Materialism is Self-Refuting

[lemondiesel]

It’s a pretty good assumption, for we have never witnessed anything which is finite create anything. It takes an Infinite to create a finite.

Doesn’t this assume that infinite can be reduced and be changed into finite?

 

[tonyrey]

Abstract ideas like truth are not derived from images. Why do we sometimes have ideas we cannot express with words?

Easier but still restricted to the physical world.

They associate their reflection with themselves but that does not mean they have an abstract idea like “I” or “myself”.

Hence, human language…

Concepts are not produced by language. Concepts lead to language.

What makes it the best interpretation?

It is testable and predictable.

In other words it corresponds to reality and is not merely an opinion.

The fact remains that even when there was no constitution freedom was often lacking. Freedom wasn’t created by us in the first place but slavery was…

What do you mean? If slavery was created by us, then freedom also was; those two are one with each other.

Slavery is a lack of freedom. Freedom is more than a lack of slavery. It existed prior to slavery…

 

[Sonoran_Son]

Because quantities are physical attributes

The thing which is being quantified is a physical attribute, but the quantity itself is not. It is a representation of a physical attribute.

“two” describes a concept which refers to an abstract reality. The word or symbol 2 is a convention but what it refers to is a fact! Unity or duality don’t depend on us for their existence. Neither does positivity or negativity! There is certainly an objective difference between success and failure in biological organisms but even inorganic reactions are sometimes incomplete. Health and disease are two aspects of life. They are equivalent to good and evil at the physical level. One of the most convincing examples of bipolarity in the physical world is light and darkness. We don’t invent mathematical truths we discover them…

I agree with all that, but what is necessary for a number to exist or for truth to exist? I guess what I’m referring to here is that you can’t show me a two, you can only show me something to which we can say the concept of two can be applied to. The concept that two represents exists apart from whatever we are quantifying. In other words, if all the objects to which we could apply the concept of two to were not to exist, would that mean that the concept of two would not exist? Or does the concept itself exist independently from the objects to which we can apply it?

So, that “by the time you read this and, perhaps, respond, I will have already posted it,” is not True? That I am here typing this and posting it, at this very moment, is just an abstraction?

Whether or not it is true is a red herring, as my point is not whether or not something can be true or not. But it is an abstraction in the sense that it expresses a quality that is not part of of me or you (the objects).

I say that, “By the time I read and responded to your post, you will have already posted it,” is not a Truth rooted to, and unavoidably connected to the fact of your existence and the fact of a certain activity? Truth becomes abstraction the as soon as we move into the future?

Was truth ever not an abstraction in the present? The truth of something is not an attribute of the object to which we are applying it. Otherwise, what would it mean to say that something is truth or truthful?

The concept that, in the past you physically (really) sat and typed your response to Tonerey is purely conceptual? I guess you are not real; I just made you up?

I don’t understand how you reached this conclusion.

He didn’t say, “concept of infinity,” he said, “infinity.” The concept only exists because the truth of infinity follows the actuality of infinity into the future.

What is the actuality of infinity. Can you show me infinity?

Thank you both for your responses, it has given me a new way to look at the ideas that I currently hold (and an opportunity to defend them).

 

[grannymh]

Doesn’t this assume that infinite can be reduced and be changed into finite?

Nothing can reduce or change the infinite because it exists without restrictions. It is the finite which has restrictions or limitations since it can both exist and cease to exist.

 

[tonyrey]

The thing which is being quantified is a physical attribute, but the quantity itself is not. It is a representation of a physical attribute.

I agree with all that, but what is necessary for a number to exist or for truth to exist? I guess what I’m referring to here is that you can’t show me a two, you can only show me something to which we can say the concept of two can be applied to.

The request to “show” something implies that physical objects are somehow more real than concepts. Yet even though it is widespread in our secular society the assumption that matter is more real than mind cannot be justified. Without the mind we wouldn’t know anything exists! Mindless objects are an inadequate explanation of the richness of reality. Truth, goodness, freedom, beauty and love are infinitely more significant than particles of matter.

The concept that two represents exists apart from whatever we are quantifying. In other words, if all the objects to which we could apply the concept of two to were not to exist, would that mean that the concept of two would not exist? Or does the concept itself exist independently from the objects to which we can apply it?

Like facts concepts exist **independently **regardless of whether they refer to physical objects or not. If the world didn’t exist concepts about the world would be merely concepts but they wouldn’t be non-existent! Concepts could hardly exist in a void! They exist in the mind but they are not illusions any more than feelings and decisions are.

Tangibility is not the sole criterion of reality. Tangibility itself is intangible! That is to say, it is an intangible concept. We cannot dispense with concepts for the simple reason that we wouldn’t be able to think! There is at least one concept that is absolutely necessary: the concept of existence itself! And that presupposes the Mind of God…

[/QUOTE]

 

[tonyrey]

One of the most convincing examples of bipolarity in the physical world is light and darkness. We don’t invent fundamental mathematical truths we discover them…

Of course the most fundamental mathematical truth is the duality of existence and non-existence - which we certainly don’t invent…

 

[tonyrey]

Of course the most fundamental mathematical truth is the duality of existence and non-existence - which we certainly don’t invent…

Correction! The most fundamental mathematical truth is the unity of the Supreme Being… without Whom there would be no mathematical truths! As Lear said, nothing shall come from nothing…

 

[Rocinante]

What does that prove? Merely that some mathematical truths are the result of arbitrary axioms and rules but it is absurd to suggest that** all** mathematical truths fall into that category.

i don’t see any mathematical truths as arbitrary. rather they are all created for some human purposes. before there were humans there was no such thing as mathematics or any mathematical truths.

Your solution to the nature of mathematics is simplistic. Do you believe numbers are arbitrary? Is the speed of light a human invention? Forget about the units of measurement: the ratio of the distance travelled to the time taken is not arbitrary or devised by man. Neither is the **proportion **of hydrogen atoms to oxygen atoms in water. Nor is the **number **of planets in the solar system nor the mathematical value of physical constants.

numbers are not arbitrary. neither are tractors. both are human creations.

The word or symbol 2 is a convention but what it refers to is a fact! Unity or duality don’t depend on us for their existence.

what need could their have been for such concepts before their were human beings who could wield them? where would these concepts have been before humans existed?

you speak as though 2-ness is a fundamental platonic essence or something. plato thought sick people have an excess of “fever” and that odd numbers lack “duality.” thankfully, philosophy has finally gotten past plato in the past hundred years or so.

it is one thing to think that the invention of 2-ness was as inevitable for humanity as the invention of the wheel or the incline plane, but quite another to think that such a concept could exist without minds to invent it and to contain it.

words and numbers are tools like wheels and hammers that humans invented to help meet human needs.

 

[lemondiesel]

Easier but still restricted to the physical world.

Images are a requirement for Truth, because our 5 senses are what allow us to even experience the physical world.

Concepts are not produced by language. Concepts lead to language.

So then Koko could theoretically develop a language, and would be one step closer to being ‘human being.’

In other words it corresponds to reality and is not merely an opinion.

Yes

Slavery is a lack of freedom. Freedom is more than a lack of slavery. It existed prior to slavery…

What is freedom when there is no slavery? What are the criteria?

 

[JDaniel]

i don’t see any mathematical truths as arbitrary. rather they are all created for some human purposes. before there were humans there was no such thing as mathematics or any mathematical truths.

With all due respect, perhaps you can help me understand. Do cubes exist? Do squares exist? Do triangles exist? Do rectangles exist? Do round balls exist? Does randomness exist? If I have a cow named, Fred, and a cow named, Mildred, do I have two real cows?

numbers are not arbitrary. neither are tractors. both are human creations.

Are you talking here about the words, rather, the names, we call them, that is, the factical beings that the names represent?

what need could their have been for such concepts before their were human beings who could wield them? where would these concepts have been before humans existed?

I guess two cows could not have existed prior to about 300,000 years ago? Oops! Sorry, can’t count the time when humans had no language, or, when “ugh”. So, let’s say 100,000 years ago.

you speak as though 2-ness is a fundamental platonic essence or something. plato thought sick people have an excess of “fever” and that odd numbers lack “duality.” thankfully, philosophy has finally gotten past plato in the past hundred years or so.

it is one thing to think that the invention of 2-ness was as inevitable for humanity as the invention of the wheel or the incline plane, but quite another to think that such a concept could exist without minds to invent it and to contain it.

Therefore, in the absense of language, humans could not conceive of 2-ness? When we were just monkeys, for example?

words and numbers are tools like wheels and hammers that humans invented to help meet human needs.

Yes, at some point, in the scheme of things, they are.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Images are a requirement for Truth, because our 5 senses are what allow us to even experience the physical world.

So, a real triangle, or an actual cube, is not a priori true?

[SNIP]

What is freedom when there is no slavery? What are the criteria?

The capability to be able to walk in the opposite direction from a fence, unfettered, at least until we reach the other side of the fence.

God bless,
jd

 

[j1akey]

"lemondiesel:

So then Koko could theoretically develop a language, and would be one step closer to being ‘human being.’

Just going to ask about this one thing. I’m guessing you’re talking about the Gorilla named KoKo here. KoKo has a language, just not a human language. Gorrila’s communicate with each other all the time, so does every other animal on the planet in one way or another. Even ants communicate with each other even if it is just through the use of chemical smells. It’s may not be considered “language” in the classic sense of the word but it is communication on some level at the very least.

 

[tonyrey]

What does that prove? Merely that some mathematical truths are the result of arbitrary axioms and rules but it is absurd to suggest that all mathematical truths fall into that category.

Is the difference between positive and negative imaginary? If one animal had one eye and another two there was no difference between them?

Before there were humans there was no such thing as mathematics or any mathematical truths.

There was no such thing as mathematics but mathematical** facts** existed. There were the same number of planets around the earth - not created for any human purpose.

Your solution to the nature of mathematics is simplistic. Do you believe numbers are arbitrary? Is the speed of light a human invention? Forget about the units of measurement: the ratio of the distance travelled to the time taken is not arbitrary or devised by man. Neither is the proportion of hydrogen atoms to oxygen atoms in water. Nor is the number of planets in the solar system nor the mathematical value of physical constants.

numbers are not arbitrary. neither are tractors. both are human creations.

Did men create the** proportion** of hydrogen atoms to oxygen atoms in water? That is a numerical relation which exists independently of man.

The word or symbol 2 is a convention but what it refers to is a fact! Unity or duality don’t depend on us for their existence.

what need could there have been for such concepts before there were human beings who could wield them?

There was no need for them but the reality to which the concepts refer existed nevertheless. Things or facts don’t cease to exist just because no one needs them or is aware of them. Science doesn’t consist solely of inventions but mainly of discoveries. And it is not primarily the existence of things but how they are related. Seeing things is not enough. You need to **interpret **and understand what you see. There is far more in life than the evidence of your senses…

where would these concepts have been before humans existed?

Where was the** fact **of gravitation before humans existed? In the mind but not only in the mind because knowledge exists only in the mind. We don’t know or understand things themselves. We know and understand facts about things. We don’t create or invent facts: we discover them.

you speak as though 2-ness is a fundamental platonic essence or something. plato thought sick people have an excess of “fever” and that odd numbers lack “duality.” thankfully, philosophy has finally gotten past plato in the past hundred years or so.

It has nothing whatsover to do with essences but facts. If you deny facts exist you are left without knowledge because knowledge is composed of facts. In other words if truth doesn’t exist you cannot reach any conclusions. An illusion is not a tool, let alone a reliable tool. If only material objects exist there is no such thing as meaning, so it does not even make sense to say everything is meaningless! Reasons disappear and all that is left are physical causes. The inevitable outcome of materialism is total scepticism - which of course is self-destructive because the theory of materialism is not a material object!

it is one thing to think that the invention of 2-ness was as inevitable for humanity as the invention of the wheel or the incline plane, but quite another to think that such a concept could exist without minds to invent it and to contain it.

So according to you there was no difference in quantities or velocities or forces or proportions before humanity existed? There weren’t two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen in water?

words and numbers are tools like wheels and hammers that humans invented to help meet human needs.

So you believe a number is an illusion? What then do the binary, decimal and hexadecimal systems refer to? Imaginary units? No. They are different methods of counting** the same variations in quantity**. Different languages express the same ideas. We don’t think with words but with concepts which refer not only to tangible things but intangibles like persons, emotions, relations, principles and purposes. Thought cannot be reduced to mechanical activity. That is a programmers’ myth…

 

[lemondiesel]

The capability to be able to walk in the opposite direction from a fence, unfettered, at least until we reach the other side of the fence.

I definitely have an Aristotlian point of view of slavery, where yours seems to be too influenced by American slavery of the past.

 

[tonyrey]

Easier but still restricted to the physical world.

Our senses tell us nothing about intangible reality.

Concepts are not produced by language. Concepts lead to language.

So then Koko could theoretically develop a language, and would be one step closer to being ‘human being.’

There is no evidence that Koko understands **abstract concepts. **Her language is not syntactic.

In other words it corresponds to reality and is not merely an opinion.

So an interpretation is not necessarily true.

Slavery is a lack of freedom. Freedom is more than a lack of slavery. It existed prior to slavery…

What is freedom when there is no slavery? What are the criteria?

Freedom is the ability to choose where to live and how to live - within reasonable limits.

 

[JDaniel]

I definitely have an Aristotlian point of view of slavery, where yours seems to be too influenced by American slavery of the past.

Not really; I just think that the word, Freedom, is not limited to slavery vs. non-slavery. For example, we are Free to think what we want. Freedom is a pregnant word, in other words - it is, to some extent, free from severe limitation. Wouldn’t you agree?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Just going to ask about this one thing. I’m guessing you’re talking about the Gorilla named KoKo here. KoKo has a language, just not a human language. Gorrila’s communicate with each other all the time, so does every other animal on the planet in one way or another. Even ants communicate with each other even if it is just through the use of chemical smells. It’s may not be considered “language” in the classic sense of the word but it is communication on some level at the very least.

Correct. Some sort of rudimentary communication is essential to animals. Just not what we classically consider a language.

God bless,
jd

 

[Sonoran_Son]

Quantity often refers to more than one thing. So a number is an intangible description of an intangible fact about physical objects! In a way it is similar to similarity! (Although one object cannot be similar to itself. ) A number is an attribute of one or more objects.

I can agree with most of that. However, I think while we can attribute a number to an object, the number exists independent of that object. In other words, the number’s existence isn’t dependent on the object’s existence.

The request to “show” something implies that physical objects are somehow more real than concepts. Yet even though it is widespread in our secular society the assumption that matter is more real than mind cannot be justified. Without the mind we wouldn’t know anything exists! Mindless objects are an inadequate explanation of the richness of reality. Truth, goodness, freedom, beauty and love are infinitely more significant than particles of matter.

The problem I have with abstracts such as truth and goodness is that it is hard to make them concrete. People have to agree on the definitions before we can go any further in a discussion on truth or goodness. But I think such things as truth or goodness are very important, I’m just trying to figure out their basic characteristics. Which is why I am interested if abstracts can exist where no mind exists. Though, I was thinking, if God was the first mind and cause of the universe, that would make the existence of abstracts possible even if there were yet any human mind to ponder abstracts.

Like facts concepts exist **independently **regardless of whether they refer to physical objects or not. If the world didn’t exist concepts about the world would be merely concepts but they wouldn’t be non-existent! Concepts could hardly exist in a void! They exist in the mind but they are not illusions any more than feelings and decisions are.

We agree that concepts exist independent of the object to which they may refer to. I wonder if there is anything necessary for the existence of concepts, such as the mind.

Tangibility is not the sole criterion of reality. Tangibility itself is intangible! That is to say, it is an intangible concept. We cannot dispense with concepts for the simple reason that we wouldn’t be able to think! There is at least one concept that is absolutely necessary: the concept of existence itself! And that presupposes the Mind of God…

Thank you for the insight, I am rather new to this topic of discussion.

 

[tonyrey]

Quantity often refers to more than one thing. So a number is an intangible description of an intangible fact about physical objects! In a way it is similar to similarity! (Although one object cannot be similar to itself. ) A number is an attribute of one or more objects.
I can agree with most of that. However, I think while we can attribute a number to an object, the number exists independent of that object. In other words, the number’s existence isn’t dependent on the object’s existence.

That is true! Being an attribute is compatible with being independent. Many beliefs or statements, for example, are true but truth is independent of statements. It exists even when no one is aware of it or cannot speak a language.

The request to “show” something implies that physical objects are somehow more real than concepts. Yet even though it is widespread in our secular society the assumption that matter is more real than mind cannot be justified. Without the mind we wouldn’t know anything exists! Mindless objects are an inadequate explanation of the richness of reality. Truth, goodness, freedom, beauty and love are infinitely more significant than particles of matter.

The problem I have with abstracts such as truth and goodness is that it is hard to make them concrete.

It is impossible!

People have to agree on the definitions before we can go any further in a discussion on truth or goodness. But I think such things as truth or goodness are very important, I’m just trying to figure out their basic characteristics. Which is why I am interested if abstracts can exist where no mind exists. Though, I was thinking, if God was the first mind and cause of the universe, that would make the existence of abstracts possible even if there were yet any human mind to ponder abstracts.

You’ve hit the nail on the head! God is not material or concrete; He is the Creator of everything tangible and intangible. Even to refer to God as the “Supreme Mind” is inaccurate because He created minds but it is probably the closest analogy there is.

Like facts concepts exist independently regardless of whether they refer to physical objects or not. If the world didn’t exist concepts about the world would be merely concepts but they wouldn’t be non-existent! Concepts could hardly exist in a void! They exist in the mind but they are not illusions any more than feelings and decisions are.
We agree that concepts exist independent of the object to which they may refer to. I wonder if there is anything necessary for the existence of concepts, such as the mind.

Tangibility is not the sole criterion of reality. Tangibility itself is intangible! That is to say, it is an intangible concept. We cannot dispense with concepts for the simple reason that we wouldn’t be able to think! There is at least one concept that is absolutely necessary: the concept of existence itself! And that presupposes the Mind of God…

Thank you for the insight, I am rather new to this topic of discussion.

It is one of the deepest topics there is…

 

[Rocinante]

Is the difference between positive and negative imaginary? If one animal had one eye and another two there was no difference between them?

how do you make the leap from humans invented numbers to numbers are imaginary? humans invented tractors. are tractors then imaginary?

Where was the** fact **of gravitation before humans existed?[/quotes]

rocks of course still always fell to the ground when dropped, but there was no such thing as the laws of gravity or gravity itself before newton.
tonyrey;7285188:

In the mind but not only in the mind because knowledge exists only in the mind. We don’t know or understand things themselves. We know and understand facts about things

. We don’t create or invent facts: we discover them.

2 is not a fact. numbers aren’t facts. we create tools like numbers and equations and tractors to cope with the world.

So you believe a number is an illusion?

again, why would the fact that numbers are invented make them illusions? does the fact that windows 98 was invented make it an illusion?

What then do the binary, decimal and hexadecimal systems refer to?

refer to??? what does a hammer refer to? these different number systems are similar and related tools for solving similar human problems.