The Very Act of Affirming Materialism Refutes It

This is like suggesting empirical criticism is meaningless because empiricism (the philosophy of science) is false. Empiricism was an improvement because it emphasized empirical observations. But it got the role those observations play backwards. Theories are tested by observations, not derived from them. Yet criticism via empirical observations is still alive and well. We don’t have to throw the baby out with the bath water. In the same sense, the materialism Barry keeps referring to was as useful improvement, but incomplete, as empiricism. The idea that we must be either a materialist in this outdated sense or supernaturalist is a false dilemma. For example, we can bring Information into fundamental physics via constructor theory. Specifically, instead of trying to start with some initial conditions and dynamical laws, we can ask what must the laws of physics allow and disallow for information to be possible? It ends up, very specific physical transformations must be possible tasks, while others must be impossible tasks. From [this paper](https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7439) on the philosophy and motivations of constructor theory… >> In the constructor-theoretic conception, the initial state is not fundamental. It is an emergent consequence of the fundamental truths that laws of physics specify, namely which tasks are or are not possible. For example, given a set of laws of motion, what exactly is implied about the initial state by the practical feasibility of building (good approximations to) a universal computer several billion years later may be inelegant and intractably complex to state explicitly, yet may follow logically from elegant constructor-theoretic laws about information and computation. While, the entire enterprise of the current conception has been fruitful, the decision to make the initial conditions fundamental is not, well, fundamental to science or physics. In fact, it excludes entire aspects, including ones Barry is referring to. >> The intuitive appeal of the prevailing conception may be nothing more than a legacy from an earlier era of philosophy: First, the idea that the initial state is fundamental corresponds to the ancient idea of divine creation happening at the beginning of time. And second, the idea that the initial state might be a logical consequence of anything deeper raises a spectre of teleological explanation, which is anathema because it resembles explanation through divine intentions. But neither of those (somewhat contradictory) considerations could be a substantive objection to a fruitful constructor theory, if one could be developed. It’s unclear how this reflects the materialism Barry is railing against. Yet it does not reflect some kind of supernatural dualism, either. And there is the example of the universally of computation that emerges from a very specific set of computations. There is “no room” for this universality in the atoms of a computer made of transistors or wooden cogs. Yet, this universality emerges none the less. There is no non-physical information any more than there are non-physical computers. >> Since all known laws of motion are logically reversible (the initial state of any isolated system is entailed by its final state, as well as vice versa), an irreversible computational task on a computer’s memory M is a reversible one on some M ? W , where W is an additional substrate that carries away waste information. So for present purposes we can confine attention to reversible computers, namely constructors some of whose substrates are interpreted as reversible information- processing media. Such a medium can be defined in purely constructor-theoretic terms: it is a substrate with a set S of at least two states such that for all permutations (i.e. reversible computations) ? on S, [ diagram ] >> Theories of information and computation exist in their own right, independently of theories of particular physical systems, because there exist substrate-independent truths about the physical world – which, again, have their natural expression in constructor theory. The interoperability principle for information is one: If S1 and S2 are reversible information-carrying media satisfying (9) with S = S1 and S = S2 respectively, then S1 ?S2 is a reversible information-carrying medium with S as the set of all ordered pairs {(p,q) p?S1,q?S2} (see 3.9 below). In particular, this implies that for any medium, if its states S satisfying (9) are used to store information, copying that information to (a blank instance of) any other medium of the same or greater capacity is a possible task. >> The most important kind of abstract constructor is knowledge. Knowledge is information which, once it is physically instantiated in a suitable environment, tends to cause itself to remain so: it survives criticism, testing, random noise, and error- correction. (Here I am adopting Popper’s (1972) conception of knowledge, in which there need be no knowing subject.) For example, the knowledge encoded in an organism’s DNA consists of abstract genes that cause the environment to transform raw materials into another instance of the organism, and thereby to keep those abstract genes, and not mutations or other variants of them, physically instantiated, despite the mutation and natural selection that keep happening. Similarly, the ideas constituting the abstract constructor for preserving the ship of Theseus would have had to include not only some relatively arbitrary information about the historical shape of the ship, but also knowledge of how to cause Athenians to preserve those ideas themselves through the generations, and to reject rival ideas. Again, I fail to see how bringing information and knowledge into fundamental physics in this way is problematic in the sense Barry is implying. Yet they both requires specific physical transformations to be possible tasks, while others must be impossible tasks. They say it’s important to pick your battles. Apparently, Barry has picked an artificially narrow, outdated version of materialism to attack because that’s the only battle he can win? critical rationalist

A priest who teaches a Philosophy class had a student walk up to him: "I don't exist." Priest: Do you want a grade for this class? The student said, "Yes, I would." And he suddenly existed. relatd

Querius at 88, that is a pretty sweet and concise run down of the high points in quantum mechanics. If I might add Zeilinger's comment towards the end of his Nobel lecture to your high points,

"There's one important message I want to say here. When you look at the predictions of quantum mechanics for multi-particle entanglement,, so you could have one measurement here, one (measurement) there, an earlier (measurement), a later (measurement), and so on. These predictions (of quantum mechanics) are completely independent of the relative arrangements of measurements in space and time. That tells you something about the role of space and time. There's no role at all.",,, - Anton Zeilinger - 2022 Nobel Prize lectures in physics - video (1:50:07 mark) https://youtu.be/a9FsKqvrJNY?t=6607 Alain Aspect: From Einstein’s doubts to quantum technologies: non-locality a fruitful image John F. Clauser: Experimental proof that nonlocal quantum entanglement is real Anton Zeilinger: A Voyage through Quantum Wonderland - Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser and Anton Zeilinger were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 “for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science”.

Verse:

Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

bornagain77

Querius @87 1. I doubt that I exist. 2. In order to doubt that I exist, I must exist. Therefore, 3. I exist I doubt that I exist, therefore, I exist. Origenes

PM1@

I was using the phrase “ontological priority” to refer to whatever it is in our ontology that is (however one wants to put it): most fundamental, real, ultimate, that which grounds and explains everything else, etc.

Descartes would agree with you, I suppose: one's existence is undoubtedly true and therefore has epistemological priority and God is prior in being and therefore has ontological priority. Origenes

PyrrhoManiac1 @86, Thank you for your clarifications. Unlike Seversky's cuddly toy, which might define his ontological priority, Seversky's epistemology likely preceded its manufacture. So here's where I'm getting with all this silliness: From the repeatedly verified experiments in quantum mechanics, it appears that what we CHOOSE to observe/measure, collapses the wavefunction (a mathematical probability of existence at a specific position in space and time) into a mass-energy particle. That alone is highly provocative! Before our choice, this particle existed entirely a probability curve and has been experimentally verified that it's subject to constructive and destructive interference with other probability waves EVEN FOR ONE SINGLE PARTICLE. Similarly Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle regarding conjugate variables (such as position and momentum) demonstrate that our CHOICE of which to measure and to what degree limits our knowledge of the other! Quantum entanglement also supports this concept (Bell's Inequality demonstrates that there are no hidden/unknown variables in this relationship). While your warning to not conflate epistemology and ontology is noted and appreciated, quantum mechanics brings them much closer together than philosophers have ever known or are at all comfortable in acknowledging. It might turn out that these actually converge at a point outside of time! So back to your assertion noting that

Epistemological priority need not be ontological priority.

. . . indicates that they're independent. But in QM, they are clearly not! And what was apparently revealed to an uneducated first-century Galilean fisherman in this regard is also highly provocative: John 1:1 famously states, "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God . . . John 4:24 states, "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” Some food for thought. -Q Querius

Origenes @80,

I hold that we can leave “self-aware reflection” out of Descartes’ line of reasoning: I doubt, but only what exists can do so. Put differently, in order for me to doubt, I must exist. Or, “I doubt, therefore, I exist.”

Interesting line of thinking. It seems to me that "doubt" is more of a matter of free-will choice than cogent reflection. • However, my poodle, seems to be making a choice when I call and he doesn't come (perhaps doubting that I have a treat in hand this time), B.F. Skinner notwithstanding. • One of our kids used to enjoy trapping our family cat in an ethical dilemma. When she was scratching and meowing to be let inside, he’d open the door and call the cat. She’d take two steps and then suddenly stop halfway through the door, realizing that, while she actually wanted to come inside, the act of obeying a human calling her was a gross violation cat ethics. Her choice dilemma proved her existence. • Seversky’s cuddly toy (hat tip to Relatd) is significantly more challenging, however. His cuddly toy might have some form of panpsychism, but it has no way of expressing this and Seversky has no way of testing whether it’s simply his imagination . . . or not. What Seversky might be able to claim is that his cuddly toy, being necessary for consciousness, is actually a form of quantum entanglement that enables his own very existence! -Q Querius

@85

Maybe I’m missing some nuance. What first came to mind was Paul Tillich’s famous assertion about the “Ground of all being,” so it seemed to be the converse. But I honestly don’t know what PyrrrhoManiac1 had in mind with his reference to “priority.”

I was using the phrase "ontological priority" to refer to whatever it is in our ontology that is (however one wants to put it): most fundamental, real, ultimate, that which grounds and explains everything else, etc. By contrast "epistemological priority" refers to the starting-point or presupposition of our inquiry into whatever it is that will count as real, valuable, beautiful, good, etc. The former is the terminus ad quem of philosophizing, the latter is its terminus a quo. For this reason, it is one thing to say that consciousness is the fundamental epistemological starting-point for all inquiry, and quite another to say that consciousness is what is most fundamentally real. I'm not suggesting that anyone here is making the mistake of conflating those two things -- only indicating that there's a temptation here to be avoided. PyrrhoManiac1

Kairosfocus @79,

PyrrhoManiac1: Epistemological priority need not be ontological priority.

Kairosfocus: So, the epistemological-logical is filled with ontological import.

Yes, and that’s why I couldn’t make sense of PyrrhoManic1’s assertion. Maybe I’m missing some nuance. What first came to mind was Paul Tillich’s famous assertion about the “Ground of all being,” so it seemed to be the converse. But I honestly don’t know what PyrrrhoManiac1 had in mind with his reference to “priority.” -Q Querius

Origenes @77,

Descartes’ cogito is about one’s existence. It is not: “I think, therefore I have individual self-consciousness”, and it also not “I think, therefore I cannot deny the existence of my mental states”. It is: “I think, therefore, I exist.”

Exactly Touché! -Q Querius

Bornagain77 @75, Heh. Yes, I knew what you meant. As Alexander Pope once wrote, “To err is human . . .” And, of course, to err is also to exist, even at the expense of your epistemological accident, which is beyond the real capabilities of Seversky’s cuddly toy. Thanks, -Q Querius

@79

PM1, microcosm-facets principle of mutual support and interaction. He rercognises that he is experiencing self aware reflection even as he doubts: I doubt, but only what is a self aware going concern can do so. So, he exists as such a going concern. Huddling next to a fire, he is doubtless further aware of his contingency, crying out for necessary being root of reality. So, the epistemological-logical is filled with ontological import.

No disagreement from me, obviously, as far as explicating Descartes is concerned. The only point I wanted to make is urging a distinction between what we take to be the starting-point or 'foundation' of our epistemological reflection and what we take to be the ultimate causal principle of all things in our ontology or metaphysics. Thus for Descartes, the cogito has epistemological priority whereas God has ontological priority. PyrrhoManiac1

Querius at 72, I think a cuddly toy would be helpful, but only in this case. :) relatd

KF

He rercognises that he is experiencing self aware reflection even as he doubts: I doubt, but only what is a self aware going concern can do so. So, he exists as such a going concern.

I hold that we can leave "self-aware reflection" out of Descartes' line of reasoning: I doubt, but only what exists can do so. Put differently, in order for me to doubt, I must exist. Or, "I doubt, therefore, I exist." Origenes

PM1, microcosm-facets principle of mutual support and interaction. He rercognises that he is experiencing self aware reflection even as he doubts: I doubt, but only what is a self aware going concern can do so. So, he exists as such a going concern. Huddling next to a fire, he is doubtless further aware of his contingency, crying out for necessary being root of reality. So, the epistemological-logical is filled with ontological import. KF kairosfocus

@77

Descartes’ cogito is about one’s existence. It is not: “I think, therefore I have individual self-consciousness”, and it also not “I think, therefore I cannot deny the existence of my mental states”. It is: “I think, therefore, I exist.” 1. I think 2. In order to think I must exist (from nothing nothing comes). Therefore, 3. I exist.

Sure, but Descartes also establishes that his existence (along with the existence of contingent things) is completely dependent on the existence of God, whereas God does not depend upon anything else for His existence. That's what it means to say that God has ontological priority. PyrrhoManiac1

PM1 @76

I ask because Descartes would absolutely deny that individual self-consciousness has ontological priority. It has epistemological priority (or more specifically: what has epistemological priority is the fact that one cannot deny the existence of one’s mental states).

Descartes' cogito is about one's existence. It is not: "I think, therefore I have individual self-consciousness", and it also not "I think, therefore I cannot deny the existence of my mental states". It is: "I think, therefore, I exist." 1. I think 2. In order to think I must exist (from nothing nothing comes). Therefore, 3. I exist. Origenes

@70

PyrrhoManiac1 @68, Epistemological priority need not be ontological priority. I’ll see your ontological priority with “Cogito, ergo sum” – Descartes

I don't understand this response. Are you suggesting that "cogito, ergo sum" is a statement of the ontological priority of individual self-consciousness? I ask because Descartes would absolutely deny that individual self-consciousness has ontological priority. It has epistemological priority (or more specifically: what has epistemological priority is the fact that one cannot deny the existence of one's mental states). But for Descartes, the only being that has genuine ontological priority is God. PyrrhoManiac1

correction,,,, "introspection, which Querius alluded to" Sorry Querius, I certainly did not mean to imply that you were trying to 'elude', i.e. evade or escape, anything Seversky said when you pointed out the obvious fact that you don't need a cuddly toy to have the mental property of introspection. :) bornagain77

Seversky, besides being conscious of being conscious, i.e. introspection, which Querius eluded to, scientific evidence itself, from general relativity (Hawking, Penrose), special relativity (BGV Theorem), Cosmology (Big Bang), and Quantum Mechanics, (violation of Leggett's inequality), all give strong support to the Christian's contention that the infinite Mind of God must precede all material reality. And Seversky, exactly what scientific evidence does the atheistic materialist, such as yourself, have to counter all those lines of scientific evidence supporting the primacy of consciousness, and to instead support the atheist's claim that material particles somehow precede consciousness? Well, as the 'hard problem of consciousness' itself strongly indicates, the Atheistic Materialist has exactly zero, nada, zilch, scientific evidence supporting his claim that material particles can somehow give rise to consciousness.

The Hardest Problem in Science? October 28, 2011 Excerpt: ‘But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can’t even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don’t even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.’ - David Barash - Professor of Psychology emeritus at the University of Washington. https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/the-hardest-problem-in-science/40845 "Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious. Nobody even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea about how anything material could be conscious. So much for the philosophy of consciousness." - Jerry Fodor - Rutgers University philosopher [2] Fodor, J. A., Can there be a science of mind? Times Literary Supplement. July 3, 1992, pp5-7.

So basically Seversky, you, as a Darwinian materialist, are forced to hold a position for which you have exactly zero scientific evidence, and for which the Christian has several powerful lines of scientific evidence against. In a word Seversky, you are in the realm of blind faith, not science. In fact, you are directly opposing what the scientific evidence itself is saying. The irony is that you, and other Darwinists, will often claim that you are all about being 'scientific', but in the end, and in reality, it turns out that you, and other Darwinists, are not being scientific at all, but that you have far more blind faith than any Christian I have ever met. Indeed, I would rate your 'blind faith' in atheistic materialism somewhere along the line of being on the level of 'snake handlers, or perhaps even on the level of suicide bombers.. bornagain77

Querius @72 That is a brilliant phrase. Wow! Origenes

Seversky @71, Aren't you conscious of being conscious? Or do you need a cuddly toy to be conscious? -Q Querius

Bornagain77/69

Any theory that denies that consciousness is primary, and that matter is derivative, in not only putting the cart before the horse, it is basically claiming that the cart, despite all appearances, is what is actually pulling the horse.

To be conscious is to be conscious of something. If this consciousness preceded any kind of physical reality how did it know it was conscious? Sounds like a lot of omphaloskepsis to me. Seversky

PyrrhoManiac1 @68,

Epistemological priority need not be ontological priority.

I'll see your ontological priority with

"Cogito, ergo sum" - Descartes

And I'll raise you . . .

Obfuscatory obscurationism, my little chickadee. Obfuscatory obscurationism. -W.C. Fields

Bornagain @69,

Any theory that denies that consciousness is primary, and that matter is derivative, in not only putting the cart before the horse, it is basically claiming that the cart, despite all appearances, is what is actually pulling the horse.

Worse than that, some recent experiment in QM seems to support at least some degree of solipsism! Ugh. -Q Querius

"Epistemological priority need not be ontological priority." HUH? Any theory that denies that consciousness is primary, and that matter is derivative, in not only putting the cart before the horse, it is basically claiming that the cart, despite all appearances, is what is actually pulling the horse. :)

Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let’s Dump Methodological Naturalism Paul Nelson - September 24, 2014 Excerpt: Assessing the Damage MN Does to Freedom of Inquiry Epistemology — how we know — and ontology — what exists — are both affected by methodological naturalism. If we say, "We cannot know that a mind caused x," laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won’t include minds. MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact. "That’s crazy," you reply, "I certainly did write my email." Okay, then — to what does the pronoun "I" in that sentence refer? Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural? Who knows? ,,, You are certainly an intelligent cause, however, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse — i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss — we haven’t the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world — such as your email, a real pattern — we must refer to you as a unique agent. ,,, some feature of "intelligence" must be irreducible to physics, because otherwise we’re back to physics versus physics, and there’s nothing for SETI to look for. https://evolutionnews.org/2014/09/do_you_like_set/ “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), The Observer, London, January 25, 1931 Acts 17:28 For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’

bornagain77

Epistemological priority need not be ontological priority. PyrrhoManiac1

The fundamental components of reality currently seem to involve • Information and logic • Conscious observation/measurement • Probability/mathematical fields, and • Conscious choice/free will • Plus, something that enables these and the interaction and instantiation of our perceived reality Everything else that we consider “real” currently seems to result from these fundamental elements. -Q Querius

@65

We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.

There are no experiences and no beliefs without consciousness.

For consciousness is absolutely fundamental.

Consciousness is fundamental to our beliefs. It has to be, for if we hold beliefs not because we understand them to be true, but because we are compelled by a force beyond our control to hold them, then we cannot have justified beliefs. If we are not free, we are not rational.

Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.

If something else accounts for consciousness, if something else steers consciousness in its actions, then, for us, rationality does not exist. - - - - - -

... if consciousness is a different manifestation of the quantum world ...

then rationality does not exist. Origenes

correction: ,,, "if consciousness the quantum world is a different manifestation of the quantum world God's Mind, then it, i.e. our consciousness, is also part of the physical world the result of God's Mind.". Or, "if the quantum world is a different manifestation of God's Mind, then it, i.e. our consciousness, is also the result of God's Mind.

,,, Alexander Vilenkin said something very profound about (this),, the idea of using quantum mechanical equations to try to explain where the universe came from. And a fundamental problem with this whole approach is that it requires invoking a pre-existing mathematical state out of which matter, and energy arise somehow. But yet in our uniform and repeated experience, math does not generate matter and energy, math merely describes what matter and energy do once you have them. And so, even Stephen Hawking said, Well, what puts fire in the equations that gives you a universe to describe?,, And Vilenkin,,, is seeing the same the same exact problem and he says, In our experience, math describes matter and energy. He goes further and says, Mathematics in our experience exists in a mind. If we're saying that math pre-exists he universe, are we really saying that there was a mind before the universe?" - Stephen Meyer https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Meyer_Paper_Article_8-31-2022.pdf “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), 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.

bornagain77

Sandy @63,

This is the same mumbo jumbo “argument”( of Krauss )about nothingness .

Nothingness is non-existence. Like the Easter Bunny. So, if the universe came from nothing, that's the same as claiming it came from the Easter Bunny! Here's an old riddle: What's greater than God, More evil than the devil, The rich have need of it, The poor have plenty of it, And if you eat it you'll die? Answer nothing. And that's what happens if you objectify nothing, -Q Querius