Metaphysical Materialism

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2002-11-21 03:54pm

Essencially, metaphysical materialism states that in this world, only "matter" (in this case meaning things that can be observed via science) exists, and nothing else does.

Agree/disagree?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-21 04:00pm

Barring superstitions and faiths, why would anyone disagree?

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-21 05:01pm

The only problem I can see is how observation by science is defined. A couple hundred years ago science couldn't directly observe DNA. Does that then mean that it didn't exist then? But now that we can, does it mean that it came into existence when we could directly observe it? So does something become real only when somebody can observe it? Or is this all nonsense?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-21 05:12pm

Materialism only refers to the physical universe. It does not necessarily require that we already have the technology to observe everything in it.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2002-11-21 08:51pm

neoolong wrote:The only problem I can see is how observation by science is defined. A couple hundred years ago science couldn't directly observe DNA. Does that then mean that it didn't exist then? But now that we can, does it mean that it came into existence when we could directly observe it? So does something become real only when somebody can observe it? Or is this all nonsense?

Quantum physics actually involves this intimately, in a matter of speaking.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-21 09:23pm

Darth Wong wrote:Materialism only refers to the physical universe. It does not necessarily require that we already have the technology to observe everything in it.

Well, Yogi did originally say observable through science, but ok.

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2002-11-22 01:19am

Darth Wong wrote:Barring superstitions and faiths, why would anyone disagree?

First, there are certain things that cannot be known by science (quamtum particles) and logic (the Halting Problem), showing that Science and Logic do not compose everything there is to be known.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-22 01:42am

Yogi wrote:First, there are certain things that cannot be known by science (quamtum particles) and logic (the Halting Problem), showing that Science and Logic do not compose everything there is to be known.

Materialism states that the physical universe is all that exists. How does this translate into "science and logic compose everything there is to be known?"

Science is an iterative modelling process. It does not claim omniscience. Logic is simply a method of holding up a premise for inspection and generating valid conclusions from it. It would be silly to conclude that "science and logic compose everything there is to be known", given those facts. They're only supposed to be the one workable method to get the most accurate available model of the material universe.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that materialism is wrong if science is not omniscient?

Cthulhu-chan · Post by **Cthulhu-chan** » 2002-11-22 01:44am

Erm, I'm not following you here. I'm afraid I've not heard of this "Halting Problem", but how is the Uncertainty Principle a statement that science cannot "know" certain things about quantum particles? I am assuming that is what you mean, since there wouldn't really be any other issues I can think of. Even then, the Uncertainty Principle only means that with increases in accuracy of a particular measurement will result in sacrificed accuracy for a different, but related, measurement on the same particle at the exact same instant. This is actually true at any scale, not just the subatomic, but at larger scales the effect is negligible.

Why does this occur? Because to measure something, you must interact with the subject. When you interact with the subject, some aspect of its state will change. If you are making measurements of different qualities simultaneously, each measurement will interfere with the results of the other measurements, thereby reducing accuracy.

Furthermore, 100% accuracy is nonexistent, so this shouldn't even be an issue regardless.

So, uh, what was your point?

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-11-22 01:49am

My only problem with just applying logic is asking one's self where to begin. No matter what, you start with some base assumption about something that cannot be proven. Even Descartes' famous cogito ergo sum is not philosophically sound, since it assumes that being able to think means one exists, which is not necessarily true. While I feel materialism is the most logical (in the philosophical sense) point of view, it is not a flawless view, and neither is any other.

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2002-11-22 02:15am

Darth Wong wrote:Materialism states that the physical universe is all that exists. How does this translate into "science and logic compose everything there is to be known?"

Science is an iterative modelling process. It does not claim omniscience. Logic is simply a method of holding up a premise for inspection and generating valid conclusions from it. It would be silly to conclude that "science and logic compose everything there is to be known", given those facts. They're only supposed to be the one workable method to get the most accurate available model of the material universe.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that materialism is wrong if science is not omniscient?

To say that "Materialism Exists" means to say "If it exists, then it is Material" which also means "If it is not Material, then it does not exist" I don't think it is possible to say that.

Well, first I'm sure that when you say the physical universe, you include things like light, gravity, and the such. When we need to discover something about the "material" world, we use science to do it. After all, that is what science is, the study of the material world. However, there are theoretical limits to what we can observe and intuit.

So now we are in this world, shning the proverbal flashlight of science to reveal what there is to know. However, instead of being able to illuminate everything, there is still an area of outer darkness in which no one knows what is there. If something can be measured and quantified by science, then it is material. However, what of things that science postulates exists, but cannot be calculated? The randomness of quantum particles, for example. What IS that randomness? It certainly exists, but can we call it "material" when it acts in a manor that defies categorisation? Does it then not exist, despite the fact that it's effects can be observed?

As for the Halting Problem, essencially it states that one cannot build an algorithm that can determine, for any random algorithm and any random input for the algorithm, if the algorithm will eventually stop. It has been proven to be impossible to solve.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-22 02:24am

Yogi wrote:To say that "Materialism Exists" means to say "If it exists, then it is Material" which also means "If it is not Material, then it does not exist" I don't think it is possible to say that.

Let's just say that if it's material, then it obviously exists. If it is not material, then you have no way of knowing whether it exists, so there is no reason to believe it does. But once again, this has nothing to do with the question of whether science has figured it out yet. Two thousand years ago, there was precious little science compared to modern times. Yet materialism, if true, would have been just as valid then as it is now.

Well, first I'm sure that when you say the physical universe, you include things like light, gravity, and the such. When we need to discover something about the "material" world, we use science to do it. After all, that is what science is, the study of the material world. However, there are theoretical limits to what we can observe and intuit.

I think you are confusing limits of accuracy with limits of what we can observe at all.

So now we are in this world, shning the proverbal flashlight of science to reveal what there is to know. However, instead of being able to illuminate everything, there is still an area of outer darkness in which no one knows what is there. If something can be measured and quantified by science, then it is material. However, what of things that science postulates exists, but cannot be calculated? The randomness of quantum particles, for example. What IS that randomness?

Actually, there are a great many equations for calculating that randomness, since it is a mere question of probabilities. The lottery numbers are random; does this mean they are beyond science and observation? Of course not. There are many things we cannot directly observe, but we can observe manifestations of those things. For example, you cannot directly observe an electron (you can't get a picture of a single electron sitting in space). Nevertheless, you can observe its interactions with its environment, note that they are consistent with theoretical predictions, and proceed to design technologies dependent upon those theories which work (for example, electronics, computers, CRT television sets, etc).

It certainly exists, but can we call it "material" when it acts in a manor that defies categorisation? Does it then not exist, despite the fact that it's effects can be observed?

If its effects can be observed, then it is material. You seem to be drawing a false dilemma. Something exists if it has some sort of observable manifestation; it does not have to be directly observable. We cannot directly observe the core of the Sun because it is obscured, but it is obviously there, and quite material. We can even determine its properties.

As for the Halting Problem, essencially it states that one cannot build an algorithm that can determine, for any random algorithm and any random input for the algorithm, if the algorithm will eventually stop. It has been proven to be impossible to solve.

Irrelevant. This is a problem which exists in purely theoretical space and has nothing to do with the material universe.

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2002-11-22 02:33am

Darth Wong wrote:If its effects can be observed, then it is material.

Wouldn't that be a tautology?

Darth Wong wrote:We cannot directly observe the core of the Sun because it is obscured, but it is obviously there, and quite material. We can even determine its properties.

Exactly. It follows a known system that can be predicted. However, there are certain quantum particles (I'm not talking about the random motion of an electron here) that exists in many diffrent quantum states. It only assumes one state when one decides to observe it. However, no one knows why it chooses this state, and there are plenty of other states it has that cannot be observed. Does that still fall under the category of "material"?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-22 02:35am

Yogi wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:If its effects can be observed, then it is material.
Wouldn't that be a tautology?

In the sense that it is obvious, I suppose so. However, in the sense that you did not find the equivalence obvious, it is not. You were arguing that if you cannot observe it directly, then it is not material. I provided numerous examples to show how this is not the case.

Darth Wong wrote:We cannot directly observe the core of the Sun because it is obscured, but it is obviously there, and quite material. We can even determine its properties.
Exactly. It follows a known system that can be predicted. However, there are certain quantum particles (I'm not talking about the random motion of an electron here) that exists in many diffrent quantum states. It only assumes one state when one decides to observe it. However, no one knows why it chooses this state, and there are plenty of other states it has that cannot be observed. Does that still fall under the category of "material"?

Yes. The particle is known to exist because it interacts with its environment; that is all that is necessary for it to be material. Why must we know everything about its quantum states in order to conclude that it is material?

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2002-11-22 02:44am

I was saying that if there are some things about the object that one cannot theorise about, then one should avoid drawing conclusions from insufficent data. You can predict the core of the sun, but you cannot predict some things.

When a particle assumes a state, that state interacts with the environment. However, there are other states that don't interact, yet exist (sort of). I guess it's a debate of if seeing one state interact means that the "entire" particle is interacting, or only the observed state.

Cthulhu-chan · Post by **Cthulhu-chan** » 2002-11-22 06:36am

Actually, the other states DO interact. The double-slit experiment is one example.

As for the insufficient data thing, science is always operating at a disadvantage. We never have "all the facts", and are forced to work with the best information available. Just because we don't have every datail, which is impossible anyways, doesn't mean we can't draw worthwhile conclusions. That's what it's about, scrounging up what relavent data you can and cobbling together a theory that matches the data and is able to predict hypothetical situations.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-22 09:39am

Yogi wrote:I was saying that if there are some things about the object that one cannot theorise about, then one should avoid drawing conclusions from insufficent data. You can predict the core of the sun, but you cannot predict some things.

You are confusing accuracy with existence. The fact that something materially exists is not affected by the accuracy of our scientific models and predictions. In 1850, they had no idea how the Sun generated its power (they didn't understand nuclear fusion yet). But they still knew it was there, and they could still postulate that it had an enormously dense, hot core. Material existence is not dependent upon scientific comprehension. Are you suggesting that the core of the Sun was immaterial until we figured out nuclear fusion, at which point it suddenly became material?

When a particle assumes a state, that state interacts with the environment. However, there are other states that don't interact, yet exist (sort of). I guess it's a debate of if seeing one state interact means that the "entire" particle is interacting, or only the observed state.

It seems to me that you are using quantum mechanics ambiguities as an excuse to declare that some particles are not always part of the universe, ie- not material. The fact that we don't know everything there is to know about something does not mean it does not exist, or does not interact with the universe. One of the key points of QM principles such as the Heinsenberg principle is that the act of observing it necessitates interaction, and interaction alters its state, hence causing uncertainty (the act of observing it changes the state which we want to observe). It does not mean that the particle ceases to exist as a material object when we're not observing it.

I've asked this before; do you think that we need precise knowledge of a particle's quantum state in order to declare that it exists? Because knowledge of its existence and knowledge of its precise state are two different things.

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2002-11-22 11:46am

I was under the impression that the quantum state of a particle is something that one theoretically can not know, that it is impossible. The core of the sun was something we simply did not know at the time. There is a diffrence between something we don't have all the facts for, and something that we cannot even theoritcally gather data for.

Are you stating that "If it exists, then it is material?" since that IS a tautology, not to mension the definition of materialism. I would say that something needs to exist, and be theoretically observable, to be called matter. Some time in the future, we might be able to send a super-probe to the center of the sun to see for ourselves, it's possible. However, some things are impossible, not just beyong our current abilities.

Edit: And to answer your question, no. We KNOW that the other states exist, despite the fact that we cannot observe them. I have never denied that.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-22 12:10pm

Yogi wrote:I was under the impression that the quantum state of a particle is something that one theoretically can not know, that it is impossible. The core of the sun was something we simply did not know at the time. There is a diffrence between something we don't have all the facts for, and something that we cannot even theoritcally gather data for.

This does not mean the data does not exist; it merely means that we have no means of getting it without altering it in the process.

Are you stating that "If it exists, then it is material?" since that IS a tautology, not to mension the definition of materialism. I would say that something needs to exist, and be theoretically observable, to be called matter. Some time in the future, we might be able to send a super-probe to the center of the sun to see for ourselves, it's possible. However, some things are impossible, not just beyong our current abilities.

I'm afraid your definition of "matter" is entirely homegrown. Matter is simply anything which has physical existence; our ability to precisely discern all of its quantum states is completely irrelevant. Moreover, you started this thread by questioning the validity of materialism. Therefore, restating the definition of materialism may be considered a tautology in that it is virtually self-evident, but it is still necessary because you have repeatedly ignored the correct definition of material in order to knock down a strawman version of it.

Edit: And to answer your question, no. We KNOW that the other states exist, despite the fact that we cannot observe them. I have never denied that.

Then why do you think these states represent a problem for materialism? The particle exists; its states "exist" only as properties of the particle, which is already known to exist. It is not necessary to know all of the properties of a particle to know that it exists in our universe. You seemed to be implying that when the state of a particle is not known, it is immaterial, ie- it does not exist. That simply doesn't make any sense; materialism is not affected by our inability to know all of the properties of an object.

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2002-11-22 12:18pm

Wait, we're trying to determine if everything that exists is matter or not . . .

. . . and you're postulating that if anything exists, then it is matter:?:

. . .

I guess if you want to look at it that way . . .

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-22 01:05pm

Yogi wrote:Wait, we're trying to determine if everything that exists is matter or not . . .

. . . and you're postulating that if anything exists, then it is matter:?:

. . .

I guess if you want to look at it that way . . .

I don't have to prove that matter exists, so don't try to pretend that it's circular logic to say that it does. It is an observation. If you want to claim that something exists beyond the physical universe, the onus is on you to provide proof. Do not play games. Frankly, I sense frustration on your part, hence this showmanship.

You attempted to provide examples of things which exist but are not material. I shot them all down, showing that they are indeed material, and that you are confusing unidentified properties of matter with immaterial objects beyond the physical universe. Your response was to resort to sophistry. If you wanted an honest answer, you should be prepared to accept the possibility that it's not the answer you're expecting to hear.

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2002-11-22 01:54pm

You're not saying that "If it is matter, then it exists." You're saying "If it exists, then it is matter" A implies B does not imply B implies A.

Okay, say there is a cube, but we can only see one random face of it at a time. We can interact, observe, experiment on etc. that face all we want, and call that face "matter" However, that face is not the entire cube.

You wish to call the entire cube "matter" because one of it's faces is matter. I say there is something fundimentally diffrent between a cube and a face of a cube.

Besides, I have shown that a quantum particle behaves in many ways that cannot be explained even theoretically, having more than one state at once is one of them. How "weird" DO I have to show something to be before you will say it is not matter?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-22 03:03pm

Yogi, for the umpteenth time, we don't need to know about something for it to exist. Materialism merely states that the physical universe is all that exists; in order to disprove materialism, you must show that there exists something which is not part of the physical universe.

Instaed, you try to show that there is something we cannot measure. Does it ever occur to you that it is possible for something to be part of the physical universe and yet beyond our measurement capability? You are drawing a false dilemma between an object being measurable and immaterial. An electron is part of the physical universe, yet its precise location and energy are beyond our ability to measure. This does not change the fact that it has material existence, and that it is part of the physical universe.

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2002-11-22 05:19pm

I am NOT talking about measuring the other states of a quantum particle when observed, I am talking about confirming their existance. I suppose that confirming something's existance is a type of measuring, but one needs to be able to do at least that. We can tell an election exists, though we don't know where it is. Are you saying that, because we know a quantum particle has other states when we only see one, that those other states have to also be in the physical universe?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-22 05:33pm

Yogi wrote:I am NOT talking about measuring the other states of a quantum particle when observed, I am talking about confirming their existance. I suppose that confirming something's existance is a type of measuring, but one needs to be able to do at least that. We can tell an election exists, though we don't know where it is. Are you saying that, because we know a quantum particle has other states when we only see one, that those other states have to also be in the physical universe?

Ah, I see where the problem is. You believe that a quantum state exists independently, so if the quantum state is not present, and it exists in some way, then it must be outside the physical universe and therefore disproof of materialism. Yogi, please try to think about this: a state is a PROPERTY of an object. A state has no existence independent of that object. Unobservable quantum states do not exist in some kind of supernatural plane; they exist only as properties of an object which is fully located in this universe.

A piece of metal can be hot, or cold. But "hot" does not exist by itself. It can only exist as a property of an object. Moreover, if you measure it to be hot, does this mean that the unobserved cold state must exist somewhere else, perhaps supernaturally? Of course not. The same is true of quantum states. You are confusing properties of objects with the objects themselves. A property of an object has no independent existence. An unobserved quantum state of an electron does not get up, leave the electron behind, and exist happily somewhere else.