Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


What music are you listen...
by zeca
Yesterday at 06:05 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
November 22, 2024, 02:51 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM

Gaza assault
November 21, 2024, 07:56 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 21, 2024, 05:07 PM

New Britain
November 20, 2024, 05:41 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 20, 2024, 09:02 AM

Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM

Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM

The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Materialism

 (Read 14484 times)
  • 12 3 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Materialism
     OP - June 24, 2011, 10:21 PM

    From wikipedia -
    Quote
    In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions.


    What's your opinion on this, is it a sensible stance to have?

    The thread is open to anyone to respond, however I would in particular like to hear from z10 or anyone who feels there is a flaw in materialism.
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #1 - June 24, 2011, 10:26 PM

    Angnagnangnang. This again. -_- Lont story short I, personally, think idealism and materialism are both overly-abstract and naive (well, the kinds I have come across in the little philosophy I've read, anyway), and that the answer lies somewhere, as usual, in unifying them. I have no idea how to go about this. That is all.
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #2 - June 24, 2011, 10:42 PM

    What makes materialism naive?
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #3 - June 24, 2011, 10:44 PM

    I think the first problem with materialism is that nobody has any idea what matter really is. It is difficult to have a worldview based on a substance that nobody can define.
    For instance, alot of materialists like to say that matter is whatever physics says matter is. However, the physical understanding of what matter is, is always changing. After all, it used to be assumed that matter is solid bits of mass that have no internal reality but are meaninglessly drifting through space being pulled and pushed around by other solid bits of mass.
    However, we now know that this Newtonian understanding of matter is false. There are physical particles (such as neutrinos) that can pass through all other matter without disturbing it. There are physical particles (such as photons) that have no mass.
    This of course, then raises the question, if the understanding of matter can change to incorporate masslessness and ability to pass through walls, if it can also incorporate quantum entanglement, the ability for particles to be in two places at once and so on, then why should we stop there and say that is true materialism? Why can't matter, tomorrow, be found to incorporate thoughts and feelings too (just as an example)? It makes no sense to call oneself a materialist because it is trying to take on a metaphysical position (and all worldviews are metaphysical) by means of self-admitted inadequate knowledge.
    Other materialists, knowing this problem, perhaps can then take a different viewpoint, and instead say that materialism is the worldview that only matter exists but not on our current understanding of matter but on whatever a final physics will tell us. This is a difficult position to uphold because it seems unscientific to think that one day physics will be completed - after all, every physical theory has to be falsifiable and continually tested, there is no such thing as completion and secondly, because it seems as if there is this unhealthy faith in scientists 1000 years from now (or whenever) knowing the truth. That is a leap of faith as big as any.

    This is just one problem with materialism. There are others too.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #4 - June 24, 2011, 10:46 PM

    What he said. ^

    What makes materialism naive?

  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #5 - June 24, 2011, 10:51 PM

    We don't have to understand what matter is, materialism merely says "Whatever matter ultimately is, is has to be present for something to exist, whether we ever understand that or not"

    The important point I think though isn't whether or not everything that exists is matter, but is anything else of any interest?  If everything is matter then one day we *might* be able to measure everything.  If some things exist which we have no way of measuring (assuming we can only ever measure matter and its effects) then who gives a fuck whether they exist or not?

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #6 - June 24, 2011, 10:52 PM

    We don't have to understand what matter is, materialism merely says "Whatever matter ultimately is, is has to be present for something to exist, whether we ever understand that or not"



    Then you're not saying anything at all.
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #7 - June 24, 2011, 10:55 PM

    Don't think 'matter' is a good concept to use, to say 'everything is matter', I would say 'everything is energy' matter is energy, but this also then clarifies that you include the em spectrum etc.

    Electrons have the ability to behave as waves/matter (diffraction effect etc), the way i think of it is you have a spectrum that goes from 'most wavelike' to 'most matter like' that matter and photons are on the opposite ends of this spectrum.

    just my random 2cents Tongue

    "Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom." - Viktor E. Frankl

    'Life is just the extreme expression of complex chemistry' - Neil deGrasse Tyson
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #8 - June 24, 2011, 11:05 PM


    The important point I think though isn't whether or not everything that exists is matter, but is anything else of any interest?  



    How can we know this until you sharply define the boundary between matter and not-matter? If you just want to say that everything that exists is by default material then that's just a truism and isn't really saying anything. It is basically making the point that your worldview is that everything that exists exists.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #9 - June 24, 2011, 11:06 PM

    1) There is a fundamental substance of the Universe
    2) We don't currently know what matter is
    3) Matter is whatever the fundamental substance turns out to be
    4) Therefore, everything that exists is matter.

    TA-DA.

    edit: dang, beaten to it.
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #10 - June 24, 2011, 11:12 PM

    haven't been in these discussions for quite a while now so probably am a bit rusty but just to extend on some of the above points, according to string theory, point particles do not even really exist. in fact all matter and even the force particles arise from vibrating one-dimesional strands of energy. different types of matter are thus simply the manifestation of the different way a string of energy vibrates. thus if the strand of energy vibrates in one way it gives rise to an electron and if the same strand vibrates in another particular way it gives rise to what we see as a top quark etc.  To make this possible it is proposed that there are several other space dimentions that we can not detect (and this is also inferred from the mathematics of string theory). this is just another example of how physics is always changing and that we are more than likely to keep unraveling increasing layers of complexity.

    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #11 - June 24, 2011, 11:14 PM

    Just as an aside, Abu, I would be hesitant to call string theory a scientific theory until it produces falsifiable hypotheses.
    Until then, it's a metaphysical and mathematical theory - and a very beautiful one at that.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #12 - June 24, 2011, 11:18 PM

    String theory - 30 years, millions of pounds in research, countless PhDs... and not a single testable prediction.

    Science - FUCK YEAH. Or should that be pseudo-science  whistling2

    Edit: Omg, again! Fack you z10!
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #13 - June 24, 2011, 11:20 PM

    Just as an aside, Abu, I would be hesitant to call string theory a scientific theory until it produces falsifiable hypotheses.
    Until then, it's a metaphysical and mathematical theory - and a very beautiful one at that.


    you're probaly right - i tend to get carried away when it comes to this theory

    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #14 - June 24, 2011, 11:59 PM

    LOL@ your sig. When did he say that?
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #15 - June 25, 2011, 01:16 AM

    Don't think 'matter' is a good concept to use, to say 'everything is matter', I would say 'everything is energy' matter is energy, but this also then clarifies that you include the em spectrum etc.

    Electrons have the ability to behave as waves/matter (diffraction effect etc), the way i think of it is you have a spectrum that goes from 'most wavelike' to 'most matter like' that matter and photons are on the opposite ends of this spectrum.

    just my random 2cents Tongue

    Something Ive been thinking about recently, you're probably a good person to ask.  How do you get your head round wave-particle duality? i.e. Thomas Young's double-slit experiment where a photon behaves like a wave but a particle when its measured. 

    I really am surprised why something seemingly so simple, has not been worked out yet, when relativity & Big Bang have pretty solid theories, yet this one contradicts several current laws of physics. 

    As far as I see it its currently physics greatest mysteries/travesties/hypocracies given that we are happy to falsify other laws when they contradict each other but not this one and adds significant weight to arguments that z10 uses.

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #16 - June 25, 2011, 01:28 AM

    More arguments over more abstractions... I would think neither particles nor waves, as we think of them, exist, the truth being more nuanced, as always.

    Also, I'm not sure what laws wave-particle duality breaks. Besides, laws are just... very short theories.  grin12
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #17 - June 25, 2011, 01:31 AM

    Something Ive been thinking about recently, you're probably a good person to ask.  How do you get your head round wave-particle duality? i.e. Thomas Young's double-slit experiment where a photon behaves like a wave but a particle when its measured. 

    I really am surprised why something seemingly so simple, has not been worked out yet, when relativity & Big Bang have pretty solid theories, yet this one contradicts several current laws of physics. 

    As far as I see it its currently physics greatest mysteries/travesties/hypocracies given that we are happy to falsify other laws when they contradict each other but not this one and adds significant weight to arguments that z10 uses.


    Lol, I will reply properly tomorrow!!! too tired to think straight now Tongue

    but one thing popped straight to my mind and i'll say now: De Broglie wavelength P = h/lambda  (i think)

    yeah cya tomorrow

    "Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom." - Viktor E. Frankl

    'Life is just the extreme expression of complex chemistry' - Neil deGrasse Tyson
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #18 - June 25, 2011, 01:42 AM

    OK, but keep it simple as the only thing I remember about physics is how a managed to throw a coke can from the back of the theatre to the dustbin at the front.

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #19 - June 25, 2011, 01:57 AM

    It's a beautiful formula. The momentum (mass*velocity) of... a thing... is inversely proportional to it's De Broglie wavelength. (Where plank's constant is the constant of proportionality.) It relates a property of particles (momentum) to a property of waves (wavelength). I haven't looked at this in years now, but iirc every particle (including you) has a De Broglie wavelength, and the particle would... disperse into a wave, if forced through a gap comparable to its DB wavelength. So for electrons that's feasible, hence Young's remarkable experiment. For humans it's pretty much impossible, because our DBW is so small and we're so big. If we were in a place where Plank's constant was very much smaller (I think) however, you would diffract every time you walked through a doorway. Tongue

    Or something.
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #20 - June 25, 2011, 02:08 AM

    between 17:00-21:00 is what I was getting at..

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Zjt1ZLQZfc

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #21 - June 25, 2011, 02:09 AM

    It's a beautiful formula. The momentum (mass*velocity) of... a thing... is inversely proportional to it's De Broglie wavelength. (Where plank's constant is the constant of proportionality.) It relates a property of particles (momentum) to a property of waves (wavelength). I haven't looked at this in years now, but iirc every particle (including you) has a De Broglie wavelength, and the particle would... disperse into a wave, if forced through a gap comparable to its DB wavelength. So for electrons that's feasible, hence Young's remarkable experiment. For humans it's pretty much impossible, because our DBW is so small and we're so big. If we were in a place where Plank's constant was very much smaller (I think) however, you would diffract every time you walked through a doorway. Tongue

    Or something.


    fu vampire!

    stop stealing, im gonna reply to him -
    _- just because u vampire can sbe awake fully! -at this time of night and fuction -_----


    owww headacheee, damn cemb, damn u all to the non-existant hell you desever to go to -_----

    "Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom." - Viktor E. Frankl

    'Life is just the extreme expression of complex chemistry' - Neil deGrasse Tyson
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #22 - June 25, 2011, 02:31 AM

    Yes, wave-particle duality is very counter-intuitive. Like quantum theory. But then we still can't even explain how a bicycle works. So 'getting your head round it' seems to be out of the question. Humans abstract - we see patterns, look for them even, in a maelstrom of information. Science is those abstractions - a load of generalisations. It isn't, as far as I'm concerned, reality. The wave model and the particle model are abstractions of the same reality. Like, imo, materialism and idealism. We tie ourselves in knots because we conflict our abstractions against one another. I don't think there's any sense is being a materialist or an idealist (or believing matter is either made only of particles or only of waves). Of course we need to understand the world and, being human, we can only do so with our abstractions, but we must remember that the truth is ever-more nuanced. I think fickleness is the quickest path to that truth. So I tend to flit between materialistic and idealistic view points. (Well it's either that or the fact I barely have a clue what either of them are.  whistling2)
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #23 - June 25, 2011, 02:35 AM

    fu vampire!

    stop stealing, im gonna reply to him -
    _- just because u vampire can sbe awake fully! -at this time of night and fuction -_----


    owww headacheee, damn cemb, damn u all to the non-existant hell you desever to go to -_----


  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #24 - June 25, 2011, 02:40 AM

    I think the first problem with materialism is that nobody has any idea what matter really is. It is difficult to have a worldview based on a substance that nobody can define.
    For instance, alot of materialists like to say that matter is whatever physics says matter is. However, the physical understanding of what matter is, is always changing. After all, it used to be assumed that matter is solid bits of mass that have no internal reality but are meaninglessly drifting through space being pulled and pushed around by other solid bits of mass.
    However, we now know that this Newtonian understanding of matter is false. There are physical particles (such as neutrinos) that can pass through all other matter without disturbing it. There are physical particles (such as photons) that have no mass.
    This of course, then raises the question, if the understanding of matter can change to incorporate masslessness and ability to pass through walls, if it can also incorporate quantum entanglement, the ability for particles to be in two places at once and so on, then why should we stop there and say that is true materialism? Why can't matter, tomorrow, be found to incorporate thoughts and feelings too (just as an example)? It makes no sense to call oneself a materialist because it is trying to take on a metaphysical position (and all worldviews are metaphysical) by means of self-admitted inadequate knowledge.
    Other materialists, knowing this problem, perhaps can then take a different viewpoint, and instead say that materialism is the worldview that only matter exists but not on our current understanding of matter but on whatever a final physics will tell us. This is a difficult position to uphold because it seems unscientific to think that one day physics will be completed - after all, every physical theory has to be falsifiable and continually tested, there is no such thing as completion and secondly, because it seems as if there is this unhealthy faith in scientists 1000 years from now (or whenever) knowing the truth. That is a leap of faith as big as any.

    This is just one problem with materialism. There are others too.

    I think I kind of get it. The problem is there's no concrete definition for the fundamental unit of things that exist, defined as matter and assuming that there is unscientific. The real nature of existence might turn out not to built from these building blocks. Am I on the right wavelength here?
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #25 - June 25, 2011, 01:08 PM




    "Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom." - Viktor E. Frankl

    'Life is just the extreme expression of complex chemistry' - Neil deGrasse Tyson
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #26 - June 25, 2011, 01:10 PM

    *suddenly wonders why he's on a thread about materialism when there are girls out there*
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #27 - June 25, 2011, 01:21 PM

    LOL@ your sig. When did he say that?


    hahaha. his charachter siad that on special 1 tv  dance

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/show/b00vjjqh/special_1_tv/

    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #28 - June 25, 2011, 01:24 PM

    OMFG, WHEN DID THAT START AIRING AGAIN AND WHY DID NOBODY TELL ME?
  • Re: Materialism
     Reply #29 - June 25, 2011, 01:28 PM

    i stumbled upon it by accident, it's only available from the bbc website and not on tv, i think

    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • 12 3 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »