MATERIALISM FALSIFIED AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

[Greylorn Ell]

MATERIALISM FALSIFIED AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

When the Higgs Boson was finally discovered at the Large Hadron Collider mass was found to be constructed from energy arising paradoxically from massless particles interacting
with each other. The physicists kept on dividing until eventually there was nothing left to divide into. No longer therefore could atoms be regarded as the fundamental building blocks of matter. Because matter now no longer existed or indeed had ever existed. What is a game changer here is not an alternative to materialism as that already exists in idealism. But that is a philosophical position rather than a scientific one and so is not subject to falsification. The Higgs discovery however is so can not be denied [ unlike philosophical positions which can ] And
it is absolute proof that physical reality is an illusion

This means that everything we perceive is false. One could in theory make an argument for the perception of materialism [ as opposed to the actuality of it ] And although it is true that
we do perceive our environment as fundamentally physical it actually is not no matter how convincing the illusion is. Our brains are remarkably adept at fooling us into making us think
that what we experience is real. The Exclusion Principle for example absolutely forbids physical contact between any objects anywhere in the entire Universe. Yet the illusion that we
actually do experience touch is so powerful that is never even questioned beyond quantum mechanics [ this is due to ignorance of the Exclusion so is understandable but even so ]

The supreme irony here is that our brains themselves are capable of being reduced to nothing just like everything in the known Universe. And yet they construct the artificial reality of materialism as a coping mechanism for survival. But while that may be necessary from an evolutionary perspective it is not so from an intellectual one. It would admittedly be difficult
to experience reality in one format while simultaneously thinking of it in another which is probably why outside of quantum mechanics none of us actually do. But that does not alter
the fact however that physical reality is not a reality at all but a complete illusion

This does provide a reason as to why the Universe came from nothing as a valid hypothesis however. For if everything can be reduced to that then it is not necessary for anything other
than it to exist as the precursor for anything that follows it. it used to be that the answer to the question how can something come from nothing was that there was no such thing as
nothing. Now however it should be that there is no such thing as something. Ever since Max Planck discovered the existence of quanta back in 1900 our understanding of reality at the
most fundamental level has been tested to breaking point. But the Higgs discovery suggests that the requirement of something to be logically understood in order for it to be true should
now no longer apply [ although such counter intuition existed long before with Schrodingers Cat and the impossibility of independently measuring quantum fluctuations back in the first
half of the last century ]

And it is not going to get any easier. If all matter is an illusion then that ultimately means that our own physical existence is an illusion too. This is pushing counter intuition to its limit
For it means that nothing at all exists. The entire Universe is but a construct of our minds which themselves are constructs of quantum potentiality. This means that nothing can exist independent of it being perceived. This begs the question of whether anything existed before humans [ or indeed any conscious beings for that matter ] perceived of it. It sounds
ridiculous but quantum theory has been falsified so this question is not at all nonsensical. And besides subjective interpretation of objective reality is of zero consequence here. What
matters is whether something is true or not. Everything else is incidental. However because we exist in the classical world and not the quantum one then we shall continue to use the
language of it in spite of the falsification of materialism. Because the illusion of physicality is so convincing and necessary that it is too counter intuitive to just deny it in spite of the
Higgs discovery. But an illusion no matter how convincing it is is still an illusion. The falsification of materialism has made reality that much more stranger. It may get to a point where
we stop trying to understand it a altogether and just accept it instead because the complexity required to analyse it is simply beyond our means

S-57

Who's the "our" in that last sentence? I'd prefer not to be included in your blanket statement. Best that you speak for yourself.

It often happens in the course of dealing with physics problems that the solution is easy when a different perspective is adopted. For example, circular and periodic motions are best dealt with from a polar or spherical coordinate system rather than the classic Cartesian system.

Philosophers who have not studied mathematical physics are certain to be befuddled by the problems that confused thinking about the nature of reality has inevitably created and then worsened by the failure of anyone to see that our difficulties modeling quantum events with any precision are the result of an inappropriate mathematical system.

From the correct perspective, a theory of reality and consciousness that actually addresses the pertinent scientific facts, the conundrums you point out evaporate faster than bird piss in the desert sun. Just so you know, I wrote an annoying book resolving the problems. I don't advise that you try reading it, but your concluding statements are, IMO, so poorly informed that I did not want to let them go unchallenged, lest others believe your philosophically bleak opinions.

You might want to reconsider posting further comments about physics, such as, "The Exclusion Principle for example absolutely forbids physical contact between any objects anywhere in the entire Universe." This statement demonstrates complete ignorance of fundamental physics. The Pauli Exclusion Principle does not forbid contact between objects in the universe. Perhaps you should play a game of pool in some scruffy tavern (in a small corner of this universe) and watch the balls (objects) contact one another. Or explain how a proton collider could possibly work if protons were forbidden from colliding with one another?

The Pauli exclusion principle has to do with the relationships between fermions, energy levels, and space, particularly within atoms. Here is a link for those interested. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle It requires a little bit of physics knowledge for full appreciation, so perhaps you could search for simpler explanations.

Greylorn

[attofishpi]

......................................but an illusion no matter how convincing it is is still an illusion.

Yes that's the fundamental problem with matter...it's very convincing...and it does matter.

Nice post....its been my personal experience that (our) reality is a convoluted apparition of the Truth.

http://www.androcies.com

[roydop]

Indeed quantum physics has proven that physicality is not fundamental; that it exists relative to consciousness. Maxwell Planck, one of the originators of quantum theory: “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness.”

What, then, is reality? Not the senses, but the sensor. Not the thinking but the thinker. It is as obvious as your own existence.

You are ultimate reality. Just not the you you think you are.

[HexHammer]

......................................but an illusion no matter how convincing it is is still an illusion.

Yes that's the fundamental problem with matter...it's very convincing...and it does matter.

Nice post....its been my personal experience that (our) reality is a convoluted apparition of the Truth.

http://www.androcies.com

Not quite, can also be a lie, like USA's endless false flags.

[HexHammer]

Indeed quantum physics has proven that physicality is not fundamental; that it exists relative to consciousness. Maxwell Planck, one of the originators of quantum theory: “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness.”

What, then, is reality? Not the senses, but the sensor. Not the thinking but the thinker. It is as obvious as your own existence.

You are ultimate reality. Just not the you you think you are.

Ultimate reality? ..no such thing, just reality, everything else is lies and misconceptions.

[roydop]

Ultimate reality? ..no such thing, just reality, everything else is lies and misconceptions.

Indeed. Such is conceptualization.

[Greylorn Ell]

Indeed quantum physics has proven that physicality is not fundamental; that it exists relative to consciousness. Maxwell Planck, one of the originators of quantum theory: “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness.”

What, then, is reality? Not the senses, but the sensor. Not the thinking but the thinker. It is as obvious as your own existence.

You are ultimate reality. Just not the you you think you are.

roydop,

So how do you define the "you" in that last sentence? I propose that you cannot muster a functional definition.

Max believed that our universe was created. His comment about matter as derivative from consciousness meant that matter was created by conscious intelligence-- not that matter is dependent upon our imagination.

Your notions are consistent with the ongoing attempt of humans to find or put themselves at some central point of reality. This is an old tradition. It has recently shifted from pre-Copernian religious nonsense to modern QM arguments, but it's the same old ego-based nonsense. Matter will continue to exist whether you are aware of it or not, as it did before you became aware of it.

Consider, for example, the computer you use to express your opinions here. Its existence depends upon the efforts of the many conscious and highly intelligent men whose thoughts led to its development. Boole, Von Neuman, Turing and the other mathematical theorists whose concepts were essential to the development of your computer have long since died; yet their ideas still work, as do the engineering developments to which they led.

Every part in your computer, from the tiny capacitors and larger fan motors (thanks to Michael Faraday's work in the first quarter of the nineteenth century) is the product of conscious, intelligent mind, operating deliberately. The parts and the concepts behind them continue to thrive long after the conscious minds who invented them have left us.

By analogy, if atomic structures were originally conceived of and subsequently created by conscious minds, they would continue to exist, according to the physics principles from which they were structured, without need for conscious maintenance. This should be obvious, except perhaps to the sorry lot who pass in this peculiar time of great knowledge dancing with abysmal stupidity, to rap music, as "philosophers."

Greylorn

[Nemba pemba]

Ok, then mater as 'that which has properties' is esential to science as science is about observation and we can't possibly observe that which lacks properties.

Specifically, 'mass' should not be seen as the essence of matter. It is especially so in the contemporary physics after the advent of relativity. It was abit different in Newton's conception; 'quantity of matter'. Einsteinian view makes no much distinction with 'inertia'. But essentially, inertia is what matter does and not realy what it is. And so care should be taken when saying;

Particles have no inherent mass
Therefore they donnot physically exist.

One another note, it matter is simply that which has properties, then we not that physics absolutely need matter. CERN itself is made of matter. then whatever they observed spiralling, recoiling etc was matter. Higgs was but infered. Does it make sense to say that the entire things we observe to infer higgs are illusions and higgs are real?? Or even worse, is that which we directly observe any way lesser real than that which we infer using reasoning?

[HexHammer]

No, everything has mass, and therefore exist, you can't exist without mass, it's just that some particles are so small that the Higgs Boson can't hit them, and therefore doesn't get any "weight".

[Lawrence Crocker]

Many who doubt the existence of anything supernatural, dualistic, or fundamentally mind-dependent, prefer the term "physicalist" to "materialist." Shadows, for example, are not material. They have no mass, but they are certainly physical.

Even if it turned out that mass were not fundamental at the deepest level of reality, that would not show that the deepest level of reality was not physical. The physics of whatever is basics could well bring about mass at a non-fundamental level.

Another way to put it is that the deepest level might by physics-y, and not mind-y or supernatural, even if it is not mass-y.

[Greylorn Ell]

Many who doubt the existence of anything supernatural, dualistic, or fundamentally mind-dependent, prefer the term "physicalist" to "materialist." Shadows, for example, are not material. They have no mass, but they are certainly physical.

Even if it turned out that mass were not fundamental at the deepest level of reality, that would not show that the deepest level of reality was not physical. The physics of whatever is basics could well bring about mass at a non-fundamental level.

Another way to put it is that the deepest level might by physics-y, and not mind-y or supernatural, even if it is not mass-y.

Lawrence,

This can all be simplified by opening up an introductory Physics 301 textbook and noting that it deals with all known aspects of the universe, beginning with Newtonian descriptions of the behavior of matter, moving on to principles of thermodynamics and energy in more general forms, electromagnetism, and ultimately quantum mechanics. These different aspects of the universe are interconnected and often interchangeable-- for example, like the motion of suitably configured matter can be changed to heat, light, and electricity.

It would seem that an obvious definition of "physical" is, anything that interacts with something physical must itself be physical. Or, if it's in a physics book, it's physical.

This simple observation can easily be logically extended to the nature of any "soul" or "God." If there is such a thing as the human soul, a real entity somehow integrated within the physical human brain-body system, the soul must also be physical. Moreover, unless you can explain how a God managed to create a physical universe without somehow interacting with it, then that God, that creator, or those creators, must themselves be physical.

Matter is merely one of the many forms taken by physical things, comprising only about 4.7% of the known universe. Matter is, by definition, physical. However, material is not a synonym for physical, except in the opinions of the ignorant.

By the way, I do not agree that shadows are physical. They represent observations of a physical phenomenon, but do not have an independent reality. Remove either the light source, the reflecting surface, or the occluding object, and the shadow disappears. A shadow might be better described as the observation of a physical effect.

By way of example, compare a shadow with one of the photons of light energy needed to produce its observation. Photons have a different level of existence. Once created, they will persist until detected, even if their source is annihilated.

Greylorn

[Lawrence Crocker]

A shadow might be better described as the observation of a physical effect." Greylorn

A shadow is certainly a physical effect, but if it were only an observation, there would be no shadows where there are not observers. We can, however, talk about the weathering effect of sun and shadow on moon rocks before any life developed to observe it. I only said that shadows were physical, not physical entities, but I think debates about entity status, and about what is independent in the right sort of way for that status, are usually only productive when we have particular agreed purposes.

I think it is important not to rule out dualism or supernaturalism by definition. A mark of a supernatural cause of a physical effect is that physical causes, in principle traceable by science, come to an end at the supernatural cause. So far as I know there is nothing of the sort, but we have an idea what it would be like. Hume, often misinterpreted as claiming that we could never properly conclude that something was a miracle, actually gave a sketch of something any reasonable person would regard as miraculous.

[Greylorn Ell]

A shadow might be better described as the observation of a physical effect." Greylorn

A shadow is certainly a physical effect, but if it were only an observation, there would be no shadows where there are not observers. We can, however, talk about the weathering effect of sun and shadow on moon rocks before any life developed to observe it. I only said that shadows were physical, not physical entities, but I think debates about entity status, and about what is independent in the right sort of way for that status, are usually only productive when we have particular agreed purposes.

I think it is important not to rule out dualism or supernaturalism by definition. A mark of a supernatural cause of a physical effect is that physical causes, in principle traceable by science, come to an end at the supernatural cause. So far as I know there is nothing of the sort, but we have an idea what it would be like. Hume, often misinterpreted as claiming that we could never properly conclude that something was a miracle, actually gave a sketch of something any reasonable person would regard as miraculous.

Lawrence,

There is only one real miracle, namely that anything whatsoever exists. There might be sub-levels of this miracle defining the fundamental properties of whatever seeded our current version of existing things and entities. That's a separate and complex subject, best blown off for the moment.

Better that we first find an agreeable purpose, which I anticipate will prove unlikely at best, since you appear to be well set in your ways of being and established beliefs.

My comments were not intended to rule out any interesting possibilities. Doing so would invalidate my favorite theories.

Consider my comments as logical constraints on notions about the supernatural, which are currently non-constrained and consequently absurd. It makes neither logical nor philosophical sense to make statements about something defined as a "spirit," "supernatural entity," or anything defined to be somehow outside the purview of physics, because any pinhead can make up whatever he wants to say about them and no one can prove or disprove his, her, or its silly opinion.

I have developed concepts about the origin and nature of consciousness, and of purposeful creation, which exclude the undefinable notions of spirit or supernatural. These ideas are consistent with the principles of physics and the real nature of the human mind.

According to your self-description, you do not believe in God but nonetheless would like to. I propose that the God in whom you do not believe cannot be accepted by a logical mind, because he cannot possibly exist. However, it is possible to define a conscious, intelligent and purposeful source of creation which is entirely different from the made-up God of religions, and nicely integrated with the fundamental principles of physics.

You've chosen to disbelieve in the wrong God.

Greylorn

[raw_thought]

What is a tooth pic? Wood. What is wood? Cellulose fibers. What are cellulose fibers? Carbon atoms....
Either the definitions form an infinite regress and therefore there is no foundation to matter.* Or there is a last definition and that one cannot have a definition, which means that we still have no understanding what matter is.
* Metaphor; Suppose one said that the earth is supported by a turtle which sits on (is supported by) another turtle....ad infinitum. One cannot explain why they are all turtles and not (lets say) rocks.

[Lawrence Crocker]

There is only one real miracle, namely that anything whatsoever exists. Greylorn

How do you know that? Has every miracle claim been empirically falsified?

It makes neither logical nor philosophical sense to make statements about something defined as a "spirit," "supernatural entity," or anything defined to be somehow outside the purview of physics, because any pinhead can make up whatever he wants to say about them and no one can prove or disprove his, her, or its silly opinion. Greylorn

Beware of verificationism. The following positivist doctrine did not survive criticism: All meaningful statements can be proved or disproved, or at least in principle confirmed or disconfirmed. There is a mathematical proof that not all true propositions of mathematics are provable. With respect to the physical world, here is a meaningful claim, and one that is true or its negation is, but as to which we will never have any decent evidence: “The last dinosaur of weight greater than 10 tons to dies was female.”

A thought experiment on which there would be very strong evidence of a miracle and pretty fair evidence of aspects of the nature of the supernatural:

Everyone in the world wakes up one morning remembering a dream in which a burning bush said in his or her native language "At a prominent spot in each national capital there is a book containing all and only what is true in all of the scriptures that have ever been regarded as sacred." Startled by the fact that friends and family report the same dream, those in a position to check quickly find, often in secure locations in the capital with no indications of a security breach, a very thin volume printed on a material and with an ink hitherto unknown to science. An appendix to the volume proves the double prime hypothesis and Goldbach's conjecture, gives a translation manual for Linear A, and sets out a physics that resolves, as leading experts agree, the conflict between general relativity and quantum theory.
This example is a slight updating and elaboration of Hume’s. Like Hume, I anticipate that, unless and until we came up with a better answer, I, and most unbelievers, would tend to accept that something supernatural had gone on. Moreover, if what is in the thin volume makes coherent claims as to the nature of the supernatural and its prior effects on physical reality, we would tend tentatively to accept these as well.
Admittedly, the distinction between the natural and the supernatural can become difficult when we push beyond the roughest formulation. (The problem is in distinguishing the supernatural from the unexpected-natural.) The claim that there is no supernatural is, nonetheless, a factual claim, and one subject to empirical methods.

I propose that the God in whom you do not believe cannot be accepted by a logical mind, because he cannot possibly exist. Greylorn

What is logically inconsistent in the concept of a being with consciousness like ours, or more so, who used its considerable power and wisdom to create at least this part of the universe, and who has done and will do more good than evil?