Why I'm not a Physicalist - Four reasons for Rejecting the Faith

"Pseudoprofundity" seems to be a particular niggle for you, Malf. Makes me wonder what you would consider as true profundity? Also what is its opposite: cynicism perhaps? I say that because it often seems to me that those who call themselves skeptics often don't know the line which separates skepticism from cynicism.

Heh. I think it's an efficient word. It neatly describes so much of the lingual gymnastics that pass for philosophy.

Heh. I think it's an efficient word. It neatly describes so much of the lingual gymnastics that pass for philosophy.

Like I said: cynical. 

Other models of reality face perhaps even trickier counters than the ones presented above.

While there are difficulties for other paradigms (as I've acknowledged in the past) I'd be curious which ones have a trickier counter than materialism?

Examples would be much appreciated.

The problem I have with such statements is that they don’t get us very far. Observations of facts in nature though, *have* uncovered counterintuitive things about the way we were taught to understand the world, like quantum mechanics. which is genuinely different, and I reckon impossible to have got to directly, by simply chopping logic. It rather feels like sniping from the sidelines to me. Yes he’s right, there are problems with how we currently understand nature, but it’s the people who are making observations, taking measurements who are at least doing something to try and move us forward. You may not agree with them, but they are finding ways of joining up observations. I mean the observations are going to be correct, they won’t change, it’s the joining up that changes. The bigger the volume of information available, the more likely somebody is going to come along and generalise all the laws again.

You can see that QM is informational, that spacetime is the result of processing that information, that gravity is an effect that shows as some type of ordering of that information, and eventually the theories are all going to feedback into providing us with greater insight into ourselves.

Rather like a boat tacking into the wind, we’re going to have to keep going in a less than ideal direction until a course change is forced upon us. But what you can’t do is chuck out current theories until we have something better to replace them with. That is the fundamental misunderstanding I see here, yes he may have some good points, but does he actually have anything better which can replace the current theories. Stating that by dumping physical theories we can open up a world of possibilities is as much use as a chocolate fire guard, you simply don’t dump existing theories until you have something better to replace them with.

Interesting post Max.

Made me think of several people I know in my life who aren't really interested in this discussion as they've already found their own path, their own philosophy, their own worldview.  I'm thinking of a very good and old friend of mine who has been a dedicated Buddhist for the past 20 years or so.  PhD in Economics.  Very math and science savvy.  Interested in science and technology.  But, does no wrestle at all with reconciling Psi, materialism, "God", what happens after death, etc.  He's found his answers through his practice, experiences, and relationships.  His "evidence" if you will.

Sorry for the diversion, but while this friend and I go WAY back and have shared a lot and know each other well, it almost feels as if there is some fundamental difference on this point.  I seem to want to reconcile all this stuff.  He doesn't.

Just interesting to me and you're post made me think of it.

The problem I have with such statements is that they don’t get us very far. Observations of facts in nature though, *have* uncovered counterintuitive things about the way we were taught to understand the world, like quantum mechanics. which is genuinely different, and I reckon impossible to have got to directly, by simply chopping logic. It rather feels like sniping from the sidelines to me. Yes he’s right, there are problems with how we currently understand nature, but it’s the people who are making observations, taking measurements who are at least doing something to try and move us forward. You may not agree with them, but they are finding ways of joining up observations. I mean the observations are going to be correct, they won’t change, it’s the joining up that changes. The bigger the volume of information available, the more likely somebody is going to come along and generalise all the laws again.

You can see that QM is informational, that spacetime is the result of processing that information, that gravity is an effect that shows as some type of ordering of that information, and eventually the theories are all going to feedback into providing us with greater insight into ourselves.

Rather like a boat tacking into the wind, we’re going to have to keep going in a less than ideal direction until a course change is forced upon us. But what you can’t do is chuck out current theories until we have something better to replace them with. That is the fundamental misunderstanding I see here, yes he may have some good points, but does he actually have anything better which can replace the current theories. Stating that by dumping physical theories we can open up a world of possibilities is as much use as a chocolate fire guard, you simply don’t dump existing theories until you have something better to replace them with.

I think there's a difference between rejecting physicalism and rejecting physics?

I admit I struggle with philosophy...

...but some of the things he says either rely on an interpretation that I consider may be a misinterpretation of our observations of nature. Or, bring together observations that have already been superseded by our observations (i.e. new observations cast some doubt about the relevance of an argument). One may want to organize observations in some sort of philosophy, but if you don't also include observations that challenge ones ideas, say... because one is not aware of particular observations... I'm not sure where it gets you...

To me he is simply saying physics is, and will always be, an incomplete picture of reality.

I somewhat agree that it doesn't, save for self-organization and ease in conversation, buy much to identify with any particular philosophy. (Though this is likely person dependent.)

On the subject of observation, I think this gets into the question of whose observations count the most? If a chef cooks a meal, does the physicist understand the dish better because they comprehend the atomic particles that make the food? It seems to me there are at least two incompatible types of description but neither takes precedence over the other in describing what's real?

While there are difficulties for other paradigms (as I've acknowledged in the past) I'd be curious which ones have a trickier counter than materialism?

Examples would be much appreciated.

You know the counters as well as any one, and note I said ‘perhaps’ so that gets me off the hook.

Arguments against Idealism can be the trickiest. In addition to Paul’s trees in his yard, would you say Idealism could be refuted if there was something that was perceived differently by different individuals, and was shown to not even exist In the ‘shared reality’?