4 ms·
All that quantum mechanics does is substitute wave functions instead of 'atomic' particles. A future theory might substitute something else, strings, branes, wh
by simonh 5y ago
All 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.