The assumption of materialism/physicalism

[tayla]

I am troubled that many science minded people assume materialism/physicalism; that everything is physical.

I agree that the scientific method provides provable knowledge about the physical universe, and that it is impossible to prove anything at all otherwise.

But proving something is true, and acknowledging its existence are two different things. For example, it is false that living physical unicorns roam the prairies on earth, but the idea of unicorns certainly exists in the minds of humans. Is an idea physical?

Certainly philosophical arguments and logic can prove whether arguments are true. But the realm of philosophical reflection has generated generations of generations of good ideas, often contradicting those of previous generations. But these are all mere ideas.

Newton's laws of motion are true within their proper domain, period. And this is the difference between science and philosophy (I'm using philosophy to refer to any idea-based reflection and analysis).

But there seems to be things outside of provable science. An example is a fictional novel. Science encompasses the ink on the paper, but science can say nothing about the story and the plot. To assume these are in some way physical is, in my view, a mistake.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I subscribe to methodological naturalism, not philosophical materialism.
The practical difference is hard to spot.

 

[sayak83]

I am troubled that many science minded people assume materialism/physicalism; that everything is physical.

I agree that the scientific method provides provable knowledge about the physical universe, and that it is impossible to prove anything at all otherwise.

But proving something is true, and acknowledging its existence are two different things. For example, it is false that living physical unicorns roam the prairies on earth, but the idea of unicorns certainly exists in the minds of humans. Is an idea physical?

Certainly philosophical arguments and logic can prove whether arguments are true. But the realm of philosophical reflection has generated generations of generations of good ideas, often contradicting those of previous generations. But these are all mere ideas.

Newton's laws of motion are true within their proper domain, period. And this is the difference between science and philosophy (I'm using philosophy to refer to any idea-based reflection and analysis).

But there seems to be things outside of provable science. An example is a fictional novel. Science encompasses the ink on the paper, but science can say nothing about the story and the plot. To assume these are in some way physical is, in my view, a mistake.

This goes to the question whether information is physical or not. Ideas are information sets after all.

 

[Skwim]

I am troubled that many science minded people assume materialism/physicalism; that everything is physical.

The only thing I'm aware of relating to science minded people and a non-physical universe is that the majority of scientists don't believe in it. But why would this trouble you? Are you afraid their outlook will spread to others?

I agree that the scientific method provides provable knowledge about the physical universe, and that it is impossible to prove anything at all otherwise.

Just as an FYI, science and the scientific method does not "prove" anything, or set out to. All it aims to do is to provide "the best explanation." As has been pointed many times here on RF, proof is only of value in math, logic, and alcohol.

Is an idea physical?

Aside from the neurons firing in your brain that make up an idea, no it isn't. The nature of concepts do not involve molecules or even atoms.

Certainly philosophical arguments and logic can prove whether arguments are true.

Logic has nothing to do with proving truth. All it can prove is the soundness of a valid argument, and for a valid argument to be sound all its premises have to be true. To simplify, a syllogism consists of three components

1. a valid structure,
2. true statements that form two premises (major and minor)
3. a conclusion

As an example consider the following: (the letters M, P, and S are standard designations in syllogisms)

.............All M are P......All men are mortal
...................S is M........Skwim is a man
_______________...._______________
therefore... S is P........Skwim is mortal

To sum up:
The construction of the syllogism here, the arrangements of M, P, and S, is valid
The two premises are true
The the conclusion is true
All of which make it a sound "argument." In short then, the premises and how they are arranged prove that Skwim is mortal.​

But the realm of philosophical reflection has generated generations of generations of good ideas, often contradicting those of previous generations. But these are all mere ideas.

Not sure what you mean by "mere," but if you're comparing them to Mount Rushmore yes, I suppose they could be seen as less than this structure. On the other hand, I believe they are far more useful.

Newton's laws of motion are true within their proper domain, period. And this is the difference between science and philosophy (I'm using philosophy to refer to any idea-based reflection and analysis).

Not sure what your "this" refers to, but guessing it's the philosophical reflections you mentioned, okay.

But there seems to be things outside of provable science. An example is a fictional novel. Science encompasses the ink on the paper, but science can say nothing about the story and the plot. To assume these are in some way physical is, in my view, a mistake.

Q. Who have you heard or read assert that ideas or thoughts are "in some way physical"? I ask because I've never heard it.

.

 

[PureX]

Consciousness (cognition) is a transcendent, metaphysical phenomena. It transcends the physics that generate it (enables it to occur) into a whole new realm of existential possibility. And this bothers some people. They don't want to believe that anything can transcend the phenomena of physicality. They don't want to acknowledge a metaphysical reality. Yet their denial is ultimately self-defeating in that it is a denial of self. A denial of that which defines us as human.

I don't know why some people choose this philosophical path. I suspect that it's fear, driven by an uncontrolled ego, as most destructive human behaviors and choices, are.

 

[exchemist]

I am troubled that many science minded people assume materialism/physicalism; that everything is physical.

I agree that the scientific method provides provable knowledge about the physical universe, and that it is impossible to prove anything at all otherwise.

But proving something is true, and acknowledging its existence are two different things. For example, it is false that living physical unicorns roam the prairies on earth, but the idea of unicorns certainly exists in the minds of humans. Is an idea physical?

Certainly philosophical arguments and logic can prove whether arguments are true. But the realm of philosophical reflection has generated generations of generations of good ideas, often contradicting those of previous generations. But these are all mere ideas.

Newton's laws of motion are true within their proper domain, period. And this is the difference between science and philosophy (I'm using philosophy to refer to any idea-based reflection and analysis).

But there seems to be things outside of provable science. An example is a fictional novel. Science encompasses the ink on the paper, but science can say nothing about the story and the plot. To assume these are in some way physical is, in my view, a mistake.

It seems to me Lewisnotmiller draws the correct distinction between methodological naturalism, which is intrinsic to the scientific method of understanding the physical world, and philosophical materialism or physicalism, which is a worldview. This is really the distinction you are drawing, too, I think.

The physicalist worldview - that the physical world is all there is - is a perfectly reasonable one (the sneers of PureX notwithstanding) and is followed by many. I find it unattractively reductive, personally, but if I ask myself why I think it is for aesthetic reasons as much as anything else. Human experience feels to me as if: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." But is only a subjective feeling. There is nothing objective to support it.

One quibble: nothing is "proved" in science. The knowledge we gain from it is always provisional and subject to change, refinement or improvement. The way to think of scientific theories is as models of aspects of physical reality. No model can claim to be a 100% correct representation of that reality. A moment's reflection on the history of science illustrates the truth of this.

 

[PureX]

To perceive an existential reality is to experience it from a transcendent, metaphysical position (conscious cognition). To then deny the possibility of that metaphysical transcendence is the epitome of logical absurdity, as both the desire and the ability to embrace such a denial is, itself, the proof of it's folly.

 

[Sunstone]

Like Lewisnotmiller, I am inclined to methodological naturalism. Ontological naturalism (physicalism) strikes me as a reasonable position, but it also strikes me as an indulgence in unnecessary metaphysical speculation, which I find personally distasteful.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am troubled that many science minded people assume materialism/physicalism; that everything is physical.

Those that believe in Ontological Naturalism do, many if not most scientists do not, and science itself does not make this assumption. I do not share this belief, but I find it superior to the many who give precedence of ancient scripture and beliefs over science as in Judaism, Christianity and Islam,

I agree that the scientific method provides provable knowledge about the physical universe, and that it is impossible to prove anything at all otherwise.

Fortunately proof is not a goal of science.

 

[shunyadragon]

This goes to the question whether information is physical or not. Ideas are information sets after all.

To get a better understanding of information theory, and the relationship with energy and entropy there is an excellent BBC series called Order and Disorder. I do not have reference for this outside a paid internet site, which may not be ethical to post here.

My view is that information is not in and of itself physical, but is expressed in and reflects the energy relationships in our physical world in the formation and destruction of information.

 

[Polymath257]

I am troubled that many science minded people assume materialism/physicalism; that everything is physical.

I agree that the scientific method provides provable knowledge about the physical universe, and that it is impossible to prove anything at all otherwise.

But proving something is true, and acknowledging its existence are two different things. For example, it is false that living physical unicorns roam the prairies on earth, but the idea of unicorns certainly exists in the minds of humans. Is an idea physical?

Certainly philosophical arguments and logic can prove whether arguments are true. But the realm of philosophical reflection has generated generations of generations of good ideas, often contradicting those of previous generations. But these are all mere ideas.

Newton's laws of motion are true within their proper domain, period. And this is the difference between science and philosophy (I'm using philosophy to refer to any idea-based reflection and analysis).

But there seems to be things outside of provable science. An example is a fictional novel. Science encompasses the ink on the paper, but science can say nothing about the story and the plot. To assume these are in some way physical is, in my view, a mistake.

My position is that everything that exists supervenes on the physical: once you know everything physical about the universe, you can deduce the rest.

Ideas are, as far as we can tell, processes that happen in our brains, which are information processing centers. So, if you could know everything about the physical brain, you would know the ideas a person is thinking (and the emotions they are feeling, etc).

Fiction and myths are also ideas that underlie how we interact with each others, etc. Again, knowledge of everything physical is enough to know all that actually exists.

At least, that's how I interpret physicalism.

 

[Polymath257]

To get a better understanding of information theory, and the relationship with energy and entropy there is an excellent BBC series called Order and Disorder. I do not have reference for this outside a paid internet site, which may not be ethical to post here.

My view is that information is not in and of itself physical, but is expressed in and reflects the energy relationships in our physical world in the formation and destruction of information.

This would be a good example of supervenience: the information is not 'physical' in and of itself, but everything about the information in a situation can be deduced from the physical aspects.

 

[sayak83]

To get a better understanding of information theory, and the relationship with energy and entropy there is an excellent BBC series called Order and Disorder. I do not have reference for this outside a paid internet site, which may not be ethical to post here.

My view is that information is not in and of itself physical, but is expressed in and reflects the energy relationships in our physical world in the formation and destruction of information.

Yes, I have watched it. Very good series. Thanks for the recommendation. Its free in Amazon Prime if you have membership.

 

[PureX]

To get a better understanding of information theory, and the relationship with energy and entropy there is an excellent BBC series called Order and Disorder. I do not have reference for this outside a paid internet site, which may not be ethical to post here.

My view is that information is not in and of itself physical, but is expressed in and reflects the energy relationships in our physical world in the formation and destruction of information.

I would say that "information" is a collection of inter-related experiences stored in the mind. It's how our mind sorts and then uses the sensory experiences being fed to it by the rest of the body. We think this information exists "in the world" because we are experiencing the world through our senses. But really it's being generated in us, by us, as a way of responding to those sensory experiences.

And I would add that it is unremittingly biased by the (subjective) limitations of the whole process. And that includes our engagement in the 'scientific process'. What we choose to test and how we choose to test it and then how we choose to sort out the phenomena that follows is all being dictated by this inherent human functionality bias.

 

[viole]

I am troubled that many science minded people assume materialism/physicalism; that everything is physical.

I agree that the scientific method provides provable knowledge about the physical universe, and that it is impossible to prove anything at all otherwise.

But proving something is true, and acknowledging its existence are two different things. For example, it is false that living physical unicorns roam the prairies on earth, but the idea of unicorns certainly exists in the minds of humans. Is an idea physical?

Certainly philosophical arguments and logic can prove whether arguments are true. But the realm of philosophical reflection has generated generations of generations of good ideas, often contradicting those of previous generations. But these are all mere ideas.

Newton's laws of motion are true within their proper domain, period. And this is the difference between science and philosophy (I'm using philosophy to refer to any idea-based reflection and analysis).

But there seems to be things outside of provable science. An example is a fictional novel. Science encompasses the ink on the paper, but science can say nothing about the story and the plot. To assume these are in some way physical is, in my view, a mistake.

Everything is physical. Even the information on that novel is physical. You can measure it in bits, or calories per degree celsius. As you prefer. If you throw that novel into a black hole, that black hole will be different than if you throw another novel written on a book of the same size.

Even the emotional reaction that can cause in brains by reading it is physical. Like the brains and the process of assimilating the information.

And, more importantly, the configuration of the ink on that book that form the novel, could have been inferred, in principle, millions of years before the birth of the author.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

This goes to the question whether information is physical or not. Ideas are information sets after all.

Information is physical. And the total information of the universe does not change with time. The constant that allows to move from adimensional bits to entropy is well known.

Since entropy is energy divided by temperature, every bit has an associated energy at a certain temperature.ergo, it has mass.

That mass increases, for instance, the size of a black hole so that its surface increases just the right amount to accomodate that bit.

Incidentaly, bits take also a minimal amount of space. That has to do with being a bit and not with the material to store it.Actually, surface. That is the Plank surface. Cannot pack two bits into something smaller than that.

Ciao

- viole

 

[shunyadragon]

I would say that "information" is a collection of inter-related experiences stored in the mind. It's how our mind sorts and then uses the sensory experiences being fed to it by the rest of the body. We think this information exists "in the world" because we are experiencing the world through our senses. But really it's being generated in us, by us, as a way of responding to those sensory experiences.

And I would add that it is unremittingly biased by the (subjective) limitations of the whole process. And that includes our engagement in the 'scientific process'. What we choose to test and how we choose to test it and then how we choose to sort out the phenomena that follows is all being dictated by this inherent human functionality bias.

The mind expends energy and accumulates information as skills and energy. When the person dies information is destroyed. Information is stored in more places than the mind since humans put images on rock, and information is created and stored, and then destroyed by many ways over time.

 

[gnostic]

Ontological naturalism (physicalism) strikes me as a reasonable position, but it also strikes me as an indulgence in unnecessary metaphysical speculation, which I find personally distasteful.

Yeah, to me too.

I dislike metaphysics because it has too many fingers in the pie. When it does cover naturalism, it is fine, but it when it has its grubby fingers in the supernatural, metaphysics become philosophical quagmire.

I found metaphysics to be generally an useless philosophy.

 

[Polymath257]

Yeah, to me too.

I dislike metaphysics because it has too many fingers in the pie. When it does cover naturalism (eg , it is fine, but it when it has its grubby fingers in the supernatural, metaphysics become philosophical quagmire.

I found metaphysics to be generally an useless philosophy.

Metaphysics always seemed to me to be a subject with way too many unquestioned assumptions about how the world 'must be'.

Even the definition of physicalism or materialism in terms of 'substance' and 'monism' seems incredibly off the mark. It fails to even consider whether the notion of 'substance', as used, is coherent at all.

 

[gnostic]

Metaphysics always seemed to me to be a subject with way too many unquestioned assumptions about how the world 'must be'.

Even the definition of physicalism or materialism in terms of 'substance' and 'monism' seems incredibly off the mark. It fails to even consider whether the notion of 'substance', as used, is coherent at all.

In general, some philosophies may have some values, when they have some uses, and when they exercise some practical ideas, some logic.

But not all philosophies are like that. Most are useless, illogical and unnecessary.

The thing is, I don’t follow any one philosophy, exclusively.

If some parts of the philosophies prove useful or logical, it may be added into my personal philosophy...and then ditched the rest of those philosophies.

For instance, I totally agree with Sunstone’s points, regarding to Ontological Naturalism, where part of it is useful, but where it ventured into “metaphysical speculation”, it is wasteful and unnecessary.

In term of natural science, Methodological Naturalism is the better philosophy than all others when gathering knowledge or information about nature.

If some philosophies are useful with moral and ethic, I would only add “this part” or “that part” into my personal codes.

For example, Secular Humanism, I like the general framework and concept of SH, more so than any other philosophies that delved into moral or ethic. So secular humanism take up a large space in my personal code of conduct. What SH lacks, I would fill the rest of my personal codes with bits and pieces of other philosophies that are demonstrably useful.