Materialism is logically impossible
  • bahman
    526
    Materialism is a system of belief which claims that everything is constituted of matter and behavior of matter can be described by laws of nature. In close form, S'=L(S), where S is the initial state of a system, S' is final state of the system and L is laws of nature. There is however an anomaly in this system of view so called consciousness, C, which is simply the awareness of surrounding. C simply contains the expectation of what S' should be based on what is observed, S, and decision which is made. Materialist believe that C can be derived from S by the following equation C=P(S). There is however no reason to believe that there exist a relation between C and S' in this framework. We however always observe a fantastic correlation between what we expect to happen and the final state of system, S'. This means that we are dealing with a logically impossible situation since C could be anything depending on decision.
    bahman Options
  • Rich
    3.2k
    If you want to understand materialism, just substitute God for the Laws of Nature.

    The Laws of Nature act in anyway they wish and can do anything it wishes. It can create Consciousness and make Consciousness act in any manner that it does. There is no questioning the power of the mystical Laws of Nature (an entirely invented abstract concept) that is creating the illusion of Consciousness.

    Materialism is a rather interesting religion that does not succomb to either logic or commonsense.
    Rich Options
  • bahman
    526
    If you want to understand materialism, just substitute God for the Laws of Nature.

    The Laws of Nature act in anyway they wish and can do anything it wishes. It can create Consciousness and make Consciousness act in any manner that it does. There is no question the power of the mystical Laws of Nature (an entirely invented abstract concept) that is creating the illusion of Consciousness.

    Materialism is a rather interesting religion that does not succomb to either logic or commonsense.     — Rich

    Interesting religion but impossible, unless you have a God who knows everything.
    bahman Options
  • Rich
    3.2k
    Interesting religion but impossible, unless you have a God who knows everything. — bahman

    The Laws of Nature are everywhere, know everything, and are all powerful.
    Rich Options
  • bahman
    526
    No, the laws of nature just explain how simple matter evolves and reacts to a stimuli.
    bahman Options
  • Rich
    3.2k
    No, the laws of nature just explain how simple matter evolves and reacts to a stimuli. — bahman

    Really? How so? You can start by enumerating all of the Laws of Nature that are involved with this explanation. Then you can explain how they formed conscious experience which is that what reacts to stimuli.
    Rich Options
  • T Clark
    13.9k
    We however always observe a fantastic correlation between what we expect to happen and the final state of system, S'. — bahman

    I had a really hard time following your post, but this is one point I could understand. In what universe is there a "fantastic" correlation between what we expect and what happens?
    T Clark Options
  • bahman
    526
    Really? How so? You can start by enumerating all of the Laws of Nature that are involved with this explanation. Then you can explain how they formed conscious experience which is that what reacts to stimuli. — Rich

    This is a physicist interpretation of reality which seems coherent if there was no consciousness. We are dealing with a improbable situation when there is conscious decision.
    bahman Options
  • bahman
    526
    I had a really hard time following your post, but this is one point I could understand. In what universe is there a "fantastic" correlation between what we expect and what happens? — T Clark

    In our universe. Laws of nature dictate that at the moment my hand should move and type specific word for example. I am consciously aware of situation and can decide too about whether I should move my hand or not. There is always a fork when a decision is involved, so called options. I choose the branch which I wish. So the chance that laws of nature exactly dictates what I decide is 50% if there are only two options. People makes decisions at each instant. This makes the chance even lower.
    bahman Options
  • Marchesk
    4.6k
    I am consciously aware of situation and can decide too about whether I should move my hand or not. — bahman

    But you're not consciously aware of what all goes into making your decision.
    Marchesk Options
  • Rich
    3.2k
    This is a physicist interpretation of reality which seems coherent if there was no consciousness. We are dealing with a improbable situation when there is conscious decision. — bahman

    No physicist claims that physics provides such an explanation as you claim, nor is the term Laws of Nature used in physics. So we are back to you having to enumerate the Laws of Nature that explain how all matter evolves and reacts to stimuli?
    Rich Options
  • bahman
    526
    But you're not consciously aware of what all goes into making your decision. — Marchesk

    The options and the conscious decision are all which exist in the moment of decision.
    bahman Options
  • bahman
    526
    No physicist claims that physics provides such an explanation as you claim, nor is the term Laws of Nature used in physics. So we are back to you having to enumerate the Laws of Nature that explain how all matter evolves and reacts to stimuli? — Rich

    The physicist call it standard model in which all equations related to particles movement can be derived from.
    bahman Options
  • Marchesk
    4.6k
    The options and the conscious decision are all which exist in the moment of decision. — bahman

    I take it you're no fan of Freud. The brain and body also exist in the moment of decision.
    Marchesk Options
  • Harry Hindu
    5.1k
    Materialism is a system of belief which claims that everything is constituted of matter and behavior of matter can be described by laws of nature. — bahman
    I would like to know of any other system of explanation that doesn't do the same thing: to claim that everything is composed of some thing, or is made of some primary substance and that the behavior of that substance can be described by the laws of reality, or nature, god, or whatever you want to call everything.

    It seems to me that every anti-materialist on these forums is doing the same thing the materialist is doing: trying to claim that everything is composed of one substance and then going on to explain how those things behave according to some rule or law.

    So what is it that you really have against "materialism"?
    Harry Hindu Options
  • Rich
    3.2k
    The physicist call it standard model in which all equations related to particles movement can be derived from. — bahman
    The only equations defining particle movements are the QM equations. They relate only to the evolutionary path of electrons and are probabilistic (indeterminate events). Now how does this explain how all matter evolves in all manner? They don't even explain electrons! They just predict!!
    Rich Options
  • Rich
    3.2k
    So what is it that you really have against "materialism"? — Harry Hindu

    That it claims to be scientific where it is simply just another faith. It has its dogma (everything is material), its God (the Laws of Nature), and its Genesis (the Big Bang). All in all, it's a manufactured religion no different from any other.
    Rich Options
  • bahman
    526
    I take it you're no fan of Freud. The brain and body also exist in the moment of decision. — Marchesk

    That is true. Brain and body however are material and obey laws of nature. The problem according to OP is consciousness.
    bahman Options
  • bahman
    526
    So what is it that you really have against "materialism"? — Harry Hindu

    Have you read OP? I explain the problem there so I cannot help it unless you tell me what part you don't understand.
    bahman Options
  • bahman
    526
    So what is it that you really have against "materialism"? — Harry Hindu

    Have you read OP? I explain the problem there so I cannot help it unless you tell me what part you don't understand.
    bahman Options
  • bahman
    526
    The only equations defining particle movements are the QM equations. They relate only to the evolutionary path of electrons and are probabilistic (indeterminate events). Now how does this explain how all matter evolves in all manner? They don't even explain electrons! They just predict!![
    /quote]

    That is correct. You have a Schrodinger equation which gives the evolution of the probability function. The probability function tells you where body is. So you have something which is moving based on laws of nature, body.     — Rich
    bahman Options
  • bahman
    526
    The only equations defining particle movements are the QM equations. They relate only to the evolutionary path of electrons and are probabilistic (indeterminate events). Now how does this explain how all matter evolves in all manner? They don't even explain electrons! They just predict!! — Rich

    That is correct. You have a Schrodinger equation which gives the evolution of the probability function. The probability function tells you where body is. So you have something which is moving based on laws of nature, body.
    bahman Options
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    "Laws of nature" is often just shorthand for inductive generalizations, so materialism rests on even shakier grounds than you describe.
    Thorongil Options
  • Rich
    3.2k
    The probability function tells you where body — bahman

    First, it tells you where the electron (not necessarily a particle) may probably be. Nothing is definite until it is observed.

    Second,predicting the probability where an electron may be is a far, far, far .... cry from explaining the evolution of everything in the universe. Determinists have to really get a hold on their proclamations. It's strange how they make this gigantic leap so easily and pretend it is some sort of scientific fact.
    Rich Options
  • Rich
    3.2k
    "Laws of nature" is often just shorthand for inductive generalizations, so materialism rests on even shakier grounds than you describe. — Thorongil

    You are being kind. I would describe it as deliberate obfuscation.
    Rich Options
  • Cavacava
    2.4k
    It seems to me that without a dieus ex machina argument, consciousness must have evolved from matter, that consciousness must be a potential state of matter as configured by nature in its evolution over the eons. Matter must contain within itself the configuration potential to become spiritual, as a potential state of its being. I don't think there is logical alternative...or else how does the spiritual arise in the universe.
    Cavacava Options
  • bahman
    526
    First, it tells you where the electric (not necessarily a particle) may probably be. Nothing is definite until it is observed. — Rich

    Well, the electron is where that is more probable. The probability drop down exponentially far from body. So body in macroscopic level is where it is and quantum effect has no role to plays. It is just insignificant.

    Second, predicting the probability that an electron may be is a far, far, far .... cry from explaining the evolution of everything in the universe. Determinists have to really get a hold on their proclamations. — Rich

    Schrodinger equation is a deterministic equation.
    bahman Options
  • Rich
    3.2k
    Well, the electron is where that is more probable. — bahman

    No.

    You are trying to hard to make a case for determinism/materialism. Insignificant > 0. Electrons aren't even particles.

    Schrodinger equation is a deterministic equation. — bahman

    Now it's getting ridiculous. Zero support for this statement. But it's part for the course. If one is willing to make up a myth like Determinism why not call the Schrodinger equation deterministic. It's all an illusion anyway.

    Nice talking to you.
    Rich Options
  • Harry Hindu
    5.1k
    Have you read OP? I explain the problem there so I cannot help it unless you tell me what part you don't understand. — bahman
    Did you read my reply? I explain the problem with the OP there so I cannot help it unless you tell me what part you don't understand.
    Harry Hindu Options
  • Harry Hindu
    5.1k
    That it claims to be scientific where it is simply just another faith. It has its dogma (everything is material), its God (the Laws of Nature), and its Genesis (the Big Bang). All in all, it's a manufactured religion no different from any other. — Rich
    You're confusing religion with science. If you really don't know the difference, then there's no point in continuing a conversation with you.
    Harry Hindu Options
  • Rich
    3.2k
    You're confusing religion with science. If you really don't know the difference, then there's no point in continuing a conversation with you. — Harry Hindu

    You can't read. I said Determinism/Materialism is a religion. It is a story/myth created by atheists so they can have their fated lives to believe in, which makes it a dead on sibling of Calvinism. That there is zero support for either Determinism or Materialism is if no matter to true believers. A good story is hard to beat. It is a great story of how bouncing particles created everything. However, for me, I think Geek mythology is far more enjoyable.
    Rich Options
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.

Sign In Create Account

Categories