3 ms·

I think that materialism is a dead concept anyways. It just doesn't seem to support itself under the weight of evidence in physics which seems to contradict it.

I think that materialism is a dead concept anyways. It just doesn't seem to support itself under the weight of evidence in physics which seems to contradict it. So, either materialism goes or physicists are going to have a fun time with new experiments overturning old ones.

ryandamm 11y ago
Wow, that's a strong statement. (Are we using the same definition of materialism?) I use it to mean that there are no outside forces describing the state of the universe beyond what's materially measurable/describable; in other words, probably we have no transmaterial soul. That's a strong assumption for anyone who's religious, but it's sort of gospel for atheists. That said, it's the many-worlds hypothesis doesn't square with a totally-naive interpretation of Bell's Inequality and materialism/atheism. So... are you saying that we have to admit there's a God/transmaterial soul / some other magical thing because we don't understand the implication of Bell's inequality? If so, that's a big jump, but I can't say it's wrong. Just that I don't take that leap along with you. You know, there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than etc etc. For both of us.
- norea-armozel 11y ago
  >Wow, that's a strong statement. (Are we using the same definition of materialism?) I'm probably not using the same definition. I'm just of the view that what we think of as material often gets reduced to atoms or particles representing the four forces for which no other 'outside' component can be entertained to exist. To me, this is a over simplification that erases all the other seemingly non-material components of our material world (thoughts, feelings, experiences, math itself, and etc). It's easy to assume it to be true, but every time I bump into this argument I always point out that the number 1 isn't of any singular substance but the number itself exists everywhere there is any form of divisibility or unitary attribute in use.

ryandamm 11y ago

Wow, that's a strong statement. (Are we using the same definition of materialism?) I use it to mean that there are no outside forces describing the state of the universe beyond what's materially measurable/describable; in other words, probably we have no transmaterial soul. That's a strong assumption for anyone who's religious, but it's sort of gospel for atheists. That said, it's the many-worlds hypothesis doesn't square with a totally-naive interpretation of Bell's Inequality and materialism/atheism. So... are you saying that we have to admit there's a God/transmaterial soul / some other magical thing because we don't understand the implication of Bell's inequality? If so, that's a big jump, but I can't say it's wrong. Just that I don't take that leap along with you. You know, there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than etc etc. For both of us.

norea-armozel 11y ago
>Wow, that's a strong statement. (Are we using the same definition of materialism?) I'm probably not using the same definition. I'm just of the view that what we think of as material often gets reduced to atoms or particles representing the four forces for which no other 'outside' component can be entertained to exist. To me, this is a over simplification that erases all the other seemingly non-material components of our material world (thoughts, feelings, experiences, math itself, and etc). It's easy to assume it to be true, but every time I bump into this argument I always point out that the number 1 isn't of any singular substance but the number itself exists everywhere there is any form of divisibility or unitary attribute in use.