What we must accept if we accept materialism

Can you define what constitutes "material" from a scientific perspective, specifically from what we know from quantum physics?

couple of points.....first, plenty of people have observed spiritual beings, whether angels, the presence of God, etc,...so that makes those things material by your definition.Secondly, we know different thought patterns, such as worry, can have bodily effects, and so according to your definition, thoughts and patterns are material since they can "touch" body.Imo, you have not got a good working definition of material. Let me ask you this. Prior to observation are particles material? Is the wave function material?

We are talking of the definition of material. That means even hypothetical things count for the discussion.You can argue that God, angels, etc,...are not real or you are not willing to accept them as real because we lack the technology to duplicate measurements. Imo, that is a serious fallacy since you are basing your beliefs based on a lack of technology, but be that as it may, if these things are real, then according to this definition, they are material.But let's consider the wave-function. Is it material?Same with thought patterns. The observed aspects of the thought patterns in the brain occur as a result of the thought itself, not the other way around. In other words, information patterns can have direct effects, and so information patterns are material according to this definition.This message has been edited by randman, 02-06-2006 01:20 PM

Imo, this is wrong, but let's give you some credit here. So God and angels, if real, are actually material beings? Is that what you are saying?I often hear people claim God and angels cannot be studied by science or off-limits to science because they are not "material" or "physical", but if we define material as something we can see, touch or experience somehow, then God and angels are material. In other words, if they exist, they are physical and material by the definitions offerred here.Is that something you are willing to concede?Now, if they are not observed, they are still hypothetically material. Take the fabled unicorn as an example. Maybe unicorns never existed, but if they did, they would be material.So God and angels are likewise physical or material, based on the definitions offerred here.Personally, I think the numerous testimonies of people attest to the reality of "spiritual beings" whether God or angels. Perhaps you choose to reject that evidence, but regardless, the reality is the only reason these things are not observed yet by science is that we lack the technology and ingenuity to do so.On the wave-function, in what form is the wave-function prior to observation? It is in a conceptual form as a potential for discrete form, right?

That's completely besides the point and scope of the discussion here. We are talking about the definition of material. Are angels or God "material" beings, assuming they are real, or not? So are you saying they are "material" if they are observable? If we can develop means to observe, even indirectly as we do with gravity, spiritual things, does that mean they are physical and material from a scientific perspective? But whether something is a scientific position or not has little to do with whether it is material or not. The point is whether God or angels are material, if real, or not? No, I am not. I am referring to observer/participancy obviously. The correct response from you and others would be to either say you agree or disagree with the principle and go from there.On the wave function question, the issue is that QM shows what we might refer to as a deeper reality to the real world. This reality gives rise to discrete and specific material form, but it's not quite clear what state this reality is. It contains information and energy, but exists as a potential for multiple states. Some say until the act of observation, it is intrinsincly undefined. In other words, it exists as an undefined potential for discrete form.So perhaps what the equation represents on paper is a real thing that exists in an information state, not really physical from the layman's understanding of the term.

Schraf, I certainly do not dismiss alien abduction accounts out of hand, or claim they are beyond the scope of science, as some of you guys claim when it comes to spiritual things.

Why ramoss? Why do you claim spiritual things cannot ever be observed?

First off, I just want to get a clear understanding and answer of your position. If you define material as anything real, then angels and God are physical things, if they exist.Agree or disagree? Secondly, let's be more precise. It's not scientific to accept as part of science as factual something for which there is no objective evidence, but it is scientific to develop hypotheses over something that is of yet undetermined, and subjective evidence such as stories and accounts told are perfectly acceptable starting points. Let's say some people see a new type of bird, many people that are bird watchers tell the same story. It's not unscientific to develop a hypothesis that such a bird might exist and set out to find a way to determine if that is the case.It's unscientific and unreasonable to dismiss something as not true simply because science as of today has not figured out a way to test and observe something. In other words, to be personally convinced of something or to think something may be true prior to science "proving" something is part of the scientific method. Are you serious? You act like you know my views quite well, and comment on what I believe fairly frequently, and considering this principle is something I have brought up and discussed at length, how could you not know what it is? Try googling John Wheeler or Anton Zellinger. It seems incredible to me that after this has been discussed here on the ID/physics threads, that you would think something so well attested to would be pseudo-science. I suggest you take some time to educate yourself and quit ridiculing things you are totally ignorant of. In terms of quanum mechanics, it's one of the most successful theories in all of science, and is based on observation. If you would actually learn a little about what critics of evolution are saying instead of spending so much time trying to answer what you think they are saying, you might learn something.For example, the phenomenon known as entanglement is observed and yes, it does indicate a "hidden reality" or perhaps deeper structure is a better term since "hidden" is your term and implies a Hider. Quantum mechanics does indeed though point to a deeper reality than was suppossed before, and it is based on observations and experiments,and includes applied applications. It's not all math, as some have claimed about string theory.

Percy, it's a real simple question. The issue is the definition of material. You have defined material in a couple of different ways. One is you define it as anything real, and the definition we were working with is anything observable, period.Then you started saying it has to have matter.So are virtual particles material or non-material?Is energy non-material?How about gravity waves, if they exist? I assume you would postulate gravitons, correct? But just want to ask anyway to see where you are coming from.If God or angels can be observed, are they material or non-material? What if we determine a way to observe real things that contain no matter?It's pretty straighforward, but you seem to keep dodging the basic question. No, that's not "going wrong." In fact, you need to know and trust in a great many things that cannot be scientifically verified all the time. When you make a big decision, like whom you marry, you cannot for the most part submit that to scientific inquiry to know the right answer.In terms of science, I always beleive in having a measured response,which is one reason I bash evos so much. They are always touting massive overstatements instead of having a measured response. It's also why except in a few areas, I don't put forward an all-encompassing theory as to how it all happened. I believe if the data is not there, we should not fabricate stuff. I wish you guys felt the same way. Do you deny entanglement is an observed phenomenon? What are you talking about here?This message has been edited by randman, 02-08-2006 12:24 AM

too busy to respond now and on the road a lot....I'll look at your posts later in the week

Percy, the discussion is getting old. I asked a very direct and simple question, which you astutely dodged, imo.I suppose you don't want to admit that if we figure out a way to observe, say, angels, or the presence of God, that by defining material as anything we can observe, then these things would be material.On entanglement, maybe you don't realize what entanglement is. Entanglement indicates a deeper connection between particles that is not observed, but we see it's effects, such that action at a distance takes place with no observed mechanism. Sometimes, this is called nonseparability, but we are not sure what part of reality connects these seeming distant partices.

How can you know and not admit it hints at a deeper reality or structure within the universe? Clearly entangled particles are in some sort of contact with one another that is not observed by what we normally call space-time since the particles connections work across distances in space-time. The connectivity is evidence of a deeper structure, as something must connect them, even if just informationally. Bull crap percy. The evidence proves that in quantum physics. It is a fact that discrete form arises from an information/energy state. It is proven, as much as can be in science, with hard lab experiments.This message has been edited by randman, 02-10-2006 11:13 AM

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.

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

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.