4 ms·

> It's strange to me that materialism is still such a popular belief amongst people who consider themselves rational, because even the origin point of that beli

> It's strange to me that materialism is still such a popular belief amongst people who consider themselves rational, because even the origin point of that belief (the atomistic view of physics) fell apart at the hands of quantum mechanics. Why does QM contradict materialism? I understood materialism to be the opposite of spiritual beliefs rather than being about strictly Newtonian physics (although I guess that's how it started). Quantum mechanics describes the behaviour of matter and therefore is surely central to a materialist world view? What would be the correct word to describe the view that consciousness is the result of physical processes? I thought that was materialism. > So the fundamental essence of reality is energy, rather than matter. They're basically the same thing though, yes? E=mc^2 and all that?

beaconstudios 5y ago
You're thinking of physicalism, of which materialism is a sub-category. Physicalism is the assertion that there are no supernatural phenomena (which I agree with); materialism suggests that the essence that everything is built out of is matter. I think most people would agree that materialism is outdated (given that atomism has been outdated for >100 years), but many of the implications of materialism (that the whole can be explained by the parts, ie reductionism, and the idea that all important properties can be quantified, as two examples) still persist. The (superior) alternative to materialism is emergentism. Materialism and emergentism both imply other ideas and ways of thinking about the world, which are the actual important things.
- danparsonson 5y ago
  Ah OK. I think you're splitting hairs a little bit there - I would consider those two terms (materialism and physicalism) to be interchangeable; the basic idea is the same but one is a refinement of the other using modern knowledge. You could say physicalism is materialism v2 :-) As for emergentism... that's materialism v3, so (in my head at least) these are all different ways of saying the same thing.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    yeah that's fair - the problem in my mind isn't that people are using the wrong word (who cares!), but that even though we know that matter isn't the essence of reality now, we still have many other beliefs that are dependent on that belief, that we haven't moved on from.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  I don't follow. > many of the implications of materialism (...) reductionism Is reductionism considered a consequence of materialism? To me, the two seem independent. Reductionism works just as well for abstract concepts as it does for physical matter. > the idea that all important properties can be quantified I'm not sure how this follows from materialism either. We quantify many things that have nothing to do with physical matter. I also get the feeling that you consider these two "implications of materialism" to be outdated - I disagree with that view. For instance, I can't think of an example of a property or phenomena that is best left not quantified - there are plenty of important things in life that we can't quantify yet, because we lack the measurement tools or conceptual framework for it, but quantifying these is obviously doable in principle, and desirable.
  - danparsonson 5y ago
    Regarding quantifying everything - at a quantum mechanical level, all is not totally quantifiable, and that's fundamental. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle. I assume this is what the parent was referring to.
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      That is part of it, yes.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    > Is reductionism considered a consequence of materialism? It is; fundamentally the theory is that the world is made up of lego bricks, so we can examine the world by looking at the pieces. This is a useful tool, but it doesn't actually work in all cases. For example, the areas of science where this does work are considered "hard sciences", and the areas that it doesn't are considered "soft sciences". Reductionism isn't outdated in the sense that it is useless; it's outdated in the sense that it cannot be used to understand all phenomena, especially emergent phenomena. Systems science is and has been creating new tools that can be applied to understand emergent phenomena. I don't want to get too navel-gazy with this, but there are many things that defy quantification, or our efforts at quantification are and can only ever be procrustean in nature. That doesn't mean that they cannot be modelled, but that the modelling must be process-oriented rather than state-oriented. For example, if you are modelling the behaviour of a thermometer at the level of its components, you can model the causal relationships between heater and sensor as a self-correcting feedback loop - this is a qualitative model. Only at the level of the total behaviour can you model the ambient temperature and desired temperature quantitatively. Am I making sense here? I'm still working my way through the textbooks for some of these concepts so sometimes I find it difficult to put into words.
- nahuel0x 5y ago
  I think there was a big intuitive glimpse of this in dialectical materialism (but not on the stalinist "diamat" flavor). "Levels" of reality emerge were each one has his own emergent "laws", there are intertwined mutual influence between "levels", phase transitions are emphasized, relationships are more important than objects, objects are always "contradictory" (always divisible and in flux) and really relationships in disguise, all "categories" we made in our mind as always transitional and imperfect, etc.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    Hegel is considered to be in the intellectual heritage of systems theory, AFAIK.
    - nahuel0x 5y ago
      I think systems theory can be directly traced to Bogdanov's "tektology", and he surely was aware of Hegel works.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- namero999 5y ago
  Although emergentism doesn't solve the hard problem.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    The hard problem of consciousness?
    - namero999 5y ago
      Yes. I think the categorical quantities->qualities jump is still there, or at least unexplained.

beaconstudios 5y ago

You're thinking of physicalism, of which materialism is a sub-category. Physicalism is the assertion that there are no supernatural phenomena (which I agree with); materialism suggests that the essence that everything is built out of is matter. I think most people would agree that materialism is outdated (given that atomism has been outdated for >100 years), but many of the implications of materialism (that the whole can be explained by the parts, ie reductionism, and the idea that all important properties can be quantified, as two examples) still persist. The (superior) alternative to materialism is emergentism. Materialism and emergentism both imply other ideas and ways of thinking about the world, which are the actual important things.

danparsonson 5y ago
Ah OK. I think you're splitting hairs a little bit there - I would consider those two terms (materialism and physicalism) to be interchangeable; the basic idea is the same but one is a refinement of the other using modern knowledge. You could say physicalism is materialism v2 :-) As for emergentism... that's materialism v3, so (in my head at least) these are all different ways of saying the same thing.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  yeah that's fair - the problem in my mind isn't that people are using the wrong word (who cares!), but that even though we know that matter isn't the essence of reality now, we still have many other beliefs that are dependent on that belief, that we haven't moved on from.
TeMPOraL 5y ago
I don't follow. > many of the implications of materialism (...) reductionism Is reductionism considered a consequence of materialism? To me, the two seem independent. Reductionism works just as well for abstract concepts as it does for physical matter. > the idea that all important properties can be quantified I'm not sure how this follows from materialism either. We quantify many things that have nothing to do with physical matter. I also get the feeling that you consider these two "implications of materialism" to be outdated - I disagree with that view. For instance, I can't think of an example of a property or phenomena that is best left not quantified - there are plenty of important things in life that we can't quantify yet, because we lack the measurement tools or conceptual framework for it, but quantifying these is obviously doable in principle, and desirable.
- danparsonson 5y ago
  Regarding quantifying everything - at a quantum mechanical level, all is not totally quantifiable, and that's fundamental. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle. I assume this is what the parent was referring to.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    That is part of it, yes.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  > Is reductionism considered a consequence of materialism? It is; fundamentally the theory is that the world is made up of lego bricks, so we can examine the world by looking at the pieces. This is a useful tool, but it doesn't actually work in all cases. For example, the areas of science where this does work are considered "hard sciences", and the areas that it doesn't are considered "soft sciences". Reductionism isn't outdated in the sense that it is useless; it's outdated in the sense that it cannot be used to understand all phenomena, especially emergent phenomena. Systems science is and has been creating new tools that can be applied to understand emergent phenomena. I don't want to get too navel-gazy with this, but there are many things that defy quantification, or our efforts at quantification are and can only ever be procrustean in nature. That doesn't mean that they cannot be modelled, but that the modelling must be process-oriented rather than state-oriented. For example, if you are modelling the behaviour of a thermometer at the level of its components, you can model the causal relationships between heater and sensor as a self-correcting feedback loop - this is a qualitative model. Only at the level of the total behaviour can you model the ambient temperature and desired temperature quantitatively. Am I making sense here? I'm still working my way through the textbooks for some of these concepts so sometimes I find it difficult to put into words.
nahuel0x 5y ago
I think there was a big intuitive glimpse of this in dialectical materialism (but not on the stalinist "diamat" flavor). "Levels" of reality emerge were each one has his own emergent "laws", there are intertwined mutual influence between "levels", phase transitions are emphasized, relationships are more important than objects, objects are always "contradictory" (always divisible and in flux) and really relationships in disguise, all "categories" we made in our mind as always transitional and imperfect, etc.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  Hegel is considered to be in the intellectual heritage of systems theory, AFAIK.
  - nahuel0x 5y ago
    I think systems theory can be directly traced to Bogdanov's "tektology", and he surely was aware of Hegel works.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
namero999 5y ago
Although emergentism doesn't solve the hard problem.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  The hard problem of consciousness?
  - namero999 5y ago
    Yes. I think the categorical quantities->qualities jump is still there, or at least unexplained.