Anti-Materialism

[Mr Right Wing]

This is an anti-materialism debate.

For me I dont accept that materialism describes the universe we live in. The problem is the materialists have hi-jacked science to support their ideology and people dont know enough to see through it. I'm gong to define three concepts -

1. Mathmatical universe - The one as described by scientific forumlae

2. Material universe - The one materialists think exists

3. Legobrick reality - One where every aspect of the universe is reducable to fundamental building blocks

Now for us to live in a material universe we require everything to be reducable to fundamental building blocks or as I call it a legobrick reality. I'm not going to bring up hare and tortoise paradoxes to show people that reality is not of the legobrick variety. I have something much better.

An area of a circle is defined in maths as 2nr. n is an irrational number meaning it has infinite decimal places. That means the area of a circle would be different in a material universe than a mathmatical one. Why? Well numbers with infinate decimal places violate a legobrick reality thats why.

The universe is described by scientific formulae many of which contain irrational numbers or give answers which are irrational numbers. The mathmatical universe is not a legobrick reality yet the materialists have hi-jacketed it as one. They then use their flawed ideology to convince themselves there is no God.

Scientific formula containing irrational numbers is proof that materialism is wrong.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Mr Right Wing

[Ealdwita]

It is impossible to define the area of a circle, ipso facto - God exists. Am I correct so far?

[Rlyeh]

Not sure how mathematics (which is abstract and every number is divisible), compared to the material universe (which isn't infinitely divisible) proves it materialism wrong; but then again Mr Right Wing's posts imply he lives in a world that borders on solipsism.

[Mr Right Wing]

It is impossible to define the area of a circle, ipso facto - God exists. Am I correct so far?

It isnt a proof of God

But it is disproof of reductionism which lies at the heart of why most people dont believe in God

[Mr Right Wing]

Not sure how mathematics (which is abstract and every number is divisible), compared to the material universe (which isn't infinitely divisible) proves it materialism wrong; but then again Mr Right Wing's posts imply he lives in a world that borders on solipsism.

You do realise to get the maths to match the measurements scientists have to introduce margins of error?

[Tiggs]

Numbers with infinite decimal places violate a legobrick reality?

You realize that you're writing that on a screen composed of pixels that's perfectly capable of displaying a circle, right?

[karmakazi]

Numbers with infinite decimal places violate a legobrick reality?

You realize that you're writing that on a screen composed of pixels that's perfectly capable of displaying a circle, right?

Pixels can create the appearance of a circle however it is not a perfect circle. It is a visual illusion.

[Tiggs]

Pixels can create the appearance of a circle however it is not a perfect circle. It is a visual illusion.

There are no perfect circles in reality either. Reality is just as quantized as a computer screen.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Tiggs

[karmakazi]

There are no perfect circles in reality either. Reality is just as quantized as a computer screen.

Yup. Which is why

An area of a circle is defined in maths as 2nr. n is an irrational number meaning it has infinite decimal places. That means the area of a circle would be different in a material universe than a mathmatical one.

If you could extrapolate the infinite decimal (impossible in a finite universe) you could describe a perfect circle in numerical terms. You cannot do so with pencil, atoms, or pixels.

Edited June 18, 2012 by karmakazi

[Rlyeh]

You do realise to get the maths to match the measurements scientists have to introduce margins of error?

That should tell you something why maths doesn't refute materialism. Maths doesn't translate to the material world 1 for 1.

[eight bits]

How does idealizing tolerably round objects as circles imply that anything exists besides material objects? Slowly, this time, and please show your work.

[Mr. Miyagi]

My view point on the existence of a material universe versus a spiritual one, or metaphysical universe, etc... whatever... Boils down to my views on my own religion. For me, things have to be practical. For it to be useful, I need to see an effect on the world around me. Results. God, heaven, hell... these concepts have no effect on my life, they may have one on my afterlife, I dunno yet. Karma, Rebirth, Enlightenment, Nirvana... None of these things require belief in then them. The Eightfold Path is dependent upon our physical actions in a material exsistance. Science has examined the effects of meditation upon the human brain for instance. There is a physical reason for the way meditation makes us feel in this material existance. An understanding of Anatta, a practical understanding... a materialist understanding, if you will, deals with the impermanence of the notion of Self, not necesarily "No Self or Not Self". that doesn't mean that there is no self. The concept deals with the fact that exactly what the self is is difficult to pin down at best and is determined by constantly changing factors based upon how we conduct ourselves and how we and others percieve the way we conduct ourselves in this "material existance". It's an impermanent concept, thus there's nothing to become attached to. If there is a spiritual side at work here, Karma, Rebirth, etc... these things are based upon our actions in this "material existance." regardless of if we can percieve these things or not. They are natural results of our actions in this physical existance. Belief in the metaphysical, spiritual, etc... is irrelevent imho.

Good to be back.

edit- spelling, etc.. I'm sure there are plenty more errors I didn't catch as well. lol

Edited June 18, 2012 by Mr. Miyagi

[karmakazi]

How does idealizing tolerably round objects as circles imply that anything exists besides material objects? Slowly, this time, and please show your work.

Is this directed at me? I wasn't suggesting that it did.

[Rlyeh]

BTW materialism accepts that immaterial concepts exist as being derived from the material world. I'm not seeing how maths is an exception.

[White Crane Feather]

It's much more simple than that. Quite obviously Byronic matter ceases to exist upon the boundary of the big bang. whatever process leading up th that is not at all material as we understand it to be. Aside from that, the most fundamental processes In QM are outside of space and time, and therefore fundamental reality cannot possibly be of a materialistic nature.

This is reductionism, however, divinity is going to be a ultra macro concept. Reductionism is not capable of discovering or discussing macro concepts. This is why I think LHC will fail to discover the graviton. I think gravity is a larger universal macro concept. And adding together of things with exponential potential. The other forces have additive potential while gravity has exponential. The casameer affect on a large scale is a potential culprate.

[Rlyeh]

It's much more simple than that. Quite obviously Byronic matter ceases to exist upon the boundary of the big bang. whatever process leading up th that is not at all material as we understand it to be. Aside from that, the most fundamental processes In QM are outside of space and time, and therefore fundamental reality cannot possibly be of a materialistic nature.

This is reductionism, however, divinity is going to be a ultra macro concept. Reductionism is not capable of discovering or discussing macro concepts. This is why I think LHC will fail to discover the graviton. I think gravity is a larger universal macro concept. And adding together of things with exponential potential. The other forces have additive potential while gravity has exponential. The casameer affect on a large scale is a potential culprate.

Materialism asserts the universe is composed of matter/energy. I've yet to see anything, including your ramblings that refutes this.

[White Crane Feather]

Materialism asserts the universe is composed of matter/energy. I've yet to see anything, including your ramblings that refutes this.

The universe was not made out of matter and energy prior to the BB. Beryonic Matter/energy did not exist. Some other reality is more fundamental.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Seeker79

[Rlyeh]

The universe was not made out of matter and energy prior to the BB. Beryonic Matter/energy did not exist. Some other reality is more fundamental.

Because the universe didn't exist.

[eight bits]

Miyagi-san

Good to be back.

Good to have you back. The forum's changed while you've been away. Now, we've got likes .

karmakazi

Is this directed at me? I wasn't suggesting that it did.

No, I was thinking of the OP.

Generally

It is interesting (I think, as someone who lives there) that so much of the Universe approximates well and degrades gracefully as it diverges from some idealizations of it. It would be a wild ride if, as something came more and more closely to resemble a circle of unit radius, its area didn't get closer and closer to pi, but rather fluctuated wildly with each step of refinement.

That some iterative processes have limits and some of those approach their limits briskly, doesn't tell me whether the material Universe exists, and it doesn't tell me whether nothing exists except the material Universe.

That's what irrelevance looks like. It isn't just that I don't take the OP's point, I don't see how you can get from one idea to the other, with no tie of relevance to bridge the distance. That I can imagine a Universe more regular than the real one tells me nothing about anything except the Universe I imagined, that it's different from what really is.

Edited June 18, 2012 by eight bits

[White Crane Feather]

Because the universe didn't exist.

Oh something existed to produce this universe. It just wasn't beryonic matter/energy, hence fundamentally existence is not materialistic in nature. Unless you want to have faith in the materialist copout of the nothingverse.

[Mr. Miyagi]

Oh something existed to produce this universe. It just wasn't beryonic matter/energy, hence fundamentally existence is not materialistic in nature. Unless you want to have faith in the materialist copout of the nothingverse.

There's a difference between saying there was nothing and saying we don't know if there was or exactly what there was. It's ok to not know imho.

[White Crane Feather]

There's a difference between saying there was nothing and saying we don't know if there was or exactly what there was. It's ok to not know imho.

Of course it's ok not to know... Because none of us do. I think there is no reason, or evidence, to say that it was nothing at all simply because our capability to understand has failed. I am so surprised when materialists are so ready to throw out the laws of thermo dynamics just because they don't get it anymore. It's quite condradictory to discard a law of physics simply because one cannot understand how or to what it applies to anymore. Seems like a limit of the mind and not one of existence.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Seeker79

[Mr. Miyagi]

Of course it's ok not to know... Because none of us do. I think there is no reason, or evidence, to say that it was nothing at all simply because our capability to understand has failed. I am so surprised when materialists are so ready to throw out the laws of thermo dynamics just because they don't get it anymore. It's quite condradictory to discard a law of physics simply because one cannot understand how or to what it applies to anymore. Seems like a limit of the mind and not one of existence.

I don't think our capability to understand has failed. We may not understand currently, but our capability to do so has not failed us imho. Evidence suggests that nothing outside of space and time or our universe as we know it existed. If there is something out side of that, that's an if, we have no concept as to what that is. Not that we never will, I just feel that I, and I suppose other "materialists", do not see the practicality in assuming the existance of something before the universe began, much less assuming what that would be. I need something practical. Something repeatable. Something that does mankind some good on a daily basis. A car. A microwave. Medicine. Real world benefits. lol. These things exist right in front of me. I have no doubt that at some point we will understand, and that explanation will fall into the "material existance" that so many seem to despise. It must for such a discovery to truly mean anything at all imho. Results. Practicality. Usefulness.

Meh.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Mr. Miyagi

[White Crane Feather]

I don't think our capability to understand has failed. We may not understand currently, but our capability to do so has not failed us imho. Evidence suggests that nothing outside of space and time or our universe as we know it existed. If there is something out side of that, that's an if, we have no concept as to what that is. Not that we never will, I just feel that I, and I suppose other "materialists", do not see the practicality in assuming the existance of something before the universe began, much less assuming what that would be. I need something practical. Something repeatable. Something that does mankind some good on a daily basis. A car. A microwave. Medicine. Real world benefits. lol. These things exist right in front of me. I have no doubt that at some point we will understand, and that explanation will fall into the "material existance" that so many seem to despise. It must for such a discovery to truly mean anything at all imho. Results. Practicality. Usefulness.

Meh.

Well that's nice. That false into the same realm as the faith in elegance. Just because you don't consider it practicle dosnt mean that it dosnt exist. This is why I call it a copout. Materialism fails... so instead of admitting the fall of materialism excuses are created. "not practical", "nothing" etc.

Sure humans may one day be able to understand what's going on, but that in no way implies that it will be a materialistic answer. Space and matter collapse at the BB boundary. Only in the materialist farytail does it imply nothing exists because that is their limit by the very definition of their axiom. As it stands fundamental reality is outside of what we think of as space/time and is not made out of what we call matter (beryonic particles) . It's stareing us right in the face. We have evidence that spacetime and energy came from something else. Do we understand what it is.... Nope. Like gravity we can only infer it's existence by its affects. We just have no clue as to it's nature.

I guess you could say I have a non belief in materialism.

[Rlyeh]

I guess you could say I have a non belief in materialism.

I on the other hand accept the abundant evidence, the universe.