What we must accept if we accept materialism

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

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

People imagine all kinds of things, but a reasonable man has to assure himself that these things correspond to something that isn't merely a subjective experience.When it comes to gods and angels, neither of which he has any personal experience of, what is a reasonable man to do? He can ask his friends and acquaintances about their experiences, but none of them admits to having seen an angel (although that might just be English reticence), and even those who believe in God don't seem to have met him personally (although they do know a friend of a friend who met him once).(Anyway, on reflection, the reasonable man thinks, even if I did find someone with an appropriate experience, what would that prove? I can find people who say they've been abducted by aliens - does that prove that aliens exist?)But look at the evidence of religion, you might argue. Every society in the world has some belief in a God or gods, and in most of those societies every person believes. Doesn't that prove that God must have some objective existence?If there were just one religion in the world and everyone believed in the same god, I might concede that you had a point. But there isn't and they don't. There are multiple, contradictory religions and multiple, contradictory gods. A reasonable man observing all of this can only conclude that ALL of them are pre-scientific Just-So stories.A final argument that clinches it for me is as follows:1. Generally people experience the God that their culture sanctions;2. It isn't possible for all religions to be true, because they're contradictory;3. If one of these religions were true that would mean that the vast majority of religious experiences of god must be false - they must be just imagination;4. It it's possible for the vast majority of humanity to be deluded in this way, then it's not beyond the grounds of possiblility for all of humanity to be deluded.5. Therefore, even if everybody in the world believed in the god their culture sanctioned (which is by no means the case), that wouldn't provide one jot of evidence that any of the gods they believed in had any objective existence. I don't have a problem with the current scientific hypothesis, that thoughts are our subjective experience of neural activity in the conscious areas of the brain. Under this hypothesis, it doesn't make any sense to talk about 'thoughts' and 'thought patterns' as something separate from the brain.In fact, I'd go so far as to predict that within our lifetime we will have developed neural machines that are so complex that they exhibit conscious 'thoughts' and 'thought patterns' comparable to the 'thoughts' and 'thought patterns' of humans. I don't have much to add to what Percy has said, only to caution against taking the words scientists use to describe things too literally. What has primacy is the phenomenon being observed. When electrons were first discovered they seemed to exhibit particulate behaviour, so they were described as 'particles' by analogy with the macroscopic particles we see around us.Now in our common-sense macroscopic world 'particles' and 'waves' are two different types of things, so when it was discovered that electrons exhibit wave-like behaviour as well as particulate behaviour, that seemed like a paradox. But in reality all it meant was that the analogies being used to explain those behaviours were inadequate, and scientists needed a new approach to understanding the phenomena observed. And the new approach they took was the weird and wonderful world of quantum theory.

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

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?

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

quote:

---

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.

---

Personally, I think the numerous testimonies of people attest to the reality of "alien abductions and probes" whether from space aliens. 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.What's the difference, randman?Do you accept the testimonials of alien abduction claimants, too?

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.

There might be alien abductions.. However, there is no evidence of them.However, at least there is the potential to have objective evidence of one. You can't say the same to 'spiritual things'.

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

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

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.

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

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

Apologies for my previous post. I allowed myself to be diverted from the thread topic by the pleasure of a good argument.I concede your point that, hypothetically, gods and angels could be 'material' in an extended sense of the word. If this were the case then atheism would not be a necessary outcome of accepting materialism (as Omnivorous argued in Message 5).Your position is quite rare. Most religious thinkers tend to be dualists, i.e. they believe that the universe is made up of two different substances, the material and the spiritual. The spiritual, in this view, is the 'higher' substance and can act upon the material (which is how your soul can control the actions of your body), but the material can't act upon the spiritual (which is why spiritual things can never be detected by material scientific instruments - when you see gods and angels it is your spiritual self that sees them not your material eyes).The alternative position is called monism and argues that the universe is made of just one type of substance. This is the position that you seem to have been arguing in your previous posts in this thread.Now, which of these positions you take is important when it comes to discussing the questions of Free Will vs Determinism and Morality vs Nihilism (which is the topic of this thread). For all dualists, and many monists, the monist position leads to the following conclusions:1. In a material universe, all outcomes are determined by an unbroken sequence of physical cause and effect;2. If all outcomes have a deterministic physical cause, then there can be no room for free will in such a universe.A dualist would agree with these conclusions, but argue that, while the physical self is constrained by determinism, free will is a property of the spiritual self. Many monists would also agree with these conclusions, and would argue that this means that our sense of free will is an illusion.The argument about morality is slightly different. For a dualist. things like morality and logic are properties of the spiritual world, and so would be absent from an entirely physical world. Many monists, strangely enough, agree with this position, believing that the deterministic chain of cause and effect leaves no room for patently human inventions like morality and logic.As I suggested earlier, your position, as a religious monist, is quite rare. It would be interesting to hear what you think about these two issues.

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible