t proven, namely that a living being reduces to elementary particles that behave according to these laws. There is zero evidence of that, considering that experiments which test these laws involve a few number of particles, or small molecules, not living beings, it is pure belief to say that a living being reduces to elementary particles behaving according to laws, regardless of how quantum mechanics is interpreted. So the ‘laws’ of physics aren’t evidence for materialism anyway.

TheMadFool

What follows is a logical argument that science offers no support for scientific materialism.

Scientific materialism rests on this proposition:
It is possible, in principle, to demonstrate by experiment a natural cause for every event, thus scientifically eliminating God as the cause of any event.

At the macro scale, and at smaller scales down to the statistical aggregate of quantum particle events, causes are readily identifiable for a broad range of events. It appears that the gaps in human knowledge are closing.

Every high level event in the universe is the sum of many individual particle events. (Gravity can be ignored in this discussion because there will be no gravity events without massive particles, and massive particles are the result of quantum events.)

Science knows of no cause for the outcome of any individual particle event. So, any given high-level event that has a known cause is the sum of many individual particle events, not one of which has a known cause. (Or has no cause at all, if the prevailing theory of quantum mechanics is correct.)

As a matter of logic, the proposition of scientific materialism fails completely, because no cause can be identified for any event in the universe.

Moreover, the operation of the universe is not comprehended. (And is incomprehensible if the prevailing theory of quantum mechanics is correct.) No one has the least idea how the order and beauty observed in the universe arises out of the chaos of individual particle interactions.

The goal of scientific materialism is to increase our knowledge of the natural world, reducing the gaps, eventually eliminating God as the cause of any event.

As things stand, it's all gap. — GeorgeTheThird

Perhaps causality is restricted to the macro, human-and-larger scale world but I did hear the physicist Lawrence Kraus make a statement to the effect that the Big Bang was a quantum state and that quantum physics is applicable. If so then all that we see as causality in this world is an effect of the quantum goings-on during the Big Bang.

I have no idea how an absence of causality leads to a refutation of materialism. There's no inconsistency in believing materialism and also that causality isn't real.

tim wood

If no cause can be identified — GeorgeTheThird

Here's one that's not so easy, unless you understand it: what do you mean by "cause"?
To avoid being mysterious, I'll observe that you're trying to put reality into the language. The reality has no problem with itself, but language certainly sometimes has problems with reality. So what does "cause" mean?
And don't quit on it: think it through as best you can - that would be a philosopher's job,.

GeorgeTheThird

So the ‘laws’ of physics aren’t evidence for materialism anyway. — leo

True. That's why I said "the [alleged] strength of scientific materialism is in the experimental demonstration of cause and effect."

The appeal to science for support of materialism is fallacious because comprehension of the operation natural world is not proof that the world was not created by a supernatural being. The Judeo-Christian assertion is that increased knowledge of the natural world leads to increased appreciation of the Creator's genius. No scientific experiment can falsify that assertion. Therefore, the appropriate question to ask is whether the natural evidence is better explained by the materialistic or theistic position.

The above is an argument from outside of science. I want also to show that science itself does not support scientific materialism, because science has to date completely failed to comprehend the operation of the universe. All events in the universe resolve to individual particle events. At the level of individual particle events, the universe is a black box. We have learned how to push the buttons and read the gauges on the face of the box, but we have no idea what is going on inside the box.

GeorgeTheThird

I have no idea how an absence of causality leads to a refutation of materialism. There's no inconsistency in believing materialism and also that causality isn't real. — TheMadFool

The absence of causality does not refute materialism. It refutes the proposition that knowledge of natural causes refutes theism.

GeorgeTheThird

The materialist can say "No natural cause has been found for the outcome of any event so God didn't cause this either"

Is what banno is saying I think — khaled

I don't see how the clause following "so" is supported by the preceding clause.

GeorgeTheThird

That's just false. It does so through statistics. — khaled

Statistics (as you point out) show some understanding of particle events in the aggregate. The obvious question is, "What makes the individual particles behave as they do, so that they produce the aggregate behavior?"

For example, if 100 coins are thrown in the air and allowed to land on the floor, there will be about 50 heads and 50 tails. If the actual numbers are 52 heads and 48 tails, we might ask why that is so. The statistics for the aggregate outcome are not an explanation of the particular outcomes.

The classical laws of physics can, in principle, provide the answer so long as the initial conditions of the coins, and the environmental conditions, are known. The outcome is predictable and comprehended.

There is neither comprehension nor predictability for individual particles. The operation of the universe is not understood.

It's All Gap: Science offers no support for scientific materialism

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions