This has probably been debate to death but what the hell: What is perfection, Iacchus? Is the color brown perfection? Is the number 3 perfection? Perfection is always as defintion, we define what is perfect. Sometimes running 100 meters in 9.71 second is perfection, while sometimes runnning 100 meters of 42194 in 18 seconds is perfection. So, perfection is appoachable for our minds as anything else, we just have to define our own perfection-definitions.Iacchus said:
Proof that Materialism is Dead
- Thread starter AmateurScientist
- Start date
-
- Tags
- materialism
"A rock"?evildave said:
Define a rock without giving it the qualities
you perceive of it.
The only "rocks" you have any experience of are the ones seen via your sensations of them.
You have no experience of real rocks... only of sensed-rocks.
"Pain"? (after kicking this perceived rock)
Pain, just like sensed-rocks, is a completely abstract and intangible experience. Pain is something experienced "in here"... not "out there".
Like I said, there's not a semblance of rational-justification for the belief in a world external to the awareness of one. Philosophically speaking, materialism is a dodo.
Of course once you're dead and gone there won't be anything to prove to anybody now will there? Unless of course you're wrong ...evildave said:
Or, maybe we should just pretend like we were never here? Indeed, if per chance the Universe began completely by accident, to which there was no rhyme or reason, then it can only suggest one thing, that there is no ultimate meaning in life and, that we were never meant to be. In which case I would ask, What's the point in having this discussion?
Also, can you tell me what existing principles may have existed prior to the Big Bang?
Ever conceive of a perfect circle? Or, how about the notion of a perfect second? A perfect minute? A perfect hour? In which case we have something which is already pre-defined, and perfection strictly entails how accurately we can measure it. Or else why develop something as accurate as an atomic clock? Of course even then perfection is not possible, however, without these perfect instances, which do exist, there would be no way of stringing time together and it would not be continuous.Anders said:
So perfection, according to Iacchus, is perfect measurement of time. For me, there are a lot of things that I call perfect, and that’s because I and other people define a certain instance as perfect. I think that 5 beers in an evening is perfect, who are you to argue that! A second is defined as a certain number of a certain atoms radioactive decay. I think it’s cesium, and the number is a quite big number of decays. And that is a perfect second.Iacchus said:
Now, the perfect second is still a definition, and all notions of perfection are definitions. We could for example define that a mountain has to be over 9000 meters high to be perfect. With that definition there are no perfect mountains on earth, but some on other planets, like Mars. But Mars is hardly in another realm, now is it?
A second is merely a specific interval of time and does not have to be defined as such. Of course it can't be described without the continuity of time, in which case the perfect second simply "is." It's always being refreshed and updated.Anders said:
The difference between time and a mountain however, is a whole multitude of variables. By the way, is time physical? Or if it is, is it an active element or, a passive element? Also, perfect mountains can and do exist, theoretically anyway. And so does God.
evildave
Unregistered
E
hammegk said:
So, in other words you can think of no practical application for your 'other-worldly' bull-pucky, and agree that materialism is not without its usefulness?
See, you're already convinced.
evildave
Unregistered
E
A little more of Pascal's Wager floating in there? Chances are of course very good that you're wrong, too. Vanishingly tiny chances that your tapestry of unsupportable assumptions is anywhere near right. You're at a (charitable) 50/50 for a god, a 1 in 4 for a god and a meaning, 1 in 8 for a god with a meaning, who cares what people think. Start adding in all your other assumptions and we're probably a lot more likely to see pigs fly. Of course, pigs have already flown as air freight, so pig aviation is a known quantity, while your scenarios based on wild ass guesses is just so much fiction.Iacchus said:Of course once you're dead and gone there won't be anything to prove to anybody now will there? Unless of course you're wrong ...
It could be the 'ultimate meaning' would be to find a way for humanity/life to survive the life cycle of the universe, rather than wallow in fantasies about (not established as real) doomsdays and a (not established as real) superman who'll show up and rescue everybody and take them all to a (not established as real) happy place for (not established as real) reasons.
I wasn't there. Right now, we don't know, and I'm fine with that. Perhaps some day people will know.
Assuming the 'Big Bang' was not excessively complicated, (i.e. gods and angels farting things into existence while battling demons and unicorns and leprechains over their lucky charms), then some educated guesses can be made by reverse-engineering matter, light, gravity, whatever other forces and phenomena we discover in the universe, assuming that they're 'real' and predictable (i.e. things in motion don't make 90 degree turns for no reason. )
If all of the matter did come from a singularity of some sort, we might determine some things about it by studying other singularities.
Hate to tell you this, but chance has nothing to do with what "is" and what will never be.evildave said:
Sounds to me like death will be the final solution for all of us.
Are you suggesting there may have been pre-existing principles which set the Big Bang in motion?
If there was something before the Big Bang, then there has always been something before the Big Bang.
So how do we account for a Universe which has always existed in some form or another?
evildave
Unregistered
E
Well, as far as any risk assessment can determine, the likelihood of your silly assertions being is epsilon.Iacchus said:Hate to tell you this, but chance has nothing to do with what "is" and what will never be.
Only if you don't believe in future generations. Of course, a selfish person who believes only in his own salvation probably would not believe in making a good world for future people. Especially when he believes there won't be any, and works hard to make it so.
Possibly.
Possibly.
How could we account for a condition where nothing at all ever existed before? Empty space its self is something. Hard to say precisely what, since we can only inductively study what it does to matter and signals travelling through it.
I suppose you could pretend a 'perfect' and 'almighty' superman spontaneously appeared of nothingness and made everything else. Just popped up "poof" like the Lucky Charms Leprechaun and started spreading 'magically delicious' stuff like 'meaining' around. Assigning consciousness to what seems more likely to have been blind random forces sounds pretty absurd to me.
evildave
Unregistered
E
This thread topic is "Proof that Materialism is Dead".
You said: "What a silly comment to me. My worldview includes objective reality as *the* existent."
Then you say, "Yeah, I'm convinced you didn't undertstand what I said in this thread. Par for a materialist, or do you cling to some form of interactive dualism?"
So now do you claim that what exists doesn't exist, or that something more exists which you haven't specified?
You claim that 'materialism is a do-do' because it makes some simple assumptions based on observed phenomena: The rock hurts when you kick it. The rock always hurts when you kick it. Other people report the rock hurts when they kick it, too. The rock is probably there. So, stop kicking it. Perhaps a little too 'simple-minded' compared to imagining a superman making you experience 'rock', or pretending that you are only imagining the rock, and every other being, whether they're nice to you or not. Parsimony states that 'rock' alone is adequate.
I only claim that if you can prove there is more than what materialism operates on, materialism will simply incorporate it.
The one catch: you have to prove it. That's all. 'Cold fusion'? Prove it works, and you will get a Nobel prize. Spiritual domains? Prove that they're real, and you'll be similarly recognized.
The fact that your brain can hold state that causes you to perceive certain things isn't proof of anything. Unless you want to hold up all manner of delusions as 'proof'.
You said: "What a silly comment to me. My worldview includes objective reality as *the* existent."
Then you say, "Yeah, I'm convinced you didn't undertstand what I said in this thread. Par for a materialist, or do you cling to some form of interactive dualism?"
So now do you claim that what exists doesn't exist, or that something more exists which you haven't specified?
You claim that 'materialism is a do-do' because it makes some simple assumptions based on observed phenomena: The rock hurts when you kick it. The rock always hurts when you kick it. Other people report the rock hurts when they kick it, too. The rock is probably there. So, stop kicking it. Perhaps a little too 'simple-minded' compared to imagining a superman making you experience 'rock', or pretending that you are only imagining the rock, and every other being, whether they're nice to you or not. Parsimony states that 'rock' alone is adequate.
I only claim that if you can prove there is more than what materialism operates on, materialism will simply incorporate it.
The one catch: you have to prove it. That's all. 'Cold fusion'? Prove it works, and you will get a Nobel prize. Spiritual domains? Prove that they're real, and you'll be similarly recognized.
The fact that your brain can hold state that causes you to perceive certain things isn't proof of anything. Unless you want to hold up all manner of delusions as 'proof'.
Well let's just say if meaning didn't exist, we wouldn't be attempting to define anything. Which in fact is the very act of "defining things," through understanding the nature of cause-and-effect and how things relate to one another.Loki said:
Like I said chance has "nothing" to do with it.evildave said:
About the only thing this entails (at least for me anyway) is not to take myself too seriously. Why? Because "I" am not "It." Of course that doesn't guarantee others won't say I'm selfish, because I don't go around "glorifying" who they are. But hey, that's not my problem.
How can we account for something from nothing in other words?
However if you were a spiritualist, you would understand that spirits "do" exist, and yet they are not of "this realm." In which case it's either a true assessment or it isn't and, is not contingent upon any likelihood.