An argument against materialsim

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

STT

Guest
Materialists assume that matter is fundamental and change over time by the law of cause and effect, the law of cause and effect being about the fact that an state of affair, so called cause, causes another state of affair, so called effect. The effect however is assumed to be objectively present in future. Future however does not objectively exist. Therefore materialism is wrong.
 
Last edited:
The B-theory of time is wrong. If matter objectively exists in future and consciousness is the result of matter activity then we should be aware of the future which we are not.
 
Really? There’s a rock in Gibraltar that’s made of matter. I’m not aware of what’s going on there.

Just because you have no epistemic access to something, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. We got object permanence when we were babies.

Moreover, that’s correct, at time T, you aren’t aware of what’s happening at T+1. But your mind at T+1 is aware of what’s happening at T+1, even if you’re at T, or T-1, or T-2, etc. Just because your mind has limits, doesn’t mean the B-theories are wrong.
 
Last edited:
Why do we only experience now? What does embed us in such a local framework at now which moves along now? That thing which embeds us locally cannot be time since time exists in past, now and future.
 
I think that socialism stems from idealism. We are minds and equal. The rest is just illusion created by minds.
 
Past, now and future exist in B-theory of time. Matter also exist in past, now and future. The question is what does move us along time at now? That cannot be time since time exist in past, now and future.
 
Perhaps the Growing Block model describes reality better than the B-theory of time
 
You’re missing the B-theory argument.

You ARE experiencing time T+1. You are really experiencing it at T+1. We’re just not to T+1 yet.
 
STT said:
Materialists assume that matter is fundamental and change over time by the law of cause and effect, the law of cause and effect being about the fact that an state of affair, so called cause, causes another state of affair, so called effect. The effect however is assumed to be objectively present in future. Future however does not objectively exist. Therefore materialism is wrong.
Click to expand...
John M. E. McTaggart considered the C-series (suppose that time is unreal, but there is a real ordering corresponding to the apparent temporal ordering, i.e., C-series) with respect to the meaning of eternal. Every existent is eternal in the sense of in which time is unreal. There are three reasons to metaphorically describe the eternal as present, but it is appropriate to describe the eternal as being future, because the final stage of a series of representations giving rise to the appearance of a temporal order, represents reality as being timeless.
 
Last edited:
STT said:
Materialists assume that matter is fundamental and change over time by the law of cause and effect, the law of cause and effect being about the fact that an state of affair, so called cause, causes another state of affair, so called effect. The effect however is assumed to be objectively present in future. Future however does not objectively exist. Therefore materialism is wrong.
Click to expand...
Although I think materialism is wrong, the above argument is not cogent. Strictly speaking, the effect is not future because cause and effect exist simultaneously at the moment of causing.
 
No I am not missing it. A system which is at time T in a point will be at time T+1 at the next point. Past, now and future however exist in B-theory of time. So I am asking what moves us ahead in time. It could not be time.
 
Are saying that C-theory of time resolve the problem raised in OP? I am not familiar with C-theory of time and cannot follow you in here.
 
Cause and effect cannot coexist simultaneously since the state of affair becomes ill-defined.
 
I am aware of time-space continuum. I don’t understand how that is related to our discussion.
 
STT said:
Cause and effect cannot coexist simultaneously since the state of affair becomes ill-defined.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, it is the one and only thing that defines causality. To cause is to produce actuality to an effect. This state of affairs cannot exist without cause and effect existing simultaneously. In fact, I challenge you to give an example from nature of cause and effect not existing simultaneously at the moment of causing.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top