There is no evidence that 'something from nothing' happens as 'nothing' is impossible to quantify or even qualify. You can't even reference 'nothing' as your reference is 'something.' — universeness

I didn't reference "nothingness" I referenced "absence and potential/possibility to be".

Nothing doesn't exist without something - its opposite.
So before the simultaneous emergence of material stuff (something) and nothing (the seeming lack/the void/space) around that what ought there have been?

Potential. Which is not the same as nothing. Potential has characteristics "to be" - both something and its opposite.

"Nothing" does not have that same characteristics "to be". It is a by-product of somethingness.

I don't know if that will make sense but I did my best to explain my views. I'm haply to try and elaborate. But the meaning of my words and yours are critical here in not misinterpreting one another.

Good summation. Ghosts are fine provided they don't do any work (W=Fs). — Banno

Witches similarly are fine provided they don't do any work. However such a belief lead as we know well to a lot of burning women (work done).

A belief can be brought into reality. If it is acted upon. If not then it remains in the mind only. That is not to say the belief is coherent, sensible or with good explanatory power but that doesn't stop it from being cited as a reason to carry out physical acts which can be observed. In that way there is a link between the material and immaterial.

Some beliefs are good ones, predictive, useful, and other are more on the delusional/irrational side. But all can be manifested through action of their beholders.

What's the opposite of this universe? — universeness

Potentiality of this universe. Possibility to be.

Consider actual material examples! Does a human or a car have an opposite? — universeness

Yup. "absence of said human/ car". The opposite is the lack thereof in the material world. The only other possibility of its existence then being within the minds eye/imagination. Although if oddly specific, it's unlikely to spontaneously arise unless someone describes it to you.

I wish but the last thing the young want is advice from an old person. Books advise grandmas to hold their tongues and experience has taught me the wisdom of what they say. — Athena

Well I think a grandma has something no book or information source or technology has, and that's personalised/individual knowledge of, and care for, their grandchildren. The people that know us best - our strengths and weakeness, are family, right?

A grandchild can be as knowledgeable a book worm as they like in life but if they don't feel cared for, listened to, in this individualistic, materialist society they are growing up in then I'd imagine theyd feel pretty lonely and isolated.

I never feel lonely when I'm with my grandmother. Yes she may not have the most up to date experience with advancing cultural changes and tech, but what she lacks in that sphere of knowledge she makes up for on good old fashioned life lessons.
The more fundamental truth of things doesnt change with time otherwise it wouldn't be the truth of the matter would it? And wisdom I guess is being able to define those same base values in a system or society that is forever changing.

That is something my grandmother is good at. I can give her the most complex headache of a situation where I can't make out the wood from the trees.
And she will whittle it down to one or two most profound yet simple questions and the clarity one gets from that can't be found in the vast majority of books.

My advice would be don't underestimate yourself :)

If they are not physical, they cannot do stuff. — Banno

Time is not physical in the "material" sense. You can't point to it, pick it up, say what colour it is etc, yet it allows for "stuff to be done".
We reduce it to the assumption of physicality in the sense that we objectify it/standardise it/make it finite and discrete - with seconds minutes and hours.

Because we "measure" it's passage consistently we can say its "physical" - real and exists. But our measurements are arbitrary. A second is a human invention. Nature doesn't deal in seconds it deals in cycles and oscillations and frequencies, all of which run at different rates.

There needs to be the distinction between being "physical" as something that is "material" - has matter, is an object that occupies space, or something that is "measurable"- which includes far more things than just that that is material.

They are not the same thing.

If you don't mind, please explain why you are, if I understand correctly, a "material-immaterial dualist". — 180 Proof

Because they are neccesary/symbiotic/complimentary to one another. Materialism would be meaningless without Immaterialism and vice versa. They contextualise one another.

Both gather empirical evidence, but differ in the quality of that empirical evidence. One is based on observation of its physical qualities that can be precisely measured using instruments or experiments. Observations that are fixed, constant and ought not to change if true.
The other is based on its symbolic (metaphysical) qualities, invented for purpose which can be arbitrarily changed and through its purpose it is true.

If I give a 20 dollar note to a puritan materialist and ask it to find its inherent value/ability to do work. They will burn it and say that it has an inherent value of 100 joules (or whatever) of chemical energy when fully combusted.

Give the same note to a puritan Immaterialist and they will say well it has a 20 written on it so I can symbolically exchange that with someone else who also believes it's worth 20 of something and buy two products worth 10 of that something each. It can be transacted and that is its value/ability to do work - procure goods and services.

The materialist will be like where did you find the 20? Where is its physical basis? What part of its structure, mass, density etc gives rise to this 20 value?
The Immaterialist will say its physical basis comes from collective belief and agreement in the imagined worth of a piece of paper. Only then can it be assumed real and functional in reality.

Similarly if I and a friend show someone an object and say that it is called a "smoogflump" the materialist will say Where's the physical evidence for that? Prove it. Of course the Immaterialist cannot prove it by any standard accepted as proof by the materialist. It is only called so because they agree with another person to refer to it as such. The basis for linguistics.

In essence consciousness has the capacity to interpret the world materially by controlling/standardising parts of the environment that are not neccesarily standardisable in all cases - time, space etc to elucidate physics/chemistry etc.
or imaginatively/creatively/with artistic licence (metaphor, figurative speech, abstraction, word-play, mythology, emotion, feeling) - all things that in the mind of an individual have no materialist counterpart in reality that can be physically proven, lest them make it so through agreement.

This is why I am a dualist. I believe materialism provides us with some of the picture. And Immaterialism fills in the rest.

If 8 billion of us started hunting for our dinner, we wouldn't have many dinners before all the animals were gone. — Vera Mont

But do we not kill more animals through the easily justified demand of conveniently buying a pack of burgers say, in the supermarket. We would not eat as many animals if we had to get down and dirty about it I would imagine.

Since the early 90’s I have been of the opinion that if you are repulsed by the idea of killing and butchering an animal, not willing to kill butcher, then you should not eat meat.

I would happily pay extra to kill the animal I eat because I find it more upsetting not knowing how the animal I am eating died. — I like sushi

I agree I think killing your own food is a sad but intimate and important moment between you and the animal and ideally would not be conveniently ignored for the sake of thoughtless consumption of neatly packed pre prepared meat that is totally disconnected from the animals life.

One must reckon with themselves as a taker of life if they are to be actually grateful for the food. We have been hunter's for far longer than we have been supermarket consumers.

You're less likely to over indulge if you have to hunt the animal yourself.

. I don't think it says anything about existents that can NEVER be detected by human science.
now — universeness

I didn't say that. I said they can't be detected simultaneously. It can be detected by science but at the detriment to other certainties, which themeselves can also be detected in isolation.

But not all information can be accounted for simultaneously without somehow stopping information from existing (change).

I think it exists within the universe but obeys the law of uncertainty. Heisenbergs uncertainty principle. Not all information in a system can be known simultaneously without violating time/change.

A panpsychist dualist? You have seemed very reluctant to fly the panpsychist flag, when I have previously asked. — universeness

Just a dualist. Between the material and immaterial. Pan psychism is its own whole rabbit hole. I just think the mimd and the material exist not in opposition but Duality with one another. And can be explained only from a dualist (non monism) perspective. As the very nature of being monist is the negation/denial of the existence of an opposite.

Are you having a breakdown? — universeness

Omg dead lmao

So, are you declaring yourself a dualist — universeness

Yes. From the beginning. Literally lol.

The guidelines confirm that the TPF moderators require posters to stay in line with the OP.
I would argue that we are, as we are discussing the validity of the concept of the immaterial which is part of what bar tricks wants us to measure as a compatible in his bizarre conflation with dualism.
His points have already evaporated as nonsense based on what members have posted so far on this thread. So, imo, he should be happy that a material/immaterial chat is still on going as his thread died on the first page. If a mod thinks we are too far off the OP, then they only have to say so. Bartricks can PM a request to them. — universeness

Agreed univerness. :P

where do you find your audacity. I'm Intrigued.

You have absolutely no philosophical ability. You don't know what this OP is about, yes? The grey cells won't let you know.

Now, address the op or go away. — Bartricks

I have plenty of philosophical ability. You may disagree. That's fine. Believe whatever soothes you. But kindly don't dictate my ongoing debates with other contributors if they want or engage also.

No it's not! It only involves a physical ability to decide to not speak and not tell me your current thoughts. Nothing immaterial is needed.
I don't think we want to get so far off topic that we start to discuss the legal situation as regarding a future neurological ability to mind read. — universeness

Is it not relevant? If my mind is currently unreadable. No one esle can deduce what I'm thinking except me. Is it material? Is it physical? Because as far as I know the materialist view is everything is knowable from objective measurement. So if you cannot objectively measure my mind. What is my mind? Is it material? I doubt it

it's my op, so do it elsewhere you rude twit. — Bartricks

Nice. :) super "philosophical" of you.

You are not discussing the op. — Bartricks

Oh no. Poor you. I'll play my tiny violin for your sorrows.

Focus on the OP!! Jesus, you people are unbelievably bad at philosophy! This place never used to be this bad. — Bartricks

Bartricks we are having our own discussion born out of the op but not related to it. Back off.

We can follow the op or the line of reasoning that emerged out of it. You're not an authority to dictate what ought be discussed as it emerges. What right do you have to command other peoples thoughts? Sure we can created a new thread and maybe we will. In either case it has little to do with you. Either participate or respond to what you feel is relevant..

Do not enforce your beliefs on others please. Have a little respect.

How are the blind still able to experience a 'reality'? — universeness

They experience reality differently to those that can see. Obviously. If their other senses are in tact then they can perceive them just as anyone else can, if not better because the part of their brain that normally perceives vision is idle and can likely be included into other processing making it more astute.

We would if we experienced every life event since birth in exactly the same way. — universeness

But we can't can we? Because in order to exist we must be separate objects occupying individual space that creates opposing perspectives. In order to be exactly the same we have to occupy the same space simultaneously. Otherwise I'm 2 meters away from something whilst you're 1 meter away. And the two perspectives and sensations are fundamentally different. You think it's too hot 1m away from the fire but I 2m away think it's fine.

Sure, one day science might be able to produce a toy which allows you to concentrate on a number and my brain scanner can tell you what the number is. It might not work every time but even once or twice would be impressive, yes? On what basis is you keeping your thought secret from another evidence that the immaterial exists. All that would be evidence for is the fact that you have the ability to not tell me what you are currently thinking! — universeness

The fact that I can keep information private from everyone else is by definition something that is not physical - something that it is impossible for others to ascertain with objective methods.
And if they tried I could cite invasion of privacy. An ethical Implication which would likely stand up in court even if you could scientifically extract the information from my mind by scanning.

Therefore it is immaterial to others. Inaccesible information that yes exists. But only for me and no one else. And you cannot prove it empirically without my cooperation.

What définition of immaterial can you offer that doesn't satisfy what I just explained.

Force/energy is material — universeness

If force/energy is material Should we not be able to see it just like we can see matter - a cup of coffee on the table.

How about a hair or a skin cell or a fingernail? How about a skin graft? — universeness

If you remove a hair I can't feel any fly/mosquito brushing against it. If you remove a fingernail I can't feel what it's like to get my nail clipped/pared back.

Granted if you remove a skin cell I wouldn't notice.

nueroscience does know a respectable amount about the workings of the brain — universeness

But all brains are different no? Structured differently. Otherwise we would all have the same memories and think the same things simultaneously.

You cannot standardise a brains function. As we are individuals therefore unique, therefore our brains hold different information in a different arrangement.

There is no evidence that the immaterial has an existing example. — universeness

I'm saying that my mind is exactly such an example. If you have no access to the entirety of my minds content then it is by default immaterial to you. Unprovable with what's available to materialism. Without my input.

Well, I could scan your brain and use the science we hve not to see if the bits of the brain that should 'light up' or activate during dreaming or 'imagining,' do in fact 'light up' or 'activate'. I am not a neuroscientist, but I have watched various documentaries on what we currently understand is going on in the brain and how brain activity maps to human activity/thought. We also have your confirmatory verbal input to assist the process. — universeness

But I outlined a situation in which I don't volunteer the information verballyx but rather keep it to myself. You can scan my brain but with no input from me you cannot make any associations between what you see on the screen to what I'm actually thinking.

That's exactly to purpose of shutting down debate, restricting college courses, hiding (and burning) controversial literature — Vera Mont

I strongly disagree. Controversy is the place of learning. Conflicting ideals are exactly where we learn to apply reasoning and ethics. If we try to create a utopia (ignoring or hiding controversy, restricting learning, shutting down debate) then how ought we prepare them for the fact that it is indeed not a utopia?

One must address the lacklustre to highlight the lustre. Otherwise we are simply being biased which leaves teens vulnerable and naive.

The world is both a gorgeous and dirty place. We must get down and dirty to acknowledge the appropriate contrast so that students can make good and informed decisions. We must not be afraid to converse on things that are unpalatable. But it should be age appropriate. The knowledge of such things should be revealed in time, at the right time, to raise responsible well doing adults.

Not an easy task but a neccesary one.

As for biology, I disagree: it is just as factual as any other science, as factual as math. It can be very damaging - in some situations, deadly - for young people to be misinformed about the health and function of their own bodies. Not knowing about reproduction until they're of reproductive age is only inconvenient in a tolerant, supportive society; life-destroying in a repressive, punitive one. — Vera Mont

Absolutely. Brava. Biological and sex Ed should "grow" unanimously with the person. In harmony. Children and teens should be exposed to such things as needed to be in harmony with their development.

There is no place for shame/awkwardness and guilt when it comes to empowering youths to take command of their developing body, having the information available to them to make conscious, sensible and informed decisions and not be led astray by myths, gossips and misinformation just because teachers and parents felt it an uncomfortable subject to broach.

We must not deny teens the truth of things just for the sake of trying to prevent them growing up (ascertaining that knowledge regardless - either through unwanted pregnancy, taking drugs etc).

Let's be Frank with them and give them the tools to navigate their expanding world before, not after, it inevitably happens. So they aren't blindsided.

. I believe young people coming up today are often set adrift on a bewildering ocean of unsorted fact, biased news, partisan jingo, opinion, propaganda, hostility, mis- and disinformation. They're also living in a very much more dangerous world than I did. They need some guidance in discovering and assessing the information they will have to use in difficult decisions in difficult situations. They'll need every erg of critical thought they can muster. — Vera Mont

I agree Vera. The Internet is a place where every and any belief can be propagated given the right circles/groups to interact with. A worrying and dangerous freedom to become perhaps a fundamentalist/extremist for example amongst other threatening states of mind that can be indoctrinated through misguidance.

So it seems that when faced with a mountain of information both correct and incorrect, to sift through and establish true fact from falsity, children and teens need some form of paradigm or logic to apply to such information to guide them sensibly through the BS towards what is actually the case.

I think that is the responsibility of teachers and parent alike. A failed education leaves one vulnerable to believing whatever they're exposed to. To be gullible and fall in with the wrong crowd.

We must teach young people two things: 1). Reasoning and 2). Ethics. For without either they're helpless and prone to manipulation.

It's good then that people engage in philosophy which trains both skills. If everyone was a humbled and cautious philosopher I think the world would be a better place.

Artificial is material artificial intelligence for example is emulation and emulation is real. Artificial simply means made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural — universeness

Can natural systems created artificial things? Can the natural/organic (humans) create non-natural things? Or is everything a natural thing does/make and extension of nature ?

I think "artificial" means "unlike that which came before it" which can be applied to humans verses our ape/primate ancestors. Or multicellular organisms verses unicellular organisms. None of which are "unnatural".

"artificial" is a fancy and misleading word for the things and operations that humans carry out that supposedly are not permitted by natural processes despite the fact that everything artificial is a). composed of and B). Obeys the laws of - natural things, metals, silicon, electricity etc.

Yes, I am currently convinced, the immaterial has no existent. — universeness

If the immaterial doesn't exist then I suppose the material cannot do anything. It cannot be acted on, move etc. Because what would exist to do those things to the material? What fills in the gap between material things and allows them to move towards or away from eachother for example.

How do we make sense of "material" without, oh I don't know, the opposite? Are opposites not required to exist for eachother to be separable/distinct?

Can light exist without darkness? Can poverty exist in isolation from wealth? Can sound exist without silence!? Can up exist without down?

Can the material exist without the immaterial?

I can remove most of the rest of you and you will still be able to act as a thinking human, if not a fully functioning one. — universeness

I doubt you can remove anything from me that isn't vital to my interpretation/sense of the world without impacting my consciousness. If you remove my vital organs I die. If you remove my limbs then I cannot be conscious of all the sensation that limbs provide or the ways they interact with the world to give me information in my consciousness.

A human fantasy, constructed within a human mind is not immaterial, its real, you are really experiencing it, either in sleep or awake mode — universeness

But how do you empirically prove I'm experiencing it unless I tell you I am experiencing it? My internal thoughts are private to me are they not? Inaccesible by any study, objective measurement etc until I elucidate them verbally.

How then are they not immaterial? You cite so because they are the product of the brain. But the hard problem of consciousness exists. To assume it doesn't means you have proof as to how my brains function gives rise to my sensations/emotions and feelings. And the imagination.

If you had such a proof you'd be able to predict not only what I'm thinking now but whatever I could possibly think of in the future.

Do you know who I am in my entirety? All my memories, experiences, beliefs and opinions, feelings? Does anyone?

Or are they strictly immaterial (non physical/not expressed/not written down) to everyone if I choose not to divulge them?

How would you, with a materialist explanation, account for the information in my mind that you cannot access?

So, I can't see North Korea or Sudan or Venezuela going along with whatever rules the UN might set up. — Vera Mont

The only way people or groups of people (governments) will agree with such intents is if it favours them.

Bad people, or wholly selfish, self serving people don't want censorship of their lies that promote themselves, and likewise, good people don't want censorship of the truth that empowers others.

Who then do we censor and how? How do we know who to believe?

I can use the term "stone" literally/materially
"I threw a stone into a river and it made a splash."

Or

I can use the term "stone" figuratively:
"his heart was made of stone. He was cold, callous and did not care for the struggles of others."

In truth I can use the word "stone" in a number of ways:
"he was stoned because he smoked too much weed"
"he was stoned to death because of his crimes".
"his physique was as though he was carved of stone."
"the corpse was stone cold by the time the coroner arrived on the scene".

The use of a word depends on its context. All of which denote some particular characteristic /physical attribute of a stone. Anything from the "sphere of meaning" pertaining to the word "stone."

Therefore, one word can have many meanings.

We should then be careful to clarify exactly how someone uses a word so as to not misinterpret/make assumptions about the meaning of their statement. Especially if the use is ambiguous and could make sense in more than one non-discrete way.

. A supposed "true conceptualization" of the universe might be able to represent all of reality as "the universe", but this conceptualization would be very different from the useful conceptualization which we currently employ. — Metaphysician Undercover

It would be different. But science is about shifting paradigms to those that have better explanatory power for what is actual about the universe. What is truly real.

Just because one demi-concept is partially useful doesn't mean it cannot be replaced with something even more useful, more explanatory. As has been done many times in the past.

I never said that you couldn't infer the conclusion with a premise, I said you couldn't infer it without the premise. — Metaphysician Undercover

Read that again bud.

Energy is nothing more than a concept. — Metaphysician Undercover

How then (if it is a concept) is it equivalent to matter. If it was truly equivalent to matter then matter is also, by proxy, a concept. Are you denying Einsteins discoveries. Thats a bold attempt. Admirable maybe but no less bold in conviction.

How would you go about explaining that Einsteins theory is totally false?

Who should be in charge of deciding?

I'm in favour of the UN setting up an international monitoring committee for the internet, assuming no major powers have a veto... and I know that it's about as realistic an expectation as that commercial owners of communications media will fact-check every item they print or broadcast or that politicians dependent on the support of special interests and religious sects would make informed, unbiased choices of topics to promote or suppress in public education. — Vera Mont

It is difficult to say who ought to be in charge/ assume the role of such a monstrously responsible position.

The Internet is dangerous and a gift simultaneously. Is it realistic to sway it towards predominantly gift and minimise harm without imposing on freedom of speech?

For me, the only way to protect the vulnerable on the Internet is to impose regulation and thus tell people that their opinions are threatening/ not permitted because they damage other peoples self esteem.

But that denies genuine discourse. I think on a global level this is akin to censorship.
So perhaps harm done in the Internet ought to be taken as a "case-by-case" basis.
Lodge a complaint, have it reviewed by an Internet ethics committee and adjudicate accordingly.

If someone is being bullied, an ethics committee for Internet relations can promptly acknowledge the victims complaint and seek the truth of the situation, implementing measures based on the individual case.

If they try to structure the Internet in a sweeping generalised way, they're likely stifle genuine freedoms to point out flaws. It's impossible to predict all justifications possible on the Internet.

So let it be a case that individual wrongs are corrected in context of how they came about.