Will idealism ever become part of the mainstream?

[Astra052]

Cosmological Multiverse is the simplest model to account for the incredible number of distinct universes necessary to make this one unsurprising. Cosmologists have probably thought of all possible patterns that can produce infinite worlds. The problem with Multiverse is the number of useless universes, not their production,

Could you elaborate on this? I've never really heard these arguments before in depth.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Astra ... Not to belabour the point, I'm just saying that if presuming, a priori, a factual ontology of physicalism has not lead to a definitive explication of these ongoing questions, then perhaps it's time to posit another avenue of investigation that does not presume physicalism from the get go, even as such investigation may not prove the primacy of consciousness, anymore that the current investigation proves the primacy of matter. In other words, as I put it to Jim, what makes presuming, a priori , the ontological premise of physicalism so worthy of our faith?

[Brad Walker]

Goff's lucky conclusion is absurd, but publish hot takes or perish, even if the conclusion is worthless.

[Astra052]

Astra ... Not to belabour the point, I'm just saying that if presuming, a priori, a factual ontology of physicalism has not lead to a definitive explication of these ongoing questions, then perhaps it's time to posit another avenue of investigation that does not presume physicalism from the get go, even as such investigation may not prove the primacy of consciousness, anymore that the current investigation proves the primacy of matter. In other words, as I put it to Jim, what makes presuming, a priori , the ontological premise of physicalism so worthy of our faith?

What makes it so worthy is that thus far it hasn't failed and just because there are a variety of things not explained yet that doesn't mean physicalism is wrong. It's just how science works. Before we understood gravity or evolution would we have said "Ah! Things physicalism cannot account for! We have found proof that their ontology is a false one and that an alternative mode of investigation must be found!"? Because if we said that we would've been wrong. Just because not everything is explained yet, it doesn't mean it can't be. For all we know, using idealism as a way to explain these unanswered questions is like using idealism to account for gravity or evolution.

[Soul_of_Shu]

For all we know, using idealism as a way to explain these unanswered questions is like using idealism to account for gravity or evolution.

Which is exactly the point that BK is making in his body of work that positing the primacy of consciousness does not change what science has deduced about phenomena such as gravity and evolution. If you believe it does, how so?

[AshvinP]

Astra ... Not to belabour the point, I'm just saying that if presuming, a priori, a factual ontology of physicalism has not lead to a definitive explication of these ongoing questions, then perhaps it's time to posit another avenue of investigation that does not presume physicalism from the get go, even as such investigation may not prove the primacy of consciousness, anymore that the current investigation proves the primacy of matter. In other words, as I put it to Jim, what makes presuming, a priori , the ontological premise of physicalism so worthy of our faith?

What makes it so worthy is that thus far it hasn't failed and just because there are a variety of things not explained yet that doesn't mean physicalism is wrong. It's just how science works. Before we understood gravity or evolution would we have said "Ah! Things physicalism cannot account for! We have found proof that their ontology is a false one and that an alternative mode of investigation must be found!"? Because if we said that we would've been wrong. Just because not everything is explained yet, it doesn't mean it can't be. For all we know, using idealism as a way to explain these unanswered questions is like using idealism to account for gravity or evolution.

I think Cleric did a fine job of illustrating why the mathematical equations of GR/QM or any other precise scientific theory do not say anything about physicalism/materialism being true or not true. These equations are successful in predicting results and producing technology because they map onto some aspect of perceived-conceived reality, and that's all we know so far. It seems like you have invested a good deal of time in spiritual matters but not much in any particular scientific field. And when someone like me, who knows almost nothing about any particular scientific field, can spot that deficiency, it means you need to study a lot more Seeing as how you are only 18 and have already decided to stick with science for awhile, I think you are on the right path and will have a much deeper understanding of these issues than myself within a few years.

[AshvinP]

dana not sure what issue you are having now but there is nothing about nonlocality that proves any ontological position. that is the science of the matter.

see this article by Lee Smolin that discusses nonlocality and quantum gravity

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... -illusion/

I don't think anyone claimed it proves any ontological position. It disproves physicalism in the way most scientists understand it, which is made pretty clear in the article you linked.

I can then summarize the story I've been telling by saying that when locality, and space itself, emerges from averaging over fundamental processes involving a myriad of individual events, it is inevitable that locality will be disordered. Mostly, influences will be local because most of the time, causally related events will end up close to each other in the emergent rough description we call space. But there will be many pairs of events that are causally related, that will end up far from each other—thus disordering space and locality.

Could this disordering of locality serve to explain the quantum nonlocality inherent in entangled particles? I believe the answer is yes. Indeed, we have shown this to be the case in two different models of fundamental completions of quantum mechanics.

The details are unimportant, especially at this early stage. But the takeaway lesson is that the intuitive idea that objects influence each other because they are close in space is soon to become another of those easy beliefs that turn out to be wrong when we look deeper. The smoothness of space is soon to be come an illusion that hides a tiny and complex world of causal interactions, which do not live in space—but which rather define and create space as they create the future from the present.

I wonder if Smolin's replacement theory of a "tiny and complex world of causal interactions" will also turn out to be wrong when we look deeper still? The odds are overwhelmingly in favor of "yes", which is how science progresses. If we insist on bringing ontological frameworks to our science, we should at least abandon those frameworks when the data suggests that we must do so to go any deeper, and that's exactly where physicalism is at right now - it is preventing science from going any deeper.

[Astra052]

Astra ... Not to belabour the point, I'm just saying that if presuming, a priori, a factual ontology of physicalism has not lead to a definitive explication of these ongoing questions, then perhaps it's time to posit another avenue of investigation that does not presume physicalism from the get go, even as such investigation may not prove the primacy of consciousness, anymore that the current investigation proves the primacy of matter. In other words, as I put it to Jim, what makes presuming, a priori , the ontological premise of physicalism so worthy of our faith?

What makes it so worthy is that thus far it hasn't failed and just because there are a variety of things not explained yet that doesn't mean physicalism is wrong. It's just how science works. Before we understood gravity or evolution would we have said "Ah! Things physicalism cannot account for! We have found proof that their ontology is a false one and that an alternative mode of investigation must be found!"? Because if we said that we would've been wrong. Just because not everything is explained yet, it doesn't mean it can't be. For all we know, using idealism as a way to explain these unanswered questions is like using idealism to account for gravity or evolution.

I think Cleric did a fine job of illustrating why the mathematical equations of GR/QM or any other precise scientific theory do not say anything about physicalism/materialism being true or not true. These equations are successful in predicting results and producing technology because they map onto some aspect of perceived-conceived reality, and that's all we know so far. It seems like you have invested a good deal of time in spiritual matters but not much in any particular scientific field. And when someone like me, who knows almost nothing about any particular scientific field, can spot that deficiency, it means you need to study a lot more Seeing as how you are only 18 and have already decided to stick with science for awhile, I think you are on the right path and will have a much deeper understanding of these issues than myself within a few years.

If I had to be completely honest I think I'm partial to idealism, most of what I've been saying is just devil's advocate so that I can work through ideas. It's like the strategy Dostoevsky took of making the opponents in his books very smart with compelling arguments. I don't want to sell any opposing theory short, I'd rather take my views through the ringer against it and see what survives. My personal view right now is that complex biological structures are somehow able to "tune in" to consciousness mediated through various parts of our brains. For example, if one part of the brain is taken out or altered then the reception can't come in at full strength. The "reception"/"radio" anology is a rough one but I see it as our brains tuning into something fundamental in our universe. I guess this is a sort of quasi-idealism. The reason I've been defending physicalism so harshly is because for any different theory to pass muster against it, the other theory should be consistent enough to stand toe-to-toe. There are just so many unanswered questions that makes it tough for me. Why can't neurons in the brain produce consciousness? What is the best evidence we have regarding consciousness to support the idealist point of view? Can we really assume to understand consciousness better than neuroscientists? Why haven't neuroscientists found anything that would indicate consciousness not being tied to the physical brain? It goes on and on.

[Astra052]

dana not sure what issue you are having now but there is nothing about nonlocality that proves any ontological position. that is the science of the matter.

see this article by Lee Smolin that discusses nonlocality and quantum gravity

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... -illusion/

I don't think anyone claimed it proves any ontological position. It disproves physicalism in the way most scientists understand it, which is made pretty clear in the article you linked.

I can then summarize the story I've been telling by saying that when locality, and space itself, emerges from averaging over fundamental processes involving a myriad of individual events, it is inevitable that locality will be disordered. Mostly, influences will be local because most of the time, causally related events will end up close to each other in the emergent rough description we call space. But there will be many pairs of events that are causally related, that will end up far from each other—thus disordering space and locality.

Could this disordering of locality serve to explain the quantum nonlocality inherent in entangled particles? I believe the answer is yes. Indeed, we have shown this to be the case in two different models of fundamental completions of quantum mechanics.

The details are unimportant, especially at this early stage. But the takeaway lesson is that the intuitive idea that objects influence each other because they are close in space is soon to become another of those easy beliefs that turn out to be wrong when we look deeper. The smoothness of space is soon to be come an illusion that hides a tiny and complex world of causal interactions, which do not live in space—but which rather define and create space as they create the future from the present.

I wonder if Smolin's replacement theory of a "tiny and complex world of causal interactions" will also turn out to be wrong when we look deeper still? The odds are overwhelmingly in favor of "yes", which is how science progresses. If we insist on bringing ontological frameworks to our science, we should at least abandon those frameworks when the data suggests that we must do so to go any deeper, and that's exactly where physicalism is at right now - it is preventing science from going any deeper.

So is Smolin saying that space is no longer fundamental? I mean, I supose a few people are saying that. It's just that if space and time are no longer the fundamentals of reality, what is?

[AshvinP]

dana not sure what issue you are having now but there is nothing about nonlocality that proves any ontological position. that is the science of the matter.

see this article by Lee Smolin that discusses nonlocality and quantum gravity

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... -illusion/

I don't think anyone claimed it proves any ontological position. It disproves physicalism in the way most scientists understand it, which is made pretty clear in the article you linked.

I can then summarize the story I've been telling by saying that when locality, and space itself, emerges from averaging over fundamental processes involving a myriad of individual events, it is inevitable that locality will be disordered. Mostly, influences will be local because most of the time, causally related events will end up close to each other in the emergent rough description we call space. But there will be many pairs of events that are causally related, that will end up far from each other—thus disordering space and locality.

Could this disordering of locality serve to explain the quantum nonlocality inherent in entangled particles? I believe the answer is yes. Indeed, we have shown this to be the case in two different models of fundamental completions of quantum mechanics.

The details are unimportant, especially at this early stage. But the takeaway lesson is that the intuitive idea that objects influence each other because they are close in space is soon to become another of those easy beliefs that turn out to be wrong when we look deeper. The smoothness of space is soon to be come an illusion that hides a tiny and complex world of causal interactions, which do not live in space—but which rather define and create space as they create the future from the present.

I wonder if Smolin's replacement theory of a "tiny and complex world of causal interactions" will also turn out to be wrong when we look deeper still? The odds are overwhelmingly in favor of "yes", which is how science progresses. If we insist on bringing ontological frameworks to our science, we should at least abandon those frameworks when the data suggests that we must do so to go any deeper, and that's exactly where physicalism is at right now - it is preventing science from going any deeper.

So is Smolin saying that space is no longer fundamental? I mean, I suppose a few people are saying that. It's just that if space and time are no longer the fundamentals of reality, what is?

Good point. What else is there that we know, without a doubt, exists?

Why can't neurons in the brain produce consciousness? What is the best evidence we have regarding consciousness to support the idealist point of view? Can we really assume to understand consciousness better than neuroscientists? Why haven't neuroscientists found anything that would indicate consciousness not being tied to the physical brain? It goes on and on.

Again, good questions. Can an image produce that which it is imaging? We know that consciousness has mathematical structure (see "psychophysics"), and we know that mathematics has an "unreasonable effectiveness" in modeling reality. I would say that's a good start.