Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Bruce Gordon and Michael Egnor: Why idealism is actually a practical philosophy

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
George Berkeley (1685–1753)

Not what you heard? Philosopher of science — and pianist — Bruce Gordon, think again.

Michael Egnor: Is reality fundamentally more like a mind than a physical object?

Many are sure of the answer without understanding the question.

News, “Why idealism is actually a practical philosophy” at Mind Matters News

Basically, it’s the idea that material substances, as substantial entities, do not exist and are not the cause of our perceptions. They do not mediate our experience of the world. Rather, what constitutes what we would call the physical realm are ideas that exist solely in the mind of God, who, as an unlimited and uncreated immaterial being, is the ultimate cause of the sensations and ideas that we, as finite spiritual beings, experience intersubjectively and subjectively as the material universe.

Note: Philosopher George Berkeley (1685–1753) was a Church of England bishop in Ireland. Among his other accomplishments were his studies of human vision: “Berkeley’s empirical theory of vision challenged the then-standard account of distance vision, an account which requires tacit geometrical calculations. His alternative account focuses on visual and tactual objects. Berkeley argues that the visual perception of distance is explained by the correlation of ideas of sight and touch. This associative approach does away with appeals to geometrical calculation while explaining monocular vision and the moon illusion, anomalies that had plagued the geometric account.” – Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

About his idealism: “Berkeley’s system, while it strikes many as counter-intuitive, is strong and flexible enough to counter most objections.” – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

“All the choir of heaven and furniture of earth — in a word, all those bodies which compose the frame of the world — have not any subsistence without a mind.” ~ George Berkeley

Bruce Gordon: So we are, in effect, living our lives in the mind of God. And he is a mediator of our experience and of our inner subjectivity, rather than some sort of neutral material realm that serves as a third thing between us and the mind of God, so to speak.


Gordon thinks idealism (= reality is first and foremost a mental phenomenon) is defensible, reasonable, and too easily discarded.

(We enjoy setting the cat among the pigeons. But remember, the cat is serious. )

See also: Bill Dembski on how a new book expertly dissects AI doomsday scenarios

Comments
Capalas said:
Science has “clearly proven” no such thing. The experimental quantum facts can be interpreted in various ways. Deciding which interpretation is best must thus rely on metaphysical, rather than purely physical, considerations. To say that experiments find “information potential” rather than matter is to confuse an abstract mathematical model with the concrete reality it is trying to represent.
That's not what is going on at all. What the different interpretations of the results of the physical experiments have been attempting to do is reconcile those results with the theory that concrete states exist independent of observation. These are not "abstract mathematical models;" these are experimental facts. The math is used to create a mathematical model that describes the results in terms of a conceptual model of what is occurring in the experiments. These experiments, for over 100 years, have been attempts to demonstrate that there is some kind of "concrete" reality "out there" that is providing the basis for our observations. These experiments were not conducted in the abstract as mathematical calculations; they were done physically with physical results. The result of over 100 years of physical experimentation, basically attempting to "prove" that some kind of "concrete reality" exists "out there" are in: there is no "concrete reality" out there - at least that we have been able to find. Current abstract models and interpretations are about this fact, which is why some physicists have begrudgingly switched over to consciousness-centric, informational, and various forms of Idealist models.William J Murray
April 22, 2021
April
04
Apr
22
22
2021
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
WJM says "...quantum physics experimentation has conclusively shown there is no such thing as “matter” ...What they have found is information potential... Science has clearly proven ontological idealism to be true." Science has “clearly proven” no such thing. The experimental quantum facts can be interpreted in various ways. Deciding which interpretation is best must thus rely on metaphysical, rather than purely physical, considerations. To say that experiments find “information potential” rather than matter is to confuse an abstract mathematical model with the concrete reality it is trying to represent.capalas
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
Capalas,
Given that science is grounded in our perceptions of the physical world, how could we possibly prove scientifically that these perceptions come directly from God rather than via a substantial material world?
Because quantum physics experimentation has conclusively shown there is no such thing as "matter" - at least, none to be found anywhere we have looked. What they have found is information potential which is abstract in nature - not "instantiated" on matter or encoded in specified states of "energy." Science has clearly proven ontological idealism to be true - inasmuch as science "proves" anything. We are conscious beings interacting with abstract information which generates experience. All of those things are mental in nature. Thus: there is no dualism.William J Murray
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
02:56 AM
2
02
56
AM
PDT
MJW says, "Also, materialism has not only been demolished; so has dualism. Idealism has been scientifically proved inasmuch as science proves things." I grant that materialism is easily scientifically disproven by the perceived fact of my own consciousness. But there is no such sound scientific disproof of dualism. Given that science is grounded in our perceptions of the physical world, how could we possibly prove scientifically that these perceptions come directly from God rather than via a substantial material world?capalas
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
Dualism is right, because there is a fundamental distinction between a matter of personal opinion, and a matter of fact. That some parameter of an object is decided upon "observation", is irrellevant (besides it also not being true). It is still a true fact that the parameter consists of a set of possibilities, prior to it being decided. These possibilities are real things, which can be accurately described. So an object has some parameters which are in a decided state, and some parameters which are in an undecided state of possibilities. So what? Mathematics is able to handle it objectively. The logic of fact is, that a fact is obtained by evidence of a creation forcing to produce a 1 tot 1 corresponding model of it. And we can do that with objects, we can make a 1 to 1 corresponding model of them, accurately reflecting that some parameter of the object is in an undecided state of possibilities.mohammadnursyamsu
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
The troll goes on abetted by those who answer the troll.jerry
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
Perhaps the discussion would be less inherently problematic if I changed the nomenclature from ERT and MRT to DRT and IRT; Dualism Reality Theory and Idealism Reality Theory.William J Murray
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT
BA77 said:
I hold that the ‘outside’ world, which is not material, but which is still being perceived by the mind, rather than being material, (and in order to stay consistent with what quantum mechanics has now revealed), must instead be information theoretic in its foundational essence.
I agree. I mean, this has been scientifically demonstrated. I'm just hoping to clear up what may be misconceptions about what the E and M refer to in ERT and MRT. "External" is in relationship to universal mind, and refers to the proposed existence of something other than mind (mind being a diverse set of sub-categorically distinct phenomena and qualities.) "External" in the theory does not relate to the individual perceiver. The individual perceiver, the observational consciousness, should not be casually be said to be "mind." It is a highly specific category of mental phenomena unlike other categories. It is ineffable. So, to say "...but which is still being perceived by the mind," you might want to say "being perceived by the individual perceivers, or observers." "By the mind" invites misunderstanding, IMO. As I laid out in #34, we are not our perceptions; we are that which is having those perceptions. What we call "the outside world" is a category of perceptions and experiences we are having in universal mind that have categorical qualities and distinctions from other experiences we are having.William J Murray
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT
BA77:
The ‘outside’ world of that which is perceived, and which we call ‘physical’ reality, is not ‘material’.
I realize you're using scare quotes here, so I'm going to try to model this very accurately. The following will use "internal" and "external" in terms of the individual perceiver (not internal or eternal of mind. Under MRT, what is internal and external of the individual perceiver is all mental stuff happening in universal mind.) People think of things like thinking about logic, and imagining something, as an internal experience. However, logic is not internal to the observer, logic is a separate thing the observer is interacting with and using. When we imagine, we are not what we imagine; what we are imagining lies outside of our sense of self as the observer of what we are imagining. The ultimate aspect of the individual observer is that which is experiencing the thought just like we are the observer experiencing the physical world. It has just become our habit to think of one set of experiences as internal, and another set of experiences as external. Our physical bodies are outside of our sense of self. Our brain is outside of our essential sense of self Yes, we are controlling, to one degree or another, what we think; but ultimately it is the same as controlling our physical bodies and directing them. The essential, ineffable individual observer is not those experiences; it is that which is having those experiences. So, in that sense, every experience is, to some degree, "external" except that root sense of individual self as that which is having those experiences - even thoughts and imagination. I am not the thoughts I experiences; I am that which is experiencing and directing those thoughts like a mental body, comparable to our physical body. This is why I don't call it "internal reality theory." External Reality Theory = external of universal mind, or insisting that some kind of thing other than mind exists that determines or causes our experiences. As far as God (universal mind) causing all experiences, as ultimate cause, that is correct. God does not choose our experiences for us, we do that. I think you agree with that.William J Murray
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT
KM: exactly. Also, materialism has not only been demolished; so has dualism. Idealism has been scientifically proved inasmuch as science proves things.William J Murray
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT
BA77: I agree with the "inside" and "outside," but the inside and outside we are talking about under MRT is inside of the individual and outside of the individual, not inside of mind (universal mind) and outside of mind.William J Murray
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT
WJM we are participators in what we may choose to perceive, but we are still not the ultimate cause of what our mind perceives. God is ! i.e. There is always the inside world of perceiver, and an 'outside' world of that which is perceived. The 'outside' world of that which is perceived, and which we call 'physical' reality, is not 'material'. And in that we are in full agreement. But that still does not negate the fact that there must be an 'outside' world that is being perceived by the perceiver. I hold that the 'outside' world, which is not material, but which is still being perceived by the mind, rather than being material, (and in order to stay consistent with what quantum mechanics has now revealed), must instead be information theoretic in its foundational essence. The 'Cheshire cat' experiment highlighted by Gordon directly supports this contention in that the most basic features, i.e. spin and position, of a particle can be separated from one another and received as separate bits of information by the mind. This 'information theoretic' view of 'physical' reality also plays out in solving the long standing paradoxes of the 'uncertainty principle' and wave-particle duality.
Quantum physics just got less complicated - Dec. 19, 2014 Excerpt: Patrick Coles, Jedrzej Kaniewski, and Stephanie Wehner,,, found that 'wave-particle duality' is simply the quantum 'uncertainty principle' in disguise, reducing two mysteries to one.,,, "The connection between uncertainty and wave-particle duality comes out very naturally when you consider them as questions about what information you can gain about a system. Our result highlights the power of thinking about physics from the perspective of information,",,, http://phys.org/news/2014-12-quantum-physics-complicated.html of related note; In the beginning was the bit - New Scientist Excerpt: Zeilinger's principle leads to the intrinsic randomness found in the quantum world. Consider the spin of an electron. Say it is measured along a vertical axis (call it the z axis) and found to be pointing up. Because one bit of information has been used to make that statement, no more information can be carried by the electron's spin. Consequently, no information is available to predict the amounts of spin in the two horizontal directions (x and y axes), so they are of necessity entirely random. If you then measure the spin in one of these directions, there is an equal chance of its pointing right or left, forward or back. This fundamental randomness is what we call Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-02/NS-Tmoq-1302101.php Zeilinger's principle Zeilinger's principle states that any elementary system carries just one bit of information. This principle was put forward by Austrian physicist Anton Zeilinger in 1999 and subsequently developed by him to derive several aspects of quantum mechanics. Some have reasoned that this principle, in certain ways, links thermodynamics with information theory. [1] http://www.eoht.info/page/Zeilinger%27s+principle
And this information theoretic view of what we call 'physical' reality, as mentioned previously, is also very friendly to the Idealism of Christian Theism.
Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: “In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word.” Anton Zeilinger – a leading expert in quantum mechanics 49:28 mark: “This is now my personal opinion OK. Because we cannot operationally separate the two. Whenever we talk about reality, we think about reality, we are really handling information. The two are not separable. So maybe now, this is speculative here, maybe the two are the same? Or maybe information constitutive to the universe. This reminds me of the beginning the bible of St. John which starts with “In the Beginning was the Word”.,,, Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT – video https://youtu.be/s3ZPWW5NOrw?t=2969
bornagain77
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
02:57 AM
2
02
57
AM
PDT
WJM, the bottom line is that "materialists" seem to believe that atoms and quarks, etc., have an independent existence, where they exist "on their own." QM demolished that idea. Consciousness is primary and everything else flows from that. For any given person, you'll be wasting your time until the person comes to see that consciousness is primary. The good news is that the scientific evidence is in complete agreement with this.Karen McMannus
April 18, 2021
April
04
Apr
18
18
2021
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT
So he is saying that matter and physical properties exist, they just inhere in a mind not in a physical substrate.
This statement (also the response by BA77) crystallizes the inherent problem I'm having in these conversations, and why your position and that of others is so baffling to me. Gordon is unambiguously stating that there is no material world. This is explicit. The science is explicit. It seems ambiguous to you and others for the simple reason that you don't fully understand what Gordon - or I - are talking about. You don't understand the language or the concepts of mental reality theory. This is evident when you casually conflate "material" with "physical" and "real." It's like what happens when Upright Biped tries to explain the components and processes required to achieve a functioning semiotic system. I had to have several private exchanges with UB just to understand what he was saying, to be able to conceptualize it successfully. You and others here have spent little time (if any) trying to understand the concepts and terminology undergirding MRT; you can't even get out of the habit of conflating "material" with "physical." You think they necessarily mean the same thing. When someone explicitly says there is no material world, you cannot take that literally. When science demonstrates there is no such thing as a material word, you start using ambiguous phrases that have no contextual meaning, like "some sort" of material world. OR "some sort" of world external of mind. Science and Gordon are clear; there is no "real world" outside of our experience; it is in our experience, and in our experience alone, that "real" qualities and commodities occur. What this branch of quantum physics has been doing explicitly for decades is test the the ERT theory; this is the theory that there is a domain things that exist independent of our experience; that these things contain specific, inherent information that is imported into our experience, causing those experiences - or, at least, specific qualities of those experiences. As the resulting factual information came in, physicists made many attempts to salvage ERT by figuring out loopholes in the data - meaning, some way to salvage "local reality," or the existence of independent (of experience, observation, measurement) and specific states or qualities. All those loopholes were experimentally closed. Every relevant experiment showed, unambiguously, that there was no material world, no "reality," no objective, independent state somewhere "out there" independent of the experience (experience meaning the mental qualia.) ERT has been, as much as it is scientifically possible at this point, conclusively disproved. No such independent states or qualities - much less "matter" - has been found or indicated. The opposite has been found to be the case: there are no non-qualia, or independent-of-mind states or characteristics to be found. Logically, that they would find this to be the case is a no-brainer. Even if there were such a world, we would not be able to locate it, because all experience occurs in mind. The only thing we can possibly be experimenting on or with is mental phenomena. But, all that said, I understand this is a very difficult reconceptualization that can take years to comprehend, much less work out what to do with it and how to organize a rational model of reality and existence under such a paradigm. The terminology itself is hard to deal with appropriately. It requires a sophisticated model of categories of mental experience and qualities and how they interact. Under a very rudimentary and vague model (if any) of "mind," MRT is impossible to even remotely comprehend. This problem is exacerbated when one is ideologically committed to ERT of some sort.William J Murray
April 18, 2021
April
04
Apr
18
18
2021
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: So he is saying that matter and physical properties exist, they just inhere in a mind not in a physical substrate. What does "physical" substrate mean? You guys are not listening very closely. Tighten it up.Karen McMannus
April 17, 2021
April
04
Apr
17
17
2021
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT
Gordon's view:
Micro physical properties ... have to inhere in something. What they inhere in is a mental substance, not a physical one.
So he is saying that matter and physical properties exist, they just inhere in a mind not in a physical substrate.Silver Asiatic
April 17, 2021
April
04
Apr
17
17
2021
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
WJM
That’s not really the point. What baffles me is why so-called “non-materialists” (semi-materialists, actually) defend (against the overwhelming scientific evidence) the existence of a material world.
I'm sure you realize that it is the common human experience since the beginning of recorded history that people experience a material reality as different from thoughts. The idea that the physical world does not really exist is relatively new and held by a tiny minority of the human population. So it can't be that strange that many people still hold that view - the entire world of Western philosophy up to the 19th century held that view. So, to start expecting that everyone is going to readily agree that there is no material world seems to misunderstand the common human experience, as I see it. But you offered an important distinction in the above. You speak of materialists and non-materialists - then splitting them with semi-materialists. But it seems to me like a reaction against materialism -- opposing that, means one is a "non-materialist" or perhaps "immaterialist". Thus, that view should oppose the existence of a material world. But the idea that a material world exists, just as people experience it in day to day life, is not a concession to the philosophy of materialism. It just recognizes a distinction between physical reality and mental states. How that distinction was created by God is a different matter. But we experience material aspects through sensation. That's the classic formula for knowledge. "Anything in the mind was first in the senses". That can be questioned regarding rational propositions that build on mental concepts alone, but basically that's the rule. We sense something, then process it in the mind. To sense it means to apprehend an external reality with our senses. Can it be said that we sense things without the use of our mind? I think we can and do. We certainly can and do without our conscious mind. We do not need to be consciously aware to sense (feel) something. Is our mind still active? I think that can be debatable. I think it is beyond science to determine that clearly, but perhaps not I don't know for sure. In my view at this moment, yes we can have multiple sensory experiences (even simultaneously) without the mind involved. If so, then this would mean that there is an external reality that we experience. I am open to the contrary view, but that's the way I see it.
Science has proved (inasmuch as science proves anything) there is no such thing as “matter.” Why are people even talking about a “material world” as if this never happened? Is it just sloppy language? What are you people even talking about>
Science has proved that matter is not some chunks of stuff filling up space. But we still experience physical reality in ordinary life. That's what we can consider "the material world". The fact that this is not "matter" as it is traditionally known, does not mean that a material world does not exist. It is that instead of having been generated by observable, material subatomic particles, it is generated by immaterial energy. Could we say that "since God is pure spirit, totally immaterial, He could not create anything material"? I don't think so. In the same way, the immaterial essences at the foundation of physical reality create what we know as the material world - that which we experience outside of ourselves.
What’s the point? Is it necessary to your theology?
Well, it correlates with lived experience. Yes, it's given as part of theological wisdom. But I think most importantly, I do not see any evidence that human beings can speak and act and live consistently in the idea that there is no physical world. I don't think we have the vocabulary or the mental framework for that.
Does “a distinct reality” require that world be material in nature?
As for the nature of the world, I think that does require that it is categorized as material. As for the origin of the world, that could be (and I believe is) an immaterial source. God created a material universe. At the foundation of this material world could be immaterial essences that create what we know of as physical.Silver Asiatic
April 17, 2021
April
04
Apr
17
17
2021
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
WJM
When you dream you are in a solid physical world, is that gravity keeping you on the ground? Is the ground material in nature? Do you experience it as any less physical?
Yes, I do experience a dream in a significantly different way than an experience in conscious reality. In the same way, I can think of a solid thing, but my mental idea of it is much different than my actual experience of it in material reality. That's one way I distinguish the two. An imagination is a mental experience and an encounter with a physical object is different than that.
We know how to distinguish between different categories of mental experience. Do you have trouble with this?
Yes, of course I do. "I thought I saw a dog in the backyard". That thought can be mistaken. I validate the thought by looking at material reality and validating it. When I realize the initial thought was incorrect, I realize that the mental thought was not equivalent with reality, even though I thought it was. The very same mind that gave me the incorrect thought of the appearance of the dog, had to use external reality to correct that. So, information in our mind alone (imagination) is not adequate to understand the truth about things. We validate truths by referring to external, material reality.
What difference does it make if “the physical world” is one category of mental experience, with it’s own specific qualities, and imagination is another?
If someone says that the value of their imaginary thought is equivalent to the value of physical experience since they're both mental states - then this would make quite a big difference in life. That's why we want to validate thoughts against external reality, to the extent that we can do so. If everything is just mental, then the categories we create for various mental experiences are arbitrary. Why should an imagination be considered any more or less true than a physical experience? They're both only expressions of the mind - all from the same cause. We can assign one as one thing and the other as another, but again, there's no reason for this.
And memories are another?
Certainly, memories can be more or less accurate. This is the struggle that historians have. We look to the external, material world to learn how accurate the memory is.
And logic is another?
Some forms of logic can be validated by external reality, such as some simple math. But logic is more generally a method for reasoning and rationality, and logic would not work in a monist system where everything is one, since the first principle of reason holds that things actually exist and there are distinctions between being and non-being. The thought of a unicorn is an existing thing. But the unicorn is not existing.
Are we going to suddenly not be able to tell the difference if we drop the notion that some material world external of mind exists?
How would we tell the difference? I believe you are operating under the external world template and it's hard to shake that off, but if that could happen, then there is no logical necessity to categorize thoughts in a certain way. They're all thoughts. They're all real. Any comparison with anything else would be illusory, since comparisons would be impossible. Thus, reason itself would break down.Silver Asiatic
April 17, 2021
April
04
Apr
17
17
2021
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
William J Murray states, "Sorry, BA77. Bruce Gordon IS saying there is no material world." But I didn't claim that Bruce Gordon claimed that there was a material world. I pointed out that, In answer to the question “What is Idealism?’, Dr. Gordon nuances his answer that ‘material substances do not exist’ with the qualifier of “as substantial entities’. And further nuances his statement with “what constitutes what we would call the physical realm are ideas that exist solely in the mind of God” i.e. "Gordon is NOT denying the outright existence of matter, (and stars), he is denying their existence as ‘substantial entities’ that can exist independently of the Mind of God. Nothing is your reference contradicts what I have stated. In your reference Dr. Gordon just further confirms, via the "Cheshire cat" experiment, that what we perceive as physical reality is not a self existent entity, but what we perceive as physical reality must 'inhere' in a immaterial mind. (i.e. Dr. Gordon is just further delineating the fact that “what constitutes what we would call the physical realm are ideas that exist solely in the mind of God”)
Bruce Gordon: Here's another one that's absolutely fascinating. It's been dubbed the quantum Cheshire cat phenomenon. You may recall from the story of Alice in Wonderland, that Alice observes this grinning Cheshire cat that then disappears leaving only its grin. Alice remarks that she's "Often seen a cat without a grin, but never a grin without a cat." In essence, that's what's going on here because certain experiments - in particular, one using a neutron interferometer - have separated the properties of neutrons from any sort of substrate. So micro physical properties don't necessarily require a substrate. What did the experiment do? Well, it sent the position of neutrons along one path and their spins along a separate path. Bruce Gordon: So that'd be kind of like sending a top along one path, and the fact that it was spinning along a separate path. Or the redness of an object along one path and the location of that object along another path. Micro physical properties then can be separated from any idea of a substrate. They can be abstract properties moving through space. So what do you get then? It would seem that under appropriate experimental conditions, quantum systems are decomposable into disembodied properties. Kind of a collection of Cheshire cat grins, if you will. So how is it that an abstract property could exist without any sort of substrate? Well, it can't. Of course being a good kind of Neo-Aristotelian yourself, you would see properties as kind of mental abstractions from particulars. Michael Egnor: Right. Bruce Gordon: ... Not existing in and of themselves, but only in the objects- Michael Egnor: But the property could exist in a mind. Bruce Gordon: Yes, that's exactly where I'm headed. Michael Egnor: Right. Okay, yes. Yes. Bruce Gordon: There is no physical substrate, but the property has to inhere in something, so it's inhering in the mind that perceives it. There is no, ultimately, there is no physical substrate that undergirds that property. Got it? So in a way you could look at the properties, the quantum mechanical properties as kind of abstract particular properties, tropes even. But the tropes have to inhere in something. What they inhere in is a mental substance, not a physical one. https://mindmatters.ai/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/04/Transcript-Mind-Matters-130-Bruce-Gordon.pdf
None of that contradicts what I have stated. i.e. “Gordon is NOT denying the outright existence of matter, (and stars), he is denying their existence as ‘substantial entities’ that can exist independently of the Mind of God. Highlighting the primacy of immaterial mind over and above what we perceive as a physical reality was the entire point of him referencing the "Cheshire cat" experiment. Of note: I've referenced the same exact experiment myself to drive the point home that what we perceive as physical reality must be 'information theoretic" in its foundational basis. and cannot be 'materialistic' in its foundational basis.
49:28 mark: "This is now my personal opinion OK. Because we cannot operationally separate the two. Whenever we talk about reality, we think about reality, we are really handling information. The two are not separable. So maybe now, this is speculative here, maybe the two are the same? Or maybe information constitutive to the universe. This reminds me of the beginning the bible of St. John which starts with “In the Beginning was the Word”.,,, Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT - video https://youtu.be/s3ZPWW5NOrw?t=2969 Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: “In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum mechanics http://www.metanexus.net/archive/ultimate_reality/zeilinger.pdf
bornagain77
April 17, 2021
April
04
Apr
17
17
2021
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
We know the difference between an imagination and reality.
We know how to distinguish between different categories of mental experience. Do you have trouble with this? What difference does it make if "the physical world" is one category of mental experience, with it's own specific qualities, and imagination is another? And memories are another? And logic is another? Are we going to suddenly not be able to tell the difference if we drop the notion that some material world external of mind exists?William J Murray
April 17, 2021
April
04
Apr
17
17
2021
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
SA: That's not really the point. What baffles me is why so-called "non-materialists" (semi-materialists, actually) defend (against the overwhelming scientific evidence) the existence of a material world. Science has proved (inasmuch as science proves anything) there is no such thing as "matter." Why are people even talking about a "material world" as if this never happened? Is it just sloppy language? What are you people even talking about> What's the point? Is it necessary to your theology? Does "a distinct reality" require that world be material in nature? When you dream you are in a solid physical world, is that gravity keeping you on the ground? Is the ground material in nature? Do you experience it as any less physical?William J Murray
April 17, 2021
April
04
Apr
17
17
2021
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
WJM
It makes zero sense for God to create a whole domain of existence (matter) to accomplish the same thing that can be done without it. Does God need matter to instantiate information in? To keep track of it? To distribute it properly? To ensure it is transmitted and translated properly? No? Then what’s the point?
These are essential questions that get at the heart of the problem. The idea that all of "created reality" is sustained by God from moment-to-moment goes back a long way in Western theological tradition. Quoting Aquinas, who quotes Augustine:
Therefore, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. iv, 12): "If the ruling power of God were withdrawn from His creatures, their nature would at once cease, and all nature would collapse." In the same work (Gen. ad lit. viii, 12) he says: "As the air becomes light by the presence of the sun, so is man enlightened by the presence of God, and in His absence returns at once to darkness."
So the idea that all material creation is in the Mind of God (its Being is sustained by God) is compatible with the idea that "everything comes from universal mind". But note, I mention a "material creation". So, matter does exist in that view. Its origin is from God, but it is a "domain" of its own. Not "independent" (as Augustine above), but distinct. That's the common human experience. We know the difference between an imagination and reality. Between a thought and a material object. Your first point proposes "what sense does it make for God to create a material domain"? I think we have to start with "what sense does it make for God to create anything"? So, we have to know why there is a created world. Is that creation distinct from God, or is it the same as God. Some believe that "we are God" - so there's no real creation there. I hold the classical Christian view - God created a distinct reality "the world" and all life in it.Silver Asiatic
April 17, 2021
April
04
Apr
17
17
2021
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
It makes zero sense for God to create a whole domain of existence (matter) to accomplish the same thing that can be done without it. Does God need matter to instantiate information in? To keep track of it? To distribute it properly? To ensure it is transmitted and translated properly? No? Then what's the point?William J Murray
April 17, 2021
April
04
Apr
17
17
2021
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
Capalas said:
But then, I suppose Bruce Gordon believes that the Bible – which speaks of both matter and mind – doesn’t really exist either.
That things exist entirely in mind does not mean they don't "really" exist. It just means they "really" exist in a different way than the way you think "really" should imply.William J Murray
April 17, 2021
April
04
Apr
17
17
2021
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
Sorry, BA77. Bruce Gordon IS saying there is no material world. From: https://mindmatters.ai/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/04/Transcript-Mind-Matters-130-Bruce-Gordon.pdf Page 5:
There is no physical substrate, but the property has to inhere in something, so it's inhering in the mind that perceives it. There is no, ultimately, there is no physical substrate that undergirds that property. Got it? So in a way you could look at the properties, the quantum mechanical properties as kind of abstract particular properties, tropes even. But the tropes have to inhere in something. What they inhere in is a mental substance, not a physical one.
William J Murray
April 17, 2021
April
04
Apr
17
17
2021
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
Capalas Off hand, I would say that it doesn't, But then again, according to Dr. Egnor, Descartes distinction has been abused by materialists, and their abuse is the source of much confusion today in science. Neurosurgeon Dr. Egnor (who interviewed Dr. Gordon) holds to Aristotelian hylomorphism rather than holding to Cartesian dualism
Michael Egnor: I think that, first of all, if you want to understand the mind and the brain, you need to start with a solid metaphysical foundation. And I think hylomorphism is a solid metaphysical foundation. I don’t think Cartesian dualism is a good metaphysical foundation and I certainly don’t think materialism is a good metaphysical foundation. I think the best explanation of the relationship of the mind to the brain is Aristotelian hylomorphism which is the viewpoint that the soul is the form of the body and that certain powers of the soul, particularly the intellect and will, are not generated by matter but are immaterial things—what Thomas Aquinas would call the “spirit.” But other properties of the mind, like perception and memory and imagination are physical. They are directly related to brain matter and they are generated by brain matter. I think that’s the best explanation philosophically for what we find in neuroscience. Here’s a brief introduction to hylomorphism: Form and matter considered on their own are merely concepts in the mind; in things they are two distinct principles that make the one unified individual thing. The substantial form makes a thing what it is and the accidental forms (e.g. quantity and quality) modify it to have the types of quantity and qualities it has. So a substantial form makes a cat a cat, but an accidental form makes it a “black cat.”… What differentiates Seabiscuit from Secretariat is not horse-ness, since they are both horses; matter makes Seabiscuit this particular horse and Secretariat that particular horse. JT BRIDGES, “HYLOMORPHISM AS A METAPHYSIC FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN SCIENCE” AT EVOLUTION NEWS AND SCIENCE TODAY https://mindmatters.ai/2020/02/the-minds-reality-is-consistent-with-neuroscience/ Egnor: This mechanical philosophy is the result of two steps. It began with Rene Descartes, who argued that the mind and the brain were separate substances, immaterial and material. Somehow (how, neither Descartes nor anyone else can say) the mind is linked to the brain – it’s the ghost in the machine. But as Francis Bacon’s approach to understanding the world gained ascendency during the scientific Enlightenment, it became fashionable to limit inquiry about the world to physical substances: to study the machine and ignore the ghost. Matter was tractable, and we studied it to obsession. The ghost was ignored, and then denied. This was what the logic of materialism demanded. https://www.plough.com/en/topics/justice/reconciliation/science-and-the-soul Egnor: The fallacy stems from 17th-century philosopher John Locke’s flawed theory of mind.1 Locke’s An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690) was the first explicit modern exposition of what has been called the “Cartesian theatre”: the metaphysical fallacy that our senses project a representation of reality in our brains, and that we watch these representations, much as an audience watches a movie in a theatre. Picture yourself as a little “man” (a homunculus) snacking on popcorn. This childish concept marks the beginning of the modern Western conception of the self. The Cartesian theatre is bad neuroscience and catastrophically bad metaphysics because it cuts us off from reality. If we understand it and accept it (Novella obviously doesn’t really grasp his own point), we deny any real knowledge of the world and implicitly any real knowledge of ourselves. This is the end to which materialist gibberish leads. The truth is that the reality we perceive is real, and it must be real if we are to make any sense of the world. The things we perceive are not “constructed representations.” We perceive reality itself, and we know reality itself. We, of course, perceive and know it imperfectly, which is what Novella is really trying to say, muddled as he is. So how does perception work? When we see something, what is it that we see? If we only see the perception of (say) a tree—a perception generated by our eyes and our brain—then we don’t really see the tree itself. We thus have no direct mental contact with the tree. The correct understanding of perception was formulated by Aristotle and elaborated by St. Thomas Aquinas.2 It is essential to any coherent understanding of the mind. When we perceive a real object, we grasp the actual form of the object with our mind, which is itself a form. Aristotle said it beautifully: “The mind is, in a way, all things.” He observed that our perceptions are not that which we perceive; perceptions are that by which we perceive. We perceive the objects in our environment by our faculty of perception. He emphatically distinguishes between that which we perceive (the real object) from that by which we perceive (our faculty of perception). The world we perceive is not a “compelling and persistent illusion”. We perceive the real world, by grasping its forms in our [immaterial] mind. This is why materialism is such a catastrophe for the philosophy and science of the mind—it leads to self-refuting gibberish and cuts us off from genuine contact with reality. Now one point that Novella makes is true: the process by which we grasp those forms—the process of perception—can lead us astray. Our perceptual faculties, of which we are not consciously aware, are tainted in various ways, by brain chemistry and by our past experiences and implicit biases, etc. But the object of our perceptions and knowledge is reality itself, and we do have access to it. There is great value in the scientific understanding of our perception and the neurobiology on which it is based. But this genuine scientific insight must be based on coherent metaphysics, not solipsistic materialist gibberish that our knowledge is “a persistent illusion.” If we know nothing of reality, we can say nothing meaningful at all. Materialism is an intellectual trap, out of which neuroscience needs to climb. https://mindmatters.ai/2019/07/tales-of-the-mind-a-neurologist-encounters-the-house-of-mirrors/
bornagain77
April 17, 2021
April
04
Apr
17
17
2021
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
Bornagain77 states: "Gordon is NOT denying the outright existence of matter, (and stars), he is denying their existence as ‘substantial entities’ that can exist independently of the Mind of God." Really?? If so, how Gordon's idealism differ from, say, Descartes' dualism, which also insists that created substances (body and mind) depend on God for their continued existence?capalas
April 17, 2021
April
04
Apr
17
17
2021
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
Caprias states,
You claim that God upholding the universe in its existence necessarily entails idealism. That matter (e.g. stars) must rely on God for its continued existence is not the issue. I have no problem with that. The issue is that Gordon says matter (e.g. stars) doesn’t really exist at all.
There is a nuance that you are missing that is the source of your confusion. In answer to the question "What is Idealism?', Dr. Gordon nuances his answer that 'material substances do not exist' with the qualifier of "as substantial entities'. And further nuances his statement with "what constitutes what we would call the physical realm are ideas that exist solely in the mind of God" Specifically he states,
Michael Egnor: What is idealism? Bruce Gordon: There are a lot of different varieties of idealism, and rather than go through a laundry list of its variations, let me just start with the kind of idealism that I would be an advocate of, which is an ontic theistic idealism, essentially a form of idealism that is probably most closely identified with the Anglican Bishop, George Berkeley [pictured in 1727]. Basically, it’s the idea that material substances, as substantial entities, do not exist and are not the cause of our perceptions. They do not mediate our experience of the world. Rather, what constitutes what we would call the physical realm are ideas that exist solely in the mind of God, who, as an unlimited and uncreated immaterial being, is the ultimate cause of the sensations and ideas that we, as finite spiritual beings, experience intersubjectively and subjectively as the material universe. - Ibid
Gordon is NOT denying the outright existence of matter, (and stars), he is denying their existence as 'substantial entities' that can exist independently of the Mind of God. That is a very important nuance to take note of. You then state,
And why should God upholding the universe entail idealism? Why can’t God (Mind or spirit) create a material universe, and then providentially continue to uphold it? First mind, then matter.
And exactly how is the infinite Mind of God 'providentially' upholding the universe suppose to entail anything less than Idealism?
providentially prov·i·den·tial adj. 1. Of or resulting from divine providence. 2. Happening as if through divine intervention;
You then state,
It seems to me that the biblical position is that both mind and matter exist. Substance dualism; we are embodied souls.
Again, the question is not whether they exist or not, the question is whether they can exist apart from the infinite Mind of God upholding them in their continual existence. i.e. Can they exist as 'substantial entities' apart from the Mind of God. Both common sense and science say that they can't exist as 'substantial entities' apart from God upholding them in their continual existence. Perhaps, to further clear this matter up, it would be good to look at what science has to say about all of this. Science, specifically quantum mechanics, definitely supports Idealism. For example, in the following Wheeler's delayed choice experiment that was done with atoms, (instead of photons as it is normally done), it proved that, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”
New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015 Excerpt: Some particles, such as photons or electrons, can behave both as particles and as waves. Here comes a question of what exactly makes a photon or an electron act either as a particle or a wave. This is what Wheeler’s experiment asks: at what point does an object ‘decide’? The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html
Moreover, as if that was not bad enough, and as Anton Zeilinger himself states in the following interview, "it is not just us (we ourselves) that don't know where the particle is, the particle itself does not know where it is). This "nonexistence" is an objective feature of reality.,,,"
Anton Zeilinger interviewed about Quantum Mechanics - video - 2018 (The essence of Quantum Physics for a general audience) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z82XCvgnpmA 40 sec: Every object has to be in a definite place is not true anymore.,,, The thought that a particle can be at two places at the same time is (also) not good language. The good language it that there are situations where it is completely undefined where the particle is. (and it is not just us (we ourselves) that don't know where the particle is, the particle itself does not know where it is). This "nonexistence" is an objective feature of reality.,,, 5:10 min:,,, superposition is not limited to small systems,,, 17:30:,,, In quantum mechanics we have the measurement paradox (i.e. measurement problem),,, I think it (the measurement paradox) tells us something about the role of observation in the world. And the role of information.,, Maybe there are situations where we have to reconsider the "Cartesian cut"*,,, Note: *Cartesian Cut The Cartesian cut is a metaphorical notion alluding to Decartes' distinction of res cogitans (thinking substance) and res extensa (extended substance). It plays a crucial role in the long history of the problem of the relationship between mind and matter and is constitutive for the natural sciences of today. While the elements of res cogitans are mental (non-material) entities like ideas, models, or concepts, the elements of res extensa are material facts, events, or data. The conventional referents of all natural sciences belong to the latter regime.
So exactly where does the atom exist prior to measurement if it is not existing in the physical realm? Well science helps to shed light on that question to. Prior to measurement, and thus prior to the collapse of the quantum wave, the particle, in its quantum wave state, is defined as being in a infinite dimensional state that takes an infinite amount of information to describe properly.
Why do we need infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces in physics? You need an infinite dimensional Hilbert space to represent a wavefunction of any continuous observable (like position for example). https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/149786/why-do-we-need-infinite-dimensional-hilbert-spaces-in-physics Wave function Excerpt "wave functions form an abstract vector space",,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function#Wave_functions_as_an_abstract_vector_space Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (quantum) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf Of note to Qubit - in a classical system, a bit would have to be in one state or the other. However, quantum mechanics allows the qubit to be in a coherent superposition of both states simultaneously, a property which is fundamental to quantum mechanics and quantum computing.
Now, saying that a atom does not exist in the physical realm prior to measurement, but that it exists in a 'infinite dimensional' realm and that it takes an infinite amount of information to describe it properly prior to measurement, certainly sounds very much to me, as a Christian Theist, that the atom is existing in the infinite Mind of God prior to measurement. In short, quantum mechanics itself supports the contention that Idealism is true. Of related note, in the following video, Richard Feynman (of quantum electrodynamic fame) asks "Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do?"
“It always bothers me that in spite of all this local business, what goes on in a tiny, no matter how tiny, region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time, according to laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out. Now how can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do?" - Richard Feynman – one of the founding fathers of QED (Quantum Electrodynamics) Quote taken from the 6:45 minute mark of the following video: Feynman: Mathematicians versus Physicists - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obCjODeoLVw
I don’t know about Richard Feynman, but as for myself, being a Christian Theist, I find it rather comforting to know that it takes an ‘infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do’: The reason why I find it rather comforting is because of John 1:1, which says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ‘The Word’ in John 1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos also happens to be the root word from which we derive our modern word logic. So that it would take an infinite amount of logic to know what tiny bit of spacetime is going to do is pretty much exactly what one should expect to see under Christian presuppositions.
John1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." of note: ‘the Word’ in John 1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos is also the root word from which we derive our modern word logic http://etymonline.com/?term=logic What is the Logos? Logos is a Greek word literally translated as “word, speech, or utterance.” However, in Greek philosophy, Logos refers to divine reason or the power that puts sense into the world making order instead of chaos.,,, In the Gospel of John, John writes “In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). John appealed to his readers by saying in essence, “You’ve been thinking, talking, and writing about the Word (divine reason) for centuries and now I will tell you who He is.” https://www.compellingtruth.org/what-is-the-Logos.html
bornagain77
April 17, 2021
April
04
Apr
17
17
2021
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT
Hi Bornagain77 You claim that God upholding the universe in its existence necessarily entails idealism. That matter (e.g. stars) must rely on God for its continued existence is not the issue. I have no problem with that. The issue is that Gordon says matter (e.g. stars) doesn’t really exist at all. And why should God upholding the universe entail idealism? Why can’t God (Mind or spirit) create a material universe, and then providentially continue to uphold it? First mind, then matter. It seems to me that the biblical position is that both mind and matter exist. Substance dualism; we are embodied souls.capalas
April 16, 2021
April
04
Apr
16
16
2021
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT
Capalas states, "Looks like mentioning YEC struck a raw nerve." No not really. I deal with people who are incorrect in their presuppositions all the time. I learned to quit being overly upset at people being wrong a long time ago. It still bothers me a little bit, but not nearly as much as it use to. You then state, "My intent was not to defend YEC (although all your arguments are rebutted by, for example, J. Sarfati’s “The Genesis Account”)." Oh goody, a refutation of 'all my arguments'. Well, not to be nit-picky, but, (for one example of my arguments), could you cite exactly where it has been refuted that Augustine said what I cited him as saying? If you can't do that one simple thing, of proving that what I cited Augustine as saying was wrong, then clearly you have not refuted 'all my arguments' as you claimed, but instead you are just bluffing that 'all my arguments' have been refuted. Not a good start for you if you are trying to have an honest discussion instead of engaging in meaningless rhetoric, You then state,
Rather, my point is that in judging YEC to be scientifically disproven Gordon assumes a scientific realism, where stars and big bangs exist objectively. But his idealism is better suited to a non-realist, instrumentalist view of science. In that case the 13 billion year history of the universe before man has no real existence.
So Capalas, let me get this straight, are you saying that holding to a mind-first view of reality makes science less real? But how exactly is that suppose to work? If we ourselves were not first conscious, then their could be no reality for us to be aware of! Period! So apparently, contrary to what you seem to be claiming, consciousness and reality have a deep and inseparable bond that can't be so easily broken But hey, don't take my word for it,
“No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Max Planck (1858–1947), one of the primary founders of quantum theory, The Observer, London, January 25, 1931 “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334.? “The principal argument against materialism is not that illustrated in the last two sections: that it is incompatible with quantum theory. The principal argument is that thought processes and consciousness are the primary concepts, that our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness and that the consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied. On the contrary, logically, the external world could be denied—though it is not very practical to do so. In the words of Niels Bohr, “The word consciousness, applied to ourselves as well as to others, is indispensable when dealing with the human situation.” In view of all this, one may well wonder how materialism, the doctrine that “life could be explained by sophisticated combinations of physical and chemical laws,” could so long be accepted by the majority of scientists." – Eugene Wigner, Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, pp 167-177.
Further quote by Max Planck,,,:
"That God existed before there were human beings on Earth, that He holds the entire world, believers and non-believers, in His omnipotent hand for eternity, and that He will remain enthroned on a level inaccessible to human comprehension long after the Earth and everything that is on it has gone to ruins; those who profess this faith and who, inspired by it, in veneration and complete confidence, feel secure from the dangers of life under protection of the Almighty, only those may number themselves among the truly religious." Max Planck – As quoted in God’s Laughter (1992) by Gerhard Staguhn, p. 152
bornagain77
April 16, 2021
April
04
Apr
16
16
2021
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply