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
No, the laws of nature just explain how simple matter evolves and reacts to a stimuli. — bahman
We however always observe a fantastic correlation between what we expect to happen and the final state of system, S'. — 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
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
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
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.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
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!!The physicist call it standard model in which all equations related to particles movement can be derived from. — bahman
So what is it that you really have against "materialism"? — Harry Hindu
So what is it that you really have against "materialism"? — Harry Hindu
So what is it that you really have against "materialism"? — Harry Hindu
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
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
The probability function tells you where body — bahman
First, it tells you where the electric (not necessarily a particle) may probably be. Nothing is definite until it is observed. — Rich
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
Well, the electron is where that is more probable. — bahman
Schrodinger equation is a deterministic equation. — 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.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
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.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
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.