What is naturalism?

[osgart]

Really? I have yet to see that enunciated in any of my science classes.



Some versions of multiverse models are testable in that specific. Others are testable in the basic physics that they are based upon.

I'm not convinced that the 'ultimate beginning' question is inherently untestable as opposed to simply not having evidence currently. perhaps a more complete theory of physics will answer that conclusively.

I'm not even sure what a 'more fundamental form' would be.



I don't. I know that QM is *one* aspect of reality. And it works well for everything it has been tested on. Given our known lack of understanding of quantum gravity, it would be rash to say we currently have the final word on physics.



Why questions tend to be answered by the how questions: the answer to a why is a combination of an initial condition and a how.

You are very confident that all questions about the universe exist within the universe. What if south of the south pole is a nonsense way of perceiving things beyond our known territory? Beyond earth is space, why not something beyond space as currently known?

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't think that is completely true. For example, we can, and do, ask why planets orbit the sun in ellipses. The answer is, ultimately, because of the inverse square law of gravity and Newton's laws of motion.

We can answer why some chemical compound is unstable. We can answer why light is refracted by lenses. We can answer why viruses are able to infect people.

In all of these cases, the WHY question is answered by some basic general insight applied to the specific situation. And that *is* an answer to some form of WHY questions.

The problems come in when the WHY question is one of teleology. Those WHY questions cannot be answered by science. But it isn't clear that they can be answered at all.

Completely true? The reference I made is clear concerning the philosophical and/or theological why of things. Other than that you to a great extent only reworded my post.

I believe you why? questions involving science are better worded as How? cause and effect events occur.

 

[shunyadragon]

You are very confident that all questions about the universe exist within the universe. What if south of the south pole is a nonsense way of perceiving things beyond our known territory? Beyond earth is space, why not something beyond space as currently known?

Not coherent questions concerning the limits of science. Most but not all the questions concerning the 'physical nature of our physical may potentially be answered by science. What is currently known? Nothing is absolutely 'known' by science and possibly never will be.

For example possible unanswerable questions by science: Science will most likely never 'know' whether our physical existence is eternal or not, or whether infinite or not. Pretty much all the math used in physics and cosmology works well without the consideration of infinity.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Beyond earth is space, why not something beyond space as currently known?

Do you have a particular "why not" that we should take seriously? How might we come to understand it?

 

[osgart]

Do you have a particular "why not" that we should take seriously? How might we come to understand it?

Only that it's plausible!

 

[shunyadragon]

Only that it's plausible!

Plausibility is open ended speculation.

 

[Polymath257]

You are very confident that all questions about the universe exist within the universe. What if south of the south pole is a nonsense way of perceiving things beyond our known territory? Beyond earth is space, why not something beyond space as currently known?

If it interacts with 'our' space, then it is part of our universe.

If it doesn't, then in what sense does it exist at all?

 

[osgart]

If it interacts with 'our' space, then it is part of our universe.

If it doesn't, then in what sense does it exist at all?

Is it known that our universe needs no conditions to exist?

If it needs certain conditions to exist then there must be an underlying unconditional reality that is eternal that is the source of it.

How do you know this is base reality?

Everything the universe is today formed from prior conditions that were not the same as they are today.

Go far enough back in time and nothing is recognizable.

If life is emergent, and then ceases to be in this reality then perhaps the whole universe is emergent. How would you know?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Only that it's plausible!

(with an exclamation point no less)

 

[Polymath257]

Is it known that our universe needs no conditions to exist?

Conditions imply causality. Causality implies time. And time is part of the universe. So, I don't see *how* there could be conditions.

If it needs certain conditions to exist then there must be an underlying unconditional reality that is eternal that is the source of it.

I'm not sure how this follows. If there are conditions, then there is causality, which just means we have a more extensive physical universe. What we have seen so far would just be a part. I'm certainly OK with that possibility (given evidence of such).

How do you know this is base reality?

I'm not even sure what it means to be 'base reality'. Is what we observe *all* of reality? Almost certainly not. But that doesn't mean what we don't see isn't physical.

Everything the universe is today formed from prior conditions that were not the same as they are today.

Go far enough back in time and nothing is recognizable.

The same physical laws applied. if anything they are simpler to apply simply because of the energy levels involved. Things get *simpler* as you go back in time.

If life is emergent, and then ceases to be in this reality then perhaps the whole universe is emergent. How would you know?

Why would it 'cease to be in this reality'? If it exists, it exists in reality. if it does not, nothing else needs to be said. The phrase 'this reality' is redundant: instead, just use 'reality'.

 

[blü 2]

What is naturalism?
That is my question.

It's a term, though arguably looser, for materialism.

I follow Smart and Armstrong's definition of materialism, that the only entities and processes that exist (ie are real) are those recognized by physics at the time. They were metaphysicists and the definition is metaphysical (but not supernatural).

 

[shunyadragon]

If it needs certain conditions to exist then there must be an underlying unconditional reality that is eternal that is the source of it.

Yes it does. Natural Laws and natural processes.

How do you know this is base reality?

Science does not 'know' things. Though hundreds of years of science based on the consistent predictable nature of Natural Laws, as some call Laws of Nature, and not the Divine Moral Laws described by Thomas Aquinas.

Everything the universe is today formed from prior conditions that were not the same as they are today.

All the evidence demonstrates that the history of our universe is a product of consistent and predictable Natural Laws are the same today as in the beginning of our universe.

Go far enough back in time and nothing is recognizable.

Needs further explanation. Of course, going back to the origins of our universe nothing is recognizable, but the consistent and predictable Natural Laws and natural processes adequately explain the history of the universe, and the proposed origins, and are recognizable.

If life is emergent, and then ceases to be in this reality then perhaps the whole universe is emergent. How would you know?

By the present objective verifiable evidence our physical existence including life and humanity is emergent from Natural Laws and natural processes.

 

[Bear Wild]

Evidence seems to suggest otherwise:
Naturalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Have you ever read some of the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy and by the end of all of the explanation feel more confused than before reading some of their entries?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Thanks. So it is philosophy?

It can be philosophical (literally 'philosophical naturalism') or it can be linked to practice ('methodological naturalism').

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm trying to parse this to make sense of it. So, our ideas (which he considers to be what knowledge is made of) are 'somehow due' (in other words, caused) to 'realities' (meaning, say, matter?) existing independently of our minds.

But he held that such 'things in themselves' must remain forever unknown (so they are beyond what we can know). Human knowledge cannot reach them because knowledge can only arise in the course of synthesizing the ideas of sense.

My problem here is in the last paragraph. The fact that something exists independently of our minds (so, its existence is not dependent on our minds), does not mean it cannot be known.

As an example, the sofa across the room from me exists 'independently of my mind'. But, I can still know a great deal about it. I can know it is strong enough to sit on, for example. I can know its mass. I can know its density. i can know if it carries an electric charge, etc.

What *else* is required to 'have knowledge' of that sofa? The very fact that I can interact with it carries information that gives me knowledge. And the facts about that sofa, if independently verified, is independent of my mind. But I can still know them.

It is precisely because I have my senses that I can have knowledge. And, the 'thing in itself' is *defined* by how it can interact. Those interactions *are* detections and carry information about that thing. So, I can know about it.

From what I can see, to even talk about a thing that does not interact (and hence, cannot be detected), is simply nonsense.

Well, to use the sofa. You are talking about the sofa-to-you, not the sofa-in-itself. Context, Kant accepts Descartes in that he, Kant, accepts the problem of the evil demon. So when you are talking about the sofa, you are talking about the sofa-to-you. You are not talking about the sofa-in-itself, because of the problem of the evil demon.

You can see the effect of the problem of the evil demon here:
" Vaccaro, Joan. "Objectiveism".
-Objective reality exists beyond or outside our self. Any belief that it arises from a real world outside us is actually an assumption. It seems more beneficial to assume that an objective reality exists than to live with solipsism, and so people are quite happy to make this assumption. In fact we made this assumption unconsciously when we began to learn about the world as infants. The world outside ourselves appears to respond in ways which are consistent with it being real. The assumption of objectivism is essential if we are to attach the contemporary meanings to our sensations and feelings and make more sense of them. Joan Vaccaro"

So you and I share that assumption. You just have the additional assumption that objective reality is natural. I don't share that additional assumption with you. We share the first one, but not the assumption that objective reality is natural.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Willamena]

It's a term, though arguably looser, for materialism.

I think they are agruably different. "Material" points to things "of matter," whereas "natural" points to things "of a nature," which may include non-material things like behaviours.

 

[blü 2]

I think they are agruably different. "Material" points to things "of matter," whereas "natural" points to things "of a nature," which may include non-material things like behaviours.

To us materialists, 'behavior' is a concept, and a concept is a physical brain-state.

The same is true of all generalizations ('a car' rather than 'this car'), abstractions (two, love, justice, behaviors, impudence &c) since they're all concepts, and have no specific real counterpart, though from the beholder's point of view they may have real instantiations.,

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

To us materialists, 'behavior' is a concept, and a concept is a physical brain-state.

The same is true of all generalizations ('a car' rather than 'this car'), abstractions (two, love, justice, behaviors, impudence &c) since they're all concepts, and have no specific real counterpart, though from the beholder's point of view they may have real instantiations.,

Yes, as for your belief in physical brain-states, it is that, a belief. I believe differently.

 

[blü 2]

Yes, as for your belief in physical brain-states, it is that, a belief. I believe differently.

Try believing it without your brain and you may see what I mean.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Try believing it without your brain and you may see what I mean.

Try to show a belief as physical in a brain and you can't, because you can't see it. Further I can't see, what you mean. I can understand, what you mean. Be precise in your words and don't use folk language, when we "play" philosophy.