What we must accept if we accept materialism

Observations have to be replicable before they can be considered reliable. What we experience in our minds as thoughts are observable physical and electrical phenomena. You're confusing whether something has been observed with the quality of being observable. Particles and electromagnetic waves are observable, therefore they are part of the material world.--Percy

You didn't quote what you're replying to, so I can only guess what you're responding to. I didn't say anything about the hypothetical, but let me guess that you're responding to this exchange: I think you're still making the same confusion. Particles are observable, whether they've been observed or not. The same is true even when speaking hypothetically. Since particles are observable, a hypothetical particle is as observable as a hypothetical airplane. Well, yes, real is a synonym in this context for material. But no one is saying God or angels aren't real, at least not scientifically they're not. What they're saying is that we have no scientific evidence for God or angels, and so science can reach no tentative conclusions about whether they exist or not. But God and angels are not on the same footing as, say, dark matter. We don't know if dark matter actually exists, but we suspect it exists because it explains observable phenomena. There is no observable phenomena that requires God or angels to explain it. Are you talking about an equation or electromagnetic radiation? Of course electromagnetic radiation is observable, but an equation is conceptual. If it's printed on paper or on a screen then it is observable that way. If it's a thought then its observable as electrical signals in the brain, though the signals aren't decodeable, and may never be decodeable. Thoughts are our subjective impression of electrical signals within the brain. The electrical signals *are* the thoughts. It makes no sense to say first came the thoughts then the signals, or vice-versa.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 02-06-2006 05:20 PM

I'm saying there is no scientific evidence for God or angels. I would phrase it differently. I would say that if they are observable then they are open to the possibility of scientific scrutiny. Accepting the existence of something prior to evidence isn't a scientific position. Just as the Higg's Boson will remain hypothetical until detected, so must God and angels. And Higg's has a leg up, since its existence is postulated by the standard model which successfully explains much particle physics. The existence of God and angels is not supported by any such framework of understanding.I also think JavaMan's response in Message 18 addresses this issue pretty well. By your criteria you must accept alien abductions, too. You're again confusing whether something has been observed with whether it is observable. And I already explained that what you mean by wave-function is ambiguous to me. Do you mean an equation, such as one might write on paper? Do you mean electromagnetic radiation? Do you mean a quantum probability distribution for the position of an elementary particle such as an electron? I don't see how this issue is helpful in this discussion, but I'll try to answer if you make clear what you're asking.--Percy

Hi Randman,You're asking questions along the lines of, "If something is real, is it material?" Since in this context "real" and "material" are synonyms, I must not understand what you're asking. Perhaps you can clarify. I'm going to take care to remain scientific. Since "spiritual" is not a precisely defined term I won't comment about it. But that which is observable, either directly or indirectly, exists and is real and is physical, if by physical you include both matter and energy. True, but that's not what I said. My point was that it is not scientific to accept the existence of that for which you have no evidence. I don't know what observer/participancy is. A quick google of the term returns a bunch of pseudo-science sites, so I'm going to guess that after you explain what it is that I won't agree with it.The bottom line is that that which is observable, directly or indirectly, is part of the observable world, of material reality. That's the reason why both your QM speculations about a hidden reality and string theory (which I include just to give your speculations some company), untied as they are to anything observable and therefore testable, have not as yet been shown to be material.--Percy

The agree/disagree approach won't work when when I can't be sure of how you're interpreting what you wrote. It contains too much ambiguity.What I said was that that which is observable, either directly or indirectly, exists and is real and is physical, if by physical you include both matter and energy. In my view, you can't declare that somethings exists before you know whether it is observable. So let me make a small substitution in the way you stated things: And I guess I'm still not sure what that means, so I'll move on. Sure. Where you go wrong is when you reach conclusions before you've gotten anywhere near the "proving" stage, or even the evidence gathering stage for that matter. I comment on what you believe only to note how mistaken you are. Anyway, sorry, never heard of observer/participancy, so feel free to fill me in. I said that just like string theory your speculations about a deeper reality (to use the term you prefer) are untied to anything observable and are therefore untestable. Giving your speculations equal status with string theory is not ridicule.--Percy

I have not defined material in a couple different ways. I've tried to pay careful attention to saying things in consistent ways, and I've actually been wondering if many people are finding my highly repetitive phrasing annoying.I believe I said that in this context I view material and real as synonyms, so no, I did not in one place define the material as real, and in another place define the material as that which is observable. No, I didn't. I again suggest that you quote what you're responding to so it can be immediately above the lines you're typing, because that way you'll avoid making dumb errors, since I said no such thing as you claim, and in fact said this is the very post you're replying to: So no, Randman, I did not start saying that the material has to have matter. I said that the material includes both matter and energy. The answer is obvious. Virtual particles are indirectly observable in the Casimir effect, and so they are part of the material universe. This is the question that makes it clear what most suspect already - you don't really read people's posts. You must just sort of skim them to get a rough idea.The answer is again obvious. First, I plainly stated that energy is material. Second, energy is directly observable, and so by my criteria it is of course part of the material universe. You would assume wrong that I postulate gravitons. I don't postulate either way on the subject of gravity waves and gravitons. I'm aware that they are predicted by theory (some theories, anyway), but I am content to hold no opinion either way until they are observed. Once observed, thereby confirming theory (some theories, anyway), then of course they are part of the material universe. Now you're asking a question I can answer. Anything that can be observed is part of the material universe. Please don't take this out of context. I have stated in the past the scientific requirements of replicability and making testable predictions, and I shouldn't have to repeat them at every turn. This isn't dodging. Given your ability to misinterpret even the most plain statements, well demonstrated and documented in this very message where you somehow confused my statement saying "includes both matter and energy" to mean "must have matter", caution is more than warranted. Yes, Randman, it is "going wrong." And you go on to agree with me and contradict yourself in your next paragraph: Moving on: Of course entanglement is an observed phenonmenon, but you weren't talking about entanglement and neither was I. You were talking about a deeper reality that lies behind quantum theory, and I equated your deeper reality to string theory in that neither has yet been tied to the real world by way of making testable predictions.--Percy

Please take your time. I mean this seriously. When you return, please take the time to refamiliarize yourself with the discussion. I think everyone would much prefer a reply in March that advanced the discussion to a reply this weekend that set everything back.--Percy

I'm not the one with a documented history of emotionalism, inabilty to focus, lack of reading comprehension skills, inability or unwillingness to work within a structured framework, and abusive interpersonal skills. If the discussion is becoming frustrating to you then I suggest you look to yourself as a likely cause. You have lots of opinions. I answered your question when it became clear, and yet you somehow missed it. This is from Message 35, the very message you're replying to: And so we once again see evidence that you don't really read what people write, you just sort of skim it. My suggestion to you is to carefully read a post from beginning to end before replying, then quote what you're replying to. Yes, I know. But you said it hints at a deeper reality, and I said you have no more evidence of your deeper reality than we have for string theory. If all you're trying to say is that there is much we do not yet know then I agree with you. But when you try to use our lack of knowledge about this so-called deeper reality to reach conclusions for which there is no evidence, which is what you do near the end of Message 22 when you talk about this deeper reality containing information and energy and giving rise to discrete and specific material form, then I cannot agree with you. The evidence does not support your assertions.--Percy

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

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

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