The science against metaphysical materialism

[modernPrimitive2]

Yes, I agree that it's possible to come to understand the limitations of a system by exhausting that system. That's why I'm saying QM challenges our intuition because, not because space is 3-dimensional and QM is just strange but rather because our pre-conceived notions of space being 3-dimensional are a limitation of our perception. Obviously I can't prove that but it seems more likely than "QM is just strange".

You seem to be judging what science understands by what you understand at the intuitive level. What is understood by science is well beyond human intuition on scales well beyond our human scale experience in both the micro and macro directions. QM is “strange” because it deals with events far outside human scale experience in the micro direction so can not be described in our normal language that handles human scale events so well. However, the language of science, mathematics, describes events in the micro world quite well.

I think that your insistence on “knowing-a-thing-as-it-is-in-itself” is where you depart from science. That isn’t what science deals with. Science is concerned with gaining an understanding of how the universe works – how “stuff-that-is” matter, energy, fields, forces, etc. effects and interacts with other “stuff-that-is” matter, energy, fields, forces etc.

Yeah, I'm not insisting that we must know a thing-in-itself at all. I'm saying merely that we can't know a thing-in-itself and therefore materialism is a metaphysical belief. (Because metaphysics is about the nature of things, the nature of existence, how things are in-themselves etc).

 

[fromderinside]

bzzzzt. A thing-in-itself is a self reference, a dualism bit of fluff.

 

[Kharakov]

bzzzzt. A thing-in-itself is a self reference, a dualism bit of fluff.

What if it's a Mandelbrot set?

 

[fromderinside]

bzzzzt. A thing-in-itself is a self reference, a dualism bit of fluff.

What if it's a Mandelbrot set?

An imitation of the structure of life. Uh, a model.

 

[Juma]

You seem to be judging what science understands by what you understand at the intuitive level. What is understood by science is well beyond human intuition on scales well beyond our human scale experience in both the micro and macro directions. QM is “strange” because it deals with events far outside human scale experience in the micro direction so can not be described in our normal language that handles human scale events so well. However, the language of science, mathematics, describes events in the micro world quite well.

I think that your insistence on “knowing-a-thing-as-it-is-in-itself” is where you depart from science. That isn’t what science deals with. Science is concerned with gaining an understanding of how the universe works – how “stuff-that-is” matter, energy, fields, forces, etc. effects and interacts with other “stuff-that-is” matter, energy, fields, forces etc.

Yeah, I'm not insisting that we must know a thing-in-itself at all. I'm saying merely that we can't know a thing-in-itself and therefore materialism is a metaphysical belief. (Because metaphysics is about the nature of things, the nature of existence, how things are in-themselves etc).

But it is you that project this quest of "thing-in-itself" on materialism. The materialism today is not believing that everything consist of the same stuff because we know thst it doesnt: there is no "stuff". Just structures and behaviors. When we hit our thumb with the hammer it hurt because electromagnetic forces clashed and triggered signals in neuralsystems. Not because of some dirdct contact between souland matter.

 

[Kharakov]

bzzzzt. A thing-in-itself is a self reference, a dualism bit of fluff.

What if it's a Mandelbrot set?

An imitation of the structure of life. Uh, a model.

Is it fluffy? Is there a measure of fluffiness?

 

[bilby]

bzzzzt. A thing-in-itself is a self reference, a dualism bit of fluff.

What if it's a Mandelbrot set?

An imitation of the structure of life. Uh, a model.

Is it fluffy? Is there a measure of fluffiness?

Of course there is. The SI unit of fluffiness is the Snuggle; a typical kitten rates about three kilosnuggles, although adult cats range from 2.5kS to as little as 500S in short haired breeds.

Fluffiness is carried by high rest-mass quantum particles called Cozons; due to their high mass, the effective Cozon field extends only a very short distance from a fluffy object, so an the macroscopic scale, physical contact is usually required to detect fluffiness levels below about 50S. However, experimental data based on Internet depictions of kittens with fluffiness in the kilosnuggle range suggests that fluffiness induced squees can be achieved at surprisingly long distances in ideal conditions.

Further research is needed in this area; however the risk of run-away squee when handling fluffiness in the megasnuggle range makes such research potentially hazardous, and safety concerns have lead to high fuzziness research being banned in most countries.

As a result, it is unclear whether the extrapolation of millisnuggle field effects to much higher fluffinesses suggested by theory is valid.

 

[fromderinside]

Fluffy Buffy thanks you.

 

[ontological_realist]

Yeah, I'm not insisting that we must know a thing-in-itself at all. I'm saying merely that we can't know a thing-in-itself and therefore materialism is a metaphysical belief. (Because metaphysics is about the nature of things, the nature of existence, how things are in-themselves etc).

Hello modernPrimitive2,

How do you know that we can't know a thing-in-itself?

 

[fromderinside]

Yeah, I'm not insisting that we must know a thing-in-itself at all. I'm saying merely that we can't know a thing-in-itself and therefore materialism is a metaphysical belief. (Because metaphysics is about the nature of things, the nature of existence, how things are in-themselves etc).

Hello modernPrimitive2,

How do you know that we can't know a thing-in-itself?

.... there is no such thing?