4 ms·
> Firstly you're drawing an unwarranted distinction between physicalism and materialism. Let's not argue the definition of words then. The distinction I'm draw
by beaconstudios 5y ago
> Firstly you're drawing an unwarranted distinction between physicalism and materialism.
Let's not argue the definition of words then. The distinction I'm drawing is whether said philosophy believes that higher-order models of reality at any given level can be derived from understanding the smallest parts. The "yes" side, I'm calling materialism, but you could also call reductivism or perhaps objectivism. The "no" side, I'll call emergentism or constructivism. Neither side implies a supernatural aspect to reality.
> Materialism is not a theory of physics, it's a theory of the relationship between physics and various philosophical questions. Asserting that it's somehow incompatible with quantum mechanics is just silly.
Only if you're relying on the equivalence of materialism and physicalism. Quantum mechanics violated many ideas considered to be ground truth at the time, including locality and deterministic certainty. I'm far from an expert in this area, but my understanding is that the thing I'm calling materialism is dependent on the idea of the universe as a lego-style composition, and that quantum mechanics violate this concept. But this view is also espoused by Fritjof Capra, a particle physicist. Perhaps somebody should tell him that it's silly!
- simonh 5y agoAll that quantum mechanics does is substitute wave functions instead of 'atomic' particles. A future theory might substitute something else, strings, branes, whatever. It doesn't matter, from a philosophical point of view it's just physics. It has no bearing on the relationship between physicalism or materialism and other competing philosophical theories. This is the sort of thing Deepak Chopra gets so badly wrong with his vague mumbo jumbo. Hmm, I just looked up Capra. Obviously I've not read his book, but it looks like he talks a lot about 'the relatedness of all parts', well that's just kind of obvious. I note you talk about emergent phenomena. Sure of course, that's all physicalists and materialists are saying. It's not like we've never thought of this stuff before. That's not something that disproves what were saying, or something that we've not considered. It's the whole point.
- beaconstudios 5y agoJust casting around ad hominems and absurd comparisons doesn't make you right.
- simonh 5y agoRich, coming from someone who makes snide remarks about materialists who "consider themselves rational".
- beaconstudios 5y agoThat wasn't meant to be snide, but there's clearly a bee in your bonnet so there's no point continuing this discussion.
- beaconstudios 5y agoYou seem hung up on some other argument that I'm not making, perhaps related to spirituality or quack medicine. My argument is about epistemology and ontology, within the scope of physicalism. It's a real and ongoing debate within the philosophy of science.