Materialism has officially become dangerous in my eyes.

[Nous]

The various methods by which the various scientific disciplines investigate the world are demonstrably not vacuous

I don't know why you are unable to read and comprehend such simply sentences such as what I said:

What could be more vacuous than espousing a metaphysical thesis that you can't even begin to define? That you can't even begin to infer from any evidence?

What's vacuous is espousing a metaphysical thesis that you can't even begin to define, and that you can't infer from any evidence gotten by use of any scientific method.

 

[sayak83]

I don't know why you are unable to read and comprehend such simply sentences such as what I said:

What could be more vacuous than espousing a metaphysical thesis that you can't even begin to define? That you can't even begin to infer from any evidence?

What's vacuous is espousing a metaphysical thesis that you can't even begin to define, and that you can't infer from any evidence gotten by use of any scientific method.

Your inability to understand the very simple things I have stated here is bewildering. If you ask me what are the methods of cooking, and I say it are various methods used by chefs and point to cooking websites and the Masterchef program, it would be very confusing to be told that my response is vacuous.

 

[Nous]

There can be many different types of matter with many different types of properties that these matter possess.

Materialism is a monism. It is a thesis about everything that exist being a certain kind of phenomena. Evidently, contrary to your claims above, you reject the thesis of materialism.

Presumably no one knows whether "naturalism" is a monistic thesis or not.

So, no, materialism is not, and has never been monistic.

You need to inform yourself.

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism​

Materialism - Wikipedia

 

[Jumi]

We can drop a stone from 10 meters where it has potential energy E=mgh. Are you saying this potential energy or it's transformation when we let go is non-material?

 

[Nous]

If you ask me what are the methods of cooking, and I say it are various methods used by chefs and point to cooking websites and the Masterchef program, it would be very confusing to be told that my response is vacuous.

Perhaps you should learn from that confusion, such as the fact that you can't defend a thesis that you can't define. Why on earth would someone espouse a metaphysical thesis that one can't define? What is that about?

 

[Nous]

We can drop a stone from 10 meters where it has potential energy E=mgh. Are you saying this potential energy or it's transformation when we let go is non-material?

Potential energy is not matter and does not reduce to matter.

 

[sayak83]

Materialism is a monism. It is a thesis about everything that exist being a certain kind of phenomena. Evidently, contrary to your claims above, you reject the thesis of materialism.

Presumably no one knows whether "naturalism" is a monistic thesis or not.

You need to inform yourself.

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism​

Materialism - Wikipedia

And you need to remember that philosophers use highly idiosyncratic definitions. For example Democritus's atomism is considered monistic and yet it contain multiple types of atoms, multiple properties like shape, volume, density, movement as well as space and time.
Democritus | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

. From the difficulty of assigning a beginning of time, he argued the eternity of existing nature, of void space, and of motion. He supposed the atoms, which are originally similar, to be impenetrable and have a density proportionate to their volume. All motions are the result of active and passive affection. He drew a distinction between primary motion and its secondary effects, that is, impulse and reaction. This is the basis of the law of necessity, by which all things in nature are ruled. The worlds which we see -- with all their properties of immensity, resemblance, and dissimilitude -- result from the endless multiplicity of falling atoms. The human soul consists of globular atoms of fire, which impart movement to the body. Maintaining his atomic theory throughout, Democritus introduced the hypothesis of images or idols (eidola), a kind of emanation from external objects, which make an impression on our senses, and from the influence of which he deduced sensation (aesthesis) and thought (noesis). He distinguished between a rude, imperfect, and therefore false perception and a true one. In the same manner, consistent with this theory, he accounted for the popular notions of Deity; partly through our incapacity to understand fully the phenomena of which we are witnesses, and partly from the impressions communicated by certain beings (eidola) of enormous stature and resembling the human figure which inhabit the air. We know these from dreams and the causes of divination. He carried his theory into practical philosophy also, laying down that happiness consisted in an even temperament. From this he deduced his moral principles and prudential maxims. It was from Democritus that Epicurus borrowed the principal features of his philosophy.

 

[Jumi]

Potential energy is not matter and does not reduce to matter.

What about mass or volume?

 

[sayak83]

Perhaps you should learn from that confusion, such as the fact that you can't defend a thesis that you can't define. Why on earth would someone espouse a metaphysical thesis that one can't define? What is that about?

No the learning that has to be done is on your part. That much is clear from this response.

 

[Polymath257]

Energy is not an object that has mass and volume ("matter"). Energy exists. Therefore, everything that exists is not matter.

How do you define 'matter'? Are photons 'matter'? Are neutrinos? Are Higg's bosons?

The point is that all energy is associated with some sort of particle like these. Even the energy of the early universe was held in the gravitons representing curvature.

All of these are certainly 'natural', but it is quite unclear to me that they should all be classified as 'matter'. However, any good materialist would not see these as contradictions to the thesis of materialism. And, perhaps that is why 'naturalism' has replaced materialism' in some discussions. The definition of 'matter' is just too tricky and vague.

I think all the dead philosophers named in the article eventually realized that it's a vacuous thesis--they couldn't define what "natural" means, and certainly there has never been any scientific experiment to test the hypothesis that all things that exist are "natural".

That is exactly the same issue as the term 'material', though.

Obviously that isn't a thesis that can be deduced from any findings obtained by way of any scientific method. Right?

No, it is more a definition of the term 'phenomenon' than anything else. Anything that interacts with something that is 'natural' is, by definition, also 'natural'. And to not interact is equivalent to non-existence.

 

[Nous]

And you need to remember that philosophers use highly idiosyncratic definitions. For example Democritus's atomism is considered monistic and yet it contain multiple types of atoms, multiple properties like shape, volume, density, movement as well as space and time.
Democritus | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

All I can do is point out the facts. Contrary to your claim, the thesis of materialism is a monism. As according to the definition quoted above, the thesis of materialism posits that all phenomena are just matter and the motions of matter. And we know that physics proves that that thesis is false. Energy is not matter, and is not reducible to matter.

You have claimed that two sorts of phenomena exist: matter, and its "property," energy. Again, there is no evidence obtained by the use of any scientific method by which to conclude that all phenomena are either matter or energy.

The thesis of materialism is false, and your dualistic pseudo-materialistic thesis is false.

 

[Nous]

Potential energy is not matter and does not reduce to matter.

What about mass or volume?

? What about mass and volume? Again, potential energy is not matter and is not reducible to matter. If you have any argument by which to conclude that potential energy is just matter or reducible to matter, then state it and prove your claims.

 

[Nous]

No the learning that has to be done is on your part. That much is clear from this response.

It isn't my fault that you are trying to defend a thesis that you can't define, and don't even recognize is a monistic metaphysical thesis.

 

[jonathan180iq]

These threads never really add anything new to the discussion, do they?

 

[Nous]

How do you define 'matter'?

Matter: objects that have mass and volume.

[/quote]The point is that all energy is associated with some sort of particle like these. [/quote]Yet, energy is not matter, and energy is not reducible to matter. So are you too claiming that the thesis of materialism is not a monism?

All of these are certainly 'natural'

Define "natural".

Obviously that isn't a thesis that can be deduced from any findings obtained by way of any scientific method. Right?

No[/QUOTE]The metaphysical theses of materialism and naturalism are anti-scientific. The theses are not deducible from evidence obtained by the use of the scientific method.

 

[Polymath257]

Matter: objects that have mass and volume.

Are neutrinos matter? Do they have volume? how about electrons? quarks? Higg's particles? Pions?

I think your definition is insufficient.

 

[Nous]

Are neutrinos matter? Do they have volume? how about electrons? quarks? Higg's particles? Pions?

I think your definition is insufficient.

It isn't my fault that the discoveries of science prove that the thesis of materialism is false.

 

[Polymath257]

It isn't my fault that the discoveries of science prove that the thesis of materialism is false.

So your claim is that these are not matter?

If so, then most physicists would disagree.

 

[Jumi]

? What about mass and volume? Again, potential energy is not matter and is not reducible to matter. If you have any argument by which to conclude that potential energy is just matter or reducible to matter, then state it and prove your claims.

Just like potential energy, neither is mass or volume. Your idea seem to have the common definition of the word energy, instead of the one used in physics.

Mass and energy can be seen as two names (and two measurement units) for the same underlying, conserved physical quantity.

Whenever any type of energy is removed from a system, the mass associated with the energy is also removed, and the system therefore loses mass. This mass defect in the system may be simply calculated as Δm = ΔE/c2, and this was the form of the equation historically first presented by Einstein in 1905.

 

[Nous]

So, no one here can define "matter" and show that show that the evidence obtained by use of "the methods of science" lead to the conclusion that everything that exists is matter?