20 ms·

The whole idea of materialism is simply a bad and inconsistent worldview. If you start under the assumption that materialism is true you have to also eat the i

by ezion 3y ago

The whole idea of materialism is simply a bad and inconsistent worldview. If you start under the assumption that materialism is true you have to also eat the idea that free will doesn't exist, and that you can't trust any of your thoughts since they are: 1. Out of your control, since it's all physics. 2. Created by a brain that evolved to survive, not to create logic. Thus the idea of materialism itself would be just an illusion created by your brain's need to survive. This implies it is a self-defeating worldview from the get-go - because you've reached a contradiction: the brain generates the thoughts in a deterministic fashion and you cannot trust your brain, so you cannot trust the thoughts you have about the material reality including materialism. And the armchair philosophers misunderstand Godel literally all the time, including this time. All it says is that there are statements that are true that cannot be proven within the constraints of a finite set of axioms. It's not a limitation of math, it's a limitation of what can be proven true within the confines of a set of axioms. Meaning there could be another set of axioms under which the limitation to prove that such a statement is true disappears. But it doesn't make math any less true. This article was written by someone with very poor philosophical training.

smcameron 3y ago
> The whole idea of materialism is simply a bad and inconsistent worldview. Isn't your argument an example of Appeal to Consequences?[1] It appears that you don't accept materialism not because you can show that it's incorrect, but because you don't like the implications? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences
- ezion 3y ago
  Uhh... I proved that it's false because it leads to contradictions. That is literally a reductio ad absurdum - a proper proof. It's a transcendental argument against materialism. In addition to it, I personally reject materialism because it fails to describe the universe properly, in particular the Big Bang. The Big Bang is the beginning of all material universe - creatio ex nihilo. However, if there was a mathematical structure that sets the framework for the physical laws, there's a reality that transcends the material universe and exists prior to it. It's the only logically consistent worldview in my opinion. This has even further implications but, you know, you can figure it out yourself.
  - strogonoff 3y ago
    From my vantage point, if we take “as little magic as possible” to be a quality of an elegant model, then naive materialistic monism, which requires granting magical existence to really many things (you know, matter with all those atoms, neurones, etc.) and arbitrary rules for their behavior, while often denying existence to consciousness (the only thing we can directly access is an illusion type of argument), certainly doesn’t strike me as particularly elegant. Why we assume that an elegant model has a higher chance of being correct, or is otherwise somehow better, in the first place—it seems to be pretty much implied that beauty and elegance are desirable traits of a model—is a good and on topic question, but perhaps too much for this particular thread.
  - chongli 3y ago
    creatio ex nihilo “At first there was nothing, then out of nothing the Big Bang happened and the universe began” is a popular misconception of the Big Bang theory. It’s completely wrong. The Big Bang theory does not attempt to explain what things were like “before” the Big Bang. It’s not a theory of creation at all! It only offers a model starting with the inflationary epoch, when the universe was already expanding rapidly. Prior to that, our existing theories break down and we need a different physical theory (commonly called the Grand Unified Theory or GUT). We don’t have it so we can go no further back. The point is: back in the inflationary epoch the universe was all there, it was just much smaller. The point of the theory is to try to explain the extreme uniformity (isotropy) in the distribution of galaxies, gas, dust, and light we observe in the universe today (among other things, such as dark matter). It’s a much better model in terms of its simplicity and predictive power than any steady-state model of the universe that has been proposed. But it’s got nothing to do with creation!
    - ezion 3y ago
      I don't claim to know anything before it either. All I'm claiming is that before whatever happened, there must have been a mathematical structure that allowed it to happen following certain physical laws. That's just a fact. So these mathematical laws exist before anything. This implies a realm that's not physical. Anything that is contingent such as all material things (why is there anything at all?) must have a prior cause - and that's an assumption of science. All theories presuppose these mathematical structures. That is, even if the current big bang is just one in a series of several, or however else you try to explain existence, you have to presuppose the mathematical structure that forces it to follow certain physical laws. I also don't think you fully understand inflation and why it's been proposed but I'll ignore it since it's not useful for the conversation. Also read up on the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem as it basically proves that a beginning is necessary. In addition, note that right now it seems almost certain that the universe had a beginning and any other explanation is not evidence based.
rssoconnor 3y ago
> All [Goedel] says is that there are statements that are true that cannot be proven within the constraints of a finite set of axioms. It's not a limitation of math, it's a limitation of what can be proven true within the confines of a set of axioms. Minor correction. Goedel's theorem applies to decidable (a.k.a. computable) sets of axioms. e.g. Peano's axiom, when written in first order logic, contain an infinite set of induction axioms that follow a specific and recognizable (i.e. decidable) pattern. In fact, Goedel's theorem applies even beyond that including any set of axioms whose syntax can be specified by some (first order) mathematical predicate, even if that predicate is not computable in any way. > Meaning there could be another set of axioms under which the limitation to prove that such a statement is true disappears. But it doesn't make math any less true. Indeed, when studying logic it is common to consider the set of all true first-order (arithmetic) statements, which necessarily forms a complete and consistent set of axioms. Of course, given Godel's incompleteness theorem it must be the case that such a set of axioms isn't computable. Not only that, but it cannot be even defined in a first-order (arithmetic) way, which leads the the corollary of Tarski's undefinability theorem[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theo... P.S. There is no free will and one's thoughts are indeed out of one's control. I'm not certain that implies one should never trust one's thoughts. Though it does make sense to take them with a grain of salt. See for example, "The past is not true" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36798854 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36798854). P.P.S I'm not saying your argument is invalid. It can both be the case that materialism is contradictory and there is no free will.
- strogonoff 3y ago
  That your thoughts are not fully under what you believe would be your direct control, and supposed absence of free will, do not strike me as particularly following from one another (at least as long as you allow that as a conscious agent you are more than just what you identify as your thoughts).
  - rssoconnor 3y ago
    For me, the lack of free will follows from my study of physics, which seems to allow no room for free will. That my thoughts are not under my control is the counter argument to the claim "But then how is it that you feel like you do have free will?" The answer to this is that, upon more careful introspection, it seems I don't even really feel like I have free will either.
nickelbob 3y ago
Where's the contradiction? Are you saying that "not being able to trust your thoughts" implies that materialism is false? > This article was written by someone with very poor philosophical training. Strange to throw shade on the author when your position is that an idea that's been taken seriously by philosophers for 2000+ years is obviously contradictory. Maybe some humility is in order?
- ezion 3y ago
  Materialism is a self-defeating worldview because its implications are that you cannot trust it. The whole purpose of a worldview is to be able to trust it as one trust one's own eyes - because a good mental model of reality affects how one acts and moves around the world. If the worldview implies a contradiction it is not a worthwhile worldview to hold, because you know it to be logically false like any other set of statements that lead to a contradiction.
  - lostmsu 3y ago
    Except you did not demonstrate any contradiction.
yongjik 3y ago
> If you start under the assumption that materialism is true (...) you can't trust any of your thoughts since they are: 1. Out of your control, since it's all physics. 2. Created by a brain that evolved to survive, not to create logic. On the other hand, if materialism is false then your thoughts are (1) definitely out of your control, since they aren't even constrained by physics, and (2) exist due to some mechanism that's not just not understood so far, but not understandable in principle (otherwise it will be inside the realm of science). How is that better?
lern_too_spel 3y ago
Of course my thoughts are controlled by physics, and of course free will doesn't exist. Why is that self-defeating? It is just a statement of fact. We can still conclude materialism logically just as a computer concludes logically that 2+2=4.
- strogonoff 3y ago
  > We can still conclude materialism logically I invite you to try!
  - lern_too_spel 3y ago
    We have empirical proof of materialism from experiments showing that manipulating the brain with drugs, electrical stimulation, and lobotomy affect what it thinks. In the same way, we have proof of materialism for computers.
    - strogonoff 3y ago
      That does not tell us much about how causality follows or make statements about objective reality. Definitively it only shows that one conscious agent influenced another conscious agent’s (or own) state.
      - lern_too_spel 3y ago
        You're introducing an unnecessary concept. We know the physical brain is doing the thinking, and we know that it can be manipulated physically. Throwing in metaphysics just for shits and giggles is like saying we don't know how much physics controls the motion of the stars and that there could be metaphysics involved there as well. Good luck telling physicists that they don't need to search for dark matter because everything can be explained with magic.
        strogonoff 3y ago
        Why do you think this in some way interferes with physics? Philosophical views could inform natural sciences but they don’t invalidate them. Non-materialist philosophy is very compatible with physics. The problem is people who start talking physics as philosophy/religion and believe that metaphors in current physical models (electrons flying, strings vibrating, fields permeating) are not metaphors but actual final objective reality, thinking that natural sciences make existential statements.

by ezion 3y ago

smcameron 3y ago

> The whole idea of materialism is simply a bad and inconsistent worldview. Isn't your argument an example of Appeal to Consequences?[1] It appears that you don't accept materialism not because you can show that it's incorrect, but because you don't like the implications? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

ezion 3y ago
Uhh... I proved that it's false because it leads to contradictions. That is literally a reductio ad absurdum - a proper proof. It's a transcendental argument against materialism. In addition to it, I personally reject materialism because it fails to describe the universe properly, in particular the Big Bang. The Big Bang is the beginning of all material universe - creatio ex nihilo. However, if there was a mathematical structure that sets the framework for the physical laws, there's a reality that transcends the material universe and exists prior to it. It's the only logically consistent worldview in my opinion. This has even further implications but, you know, you can figure it out yourself.
- strogonoff 3y ago
  From my vantage point, if we take “as little magic as possible” to be a quality of an elegant model, then naive materialistic monism, which requires granting magical existence to really many things (you know, matter with all those atoms, neurones, etc.) and arbitrary rules for their behavior, while often denying existence to consciousness (the only thing we can directly access is an illusion type of argument), certainly doesn’t strike me as particularly elegant. Why we assume that an elegant model has a higher chance of being correct, or is otherwise somehow better, in the first place—it seems to be pretty much implied that beauty and elegance are desirable traits of a model—is a good and on topic question, but perhaps too much for this particular thread.
- chongli 3y ago
  creatio ex nihilo “At first there was nothing, then out of nothing the Big Bang happened and the universe began” is a popular misconception of the Big Bang theory. It’s completely wrong. The Big Bang theory does not attempt to explain what things were like “before” the Big Bang. It’s not a theory of creation at all! It only offers a model starting with the inflationary epoch, when the universe was already expanding rapidly. Prior to that, our existing theories break down and we need a different physical theory (commonly called the Grand Unified Theory or GUT). We don’t have it so we can go no further back. The point is: back in the inflationary epoch the universe was all there, it was just much smaller. The point of the theory is to try to explain the extreme uniformity (isotropy) in the distribution of galaxies, gas, dust, and light we observe in the universe today (among other things, such as dark matter). It’s a much better model in terms of its simplicity and predictive power than any steady-state model of the universe that has been proposed. But it’s got nothing to do with creation!
  - ezion 3y ago
    I don't claim to know anything before it either. All I'm claiming is that before whatever happened, there must have been a mathematical structure that allowed it to happen following certain physical laws. That's just a fact. So these mathematical laws exist before anything. This implies a realm that's not physical. Anything that is contingent such as all material things (why is there anything at all?) must have a prior cause - and that's an assumption of science. All theories presuppose these mathematical structures. That is, even if the current big bang is just one in a series of several, or however else you try to explain existence, you have to presuppose the mathematical structure that forces it to follow certain physical laws. I also don't think you fully understand inflation and why it's been proposed but I'll ignore it since it's not useful for the conversation. Also read up on the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem as it basically proves that a beginning is necessary. In addition, note that right now it seems almost certain that the universe had a beginning and any other explanation is not evidence based.

rssoconnor 3y ago

> All [Goedel] says is that there are statements that are true that cannot be proven within the constraints of a finite set of axioms. It's not a limitation of math, it's a limitation of what can be proven true within the confines of a set of axioms. Minor correction. Goedel's theorem applies to decidable (a.k.a. computable) sets of axioms. e.g. Peano's axiom, when written in first order logic, contain an infinite set of induction axioms that follow a specific and recognizable (i.e. decidable) pattern. In fact, Goedel's theorem applies even beyond that including any set of axioms whose syntax can be specified by some (first order) mathematical predicate, even if that predicate is not computable in any way. > Meaning there could be another set of axioms under which the limitation to prove that such a statement is true disappears. But it doesn't make math any less true. Indeed, when studying logic it is common to consider the set of all true first-order (arithmetic) statements, which necessarily forms a complete and consistent set of axioms. Of course, given Godel's incompleteness theorem it must be the case that such a set of axioms isn't computable. Not only that, but it cannot be even defined in a first-order (arithmetic) way, which leads the the corollary of Tarski's undefinability theorem[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theo... P.S. There is no free will and one's thoughts are indeed out of one's control. I'm not certain that implies one should never trust one's thoughts. Though it does make sense to take them with a grain of salt. See for example, "The past is not true" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36798854 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36798854). P.P.S I'm not saying your argument is invalid. It can both be the case that materialism is contradictory and there is no free will.

strogonoff 3y ago
That your thoughts are not fully under what you believe would be your direct control, and supposed absence of free will, do not strike me as particularly following from one another (at least as long as you allow that as a conscious agent you are more than just what you identify as your thoughts).
- rssoconnor 3y ago
  For me, the lack of free will follows from my study of physics, which seems to allow no room for free will. That my thoughts are not under my control is the counter argument to the claim "But then how is it that you feel like you do have free will?" The answer to this is that, upon more careful introspection, it seems I don't even really feel like I have free will either.

nickelbob 3y ago

Where's the contradiction? Are you saying that "not being able to trust your thoughts" implies that materialism is false? > This article was written by someone with very poor philosophical training. Strange to throw shade on the author when your position is that an idea that's been taken seriously by philosophers for 2000+ years is obviously contradictory. Maybe some humility is in order?

ezion 3y ago
Materialism is a self-defeating worldview because its implications are that you cannot trust it. The whole purpose of a worldview is to be able to trust it as one trust one's own eyes - because a good mental model of reality affects how one acts and moves around the world. If the worldview implies a contradiction it is not a worthwhile worldview to hold, because you know it to be logically false like any other set of statements that lead to a contradiction.
- lostmsu 3y ago
  Except you did not demonstrate any contradiction.

yongjik 3y ago

> If you start under the assumption that materialism is true (...) you can't trust any of your thoughts since they are: 1. Out of your control, since it's all physics. 2. Created by a brain that evolved to survive, not to create logic. On the other hand, if materialism is false then your thoughts are (1) definitely out of your control, since they aren't even constrained by physics, and (2) exist due to some mechanism that's not just not understood so far, but not understandable in principle (otherwise it will be inside the realm of science). How is that better?

lern_too_spel 3y ago

Of course my thoughts are controlled by physics, and of course free will doesn't exist. Why is that self-defeating? It is just a statement of fact. We can still conclude materialism logically just as a computer concludes logically that 2+2=4.

strogonoff 3y ago
> We can still conclude materialism logically I invite you to try!
- lern_too_spel 3y ago
  We have empirical proof of materialism from experiments showing that manipulating the brain with drugs, electrical stimulation, and lobotomy affect what it thinks. In the same way, we have proof of materialism for computers.
  - strogonoff 3y ago
    That does not tell us much about how causality follows or make statements about objective reality. Definitively it only shows that one conscious agent influenced another conscious agent’s (or own) state.
    - lern_too_spel 3y ago
      You're introducing an unnecessary concept. We know the physical brain is doing the thinking, and we know that it can be manipulated physically. Throwing in metaphysics just for shits and giggles is like saying we don't know how much physics controls the motion of the stars and that there could be metaphysics involved there as well. Good luck telling physicists that they don't need to search for dark matter because everything can be explained with magic.
      - strogonoff 3y ago
        Why do you think this in some way interferes with physics? Philosophical views could inform natural sciences but they don’t invalidate them. Non-materialist philosophy is very compatible with physics. The problem is people who start talking physics as philosophy/religion and believe that metaphors in current physical models (electrons flying, strings vibrating, fields permeating) are not metaphors but actual final objective reality, thinking that natural sciences make existential statements.