Physicalism or materialism. The idea that everything there is arises from physical matter. If true would mean there is no God or Free Will, no immortal soul either.
Seems to be what most of academia bases their world view on and the frame work in which most Science is done.
Often challenged by Dualism and Idealism but only by a loud fringe minority.
I’ve heard pan-psychicism is proving quite the challenge, but I hear that from people who believe crystals can cure autism
I hear that “Oh actually the science is moving away from materialism” as well, but that seems to be more crystal talk as well.
So lemme ask science instead of google.
Any reason to doubt physicalism? Is there anything in science that says “Huh well that seems to not have any basis in the physical at all and yet it exists”
Edit: I have heard of the Essentia Foundation and Bernado Kastrup but since it’s endorsed by Deepak Chopra I’m not sure I can trust it
The way we measure things is by making them observable to our senses. I can’t see radiation, but I can read a Geiger counter. Radiation is, therefore, capable of being observed.
Again, everyone seems to be reading this as, “Actually, senses are perfect and incapable of being fooled.” Which I never said anything remotely similar to. No shit they can be fooled. This has zero relevance to the discussion.
Let me explain this again.
Stars that leave the observable universe, by definition, cannot be observed. There is no way to verify or falsify any claims that are made about them.
Physicalism states that matter continues to exist regardless of our ability to make observations about it.
Therefore, physicalism claims that stars that leave the universe continue to exist, even though there is no way to verify or falsify this claim.
Therefore, either physicalism is wrong, or verificationism, the idea that our claims need to be supported by evidence and be falsifiable, must be false.
I resolve this contradiction by sacrificing physicalism and saying that matter must be observable. That does not mean observable by the naked eye, or that our senses are somehow infallible, both of which are strawmen that have nothing whatsoever to anything I’ve said.
This argument is more of a philosophical argument than a scientific one. It reminds me of the classic “if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, then does it make a sound?”. The purpose of this statement is to question whether the observer is a requirement for something to be real.
Ultimately, I think science doesn’t have a solid answer to this question. Quantum mechanics might suggest the answer to be “no”, since matter exists as a probability function until something measures (observes) it. This would suggest that a lack of observer would leave matter in an exotic state which would not allow such a definite process as falling in the woods. On the other hand, general relativity would suggest that the tree would make a sound because all matter affects the spacetime continuum whether an observer is there or not. This would suggest that the tree’s existence is independent of an observer.
Of course, the big issue in science right now is that we have failed to disprove both quantum mechanics and general relativity; but these two primary theories of science are incompatible with eachother. Ultimately, this means that this question regarding physicalism is presently unanswerable by science.
A Geiger counter doesn’t make radiation physically observable, it just gives you information about it, your senses are still 100% incapable of detecting it. You chose the exact words “What could possibly be considered more real than that which we can observe and experience?” and I responded by accurately pointing out that our senses are imperfect and our experiences frequently fail to accurately represent reality. You should leave the explaining to people who are better at it.
That’s not what “observable” means, dumbass. You don’t have to be able to physically detect radiation with your eyes like some comic book for radiation to be an observable phenomenon.
You are bad at this
I’ve given up the conversation with them, it’s not worth the effort.
Reasonable
You’re worse.
Two conversations with you, and both times you:
Misunderstood me
Refused to listen when I tried to explain
Blamed me for your inability to read, and became hostile for no reason, except a narcissistic urge to deflect.
The first time it pissed me off, but this time, I know it’s just who you are, and I knew exactly what I was in for when I unblocked you.
Bye.
How did you know to unblock them if you couldn’t read their answers?
When someone I’ve blocked replies to me, it gives me a notification and shows, “1 more reply” but if I click it it just keeps loading indefinitely. I logged out to check who it was and decided to give them a second chance that they definitely didn’t deserve.
Here is my previous interaction with them which demonstrates that their toxic, narcissistic behavior is a trend, not a one-off.
I’ve never blocked anyone, I’ve only ever blocked communities, and I assumed it just silenced them completely from your perspective. Strange that it instead gives you an unusable notification instead!
In terms of toxicity, I’ve had unpleasant interactions with both them and you in the past.
I’m not surprised that you both blew it out of proportion, you both failed to listen to each other, you both refused to back down and you both prolonged the argument longer than necessary. Par for the course.
What did they say that I didn’t listen to, exactly?
You’re arguing with a subset of people who likely believe there is no such thing as objective reality. I’ve learned the hard way that it’s like arguing with fundamentalist religious types.
Not even close, learn to read
Cool story