What we must accept if we accept materialism

If God revealed Her laws and if She revealed them in antiquity to only one religion and if that religion understood perfectly and has preserved a perfect record of that perfect understanding (even though the scriptures of all religions have changed over the millennia) and if God did not later share Her laws, unchanged or changed, with anyone outside that religion...Why then, yes, your statement would be correct, though there may be some other ifs I haven't thought of yet.

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

I didn't answer you very well.Yes, if nihilism is true then subjective morality is all that's possible. So far so good.But nihilism really eliminates the grounds for all morality, so shouldn't intellectual integrity demand the abandonment of all morality? Logically speaking I mean.How do you embrace nihilism on a rational objective basis, but accept a morality on a subjective irrational basis? Isn't that psychologically difficult?Psychologically speaking I don't think anybody really believes that morality is subjective, only give lip service to the idea.But I grant that logically speaking, it would have to be subjective and irrational if you accept nihilism as the only rational position.

The "religion" doesn't need to "understand perfectly" if the omniscient God protected His word, which He certainly can (and did) do. And the Christian scriptures have not changed over the millennia. Sorry. You can come to my theology class next Wednesday and hear why. That's going to be the subject. Or I'll send you a tape if you like. The whole series is interesting. I don't get this about God sharing His laws bit though. He's never withheld them. Everyone is welcome to them. It's just that flawed human nature manages to garble them up because we don't like obeying them. So anyway, my statement IS correct because with these corrections all that is true. Except the gender of God. Actually God is neither male nor female.

From the standpoint of people's feelings, I agree. Morals do not FEEL subjective.

Why did you leave out the part where I said, "If all you're trying to say is that there is much we do not yet know then I agree with you?"I said I agree with you, but I won't agree with you *and* accept your terminology, too. I don't like the term deeper reality because it has too many metaphysical overtones, and we're supposed to be trying to define the material here. Bullcrap? Followed by an assertion that in essence says, "Hey, I am too right?" Very persuasive.You have a way of seeing what you want to see in whatever you read. That's why you make so many misinterpretations of people's posts (Schraf's post mentioning heliocentrism being the most recent example), and probably explains why you have so many weird ideas about the implications of quantum theory.It is your masterful ability to misinterpret that recommends caution to anyone engaged in dialog with you. You were right to pursue a clarification of what constitutes the material, but what followed was your unsubtle attempts to draw connections between the material and the never observed. I think that if you want to explore your QM ideas further that you should open a new thread.I think you have your definition of the material now. Can we proceed with the thread's topic, the implications of materialism?--Percy

We observe indirectly the fact of a deeper reality with the principle of entanglement. To deny that is similar to denying gravity because it is only observed indirectly. The reason I do not agree with "there is much we do not know" is that I am not talking about what we do not know, but what we do know. We know there is some sort of hidden mechanism that can cause action at a distance. We know inseparability is real for entangled particles, and since the particles are separated as far as space-time, we know the connections exist outside of what we know of space-time; hence we know there is a deeper reality or structure within the universe where separated mass can be connected.The implications for this, and for the basic nature of all "material" things, and for the definition of materiality as anything real, is far-reaching. First, to claim that physical things always must have matter is unproven and probably false. it appears that physical things exist in an undefined state that gives rise to specific form, we call matter, but that prior to that specific form, to say the physical thing has matter is conjecture. The physical thing has the potential for matter in various forms.Secondly, the principle of entanglement shows that there is something about physical reality that is hidden and from our perspective acts superluminally, and which we see no matter at all as of today to show us what it is. We see it's effects, but we don't see it.Thirdly, since science is dealing already with this arena, it seems wrong to claim "material" must contain matter. Does whatever mechanism is involved for entanglement contain matter or just affect matter?Additionally, if anything observed or that contains energy is material, then if God or angels exist, they are material and within the scope of science, if science can advance the technology to deal with spiritual thins.

What part of "I don't like the term deeper reality because it has metaphysical implications" didn't you understand? I think you should take the QM stuff to another thread. I don't agree with this. I thought we had a statement earlier that we could agree with, the one where you missed it the first time I posted it and so I had to post it again and then you still ignored it, so rather than posting it yet again let me say it another way.The material is that which we can observe and consists of both matter and energy. If Gods and angels are composed of matter and/or energy then they are material and should someday, given sufficient technological advances, be observable. Okay?--Percy

percy, I guess my point is that in 4-D, we don't see any matter or energy connections to explain entanglement and yet we observe entanglement indirectly. So perhaps things do exist without matter (assuming matter is something that must exist in 3-D plus time)? Not trying to be overly argumentative, but if we are going to discuss what constitures material, then we have to talk about QM stuff, right? Since that is the field of science defining and exploring this very thing.This message has been edited by randman, 02-10-2006 02:01 PM

I agree with you, but the topic of this thread is the implications of materialism on people's opinions and attitudes. Just how fine a point do you need to put on the definition of the material before the main discussion can begin? I personally don't need to settle this issue before I can discuss the main topic. It isn't one I spend any time pondering when I think about materialism.I think you came into this thread with the intent of showing that God and angels are part of the material, which now that I think about it should probably have been ruled off-topic. If you have some special way of thinking about the material then I think you should take it to a new thread. I think most people aren't interested in looking at things at such a low level of detail that the difference between the material and the spiritual becomes blurred, which seems to be your preference.--Percy

Maybe what we have to accept is we accept "materialism" as held by most evos it seems, is a false and outdated concept of what constitutes material.

Really, really hating to come on this... No we don't, we see quantum mechanics at work. No, there is not a hidden mechanism - this was dismissed long ago - there is quantum mechanics. QM is the mechanism.And there is no "action at a distance" in the usual sense. There is certainly no superluminal transfer of anything... This makes no sense. No it does not. I didn't see anyone claim that material must contain matter. I saw Percy repeatedly state that matter and energy constitute material. But all of this is a very naive appreciation of the concept of material from the POV of theoretical physicists.The fact is we already play in the arena of the "deeper reality", looking at moduli spaces, the "reality" of the Lagrangian, superspace methods, etc. We don't look for the explanations of entanglement... it's already explained by QM. And this deeper reality does not contain anything close to what I call spirit or spirituality... unless you call general wackyness and disassociation with everyday concepts of reality, spirituality. I don't.I would be more than delighted to see evidence of God in theoretical physics... the fact is it is not there, or at least no more there than it is in observations of the heavens, views across the Alps, the sight of my 2yr old asleep. This does not follow at all. Does God contain "energy"? Energy is purely a local function of this universe, and simply an expression of deep symmetry. Observations of God or other supernatural apparitions could easily be internal mental observations.

Cavediver, last time we went over this, you admitted a deeper reality was evident, but denied it contained the spiritual realm. Now, you seem to be denying that admission. No, QM seeks to describe the mechanism. QM is itself a description of something that occurs, not the actual thing itself. There is certainly "action at a distance" from our perspective, but hey, you are the physicist, please explain the mechanism of entanglement and do so limiting yourself to only 3-D plus time since any additional dimensions would count as a "deeper reality" or hidden reality which you are now denying. So you say you didn't see anyone claim material must contain matter and then in the next breath say you saw percy state matter by definition must be part of anything material.what the heck?Now, I agree that the definition offerred by percy is " very naive appreciation of the concept of material from the POV of theoretical physic", but I don't see why you are bashing me for stating the same thing and actually trying to explain that rather than the bald assertion you are putting forward. No kidding, ....but then why do you deny in your earlier post that there is no "deeper reality"?In terms of your disbelief of any claims this could be related to what religions have called "spiritual", you generally work with a different definition of what spiritual is than what religious and spiritual traditions claim. So perhaps we are talking of 2 different things.imo, your concept of spiritual does not exist in reality.This message has been edited by randman, 02-10-2006 03:36 PM

No I'm not. I'm saying that entanglement isn't evidence of it. And give me any one definition of a "thing" that is not a description of something that occurs... Is there? Heh, heh... if you want to mean "deeper reality" to mean that beyond which you have any decent knowledge then fair enough.You may have begun the journey of understanding some of this stuff... which is commendable... but you are a million miles still from the front line, and certainly in no position to decide what does and what does not constitute some deeper reality of theoretical physics. Percy said AND ENERGY... and he didn't imply the logical AND in that statement. Perhaps and/or would make it more explicit for you. nice try... When did I deny such a thing?Percy is quite correct... you make statements about this "deeper reality" as if you have some knowledge of this area. I'm not being rude, but you know absolutely nothing about it. We are talking the limits of what we explore in theoretical/mathematical physics... you are not in any position to say that any of it sounds like something spiritual or not. You have no idea. The descriptions here are totally mathematical.This isn't new. You do realise that the Maharishi beat you to all of this. Just a little before my time, it was believed that all of physics had been solved by N=8 SUGRA, the TOE had been found. Several years later, after some red faces, the Natural Law Party brought out a huge pamphlet describing how all the different terms of the HUGE N=8 Lagrangian reflected all the different aspects of TM and its relation to our chakras... proving the divine nature of TM and the altogether rightness of the Mahrishi. It was a sheer joy that reduced many of us to uncontrollable tears of mirth.Stop looking for God in the minutae and start seeing Him in the big picture.

cavediver, we've gone around this bend before; you using an argument from authority, and then when we get into specifics, you having to admit that physicists do indeed invoke a deeper reality (such as additional dimensions) to explain what is observed.Do you or do you not admit that you yourself invoke additional dimensions which is by definition a hidden and deeper reality, to explain what we observe in physics? I think a big part of the problem here is bad theology on your part. You automatically assume "spiritual" has to mean something not within this universe, and as such, you cannot accept what is staring you in the face as real.

Of course we consider additional dimensions... but to us, this is so mundane that, no, we do not consider this a deeper reality; it is just a natural extension. What we consider a deeper reality is way way beyond the almost trivial idea of extra dimensions.My theology in this respect is based upon evidence, with no prior desire nor preconception. Should the evidence change, my ideas will change.At the moment, fundemental physics speaks no more of the spiritual than neuroscience. I think from the standpoint of this thread, the onus is on you to define what you mean by spiritual. What have the probablistic notions of entanglement to do with spirituality? What have extra dimensions to do with spirituality?