Materialism

[Stranger]

...and here I mean
Sean M Carroll who has sought to eliminate the principle of sufficient reason...

From somebody who thinks it can be adhered to simply by making trite, utterly baseless assertions.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, he talks shit about that too.   

Explain why without bringing up anything outside seemless, causal explanation.

[Sriram]

Isn’t the level of vilification of Sheldrake though down to his criticism of materialism. After all he was considered ok enough to be invited to give a TED talk after which the vilification really started.

I think the animus against him might partially be down to snobbery because in his book about ideas that deserve investigation he chose things that the person in the street was interested in.

Sheldrake's ideas are speculative of course....but that by itself does not warrant being dismissed as pseudoscience. There are lots of speculative ideas in science that have no real evidence to support them. Mathematics by itself cannot be taken as evidence.

The fact that he quotes from Hindu texts and is sometimes supported by Deepak Chopra is what some people consider as a big joke. They have no real argument against him because he is speculating about phenomena that no one has any clear ideas about anyway.

[Gordon]

All you are saying here is that because Sheldrake’s pseudoscience was so heinous that permits us to unfallaciously dismiss everything he say’s. That’s a fallacy Gordon.

No it isn't: it is fair comment in that what this guy is known for is overt pseudoscience, and it isn't a fallacy to point that out.

Perhaps you should, since you seem to be a Sheldrake apologist, cite something of his that hasn't been critiqued as being pseudoscience.

[ProfessorDavey]

Sheldrake does have a valid hypothesis. As valid as any of the others that I mentioned above.

Do he - and what evidence is he basing that hypothesis on. And how can that hypothesis be tested using the scientific method. For a scientific hypothesis to be valid it must be based on prior evidence and be testable.

[Stranger]

Explain why without bringing up anything outside seemless, causal explanation.

Philosophical materialism is irrelevant anyway. Either we have some methodology from which we can tell what is likely to be correct or we're into blind guessing. As for why things exist and are as they are, nobody has an answer to that, regardless of materialism. And "seamless causal explanations" is not a restriction on science.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Philosophical materialism is irrelevant anyway. Either we have some methodology from which we can tell what is likely to be correct or we're into blind guessing. As for why things exist and are as they are, nobody has an answer to that, regardless of materialism. And "seamless causal explanations" is not a restriction on science.

An inadequate answer to why you assert that Sheldrake’s statement is shit i’m Afraid.

 Cause and effect is science as is causal explanation. What Sheldrake points out is that materialism demand suspension of itself to establish itself in  a sudden appearance I would add the equally miraculous infinite regress here which also requires the suspension of causal explanation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Philosophical materialism is irrelevant anyway.

Hardly when this thread is all about materialism.

[Stranger]

Cause and effect is science as is causal explanation.

Causality is a part of science. It is not all of science. This may have been a reasonable statement before relativity and quantum mechanics, not now.

What Sheldrake points out is that materialism demand suspension of itself to establish itself in  a sudden appearance I would add the equally miraculous infinite regress here which also requires the suspension of causal explanation.

As I said, philosophical materialism is irrelevant to science. There are some things we don't know and why things exist and are as they are is a question that nobody has an adequate answer for regardless of science or their position on philosophical materialism.

Also 'sudden' appearance is an outdated, Newtonian view that doesn't fit with the modern picture of space-time as described by general relativity. An infinite past, a change in direction of time, and closed timelike loops are all logically coherent and do not conflict with what we know from science to date. They are not 'miraculous'.

Hardly when this thread is all about materialism.

You asked me about the quote, which was about science and 'miracles'.

[Enki]

It only seems like pseudoscience because many people are not able to see beyond mainstream theories. 

Obsessive materialism (physicalism) is the problem.

His telepathy phone experiments and his morphic resonance experiments(especially surrounding the dog Jaytee) are classic examples of how not to conduct scientific experiments. Unfortunately for him, they have led to the accusation of pseudoscience, accusations which he has not been able to shrug off. Yes, he has captured the public's imagination(a bit like Von Daniken), but when it comes to evidence for his ideas, this is sorely lacking.

[jeremyp]

We have already discussed many times about Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Parallel Universes, multiple dimensions, String theory and so on...all of which are speculative but are nevertheless taken as valid scientific hypotheses. No reason why the ideas of Sheldrake should not be taken similarly.

I'm not sure they all are actually. A scientific hypothesis is a guess that you can test. I think dark matter and dark energy would be counted as scientific hypotheses. Parallel universes and string theory are just speculation - we have no idea how to test them yet. Multiple dimensions are self evidently true. There are at least four and four is multiple in my book.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Causality is a part of science. It is not all of science. This may have been a reasonable statement before relativity and quantum mechanics, not now.

As I said, philosophical materialism is irrelevant to science. There are some things we don't know and why things exist and are as they are is a question that nobody has an adequate answer for regardless of science or their position on philosophical materialism.

Also 'sudden' appearance is an outdated, Newtonian view that doesn't fit with the modern picture of space-time as described by general relativity. An infinite past, a change in direction of time, and closed timelike loops are all logically coherent and do not conflict with what we know from science to date. They are not 'miraculous'.

You asked me about the quote, which was about science and 'miracles'.

I 'm wondering if spontaneity is in fact causelessness. Out of nothing is surely not what quantum physicists mean after all, a physicists nothing is not the same as a philosophers nothing. If you are insisting on true quantum spontaneity than it seems to me determinism needs to go.

I don't think it detracts from Sheldrakes accusation in anyway since the quantum spontaneous generation of the universe has happened evidently just once.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As I said, philosophical materialism is irrelevant to science. There are some things we don't know and why things exist and are as they are is a question that nobody has an adequate answer for regardless of science or their position on philosophical materialism.

Also 'sudden' appearance is an outdated, Newtonian view that doesn't fit with the modern picture of space-time as described by general relativity. An infinite past, a change in direction of time, and closed timelike loops are all logically coherent and do not conflict with what we know from science to date. T

Well having asserted these things it is up to you to demonstrate the logical coherence.
Sure infinities are mathematical but then so are multiverses and those have been placed in the category of philosophy which I agree with. There may well be infinities of time but we have to  account for the matter and energy in them or leave it as a mystery.

[Stranger]

I'm wondering if spontaneity is in fact causelessness. Out of nothing is surely not what quantum physicists mean after all, a physicists nothing is not the same as a philosophers nothing. If you are insisting on true quantum spontaneity than it seems to me determinism needs to go.

You seem to be muddling up various ideas. Quantum mechanics appears to call determinism into question, and some events happen without specific causes. This is a separate issue to the nature of space-time as one manifold with time being families of directions through it. In that picture we just have the four-dimensional manifold. Looking in the past time direction for a reason as to why the manifold exists is fundamentally muddleheaded, whether it's infinite or finite in said direction.

I don't think it detracts from Sheldrakes accusation in anyway since the quantum spontaneous generation of the universe has happened evidently just once.

The quote from Sheldrake is just stupid anyway. Science doesn't rely on 'miracles' it just admits there are things we don't know - and it's not as if anybody else has a credible answer anyway.

If (as one conjecture suggests) the universe could tunnel into existence, then there is no reason at all to think it happened only once, just that it happened at least once.

Well having asserted these things it is up to you to demonstrate the logical coherence.

They can be modelled mathematically without contradictions.

There may well be infinities of time but we have to  account for the matter and energy in them or leave it as a mystery.

The existence of space-time is a mystery in the sense of an unanswered question. As I keep saying, nobody has a credible answer as to why things exist and are as they are. It has nothing to do with science or materialism. Making up god(s) or multi-dimensional universe building, supernatural pixies doesn't help because their existence would be just as much of a mystery as the one we started with.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

… or leave it as a mystery.

Whether or not that’s the case, attempting to solve the mystery by inserting “god” and calling that a mystery too has no explanatory value. I may as well then answer “why god?” with “uygt87t6” and call that a mystery too.

You’re in turtles all the way down territory again here.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You seem to be muddling up various ideas. Quantum mechanics appears to call determinism into question, and some events happen without specific causes. This is a separate issue to the nature of space-time as one manifold with time being families of directions through it. In that picture we just have the four-dimensional manifold. Looking in the past time direction for a reason as to why the manifold exists is fundamentally muddleheaded, whether it's infinite or finite in said direction.

I'm afraid I am unable to distinguish this from word salad. And there is no one who is qualified on this forum to run through it.....or if they are qualified have a vested atheistic interest in not commenting on it

The quote from Sheldrake is just stupid anyway. Science doesn't rely on 'miracles' it just admits there are things we don't know - and it's not as if anybody else has a credible answer anyway.

I'm sure Sheldrake is speaking about miraculous in terms of a one off event or an eternal thing both of which science would say was the preserve religion

If (as one conjecture suggests) the universe could tunnel into existence, then there is no reason at all to think it happened only once, just that it happened at least once.

But no evidence for it. So much for importance of evidence

They can be modelled mathematically without contradictions.

If you were to back this assertion up by actually doing it somebody could come along analyse your working and mark it. If it doesn't appear then we suspect you are avoiding scrutiny

The existence of space-time is a mystery

But when I used the word mystery, someone who I will not name shat themselves over it

in the sense of an unanswered question. As I keep saying, nobody has a credible answer as to why things exist and are as they are. It has nothing to do with science or materialism. Making up god(s) or multi-dimensional universe building, supernatural pixies doesn't help

Popping out of no where without explanation is supernatural. When do you ever see it happening? A real infinite regress? when did you ever see one of those?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Whether or not that’s the case, attempting to solve the mystery by inserting “god” and calling that a mystery too has no explanatory value. I may as well then answer “why god?” with “uygt87t6” and call that a mystery too.

You’re in turtles all the way down territory again here.   

No I think what you do is that you use the argument from contingency, end up with the necessary entity, some logical properties of that entity and state that that is what we have called God.

Your caricature view of just shouting the word God at any problem shamanically is er, an ignorant caricature trying to get your horses laugh response....cue more Hillsidean bollocks.

Turtles all the way down? What the fuck are you talking about?

[Stranger]

I'm afraid I am unable to distinguish this from word salad. And there is no one who is qualified on this forum to run through it.....or if they are qualified have a vested atheistic interest in not commenting on it

While the mathematics is somewhat complicated, you can use a simple analogy. If you ignore two dimensions of space and consider one of space and one of time, then the space-time manifold is analogous to a two-dimensional surface. It may close back on itself, like cylinder or sphere, or it may extend infinitely in all directions, or have an edge.

The fact that you can identify one direction (well, it's not actually a single direction, it depends on the observer) with what we call 'time' does not mean that tracking back along a time direction leading to the past is going to tell you why the surface exists.

I'm sure Sheldrake is speaking about miraculous in terms of a one off event or an eternal thing both of which science would say was the preserve religion

No, it wouldn't.

But no evidence for it. So much for importance of evidence

This is currently only a conjecture anyway. If we had evidence that that is how the universe arose, we'd have pretty clear, albeit indirect, evidence that it didn't happen just once because that would be a massive coincidence. At least we would unless there was something it the competed and tested theory that would suggest it was a unique event.

If were to back this assertion up by actually doing it somebody could come along analyse your working and mark it. If it doesn't appear then we suspect you are avoiding scrutiny

The solutions aren't secret. For example there are multiple solutions involving perhaps the most bizarre possibilities of closed timelike curves: Closed timelike curve. Other possibilities are outlined in the videos I gave before: Before the Big Bang.

But when I used the word mystery, someone who I will not name shat themselves over it

Did they?

[Stranger]

No I think what you do is that you use the argument from contingency, end up with the necessary entity, some logical properties of that entity and state that that is what we have called God.

So do so, or point to somebody else who has and hasn't made blindingly obvious mistakes and comical attempts to make the argument fit the god they happen to want.

You've made this utterly baseless claim multiple times and you've never once come up with anything remotely coherent. In fact you've spent most of those discussions running away from being explicit about the argument and the supposed necessary entity and trying to shift the burden of proof.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No I think what you do is that you use the argument from contingency, end up with the necessary entity, some logical properties of that entity and state that that is what we have called God.

No, we call it “the universe” – and you have no argument that isn’t fallacious to rule out the universe being its own explanation. “God” is just the don’t know (or “mystery”) you try to use to explain the a priori don’t know/mystery. As an explanation it’s worthless, for reasons that have been explained to you many times now.   

Your caricature view of just shouting the word God at any problem shamanically is er, an ignorant caricature trying to get your horses laugh response....cue more Hillsidean bollocks.

Except of course that’s exactly what you do: “I don’t know how the universe began, therefore god. I don’t care how god began, therefore mystery” is literally all you have. It’s desperate stuff given how many times you’ve been schooled on it, and calling it a caricature is just dishonest.

Turtles all the way down? What the fuck are you talking about?

Infinite regress, as has been explained to you a bajillion times already.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No, we call it “the universe”

and the next question is ''what is necessary about it?''. What is it's sufficient reason for being the necessary entity.?

I'm pretty confident one hasn't come to light because Carroll, who probably has an intellect far in excess of yours hasn't found one hence his uncompleted mission to debunk the principle of sufficient reason. Indeed somebody on this forum referenced the paper he wrote on it..

If you think the universe is the necessary entity demonstrate it.

Carroll knows and I think you know in your heart of hearts that what we can observe is contingent. He is too intelligent to ignore this.

[Stranger]

and the next question is ''what is necessary about it?''. What is it's sufficient reason for being the necessary entity.?

Where is the argument for a necessary entity that isn't riddled with problems?

How is a necessary entity even a logically coherent concept (other than in the irrelevant and relative sense of necessary for something else specifically; beer for a beer belly)? In other words, how is it possible for something to exist that couldn't have failed to exist? What would characterise something that would cause some logical problem if it didn't exist?

What is necessary about your god-concept?

What is its sufficient reason for being the necessary entity?

If you think the universe is the necessary entity demonstrate it.

If you think your god-concept is the necessary being, then demonstrate it (after you've answered the questions above, of course).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Where is the argument for a necessary entity that isn't riddled with problems?

are you responding to me or Bluehillside. when I said ''No I think what you do is that you use the argument from contingency, end up with the necessary entity, some logical properties of that entity and state that that is what we have called God.'' he said and I quote

No, we call it “the universe”.

I have stated why I disagree with your objections. Now let us see you put your money where your mouth is and take him to task over his belief in the necessary entity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

and the next question is ''what is necessary about it?''. What is it's sufficient reason for being the necessary entity.?

To which the answer remains “don’t know, although we do have some hypotheses about that that may or may not be correct”. 

So what?

I'm pretty confident one hasn't come to light because Carroll, who probably has an intellect far in excess of yours hasn't found one hence his uncompleted mission to debunk the principle of sufficient reason. Indeed somebody on this forum referenced the paper he wrote on it..

More stupidity. Not having an answer to something doesn’t thereby give you a warrant to drop in whatever notion takes your fancy to fill the gap, especially when you think you can get that notion off the hook of the same question with “it’s a mystery”.   

If you think the universe is the necessary entity demonstrate it.

Would it help you if (yet again) I set out for you step-by-step how the burden of proof fallacy works? 

Once again, I don’t make the claim that the universe is “the necessary entity” and nor does anyone else here. Endlessly straw manning that doesn’t change the fact of the matter. What I (and everyone else) actually say is that we don’t know whether the universe is the necessary entity, but also that neither you nor anyone else has an argument to show that it isn’t. Therefore it’s possible, and a possibility is all I need.

YOU on the other hand make the positive statement that the universe cannot be the necessary entity, and therefore that something else must be. YOU choose to call that something “god”, and YOU hide behind “it’s magic innit” when asked the same question you ask about the universe.         

Do you understand this yet? I don’t need to demonstrate that the universe is the necessary entity at all because it’s not a claim that I make. YOU on the other hand do claim that the universe is not the necessary entity and so the burden of proof is with YOU to demonstrate YOUR claim. 

Carroll knows and I think you know in your heart of hearts that what we can observe is contingent. He is too intelligent to ignore this.

Actually post Newtonian physics “what we can observe” may not be all be contingent, but in any case what we can observe tells us nothing about what we can’t observe, and still you have no way out of the fallacy on composition into which you keep collapsing. 

Apart from all that though…

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

 

Once again, I don’t make the claim that the universe is “the necessary entity”

I'm sorry old son you did exactly that in reply#44

You cannot prove someone wrong on the strength of something you yourself cannot prove.

However it is your scientism that doesn't accept logic.