Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
 
|
Post by Lugh on Nov 27, 2018 20:02:05 GMT
I should preface this by saying I dont believe this argument and might give my objection to it. However I think (prima facie) I would say that this a good argument against the idea that all things are made of atoms.The Uniformity of Nature imo could be a challenge to materialism. If you look at the world and you see that there are rarely (if ever) ontological consistency in categories of existence. Not all matter is the same, there are gases, solids etc, not all solids, gases etc are the same in quite significant ways, not all constituents of each category of solids, gases etc are the same in significant ways etc. So basically if you look at everything we see around us there is a wide variety of not just things but of basic building blocks in the universe. Therefore we can make an inductive argument that materialism is not true and somewhere in the universe matter does not exist. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Nov 27, 2018 20:25:26 GMT
I should preface this by saying I dont believe this argument and might give my objection to it. However I think (prima facie) I would say that this a good argument against the idea that all things are made of atoms.The Uniformity of Nature imo could be a challenge to materialism. If you look at the world and you see that there are rarely (if ever) ontological consistency in categories of existence. Not all matter is the same, there are gases, solids etc, not all solids, gases etc are the same in quite significant ways, not all constituents of each category of solids, gases etc are the same in significant ways etc. So basically if you look at everything we see around us there is a wide variety of not just things but of basic building blocks in the universe. Therefore we can make an inductive argument that materialism is not true and somewhere in the universe matter does not exist. Eeeaaah....I don't know. Mashed potatoes, French fries, potato chips, and hashed browns have significant differences. But they'll all made of potatoes. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 27, 2018 20:28:43 GMT
Not really. Materialism as far as I know says nothing about all matter having to be the same to begin with, so it's a rather silly argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 27, 2018 20:42:23 GMT
I should preface this by saying I dont believe this argument and might give my objection to it. However I think (prima facie) I would say that this a good argument against the idea that all things are made of atoms.The Uniformity of Nature imo could be a challenge to materialism. If you look at the world and you see that there are rarely (if ever) ontological consistency in categories of existence. Not all matter is the same, there are gases, solids etc, not all solids, gases etc are the same in quite significant ways, not all constituents of each category of solids, gases etc are the same in significant ways etc. So basically if you look at everything we see around us there is a wide variety of not just things but of basic building blocks in the universe. Therefore we can make an inductive argument that materialism is not true and somewhere in the universe matter does not exist.How and why? |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Nov 27, 2018 20:53:43 GMT
I should preface this by saying I dont believe this argument and might give my objection to it. However I think (prima facie) I would say that this a good argument against the idea that all things are made of atoms.The Uniformity of Nature imo could be a challenge to materialism. If you look at the world and you see that there are rarely (if ever) ontological consistency in categories of existence. Not all matter is the same, there are gases, solids etc, not all solids, gases etc are the same in quite significant ways, not all constituents of each category of solids, gases etc are the same in significant ways etc. So basically if you look at everything we see around us there is a wide variety of not just things but of basic building blocks in the universe. Therefore we can make an inductive argument that materialism is not true and somewhere in the universe matter does not exist. As I've posted many times, even recently, the best conception of materialism I've ever encountered comes from J.C. Smart and David Armstrong and it is 100% immune to this argument: Materialism is the assumption that everything in the universe is composed of the entities, forces, and processes that physics studies. So everything that this objection to materialism brings up simply gets folded into what materialism says. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 27, 2018 20:59:40 GMT
I should preface this by saying I dont believe this argument and might give my objection to it. However I think (prima facie) I would say that this a good argument against the idea that all things are made of atoms.The Uniformity of Nature imo could be a challenge to materialism. If you look at the world and you see that there are rarely (if ever) ontological consistency in categories of existence. Not all matter is the same, there are gases, solids etc, not all solids, gases etc are the same in quite significant ways, not all constituents of each category of solids, gases etc are the same in significant ways etc. So basically if you look at everything we see around us there is a wide variety of not just things but of basic building blocks in the universe. Therefore we can make an inductive argument that materialism is not true and somewhere in the universe matter does not exist. As I've posted many times, even recently, the best conception of materialism I've ever encountered comes from J.C. Smart and David Armstrong and it is 100% immune to this argument: Materialism is the assumption that everything in the universe is composed of the entities, forces, and processes that physics studies. So everything that this objection to materialism brings up simply gets folded into what materialism says. Yeah! I didn't actually 'get' what he was on about and what the actual distinctions were!   |
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Nov 27, 2018 21:01:12 GMT
I should preface this by saying I dont believe this argument and might give my objection to it. However I think (prima facie) I would say that this a good argument against the idea that all things are made of atoms.The Uniformity of Nature imo could be a challenge to materialism. If you look at the world and you see that there are rarely (if ever) ontological consistency in categories of existence. Not all matter is the same, there are gases, solids etc, not all solids, gases etc are the same in quite significant ways, not all constituents of each category of solids, gases etc are the same in significant ways etc. So basically if you look at everything we see around us there is a wide variety of not just things but of basic building blocks in the universe. Therefore we can make an inductive argument that materialism is not true and somewhere in the universe matter does not exist. Eeeaaah....I don't know. Mashed potatoes, French fries, potato chips, and hashed browns have significant differences. But they'll all made of potatoes. Well I never said every individual type of thing was significantly different to every other type. |
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Nov 27, 2018 21:01:51 GMT
Not really. Materialism as far as I know says nothing about all matter having to be the same to begin with, so it's a rather silly argument. In order for something to be matter it must have some property or properties, no? |
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Nov 27, 2018 21:03:49 GMT
I should preface this by saying I dont believe this argument and might give my objection to it. However I think (prima facie) I would say that this a good argument against the idea that all things are made of atoms.The Uniformity of Nature imo could be a challenge to materialism. If you look at the world and you see that there are rarely (if ever) ontological consistency in categories of existence. Not all matter is the same, there are gases, solids etc, not all solids, gases etc are the same in quite significant ways, not all constituents of each category of solids, gases etc are the same in significant ways etc. So basically if you look at everything we see around us there is a wide variety of not just things but of basic building blocks in the universe. Therefore we can make an inductive argument that materialism is not true and somewhere in the universe matter does not exist. As I've posted many times, even recently, the best conception of materialism I've ever encountered comes from J.C. Smart and David Armstrong and it is 100% immune to this argument: Materialism is the assumption that everything in the universe is composed of the entities, forces, and processes that physics studies. So everything that this objection to materialism brings up simply gets folded into what materialism says. Yeah thats what I was thinking. What about the universe being entirely composed of atoms though? |
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Nov 27, 2018 21:05:00 GMT
when planned obsolescence collides with blatant materialism
here in the land of
the freak
and the home of
the slave
where planned obsolescence
has long been
at the head
of
your standard operating parade
eventually
everyone knew
there'd be an end to the charade
where even
projectile vomited nationalism
couldn't put humpty back
on top of
what looks like
a propped up arcade.
sjw 11/27/18 inspired at this very moment in time by gosh mr. wizard i can't understand why no one's buying our cars. . .
from the 'binge series' of poems
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Nov 27, 2018 21:07:26 GMT
I should preface this by saying I dont believe this argument and might give my objection to it. However I think (prima facie) I would say that this a good argument against the idea that all things are made of atoms.The Uniformity of Nature imo could be a challenge to materialism. If you look at the world and you see that there are rarely (if ever) ontological consistency in categories of existence. Not all matter is the same, there are gases, solids etc, not all solids, gases etc are the same in quite significant ways, not all constituents of each category of solids, gases etc are the same in significant ways etc. So basically if you look at everything we see around us there is a wide variety of not just things but of basic building blocks in the universe. Therefore we can make an inductive argument that materialism is not true and somewhere in the universe matter does not exist.How and why? Well if you look at the things that the universe is composed of you see most things can be grouped into subtypes. So the argument goes if everything else can be grouped into subtypes then surely what everything is made of in the universe could also be grouped into subtypes so matter cant be the sole thing. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Nov 27, 2018 21:12:54 GMT
Yeah thats what I was thinking. What about the universe being entirely composed of atoms though? That was the mistake the first materialists made going back to the Greeks. You don't want to legislate the specifics of what the universe is made from the safety of the armchair. You want to be open ended so that whatever revisions the physicists come up with simply get accepted into materialist ontology. These days they are talking about strings being fundamental. 20 years from now it may be something else. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 27, 2018 21:13:50 GMT
Not really. Materialism as far as I know says nothing about all matter having to be the same to begin with, so it's a rather silly argument. In order for something to be matter it must have some property or properties, no? Yes, but that doesn't mean matter can't have different subcategories. Gas, solids, liquids all have one common trait (they're made of atoms), simply because those atoms perhaps have different traits doesn't invalidate that. Atoms in gas tend vibrate considerably more than the ones in liquid and solid but they're all still made up of atoms, which is the defining tribute of matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 27, 2018 21:14:43 GMT
Well if you look at the things that the universe is composed of you see most things can be grouped into subtypes. So the argument goes if everything else can be grouped into subtypes then surely what everything is made of in the universe could also be grouped into subtypes so matter cant be the sole thing. I don't 'get' the classificational differences between 'subtypes' and 'fundamentals' or a sole thing. What do you mean? |
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Nov 27, 2018 21:23:05 GMT
In order for something to be matter it must have some property or properties, no? Yes, but that doesn't mean matter can't have different subcategories. Gas, solids, liquids all have one common trait (they're made of atoms), simply because those atoms perhaps have different traits doesn't invalidate that. Atoms in gas tend vibrate considerably more than the ones in liquid and solid but they're all still made up of atoms, which is the defining tribute of matter.
I dont think you're understanding the argument, I never said matter cant have different subcategories. |
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Nov 27, 2018 21:32:54 GMT
Yeah thats what I was thinking. What about the universe being entirely composed of atoms though? That was the mistake the first materialists made going back to the Greeks. You don't want to legislate the specifics of what the universe is made from the safety of the armchair. You want to be open ended so that whatever revisions the physicists come up with simply get accepted into materialist ontology. These days they are talking about strings being fundamental. 20 years from now it may be something else. Right but the argument isnt saying "Be open-minded about atoms not being fundamental" its saying "Believe atoms are not solely fundamental" |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Nov 27, 2018 22:02:22 GMT
That was the mistake the first materialists made going back to the Greeks. You don't want to legislate the specifics of what the universe is made from the safety of the armchair. You want to be open ended so that whatever revisions the physicists come up with simply get accepted into materialist ontology. These days they are talking about strings being fundamental. 20 years from now it may be something else. Right but the argument isnt saying "Be open-minded about atoms not being fundamental" its saying "Believe atoms are not solely fundamental" I'd put it more like this: Materialism = "Just go with whatever the best, current physics is saying about the ultimate constitution of the universe."*
*"And if history is any guide, don't get hung up on or too attached to any particular model."
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 27, 2018 22:11:11 GMT
That was the mistake the first materialists made going back to the Greeks. You don't want to legislate the specifics of what the universe is made from the safety of the armchair. You want to be open ended so that whatever revisions the physicists come up with simply get accepted into materialist ontology. These days they are talking about strings being fundamental. 20 years from now it may be something else. Right but the argument isnt saying "Be open-minded about atoms not being fundamental" its saying "Believe atoms are not solely fundamental" Definitions aside, I think of the workings of the universe as having infinite variety based on solid physics (naturalistic and materialistic) principles, some of which we humans understand at this time, and others, perhaps not, either fully partially (or maybe even not at all). To make this post on topic on this board, I don't see anything humans have so far defined as 'supernatural' being involved at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 28, 2018 1:20:47 GMT
I should preface this by saying I dont believe this argument and might give my objection to it. However I think (prima facie) I would say that this a good argument against the idea that all things are made of atoms.The Uniformity of Nature imo could be a challenge to materialism. If you look at the world and you see that there are rarely (if ever) ontological consistency in categories of existence. Not all matter is the same, there are gases, solids etc, not all solids, gases etc are the same in quite significant ways, not all constituents of each category of solids, gases etc are the same in significant ways etc. So basically if you look at everything we see around us there is a wide variety of not just things but of basic building blocks in the universe. Therefore we can make an inductive argument that materialism is not true and somewhere in the universe matter does not exist. As I've posted many times, even recently, the best conception of materialism I've ever encountered comes from J.C. Smart and David Armstrong and it is 100% immune to this argument: Materialism is the assumption that everything in the universe is composed of the entities, forces, and processes that physics studies. So everything that this objection to materialism brings up simply gets folded into what materialism says. The utility of a definition can be enhanced by making clear what is not included. By your definition who is not a materialist? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 4:03:51 GMT
I would say that this a good argument against the idea that all things are made of atoms. Not sure why such an argument would be needed. We already know of many things which are not made of atoms. It's been common knowledge for a hundred years or more. Protons, for instance, are not made of atoms. Huh? There are a large variety of physical materials. But all of them are made up of the same constituent parts. If you're talking about physical materials, they are all made of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Or more fundamentally, of quarks and electrons. But I don't get why you'd think that any of this is an argument against materialism. Let's grant that there turns out to be, oh, say a billion different fundamental types of matter. Okay... how does that argue against materialism? |
|
