Thread: Atheists, are you materialists?

Would gravity be considered materialistic?

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

Would gravity be considered materialistic?

I don't see why not. Gravity is an intrinsic property of matter.

That's because we can't measure "it", only it's effects.

The point is that in the end everything is materialistic. If something can't be explained by matter and energy, then it can probably be explained by something else not yet discovered by us and only remains "spiritual" as long as we don't understand it.

We could say that consciousness, like gravity, is something innate to matter and manifests itself under certain conditions. We don't necessarily have to "see" a physical counterpart for it to be "materialistic".

I regret voting yes, shouldn't have voted at all.

If Pope Charles Manson has 378 time travel machines and blows up 275 of them, how many does he have left? 103. Right?

Is Charles Manson the Pope? Do time travel machines exist? No and no. However, 103 is still the answer to the question. That is because there are true principles of reality that do not exist in material form. The laws of math are what they are even when no real material world illustrations of many of the laws exist.

Gravity affects matter, as do the laws of math, but neither gravity nor the laws of math are matter. There are other examples, such as the past and the future. They do not presently exist in material form, but they are realities.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If Pope Charles Manson has 378 time travel machines and blows up 275 of them, how many does he have left? 103. Right?

Is Charles Manson the Pope? Do time travel machines exist? No and no. However, 103 is still the answer to the question. That is because there are true principles of reality that do not exist in material form. The laws of math are what they are even when no real material world illustrations of many of the laws exist.

Gravity affects matter, as do the laws of math, but neither gravity nor the laws of math are matter. There are other examples, such as the past and the future. They do not presently exist in material form, but they are realities.

This post is fantastic.
I felt the need to say it. I couldn't have thought of such a good clear way of putting it.

Originally Posted by Omicron

This post is fantastic.
I felt the need to say it. I couldn't have thought of such a good clear way of putting it.

Damn, thanks.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Gravity affects matter, as do the laws of math, but neither gravity nor the laws of math are matter. There are other examples, such as the past and the future. They do not presently exist in material form, but they are realities.

I hadn't read any other posts when I made mine, and I wasn't considering math, thoughts, etc. any processses of the physical mind to be outside the realm of matter, if that's what you are saying.

I don't think the laws of math affect matter, as you say above. They may describe matter, even under hypothetical circumstances, as you describe, but that is not affecting matter. It is just a way for us to describe what is going on. Gravity on the other hand is as much a property of matter as is thinking is a property of our brains.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If Pope Charles Manson has 378 time travel machines and blows up 275 of them, how many does he have left? 103. Right?

Is Charles Manson the Pope? Do time travel machines exist? No and no. However, 103 is still the answer to the question. That is because there are true principles of reality that do not exist in material form. The laws of math are what they are even when no real material world illustrations of many of the laws exist.

Gravity affects matter, as do the laws of math, but neither gravity nor the laws of math are matter. There are other examples, such as the past and the future. They do not presently exist in material form, but they are realities.

The title "Pope", who the pope is, and whether or not time travel machines are not part of the question because the question was a math problem which can be illustrated in reality.

Thoughts are physical, therefore the idea that Charels Manson is the pope and that he has time machines exist inside the thought of the illustration of the question.

So again; still based in reality.

Everything known or given for is in reality. Thereofre everything can be explained in or through reality.

Moonbeam: I disagree. Math is the ultimate level of truth, matter comes afterwards. Take for example the relationship f=1/d^2. It's completely perfect. The maths isn't some kind of model, it's the intrinsic quality.

Be careful with that word "perfect". It's subjective.

Originally Posted by Kael Seoras

Be careful with that word "perfect". It's subjective.

It is in the sense of "that soup was perfect"


But he means in the sense that it competely works; and is a completely inpenetrable concept; an axiom.

Not in the case of mathematics. Completely pure, it's the ultimate in objective and unsubjective truth.

Edit: Omi got there first.

There is certainly a definite right and wrong in math, that's for sure.

It can't answer everything though.

Name five things that have no relation to mathematics.

It can't answer everything though.

Hmm... I reckon maybe maths can but materialsm can't.

Why not?

What can't it explain?

1. Analyzing literature
2. Emotions (except at it's most basic level perhaps)
3. heck, writing literature
4. Deciding what you want to do at the moment for fun
5. Love (except at it's most basic level)

then again, 5 could fit with 2. That list was off the top of my head.

If you can argue that these can totally be solved by mathematics I'm free to change my stance ^_^

I'm thinking of math up to Calculus I, which is as far as I've learned.

All of those are the results of neural net theory.

What can't it explain?

As I've said, consciousness in my opinion, and perhaps some other things.

What's neural net theory? (I'm gonna learn something new yes! )

Something to do the the neurons in our bodies huh?

Originally Posted by Xei

Hmm... I reckon maybe maths can

I think I agree with you but I just want to be sure.




The experience of the colour red. How can maths expain the fundamental experience of something, the qualia.

Originally Posted by Omicron

The experience of the colour red. How can maths expain the fundamental experience of something, the qualia.

I imagine it's something like this. The makeup of a certain colored object causes the light to hit it in a certain way. Probably some sort of mathematics can detail this.

Originally Posted by Kael Seoras

What's neural net theory? (I'm gonna learn something new yes! )

Something to do the the neurons in our bodies huh?

Actually, I'll go ahead and look it up really quick.

Originally Posted by Kael Seoras

1. Analyzing literature
2. Emotions (except at it's most basic level perhaps)
3. heck, writing literature
4. Deciding what you want to do at the moment for fun
5. Love (except at it's most basic level)

then again, 5 could fit with 2. That list was off the top of my head.

If you can argue that these can totally be solved by mathematics I'm free to change my stance ^_^

I'm thinking of math up to Calculus I, which is as far as I've learned.

lolwut

Originally Posted by Xei

All of those are the results of neural net theory.

As I've said, consciousness in my opinion, and perhaps some other things.

Conciousness is based in reality, reacts with reality, and is a form of stimuli response.

How does that reside outside reality?

Or maybe I'm not getting the jist of materialism?

Originally Posted by Kael Seoras

I imagine it's something like this. The makeup of a certain colored object causes the light to hit it in a certain way. Probably some sort of mathematics can detail this.

Yes thats all the physical factors, but the actual experience, as in what red "is".

For example the world could be an illusion, and so could i; but I am experiencing the colour red nonetheless; the experience exists certainly, even if an illusion.


Yay qualia!