Physicalism or materialism. The idea that everything there is arises from physical matter. If true would mean there is no God or Free Will, no immortal soul either.
Seems to be what most of academia bases their world view on and the frame work in which most Science is done.
Often challenged by Dualism and Idealism but only by a loud fringe minority.
I’ve heard pan-psychicism is proving quite the challenge, but I hear that from people who believe crystals can cure autism
I hear that “Oh actually the science is moving away from materialism” as well, but that seems to be more crystal talk as well.
So lemme ask science instead of google.
Any reason to doubt physicalism? Is there anything in science that says “Huh well that seems to not have any basis in the physical at all and yet it exists”
Edit: I have heard of the Essentia Foundation and Bernado Kastrup but since it’s endorsed by Deepak Chopra I’m not sure I can trust it
So the thing is, like other commenters have said, you’re asking metaphysics things through the prism of science, which does not work because by nature, science uses the (mostly) objective scientific method, while metaphysics is based on subjective assessments.
You have to separate the physical, material universe as being in the domain of what can be known, from the rest, which can not be, and never will. This does not mean it doesn’t exist, just that it can never be studied or proved in any way, so anyone can believe what they wish about it without leaving rationality (as long as the belief does not imply things concerning the material universe)
We do not have enough evidence to conclude that subjective experience will never be objectively measurable, sufficiently advanced neuroscience absolutely could reach a point where every aspect of human experience could be measured observed and compared. We almost certainly won’t live to see it though.
Not sure what you are talking about. Science isn’t philosophy or religion, you can’t make choices what’s true or isn’t. A fact is a fact.
Right, so is it a fact that nothing can exist outside of the physical world?
I think it is possible, logically at least, to have gods, free will and souls even if everything were physical matter, unless you define those terms specifically to be metaphysical but then its like a True Scotsman fallacy.
Physicalism might be the most viable, but that does not mean its viable enough. There are huge holes - we have no explanation for consciousness, sentience, free will, physics still doesn’t explain everything physical, and quantum mechanics is such a weird aberration of physical matter I am tempted to not call it that.
However, nothing beats the scientific method for truth finding at the moment. And, at the moment, the scientific method is content with only giving us physical results.
Any reason to doubt physicalism? Is there anything in science that says “Huh well that seems to not have any basis in the physical at all and yet it exists”
If it had no basis in the physical, then what would it mean to say that it “exists?” How you define “existence” is a very big philosophical question. Excuse me while I nerd the fuck out about something.
Physics tells us that the observable universe is 93 billion light years in diameter. However, we can sometimes observe objects leaving the observable universe. This is because of complicated physics reasons:
Physical space is expanding with time. Everything is getting farther apart from everything else, and the more distance there is between two points, the faster the space in between them is expanding. At a sufficiently large distance, the rate at which the distance between the two points is increasing, is faster than the speed of light. Neither point is actually moving faster than the speed of light, it’s only the space between them that is expanding. This might be hard to understand, but think of it as if you drew two dots on a balloon and then inflated it.
Once an object gets far enough away from us that the space between is expanding faster than the speed of light, it becomes impossible for us to make any further observations about that thing. This is actually what defines the bounds of “the observable universe.”
So, what happens to objects that leave the observable universe? Strictly speaking, it’s impossible to say. Intuitively, we would expect that they’re still there doing their thing and obeying the same physical laws as when we could observe them. But, if you told me that the stars simply vanish, or that they magically transform into butterflies as soon as they leave, there’s no evidence that anyone could ever produce that would falsify that belief, because, by definition, there is no way to observe what happens outside of the observable universe. If we are defining what exists based on what is physically observable, then it follows that things outside the observable universe do not exist, even if it really seems like they should.
My conclusion from this line of thought is that existence is a relational property. I am not prepared to reject the idea that a thing has to be in some way observable in order to exist, but in that case, nothing can exist in isolation. Because for a thing to be observable means that there must exist a being which could observe it. This could be said to contradict physicalism, because physicalism would say that the material world exists regardless of our senses. I would say that the physical world only exists so long as there are beings capable of sensing it, and, should all sentient beings ever become extinct, the physical world would no longer exist in any meaningful sense.
To be clear, the observable universe is centered on Earth (technically, on you). For a being that is closer to the object that leaves your observable universe before it leaves theirs. It can still be observed by them. There is no objective point at which something becomes unobservable by the expansion of space.
Excepting maybe the big rip.
There is no objective point at which something becomes unobservable by the expansion of space.
Yes, but this is assuming an objective, universal frame of reference, and that’s not really a thing. For example, things like time dilution mean that there is no universal “clock.” There is an objective point at which things become unobservable to my (Earth’s) frame of reference.
It’s true that there could be some alien halfway across the observable universe that could observe the stars that have exited our observable universe. But, we could not observe the alien observing them, because information still can’t travel faster than the speed of light.
Yes, but this is assuming an objective, universal frame of reference, and that’s not really a thing.
Not really. Nothing I said has any dependence on a universal clock.
It’s true that there could be some alien halfway across the observable universe that could observe the stars that have exited our observable universe. But, we could not observe the alien observing them, because information still can’t travel faster than the speed of light.
Right and this is my point. Any philosophical theory that has anything to do with the observable universe is inherently self-centered. Not even Earth centered. Not even conscious-being centered. Literally self-centered. The observable universe is subjective. And so that puts it in the class of philosophies that insist that the universe arises from your own consciousness.
Which is not to invalidate it, but it’s not objective, and it has nothing to do with science.
Any philosophical theory that has anything to do with the observable universe is inherently self-centered.
Which is not to invalidate it, but it’s not objective, and it has nothing to do with science.
The way I see it, this places quite a lot of physics into the category of “nothing to do with science.” The Copenhagen interpretation of QM, for example, is based on what we can observe and detect, and asserts that particles do not have an exact position because there are limits on how closely it is possible to measure it. To me, it’s the same principle.
There is a subtle distinction in my position. I’m defining existence as a relational property, meaning that what I am claiming is that things outside the observable universe do not exist relative to me. They may exist relative to someone else, although I have no way of knowing if they do. Therefore, I don’t consider it self-centered.
In opinion, the thing that has nothing to do with science is making claims about things that we can’t observe, because they are outside of the observable universe. How can we say, from a scientific perspective, that the universe continues beyond that if we can’t test that theory? By definition, such claims cannot be considered empirical or testable.
I think the framing of questions like this assumes that there are certain “physical” things that follow one intrinsic set of laws, and certain other things that follow a fundamentally different, incommensurate set of laws.
But we don’t actually have direct knowledge of any intrinsic laws, physical or otherwise—the best we have are a set of purely provisional laws we’ve made up and regularly revise on the basis of cumulative evidence. And our method for revising these provisional laws requires that any new evidence that contradicts a law, invalidates it—provisional laws must apply to everything without exception. If we give ourselves the out that contradictory evidence can be attributed to “non-physical” causes, we can never invalidate anything nor update our models. So dualistic models are inherently unscientific—not because they’re wrong, but because starting with such assumptions is incompatible with the scientific method.
It also depends how you define physical matter.
If it’s something you cam touch, then there definitely is, starting with neutrinos.
If you mean particles we know about, can describe and sort of understand, then there’s dark matter, which is probably particles we don’t know yet, but have several candidates we didn’t manage to confirm or disprove yet. They can only interact by gravitational (and perhaps weak?) force.
If you mean something we know at least something solid about, there’s dark energy, which isn’t absolutely 100% certain that it exists, but is widely accepted.
If you mean something physics doesn’t detect and try to explain, then obviously not.
How is Dark Matter non-physical?
In the sense that it isn’t particles we know about, can describe and sort of understand, as I wrote. Plus you can’t touch it. You didn’t say what you mean by physical, so I tried 4 different definitions I thought you might mean.
This is completely incoherent.
Matter doesn’t even exists. Only energy and fundamental forces, as far as we know.
What do you think energy is?
I don’t discuss things with leading questions.
If you have something to say, say it.
No I’m genuinely asking because I’m worried you’re defining it as something spiritual
Friend.
I do not discuss with leading questions or statements made to elicit responses.
Those are disingenuous and bad faith methods of approaching dialogue.
I’m very interested in physics, astrophysics, particle physics, quantum mechanics, chemistry, all of the things that go into what makes the universe tick. But I can’t tell you what energy is, my buddy who is finishing his PhD in astrophysics relating to black holes wouldn’t be able to tell you what energy is. We don’t know, it’s just energy.
Okay good because I was worried this was heading in a different direction
I’ve heard too many claim the universe is energy and then define energy as this spiritual essence… then say some shit like “it’s idealism”
Umm, I thought there was the concept of antimatter. No?
That doesn’t literally mean it’s not matter
It doesn’t mean that there’s no soul, god, or after life, just none that we can prove in any meaningful way.
But we cannot believe anything without evidence
You spend all day believing things without evidence otherwise you would not be able to go about your daily life. The demand for evidence comes after disbelief or sketpicism and not before it.
No I don’t, for example, I don’t need evidence that my car works, because it just does.
If I interacted with ghosts regularly, then I’d already have proof that materialism doesn’t exist.
If we did not regularly and readily believe things without evidence, we would not ever find ourselves incorrect, but we do, and many times in total. (If you believe yourself never incorrect you are very foolish and charlatans will have a field day with you.)
You are lying to yourself if you think that you do not take your daily life on trust and experience, not evidence. We are the product of evolution and usually spot patterns quickly rather than gather evidence and consider carefully. We make snap decisions all day every day on scant or no evidence. We would be paralysed by indecision if not. This is not wrong, it’s not bad, it’s just quick and necessary.
Your faith in your car is a case in point. You trust that it will work. You don’t think to question it, because you’re familiar with it. You similarly trust, without evidence, the vehicles of your friends and family and of taxi drivers, and any number of buses or trains that you use every day, but as soon as I’m selling you a car, you want proof, and expect documentation, full service history, government checks of whether the vehicle has been written off or stolen (if your country or state provides such things), test drives and warranties. The stakes are higher so you require evidence. You do no such thing before boarding a bus or taxi.
No, we reserve the demand for evidence for things about which we are already skeptical, or things that we doubt, or where we are unsure and feel we don’t know. Not for the rest. Not at all. We just assume our conclusions based on hunches and experience. No one lives their daily normal life as a skeptic about everything they believe, and you would stand out as a very, very strange indeed if you did.
Your evidence is massively, powerfully and overwhelmingly outweighed by your beliefs. Even your beliefs about science are formed through social relationships and third hand “evidence” at best. This is not because you are foolish and credulous, but because you are sensible and pragmatic, and because you are primarily a functioning human animal for more hours a day than you are a lab-closeted scientist or logic-bound philosopher.
Again, the demand for evidence comes after disbelief, sketpicism, doubt or indecision, and not before it.
So… you’re saying I already disbelieve the soul or… something?
I’m saying that this is untrue:
But we cannot believe anything without evidence
Because we all believe hundreds of things every day without evidence.
The demand for evidence comes after we have decided that we don’t believe something or we’re skeptical or unsure.
We accept things that fit with our mental model of the world without question. It’s things that don’t fit with our prior understanding that we question.
We are a product of our culture, upbringing and experiences, far more than we are the product of cold hard reason.
We are social creatures first and scientist mathematician philosopher lawyers second.
Plenty of people do. Whether they should or shouldn’t and whether they should claim it’s objectively real is different. But plenty of people believe in those things without proof.
But neither can you discredit anything without evidence. The basis of science is falsifiability. That is, we have to be able to prove it wrong.
Hitchen’s Razor says otherwise.
“Huh well that seems to not have any basis in the physical at all and yet it exists”
Observed particles behave different.
The Dual Slit Experiment doesn’t actually work that way
Why define physicalism so arbitrarily?
Who’s to say god, souls or free will aren’t complex arrangements of matter?
In other words, you are (IMO, respectfully) making the mistake of defining “non-materialism” the same way crystal clutchers do: as something you don’t understand.
I’m defining it as something that is not tied to physical processee
No free will would depend on everything being predeterminable. Which isn’t. Look up quantum physics, if you missed it in school.
It’s either deterministic or chaotic. There’s no in-between.
Free will and consciousness are merely illusions caused by the way our brains work.
Overtuned pattern recognition machines recognising spurious patterns in themselves.
On a low level, our brains can’t really understand that correlation doesn’t imply causation. It’s an evolutionary imperative: if we don’t see a tiger where there isn’t one we might fail to see one when it’s really there, and therefore fail to pass on our less overtuned pattern recognition genes.
So we end up seeing tigers in the sky, and free will in our actions, and consciousness in our thoughts.
