Metaphysical Materialism

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2002-11-22 05:43pm

Would it not make sense to conclude that no matter what the philosophy, theres a general agreement that matter exists?

Ok think about it: What is matter? Matter is stuff. Something. Energy is a property (except light but we dont know much about the nature of light in that regard) so whether we're talking gods or consciousness, thats still SOMETHING, some stuff, because it cant be energy/property of nothing.

This is kind of related to religios questions on the nature of deities -- if theyre real how does that play with science. Im fond of saying "If a god proved his existance, then its a scientific FACT that this god exists, not religious. If the god isn't self created (logic problem) then he is a natural facet of all that exists making his existance explainable by science and thus making science ever more valid."

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-11-22 05:45pm

kojikun wrote:Would it not make sense to conclude that no matter what the philosophy, theres a general agreement that matter exists?

Read David Hume. He believed only thought existed. All our observances of matter were thought interacting with ideas. A freaky philosophy, but just as internally consistent as materialism.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-22 06:20pm

The Dark wrote:
kojikun wrote:Would it not make sense to conclude that no matter what the philosophy, theres a general agreement that matter exists?
Read David Hume. He believed only thought existed. All our observances of matter were thought interacting with ideas. A freaky philosophy, but just as internally consistent as materialism.

Internally consistent, yes. Objective, no.

There are many philosophies which are rational. Science is both rational and objective. This is what makes it special.

Cthulhu-chan · Post by **Cthulhu-chan** » 2002-11-22 10:16pm

T KOJIKUN: You are incorrect in stating that energy is a "property" of matter. Energy and matter are interchangable, and energy is just as much a physical "thing" as matter.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-22 10:56pm

Cthulhu-chan wrote:T KOJIKUN: You are incorrect in stating that energy is a "property" of matter. Energy and matter are interchangable, and energy is just as much a physical "thing" as matter.

E=mc^2

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-11-23 01:53am

Darth Wong wrote:
The Dark wrote:
kojikun wrote:Would it not make sense to conclude that no matter what the philosophy, theres a general agreement that matter exists?
Read David Hume. He believed only thought existed. All our observances of matter were thought interacting with ideas. A freaky philosophy, but just as internally consistent as materialism.
Internally consistent, yes. Objective, no.

There are many philosophies which are rational. Science is both rational and objective. This is what makes it special.

How is it less objective than science?

From the viewpoint of both myself and my materialistic skeptical philosophy professor (and we have lots of fun discussing theology

), science is at least somewhat subjective from a philosophical point of view. Science assumes math is correct, assumes that we can observe the outside world, and that inductive reasoning is sufficint to explain everything. I have no problems with any of these, but to say that science is automatically superior due to some internal objectivity is to gloss over some philosophical subjectivities that exist within it.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-23 12:54pm

The Dark wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Internally consistent, yes. Objective, no.
How is it less objective than science?

No one's thoughts can be verified independently. This makes them subjective by definition. Therefore, Hume's philosophy is 100% subjective.

From the viewpoint of both myself and my materialistic skeptical philosophy professor (and we have lots of fun discussing theology ), science is at least somewhat subjective from a philosophical point of view.

Its practitioners may be vulnerable to subjectivity in differing degrees, but science does not accept anything but objective data as evidence.

Science assumes math is correct, assumes that we can observe the outside world, and that inductive reasoning is sufficint to explain everything. I have no problems with any of these, but to say that science is automatically superior due to some internal objectivity is to gloss over some philosophical subjectivities that exist within it.

Don't be silly. Science need not assume anything. Science is defined as a descriptive model of the observable universe, and the scientific method is a method of refining that model.

It doesn't matter whether the observable universe is truly the "outside world"; science aims to analyze and describe it, regardless of whether there's something else outside. Moreover, math need only be consistent to its own definitions, not necessarily "correct" to any external standards. It is a tool, and if you have a better one, then bring it. Remember that science does not claim or require omniscience or infallibility; it is an iterative process of constantly refined models of the universe. People who attack it tend to focus on the fact that it is not perfect (unlike most philosophies, it doesn't need to be), or that its practitioners are vulnerable to subjectivity (even though the history of science has shown that as new generations come along, objections which are valid stay, but objections which are based on tradition tend to fall away).

Science is superior to any other philosophy. It is superior because it accepts only one form of evidence: independently verifiable, empirical observations of objective reality. Every other philosophy admits subjective and qualitative forms of evidence. People often confuse "objectivity of science" with "objectivity of every individual scientist", because there are two different possible definitions of objectivity (independently verifiable empiricism vs freedom from bias).

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-11-23 01:14pm

OK, if I understand what you're saying DW, then I agree with you. It sounds to me that you're saying that for describing the observable universe, science is the objective way of going. However, we cannot necessarily prove that the observable universe is the "outside world" (which I should have phrased better). The ultimate nature of reality might not have to do with the observable universe, and if (IF) it does not, then all philosophies are equally subjective in their natures.

And I would like to apologize slightly for the tone of that last post, it was very early in the morning here and I'd had a run-in with my ex-girlfriend, so I wasn't in the best of moods. I need to remember the eternal wisdom of Peter Pan: "Think happy thoughts."

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2002-11-23 06:05pm

Yes matter and energy are interchangable, but when they are interchanged, you get light/high energy radiation. And as I said, we know very little about the properties of light as compared to matter to figure it in. Some scientists say light is a wave that moves through the fabric of space itself which would make it a property of space not independent. Tho like I said, we know too little.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-11-23 06:11pm

kojikun wrote:Yes matter and energy are interchangable, but when they are interchanged, you get light/high energy radiation. And as I said, we know very little about the properties of light as compared to matter to figure it in. Some scientists say light is a wave that moves through the fabric of space itself which would make it a property of space not independent. Tho like I said, we know too little.

Actually, the properties of light are quite well understood

You've got it wrong, light is considered to be both a particle and a wave, assuming properties of both according to the circumnstances.

Cthulhu-chan · Post by **Cthulhu-chan** » 2002-11-25 03:32am

I suppose I worded that wrong. I didn't mean that they are interchangable, so much as I meant they are fundamentally the same. Much in the manner that ice, water and steam are merely states of the molecule H2O, energy and mass are different states of an underlying fundamental something. As far as I recall, there are no clear canidates for this something, though M-theory (the Theory Formerly Known as Superstring Theory) seems to have the highest likelyhood of answering this question.

*sigh* If only the super-conducting super-collider had actually been finished...