the discussion will take place from a materialist/physicalist/realist point of view — Clarky
we live before 1905, when the universe was still classical and quantum mechanics was unthinkable. — Clarky
I would like to do two things in this discussion 1) Add to this list if it makes sense and 2) Discuss the various proposed assumptions and decide if they belong on the list. — Clarky
[2] There does not seem to be any other serious candidate for basic substance, — Janus
For the purposes of this discussion, we're talking about classical physics before quantum mechanics and relativity. Before knowledge of an expanding universe. — Clarky
Sorry! I didn't mean to offend you. Although long threads tend to inevitably stray off-topic, that was not my intention. The OP didn't explain why the discussion was supposed to be limited to Classical Physics. Yet it seemed to me that you had an implicit goal for this thread --- beyond simply juxtaposing Materialism and Metaphysics, which are usually deemed to be exclusive (either/or) topics. Collingswood's list is the explicit agenda, but all the presuppositions are expressed in terms of Classical Absolutes, as contrasted with a 20th century world of Arbitrary Relativity. Perhaps my gaffe was to point at the invisible elephant in the room.PS__Why do you limit this discussion to Classical Physics? Do you have an [unstated] agenda? Just asking. — Gnomon
Have you read the OP? Have you read the rest of the posts on this thread? If you don't want to play by the terms of discussion I set down, you should go to another thread or start your own. — Clarky
Second focus - For the purposes of this discussion, we live before 1905, when the universe was still classical and quantum mechanics was unthinkable. I see the ideas we come up with in this discussion as a baseline we can use in a later discussion to figure out how things change when we consider quantum mechanics. — Clarky
What about ‘spacial extent?’ Is space itself made of a substance? I have always envisaged the Big Bang singularity to be an ‘incredibly small concentration of energy,’ mass or matter came later.
@Clarky, Wayfarer
So is the fundamental substance in the physicalist universe not ‘energy?’ And is there not also a ‘container?’ An extent, we call ‘space?.’ — universeness
So there is an infinite number of points between any two points?
— baker
It depends if you're talking about a line segment or a line that has both ends expanding. And I don't know why you asked this question. — L'éléphant
So is the fundamental substance in the physicalist universe not ‘energy?’ — universeness
It's not my problem. I wasn't answering that issue. I was naming no. 8 for easy reference as to its relevance to the OP -- also given that the period is before 1905.Because proposition no. 8 and its implications don't seem to be in line with a materialist/physicalist/realist point of view. — baker
This thread is not for discussion of the validity of materialism. You guys all know that but you’re doing it anyway. — Clarky
It used to be thought of as matter, but then e=mc2 was discovered, along with electromagnetic fields (not to mention "the observer problem"). But that all happened after 1905 so it's out-of-bounds for this thread. — Wayfarer
I’ll wait for something to actually qualify as an absolute pre-supposition, which a metaphysics of anything, would surely demand. — Mww
First you say
… the error of dividing the world into the internal and the external.
An appeal to some form of monism? Not physicalism, I presume. — Real Gone Cat
More of a rejection of dualism. Mind isn't a substance, but something that substance does. Dualism is fraught.
— Real Gone Cat
It's the difference between looking around to see what is there and reaching out and changing what is there. That's a change in direction of fit, not a change in the nature of substance.But then we see
… one cannot get an “ought” from an “is”
Is that not dualism? You are conceding that both “ought” and “is” exist, but that a gulf lies between them that can never be bridged. Two modes of being in the same universe? — Real Gone Cat
I often agree with your viewpoints. Saw this though, and scratched my head. Just to let you know, I’ve always been a physicalist. But then I never went to school for philosophy, so I never learned that was bad. — Real Gone Cat
The issue is that knowing what is the case does not tell us what to do about it. — Banno
Not necessarily. — Joshs
Physicalism is true, in that physics sets out how things are in the world. — Banno
Physicalism is true, in that physics sets out how things are in the world.
— Banno
However as a matter of definition it never includes the observer, which is the hallmark realisation that occured within physics after 1905. — Wayfarer
The only thing that would be required given the constraints of the thread would be the pre-supposition that everything that is, is made of matter. — Manuel
.....possible experience..... — Manuel
The possibility of matter absolutely presupposes space and time, — Mww
Yeah, I’ve occassioned on the phrase a time or two myself. Loaded with subtleties, I must say. — Mww
Prima facie, that looks contradictory. "It never includes the observer", when post-1905, both relativistic physics and QM explicitly make use of the observer. — Banno
But then I wonder, in manifest experience, would we be able to isolate space and time absent stuff (matter, substance, etc.)? — Manuel
.....without matter, I don't see how space and time, innate as they are, could be exhibited. — Manuel
.....reconceptualizing what possible experiences could be conceived as. — Manuel
I anticipate a lot of interesting exchanges, though this may be my imagination going rampant. I agree, pre 1905, space and time were absolute presuppositions. But then I wonder, in manifest experience, would we be able to isolate space and time absent stuff (matter, substance, etc.)?
We need space and time to access matter, but without matter, I don't see how space and time, innate as they are, could be exhibited. Perhaps matter, alongside being presupposed by space and time, allows us to discover that space and time are a priori.
For if we had no empirical world to use these faculties, I don't see how anything could become manifest as a priori or as being formed by our experience. — Manuel
That's why its principal properties are inertia and mass. — Metaphysician Undercover
Perhaps matter, alongside being presupposed by space and time, allows us to discover that space and time are a priori. — Manuel
How could we tell that space and time are a priori without something else that allows us to put them to use? — Manuel
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.