>>18478124
Don't know what this means but it sound gay and retarded so I'll assume its for faggots

Don't you have anything else to do?

>>18478140
since OP is so hot on opening another one, I'd in deed take that as physical evidence of him being a faggot...

>>18478124
Is everyone tired of le hard problem of consciousness already. Surprised it was barely mentioned.

>>18478146
That's because it's irrefutable anon

>>18478124
I am a Reductive physicalist and making a whole general to stroke each others dicks is pretty fucking gay.

>>18478140
It's the least fake and gay of all worldviews because it's solely grounded in reality. Doesn't get more based than that
>>18478146
I think one dualist tried that in the previous thread but promptly got BTFO

>>18478148
You can't refute the incoherent

>>18478155
refuting the incoherent is the whole point of refuting anything

>>18478124
>Christcucks nowhere to be seen because they'll immediately lose
Why are Christians so much happier than you losers?

>>18478155
dubs

Define physical

>>18478198
>Define physical
physical is something that is in principle falsifiable by observation or experiment
>define in principle
Possible according to previous or future conceivable observations, even if not practically achievable right now
>define falsifiable
Capable of being shown to be incorrect
>define observation
A sensory or instrument-mediated detection of the world
>define experiment
A deliberate, controlled intervention into the world to produce observations

>CIA demoralization spreading niggers general

Since consciousness is fake, knowledge is impossible. Therefore this thread is just p-zombie retards lashing out against other p-zombie retards.

>>18478219
>physical is something that is in principle falsifiable by observation or experiment
That's empirical, not physical. Physical is just a synonym of natural.

>>18478219
This sounds closer to philosophical naturalism than physicalism, except that IIRC the main hard problem of consciousness guy, David Chalmers, argues for a "naturalistic dualism" where consciousness or conscious experiences are treated as new fundamental entities that operate according to discoverable(?) psychophysical laws.

>>18478219
Physicalism as you put it doesn’t really work as anything but an extremely personal and self admitted flawed view.
You can’t communicate feeling and sensation nor can you experiment with them and you can’t really use your definition to get over the problems in physics such as the relativity of time or the passage of time and historical events.

>>18478219
>Define OP
An induvial who cant define for shit

>>18478269
>You can’t communicate feeling and sensation
Why do you think that?
> problems in physics such as the relativity of time
That's not a problem, it's a discovery of physics.

>>18478261
>That's empirical, not physical. Physical is just a synonym of natural.
Same thing in physicalism. We just need that definition because we need to determine what is physical and what isn't to fend off retards
>This sounds closer to philosophical naturalism than physicalism
They're very closely related, arguably the same thing.
>where consciousness or conscious experiences are treated as new fundamental entities
So not physical
>that operate according to discoverable(?) psychophysical laws
How are they discoverable? Chalmers refuses to answer that, so we fall through the falsifiable guardrail I postulated.
>>18478269
>You can’t communicate feeling and sensation nor can you experiment with them
You easily can. Literally skill issue
>can’t really use your definition to get over the problems in physics such as the relativity of time or the passage of time
Yeah yeah, we've heard this bullshit before 100s of times regarding problem xyz throughout history
>and historical events
Wut

>>18478280
>>that operate according to discoverable(?) psychophysical laws
>How are they discoverable? Chalmers refuses to answer that, so we fall through the falsifiable guardrail I postulated.
That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

>>18478297
>That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
According to a physicalist, it does exactly mean that. A small thought experiment:
Chalmers subscribes to a dualist worldview where he says conscious experiences are fundamental entities next to the physical (but not physical, and that's fine even if we can't observe or falsify).
But you can add infinite amounts of bullshit on top of that.
I could say these conscious experiences require another level of meta consciousness and another, and another, straight up to infinity so it's not dualism but infinitalism. In fact, let's make it even dumber and say every physical system has a tiny, undetectable demon riding alongside it. The demon does nothing, influences nothing, and can never be observed or measured. But it’s there.
Chalmers can't argue against it (and neither can you), because you throw the requirement of something being falsifiable out of the window. If something is true without being falsifiable, ANYTHING can be true, so any statements are meaningless.

What's the difference between physicalism and materialism?

>>18478358
>What's the difference between physicalism and materialism?
Ultimately the difference is mainly historical. Materialism stems from a pre 20th century scientific understanding where matter was the non plus ultra, so lower level physical discoveries like vacuum energy and quantum fields don't quite fit the term. But ultimately just from a general philosophical perspective they mean the same thing, namely that you observe things and falsify them, and build your world view based off of that

>>18478219
this shit embaressing haha OP, you faggot

>>18478124
>decide to make a thread about how retareded everyone is for not believing in your world view
>Make a new thread about the some extremely vague topic with some retareded name
>purpose of this ""general"" is to just circle jerk each other and give yourselves a pat on the back for your previous efforts
>First post explicitly calls you retared
>Second post calls implicitly calls you pathetic
>Third post calls explicitly you faggot
>Non-physicalists call you a faggot
>physicalists call you a faggot.
Holy shit man .·°՞(˃ ᗜ ˂)՞°·.

File: Inverted_qualia_of_colour(...).jpg (162 KB, 1070x614)

162 KB JPG

How does physicalism explain qualia? Genuine question.
>They are illusory
How does it explain the illusion?

>>18478486
Untwist those panties of yours.

>>18478518
Qualia is a meaningless term, so there's nothing to explain.

File: salvia.jpg (396 KB, 1140x1213)

396 KB JPG

If you are a self-proclaimed anything, you are a larping retard.
Metaphysical agnosticism is not fence sitting, it's a rightful position in and of itself.

>>18478550
That's what idealists and dualists say when it becomes obvious that no one takes their retardation seriously.

>>18478302
>According to a physicalist, it does exactly mean that.
Yeah well they're wrong.
>I could say these conscious experiences require another level of meta consciousness and another, and another
That would be the correct view.

>>18478530
>the one thing we can be sure to exist.... isn't real o algo

>>18478647
>we
Speak for yourself. I'm sure plenty of things exist and "qualia" is not any of them.

>>18478655
Yes, but that's because you're a bot and thus do not possess qualia.

>>18478140
>not even one post in and supernaturalists already boiling

>>18478124
Based as fuck

>>18478722
Is the "qualia" frothing at your mouth right now?

>>18478124
So on the other one I claimed there was something above logic and doubted. Looked it up. God is identical with hus qualities, including logic.
God doesn't create faggot Potters.

>>18478644
One can't help but notice how you conveniently stopped before the absurdity of this argument is shown

>>18478644
The idea of a metaphysical meta-consciousness is interesting. Could you elaborate on this based on, say, a Platonist basis?

File: 5-meo-dmt.jpg (51 KB, 375x375)

51 KB JPG

>>18478852
Not that anon, but meta-consciousness is contingent. Figuratively lick toads and experience what it is like to be without being aware of the experience.

>>18478852
It's a load of bullshit. Did that help?

>>18478834
What if I don't agree with your stupid strawman and I'm a panpsychicist?

I hate jews and p-zombies.

>>18478908
>I'm a panpsychicist?
You unironically believe electrons have consciousness, that's even more retarded

>>18478926
Yes, even primitive animism is more coherent than physicalism.

>>18478935
Holy cope
How is physicalism incoherent? It's the most coherent worldview in existence.

>Just don't think about it bro
this is not a school of thought at all it's a lack of critical thinking

>>18478198
The kind of stuff that's studied by physics. This includes macroscopic material objects, gravity, atoms, spacetime, also includes things we don't know about if they are discoverable by physics or at least would be considered part of physics if we knew about them.

>But what IS physics?
If you've been to school you should know what it is. There's no need to define everything ad infinitum.

ITT: Angsty keyboard warriors desperately intellectualizing the nature of their existence in order to cope with their own inevitable demise.

>>18479012
Who the fuck are you? I'm convinced there's a discord to spread demoralization for some reason.

>>18478124
Ben Klassen completed the system of European Physicalism.

iykyk.

>>18479007
>The kind of stuff that's studied by physics.
You're such a retard. There hasn't been a cogent definition of "physical" ever since we long moved on past contact mechanics from the days of Newtonian classical physics. The use of the word is merely provisional in its application at best.

see >>18479148

idealism total victory

>>18478863
Haven’t licked toads yet, but meditation did help me reach a state of equanimity that made me realize the ways in which I saw consciousness back then might be wrong. To be without being aware, to be without being one, i.e, to not be a singular entity, and so on.

There’s some discussion to be had about how the (Neo-) Platonist concept of Logos combined with Platonic essences and Forms would really make this concept of meta-consciousness concrete philosophically, but I’m not as well-versed in Platonism or Western Idealism.

>>18478124
According to physicalism, we're all illusion.

Since the real matter is just subatomic partiesl, atom isnt real. Chemicals arent real. People and plants arent real. These are just tricks played by lights sub particles interacting with subparticles. There are subparticles. But there are no "you", no planets, no sun, no trees, no cars, no house, no wife, no parents, nothing. Those are all conventions of the mind.

>>18479180
What if you are a non-reductionist physicalist.

>>18478163
Dog muffins running until sunday brunch service my car says you under ten still moving yes?

>>18479324
>we want both people and atoms that are separate
>no wait, we want both of them, but they are both same (law of identity)
>no wait, compound macro objects are just emergent (yeah.. that right.. emergent)
>wait... what if they ask what emergent is? (EMERGENCY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

>>18479180
If animals don't exist in physicalism, minds don't either. Whatever you're describing is not physicalism.

>>18479346
>If animals don't exist in physicalism, minds don't either
Thats true, its dualism lite with physicalism backbone. In real physicalism, mind doesnt exist either. Subatomic cant exist either since these are words and words dont exist either. Neither do our comprehension of them since our minds dont exist.

Physicalism is nihilism at its core

>>18479354
Not really. In physicalism, subatomic particles are subatomic particles, not words, so what you're describing is not physicalism.

>>18479361
But you're using words to explain concepts. Real physicalism hasnt been tried yet since it leads to nihilism.

>>18479363
>But you're using words to explain concepts.
That would be a folk psychology description of what I'm doing, not a physicalist description.

>>18479367
Dont be meek. Just say you're a nihilist, a compatibilitist nihilist.

>>18479363
What are you even trying to argue for, retard? We use words (interchangeable) for physicalist concepts therefore something something? (What?)

>>18479370
I'm just pointing out that your confusion comes from mixing up physicalism and your own dualist or folk psychological theories.

>>18479372
words and concepts are subatomic, if they are, they cannot explain themselves, a logic error runs its course

nihilism is the final destination for physicalism

>>18479378
>words and concepts are subatomic
That's an assumption you've made without any substantiation. Everything you say after that is retarded and irrelevant

>>18479381
if they're not, then you're a dualist

kek

>>18479383
There's a simpler explanation which you're too low iq for.
Both are patterns, either in sound wave form/inl/whatever, or neural patterns.
Same goes for concepts

>>18479385
>physicalism is just patterns bro
now you're just moving to idealism

kek

How physicalism ever got popular in the first place confounds me. Even a 4 year old child can see through this dumb idea.

>>18479388
>let me make a strawman bro
Gtfo retard, patterns are just a specific arrangement of foundational physical entities, there's nothing idealist about it

>>18479391
arrangement according to who? kek, now you're retreating to dualism

>>18479392
Wdym according to who? There's no according to who, it just is.
>>18479390
That's not exactly a good argument against physicalism, 4 year olds are known to be retarded

>>18479394
A retarded child can unravel the dumb physicalism. That makes physicslists worse than a retarded child

>>18479397
Surely you can provide an example of unraveling physicalism if even a child can do it

>>18479390
It's a very primitive religion with lots of holes. Physicalism claims that the physical (what you can see, feel, etc) is the only reality and that subjective consciousness (qualia) is a mere illusion. However, this position is strictly self-contradictory. An illusion requires a subjective experience of misperception; a rock cannot suffer from an illusion. Therefore, the very act of experiencing an illusion presupposes the existence of the subjective consciousness that the physicalist is trying to deny. If the illusion of consciousness exists, consciousness exists.

>>18479400
Did you just assume that anon is smarter than a retarded child, despite evidence to the contrary?

>>18479404
>An illusion requires a subjective experience of misperception; a rock cannot suffer from an illusion.
This is the key assumption that smuggles in the conclusion. It takes for granted that “subjective experience” must be something non-physical. A physicalist simply denies this, a sufficiently complex physical system misrepresenting its own internal states is not logically impossible, it just is what subjective experience looks like from the inside.
>Therefore, the very act of experiencing an illusion presupposes the existence of the subjective consciousness that the physicalist is trying to deny.
The physicalist isn’t denying that something is occurring, they’re denying that what’s occurring is non-physical. This sentence only works as a refutation if you’ve already assumed dualism is true.

>>18478280
>>18478277
>I can convey experience
No you can’t. You cannot transfer to someone else the quailia of being yourself or how much you love your friends or wife.
These are incommunicable.

>>18479434
>It takes for granted that “subjective experience” must be something non-physical.
That's what every physicalist retard is doing when they deny qualia. And they have to deny qualia because the hard problem bites them in the ass and they know it.
>The physicalist isn’t denying that something is occurring
Yes they are. They are literally calling it illusory meaning it doesn't actually exist

>>18479442
>That's what every physicalist retard is doing when they deny qualia
Explain how
>nuh uh
Not an argument

>>18479443
>Explain how
What do you mean how? If they deny qualia exists then they are denying subjective experience exists....
>Not an argument
In this very thread you have these retards denying subjective experience and calling it illusory. Even in the previous thread.

>>18479447
Your definition of subjective experience is that it's something magical that can't be physical. That's presupposing something. Qualia is a made up concept which you use to justify that presupposition.
Can you prove qualia exist? No you can't

>>18479439
>You cannot transfer to someone else the how much you love your friends or wife.
You can. Words, writing, bodily expressions all do that to some level of fidelity. If you want to do it perfectly, you'll have to simulate brains, which is possible in principle.

So let me get this straight. Panpsychists believe that consciousness is separate from materialist properties, but also that it's reducible to the fundamental substance?

Who unironically believes this?

>>18479450
>Your definition of subjective experience
Nope I never gave a definition of qualia beyond conscious subjective experience. Physicalist retards are denying that and calling it illusory

>>18479486
>qualia beyond conscious subjective experience
If you think that's all qualia is you're directly contradicting dualists and in no conflict with physicalism. If qualia is synonym with conscious subjective experience and that's it, it can easily be explained from a biological and physical perspective

>>18479481
>Panpsychists believe that consciousness is separate from materialist properties
no. you're describing emergentism i.e. nonreductive physicalism.

panpsychists believe that mind and matter are ubiquitous to the world, that even the smallest indivisible subatomic unit carries forth an experiential reality of some kind.

>>18479504
>carries forth an experiential reality of some kind
Which is not measurable, falsifiable or observable in any form, hence panpsychism is retarded and not a serious philosophy
Replace experiential reality with a consciousness demon (many consciousness demons = they start working together to form consciousness) and you get the same thing

>>18479494
>If qualia is synonym with conscious subjective experience
too bad your daddy dennett denies subjective experience exists too.

>>18479505
>Which is not measurable, falsifiable or observable in any form, hence panpsychism is retarded and not a serious philosophy
this might shock you, but empirical science has absolutely nothing to do with ontology.

>>18479506
Your strawman of him denies subjective experience. Here's what denett says
>“Far from being directly or immediately apprehensible properties of our experience, [qualia] are properties whose changes or constancies are either entirely beyond our ken, or inferrable (at best) from ‘third-person’ examinations of our behavioral and physiological reaction patterns.”
The entire problem stems from the fact that you'll never give a definition of subjective experience because you'll be immediately outed as a spiritualist retard who believes in magic ghosts. But feel free to try

>>18479509
>this might shock you, but empirical science has absolutely nothing to do with ontology
And thankfully so. Which is why physicalism is based and panpsychism is retarded

>>18479494
>If you think that's all qualia is
Nope there is no contradiction and that's the exact meaning of qualia. You are the one who has to add unnecessary baggage and then cry about it so you get forced to deny the existence of qualia and make yourself fall into actual contradictions. Say right now that you accept the existence of qualia

>>18479512
>Your strawman of him denies subjective experience.
lol, 'kay
>"I want to make it just as uncomfortable for anyone to talk of qualia—or 'raw feels' or 'phenomenal properties' or 'subjective and intrinsic properties' or 'the qualitative character' of experience—with the standard presumption that they, and everyone else, knows what on earth they are talking about."
>The entire problem stems from the fact that you'll never give a definition of subjective experience because you'll be immediately outed as a spiritualist retard who believes in magic ghosts. But feel free to try
who cares what you morons think at this point?
>>18479513
so you admit you're philosophically illiterate? got it.

>>18479509
>empirical science has nothing to do with the study of things in reality
That must come as a shock to the empirical scientists who discovered bacteria, atoms, subatomic particles, dinosaurs, neptune, and so on.

>>18479517
dennett has done none of these things, and neither did you.

>>18479518
What a confused non-sequitur! Dennett wasn't an empirical scientist.

>>18479515
>that's the exact meaning of qualia
Damn bro, really? I'm sure that's why there's an entire section on Wikipedia regarding DefinitionS
If qualia was just that, then Chalmers entire hard problem would fall apart, because there is no physical gap that prevents us from explaining subjective experience. people are *literally* wired differently based on their upbringing and genes and environment.
The problem and retardation of dualists starts with adding other bullshit on top of qualia, for example saying they're NON-PHYSICAL. Why? Just trust me bro.

>>18479520
>non-sequitur
it isn't hard to grasp reading this thread your theory of mind takes after daniel dennett specifically.. funny to see you get so booty-blasted by a more or less neutral statement though.

Jeet thread

>>18479522
>b-but what about the finer details!
So as expected you cannot say that you accept the existence of qualia proving your assertion wrong and making you fall into a contradictory position like all the other physicalist retards holding this view. After you admit qualia exists we can move onto why it invalidates your religious beliefs

>>18479522
>If qualia was just that, then Chalmers entire hard problem would fall apart, because there is no physical gap that prevents us from explaining subjective experience.
notice how you changed the "explanatory gap" into the "physical gap" (which is basically tautological), completely changing the meaning of the entire question?

>>18479524
You're clearly having some sort of mental breakdown. Perhaps you should go to an empirical scientist and get your brain checked.

>>18479529
>notice how you changed the "explanatory gap" into the "physical gap" (which is basically tautological)
What other explanation is there? Physical is the only thing we can observe so of course it's tautological. I can always make up shit on top of the physical, but that's not serious discussion. See my demon example. It's literally *just as a valid* as any dualist explanations.

>>18479532
nta but begging the question too, nice

>>18479530
no need to get so histrionic by my pointing out that ontology and empirical sciences are two separate orders of induction.

SAAAAR DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE CONSCIOUSNESS BLOODY BASTERD BITCH

>>18479536
I get it, you prefer an ontology consisting of skydaddies, resurrected zombies and 6000 year old flat earths, given to you by the non-empirical ontology experts.

>>18479532
>Physical is the only thing we can observe so of course it's tautological.
physical = whatever the fuck you want it to mean, basically

>>18479538
Funny you say that because Indians are majority Hindu and thus absolutely love dualist and other non physicalist retarded explanations.
In fact one might say that Hinduism is proto dualism so good job on the self own

>>18479539
>hylomorphism is christianity
kek, keep digging that hole deeper retard.

>>18479540
I already defined physical here >>18478219
Feel free to attack that definition

>>18479544
yes, it's whatever the fuck you want it to mean as its been firmly established.

Do not redeem the qualia!

>>18479546
>can't even attack the definition
I accept your concession

>>18479542
From an empirical standpoint, that's the same shit but from a different asshole.

>>18479551
you literally conflated a methodology for what's actual. don't even know where to begin with what's wrong with that.

>>18479552
>you either agree that you're a p-zombie like me
>or you're just a magical thinking retard that thinks he can conjure zombie alien unicorns into existence out of nowhere
nice dualism you impose on the rest of the world.

>>18478219
>physical is something that is in principle falsifiable by observation or experiment
prove that this is the case
>possible according to previous or future conceivable observations
what do you mean by conceivable? that's a very subjective standard

>>18479555
forget that, focus on this line
>physical is something that is in principle falsifiable
>physical is able to be rendered untrue
lol wtf, I think he's actually an LLM

>>18479557
fucking lmao good catch

>>18479555
>prove that this is the case
It's a definition, I don't need to "prove" a definition, that's just how I define the term physical so we can argue about it. It's to prevent some retard claiming "but thing c could also mean physical then!!!" See it as an axiom or whatever the fuck you want.
A definition exists on even terms, either you accept it or you don't but then we need to have a discussion about definitions first and you need to propose your own on what physical is.
>what do you mean by conceivable? That's a very subjective
And that's a very good objection actually, i do agree that conceivable is the weakest part of the definition, because it runs in danger of being circular. If I say that it's consistent with the current physical laws, but those laws make a discovery which changes physics, you could argue my definition is meaningless and rightfully so. So I define conceivable a bit differently:
>not excluded by any constraint that has held across every revision of our best physical theories so far
There you go. Even the most earth shaking physical discovery still follow some fundamentals they can be reduced to. If those get ever challenged, then sure I'll accept that physicalism is not a good worldview

>>18479557
>physical is able to be rendered untrue
Who are you quoting here? Up to building strawmans again?

>>18479562
look up what "falsify" means, little guy. you just self-owned yourself hard and indirectly implied reality is intra-subjective rather than objective.

>>18479565
Falsifiable doesn't mean something is untrue, you might unironically be retarded.
It's a foundational basis for arguing within the framework, unfalsifiable statements are pretty much pointless.

>>18479554
>"I'm not like the other magical thinking retards!"
Yeah, yeah, we get it already.

>>18479569
holy shit you're doubling down on your obvious fuck-up still ahahahahahahahhahaa

File: me ngl.webm (583 KB, 240x328)

583 KB WEBM

I the King Of /his/, declare this thread futile and that Neoplatonic Monism philosophical idealism is the only truth

>>18479580
Anti-monist philosophical nondual realist is the only truth in life. Monism and idealist monism are half baked thoughts

>>18479651
I agree to disagree, as I believe this attempts to hold a fundamentally unstable "mid-way" position.
but I can see "some" valid justifications for this

>>18479653
Which ones?
There's no justifications for anything non-physical

>>18479657
>There's no justifications for anything non-physical
Logic and Mathematics lmao

>>18479659
Prove that logic and mathematics are non-physical.

>>18479663
concepts like the number (3) or the rule of non-contradiction (A) cannot be both (A) and not-(A) at the same time) are immaterial universal truths

>>18479664
>rule of non-contradiction
>are immaterial universal truths
How so? How do you know it's immaterial if it's strictly derived from the physical world? Just because you say so doesn't mean it's true

>>18479667
>How so?
the Quine Putnam Indispensability, which states that we are logically required to believe in the existence of mathematical entities

>>18478984
By definition supernaturalism is a lack of critical thinking, it’s a heuristic to explain the complex to simple for those of limited agency and intelligence

>>18479670
>Quine Putnam Indispensability, which states that we are logically required to believe in the existence of mathematical entities
Falls short on several areas.
Just to name two:
>1) it requires the belief in a perfect mathematical system, which simply doesn't exist
Even from a historical perspective we had to add bullshit several times "on top" of math to make it fit newer calculations. That's not something you'd need to do to something as foundational as math. It is something you do to a tool. Now you'll probably argue "but these were discoveries of math" which is false because several mathematical areas directly contradict each other. Which is fine when it's just a tool with different purposes, but not fine if it's the foundation of the universe. Several attempts have been made to unify math, but ultimately Gödel put an end to this and shattered those dreams once and for all.
>2) one can easily imagine a civilization that doesn't use math at all
Ultimately, you don't even require math to discover the truth about the universe. A civilization can just stumble with hyper-basic relational observations upon new discoveries, you can replace math with relations between spacetime points like betweenness and congruence. This was literally proven by Hilbert btw, you can't even deny it.

File: pepe hyper.jpg (56 KB, 860x860)

56 KB JPG

>>18479682
Lmao what

Modifying equations to fit data is how human models improve, not a sign that stuff we add on math is just random bullshit. Science refines our approximations of physical reality over time doesn't make it any less wrong. Also the QPA doesn't claim maths is foundational to universe it only claims that mathematical entities are real because our best scientific theories cannot function without them, not the bullshit your saying. Therefore, having different mathematical tools for different purposes does not disprove the QPA; it just means that different mathematical structures map onto different physical situations. Like that one saying The Map is Not the Territory. Additionally the fucking "bullshit" you speak of is often just the discovery of new mathematical structures that directly map to physical phenomena. For example, imaginary numbers were once considered artificial, yet they turned out to be mathematically indispensable for describing quantum mechanics. learning/discovering more about a field doesn't make it bullshit Then you start spewing some bullshit that Gödel shattered mathematical unification. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems proved that any consistent formal system capable of basic arithmetic cannot prove all truths about itself. This establishes the inherent limitations of axiomatic systems.

Even Hilbert said axiomatized geometry using relational primitives like "between" and "congruent" -having to synthesis the axioms of order and congruence, these concepts are unironically fundamentally mathematical. Relational geometry is a, axiomatic branch of mathematics. Removing the numbers does not remove the mathematics; it just replaces arithmetic with topology/synthetic geometry. Lastly, the QPA posits mathematical structures (such as, relations, patterns, and quantities). If a civilization understands the relationship of betweenness, they are using mathematical structures to understand it.

>>18479698
A shitton of world salad, but ultimately it comes down whether you believe math describes the universe or exists independently from it. There is no proof for the latter, so I assume the former
Also if the map is not the territory, then mathematical structures that successfully model physical phenomena may be extraordinarily useful representational tools without being ontologically real in the way the QPA requires. The success of mathematics might reflect something about how minds structure descriptions rather than something about mind-independent mathematical objects.
Regarding relations, it ultimately comes down whether you think relations are independent from the physical world. I don't think they are, so math per se isn't needed.
>Lastly, the QPA posits mathematical structures (such as, relations, patterns, and quantities).
It indeed does, but it doesn't explain why those structures supposedly are beyond the physical, since they're clearly derived from the physical.
Maybe to dumb it down a bit:
Yes math is incredibly precise and useful. Yes math is used by us. But why do you think it's not just a descriptor of things that *are*? You are deriving properties from something, and then pretend those derived properties can exist independently because *reasons*

>>18479712
>There is no proof for the latter, so I assume the former
Just an assertion

>Also if the map is not the territory, then mathematical structures that successfully model physical phenomena may be extraordinarily useful representational tools without being ontologically real in the way the QPA requires. The success of mathematics might reflect something about how minds structure descriptions rather than something about mind-independent mathematical objects.
I agree to disagree, I just don't think you can have maths existing without it being mind-independent mathematical objects.

>Regarding relations, it ultimately comes down whether you think relations are independent from the physical world. I don't think they are, so math per se isn't needed.
Agreeing to disagree

I think this is just going to come down to a difference in opinion so I'm just leave it as is, nice talking to you though

File: Godjak.png (560 KB, 800x800)

560 KB PNG

You can't actually prove the ontological truth of materialism. It's only correct insofar as it checks every pragmatic box, which is honestly better, for that means you have to accept its legitimacy even if you don't actually believe it wholeheartedly.

>>18479749
>which is honestly better, for that means you have to accept its legitimacy even if you don't actually believe it wholeheartedly
I think that perfectly captures the appeal of physicalism, every sane person is physicalist to some degree

>>18479698
>it only claims that mathematical entities are real because our best scientific theories cannot function without them
Which mathematical entities are you referring to?

>>18479180
cry about it

O MY RUBBER QUALIA

>qualia
>experience
Why are you using 2 different words? Just say 'experience', if they're the same thing

this is so fucking retarded

>>18479820
If (you) click on the numbers (you) can respond directly to their post here >>18478759

>>18479820
Congrats, you just realized 95% of nu philosophy is fart huffing and making up bullshit. (Previous philosophy at least had the excuse of there genuinely being an absolute shitton of open questions with no physical way to find out about them)
Nowadays I only respect philosophers that deal within the constraints of the physical world

It's alright, but i still go with naturalism.

>>18479749
what pragmatic box does it check? jews ruling over you fucking you in the ass?

>>18479860
Kinda the same thing. Although retards like Chalmers like to co-opt it for their made up nonsense

>>18478124
Neumann converted to Catholicism on his deathbead.
>Einstein
Wasn't a strict materialist, he just didn't believe in a personal God or life after death.

>>18479929
>became retarded after cancer fried his brain and became a Catholic
Not exactly the own you think it is

>>18479828
It's not directed at particularly 1 post (even if 1 prompted it)
it's a continuing issue that pervade these discussions, and it's so fucking dumb

>>18479883
I'm just using 'naturalism' as a signifier that I don't believe in ghosts or magic
Naturalism is hard to define, because the things it excludes are fucking nonsense

>>18479929
I hope that makes you feel less silly for believing in talking snakes
I wouldn't want to feel silly

>>18479933
Overstated, moreover it was clearly something he had been thinking about for a while since convertions like this rarely happen spontaneously.
>>18479941
I'm not christian, I just think it's hilarious how both the examples OP mentioned aren't even physicalists.
The reality is that many (maybe most) really intelligent people have religious and philosophical views that are a bit "out there", even if the ideas are not always well defined or clearly formulated (philosophy today is a joke so I can't really blame them for not reading much of it). Penrose is a current example of this and I'd argue many other physicists don't truly believe in physicalism either once you really push them on their beliefs, they just dislike metaphysical speculation.

>>18479959
>it was clearly something he had been thinking about
Says you? There was zero indication he was catholic before he got cancer. In fact, regarding the whole death bed story:
>the priest later recalled that von Neumann found little comfort in receiving the last rites – he remained terrified of death and unable to accept it.
To me this seems like a person just grasping at straws unable to cope with death, he was even quoted citing Pascal's wager which is largely refuted as a retarded argument even by most Christians
>einstein
This one's a bit tricky. Sure you can say Einstein is not strictly speaking a materialist, but it was very obvious he rejected any conventional religious beliefs. Even from a philosophical standpoint he wasn't an idealist or dualist or something like that. His view was more akin to something like "we can never fully understand the universe, so might as well just praise and see the universe as god and do everything to explore it further"
Arguably, this belief is much more compatible with physicalism than any other worldviews, because it's not explicitly harmful to it. It's not necessarily substantiated, but one could argue that it's semantics at this point and whether you have this belief or not and are more strictly physicalist, actually makes no difference in your actions.

You can be a Christian physicalist, btw

>>18479959
I don't understand why you would care about that unless you 're a RC
It's not like Neuman's conversion is a point in favor of panpsychism

>>18479987
You can entertain contradictions in your head, sure

>>18479726
/thread
This is it. This discussion right here has it all: why in the face of the same scientific evidence different metaphysical theories are possible, and one can only agree to disagree in the end. There is no “most objectively true physicalism”, there never was.

>>18479940
>Naturalism is hard to define, because the things it excludes are fucking nonsense
If you really think about it, excluding symbolic or conceptual causation (saying the right string of words in latin causes fireballs to appear, a full moon transforms werewolves but light that has the same properties but wasn't reflected off the moon doesn't etc.) effectively excluded most, if not all of the bullshit that you want to exclude.

>>18479820
>>18479829
experience is within the physical world yet it is not transmissible in the physical world.
physicalism just postpones things, for example someone could say that metaphysical things exist they just havent yet been found but they can be felt like experience.
or you could argue experience refutes physicalism because it isnt technically in the physical world or at least it isnt verifiable.

>>18479940
>I'm just using 'naturalism' as a signifier that I don't believe in ghosts or magic
Why can't ghosts and magic be part of the natural world?

>>18480041
>yet it is not transmissible in the physical world.
Stop repeating this bs. It's already been addressed several times.

>>18480048
How can they be part of the “naturall world when the claims aren’t even falsifiable?

>>18479561
>that's just how I define the term physical
Then this seems to be true >>18479540 btw when somebody is asked to define terms there is no responsibility on the one asking to define the terms of the one asked. That's a very unreasonable position to hold but for the sake of argument I can adjust to your poor etiquette. I am sure if I say that X being physical just means X obeys the laws of physics that wouldn't be controversial or require unnecessary assumptions like physical things needing to be falsifiable. The computer I am typing this on obeys the laws of physics and thus is physical but it makes no sense to say it can be falsified because it's not a statement about reality which can be true or false but just an object.
>not excluded by any constraint that has held across every revision of our best physical theories so far
That's just another way of saying physically possible under those theories, not really a definition of conceivable. What does "best" pick out here exactly? Surely you are aware that popular theories have been debunked with new empirical evidence so that can't be it.

>>18480072
How are ghosts and magic not falsifiable? If someone claims their house is haunted because doors are randomly slamming shut and we check it out and find it was just the wind due to a specific window being open then ghosts are falsified

>>18480105
There is evidence for ghosts btw
Beloff, J. (1993). Parapsychology: A Concise History. London: Athlone Press.
Bennett, E. (1939). Apparitions and Haunted Houses. London: Faber and Faber.
Carr, B. (2008). Presidential Address 2002: Worlds apart? Can psychical research bridge the gulf between matter and mind? Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 59, 1-96.
Charman, R.A. (2013). The Chaffin Will case revisited: Did the spirit of his deceased father visit James Pinkney Chaffin during June 1925 to reveal the whereabouts of a second will? Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 77, 89-101.
Cheung, T. (2013). The Element Encyclopedia of Ghosts and Hauntings. London: HarperElement.
Cornell, A.D. (2002). Investigating the Paranormal. New York: Helix Press.
Cornell, A.D., & Gauld, A. (1961). The geophysical theory of poltergeists. Journal of the Society of Psychical Research 41, 129-47.
Dingwall, E.J., Goldney, K.M., & Hall, T.H. (1956). The haunting of Borley Rectory. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 51, 181.
Evans, H. (2002). Seeing Ghosts: Experiences of the Paranormal. London: John Murray.
Evans, H., & Huyghe, P. (2000). The Field Guide to Ghosts and Other Apparitions. New York: HarperCollins.

>>18480110
Gauld, A. (1982). Mediumship and Survival: A Century of Investigations. London: SPR/Heinemann.
Gauld, A., & Cornell, A.D. (1979). Poltergeists. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Gurney, E., Myers, F.W.H., & Podmore, F. (1918). Phantasms of the Living [abridged edition, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner]
Gurney, E., Myers, F.W.H., & Podmore, F. (1886). Phantasms of the Living (2 vols.). London: SPR/Trübner.
Hallson, P.C. (2002). Can we make progress in the study of apparitions? Paranormal Review 21, 3-6.
Hallson, P.C. (2014). Some observations concerning collective apparitions. Paranormal Review 67, 24-27.
Hallson, P.C. (2006). A modern psychomanteum. Paranormal Review 38, 3-5.
Haraldsson, E. (1985). Representative national surveys of psychic phenomena: Iceland, Great Britain, Sweden, USA and Gallup’s Multinational Survey. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 53, 145-58.
Hart, H. (1959). The Enigma of Survival. London: Rider and Company).
Hart, H., et al. (1956). Six theories about apparitions. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 50, 153-239.
Houran, J., & Lange, R. (1998). Rationale and application of a multi-energy sensor array in the investigation of haunting and poltergeist cases. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 62, 324-36.
Inglis, B. (1979). A History of the Paranormal: Natural and Supernatural. London: Sphere Books.
Johnson, R.C. (1961). The Imprisoned Splendour. London: Hodder and Stroughton.
Jourdain, E.F,. & Moberly, C.A.E. (1911). An Adventure. London: Macmillan. [First published under the names Elizabeth Morison & Frances Lamont in 1911, London: MacMillan. First Edition archived on Digital Repository of Hong Kong University. Second edition archived on the Internet Archive.]

File: zrnpdbxsmtt71.jpg (49 KB, 460x331)

49 KB JPG

The only thing that distinguishes the universe from an arbitrary mathematical structure is that it happens to be inhabited by conscious beings experiencing it qualitatively. So consciousness is real and fundamental, and math is real and fundamental. Simple as. No spooky invisible "physical" substance is necessary.

>>18480111
Lambert, G.W. (1955). Poltergeists: A physical theory. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 38, 49-71.
Lambert, G.W. (1960). The geography of London ghosts. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 40, 397-409.
Marcuse, F.L. (1959). Hypnosis: Fact and Fiction. London: Penguin.
McCue, P.A. (2004). A phantom battle near Loch Ashie in the Scottish Highlands. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 68, 86-104.
McCue, P.A. (2002). Theories of hauntings: A critical overview. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 66, 1-21.
McHarg, J.F. (1978). A vision of the aftermath of the Battle of Nechtanesmere A.D. 685. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 49, 938-48.
Moody, R., & Perry P.(1993). Reunions: Visionary Encounters With Departed Loved Ones. New York: Villard.
Morton, R.C. (1892). Record of a haunted house. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 8, 311-32.
Myers, F.W.H. (1903). Human Personality and Its Survival of Bodily Death. London: Longmans, Green.
Myers, F.W.H. (1906). Human Personality and Its Survival of Bodily Death. London: Longmans, Green.
Owen, R.D. (1860). Footfalls on the Boundary of Another World. London: Trübner and Co.
Podmore, F. (1910). Telepathic Hallucinations: The New View of Ghosts. London: Milner.
Price, H.H. (1939). Presidential Address: Haunting and the ‘psychic ether’ hypothesis: With some preliminary reflections on the present condition and possible future of psychical research. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 45, 307-43.
Price, H.H. (1957). Haunting and the ‘psychic ether’. Tomorrow (Spring), 105-26.
Radin, D.I., & Rebman, J.M. (1996). Are phantasms fact or fantasy? A preliminary investigation of apparitions evoked in the laboratory. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 61, 65-87.
Roll, W.G. (2004). Psychomanteum research: A pilot study. Journal of Near-Death Studies 22, 251-60.

>>18480086
>I am sure if I say that X being physical just means X obeys the laws of physics that wouldn't be controversial or require unnecessary assumptions like physical things needing to be falsifiable.
Nta but you need to take care to define the laws of physics in a way that won't lead to circularity.

>>18480116
Ruickbie, L. (2013). A Brief Guide to Ghost Hunting. London: Constable and Robinson.
Salter, W.H. (1928). Case of the will of James L. Chaffin. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 36, 517-24.
Sidgwick, H. (1894). Report on the Census of Hallucinations. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 10, 25-422.
Society for Psychical Research (1955). Notes for Investigators of Spontaneous Cases. Glasgow: Robert Maclehose and Co., The University Press.
Society for Psychical Research (1968). Notes for Investigators of Spontaneous Cases. London: Garden City Press.
Tandy, V. (2000). Something in the cellar. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 64, 129-40.
Tandy, V., & Lawrence T.R. (1998). The ghost In the machine. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 62, 360-64.
Thalbourne, M.A. (1982). A Glossary of Terms used in Parapsychology. London: Society for Psychical Research.
Tyrrell, G.N.M. (1953). Apparitions. London: Duckworth,
West, D.J. (1948). A mass-observation questionnaire on hallucinations. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 34, 187-96.
West, D.J. (1990). A pilot census of Hallucinations. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 57, 163-207.
West, D.J. (1962). Psychical Research Today. London: Pelican.

>>18480120
Drivel

>>18480117
I actually didn't think of a way to do that before. What do you think of this? "Laws of physics are the most compact and informative mathematical summaries of everything that ever happens in the universe" Or maybe I should reference the objects within the universe themselves as having inherent powers/properties and the description being applied to them rather than the whole set.

>>18480086
>Surely you are aware that popular theories have been debunked with new empirical evidence so that can't be it.
not really, lots of physical theories haven't exactly been debooonked, just refined.
Classical mechanics doesn't automatically stop being false just because we discovered relativity.
Laws of thermodynamics are even more fucking fundamental, afaik literally nothing opposes laws of thermodynamics, even the most recent observations like blackholes turned out to follow them after all.
Electromagnetism is still absolutely relevant even at the smallest levels.
General relativity is fairly new, but so far nothing opposes it either.
If you show me a *thing* that violates ALL of these laws (should be easy enough if you're a non-physicalist), then sure I'll admit physicalism is a false worldview.

>>18480128
midwit

>>18480139
>Classical mechanics doesn't automatically stop being false just because we discovered relativity.
Well at one point that was the "best" theory and your definition seems to indicate that it defined what was conceivable. Your car going above the speed of light is perfectly allowed in classical mechanics so it was conceivable.

>>18480120
could these be demons?

>>18480162
some of the sources I post suggest so

>>18480164
posted*

>>18480164
Thanks for the links man I will take a look at them. I kind of always assumed there was no evidence but that's a lot of work put into proving just that and I cannot simply dismiss it because it doesn't match my worldview

>>18480171
Wasn't me, It was from this one anon on /x/, although he left not too recently to focus on himself.

He posted a source bank on parapsychology which I believe is much more reasonable as most of them go through the scientific method.

do you want me to send it here, i saved it?

>>18480145
My point was that classical mechanics didn't magically stop working just because we discovered relativity.
Sure new discoveries can put constraints or even expand explanation, but there is an obvious set of principles that are largely unchanged.
If there wasn't, we couldn't observe or verify anything btw.

>>18479986
>There was zero indication he was catholic before he got cancer
I never said he was, just that he was probably contemplating these issues beforehand, I suppose I can't peove it but it seems more likely to me, especially since his wife was Catholic. Either way, do you have evidence he was a physicalist since that is what OP claimed? We can't just assume it a priori.
>To me this seems like a person just grasping at straws unable to cope with death
He was uncomfortable with death because he feared what would come after, which is what is actually relevant here. You could of course argue that this mearly proves is that all (or most) humans instincively suspect there is more to existence than just this short life, but if that's the case intelligence doesn't seem to be a cure (as is demonstrated here).
So I'll ask again, do you have evidence he was a physicalist?

>>18480180
reasonable and convincing*

He also posted about, sources of suggestive reincarnation / experiments which supposedly proves OBE is not in the mind and some other stuff
Ofc you don't need to believe in this, but I personally find it very interesting

>>18480180
I found it on the archives as its 8 posts long so it will be a bit much if i post it all here

https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/42353055/#42353055

>>18480180
Yes please I would be very interested in investing that as well. I don't want to remain ignorant of another possible aspect to reality

>>18480193
thanks again dude saving this stuff

>>18480188
>So I'll ask again, do you have evidence he was a physicalist?
NTA but Neumann is mentioned in the OP not because he's a physicalist, but because logical monist anon tried to claim classical logic was never refuted even though Neumann explicitly came up with quantum logic to reconcile logic with quantum fuckery, because the latter basically refutes the law of the excluded middle

>>18480139
The theories you described are mearly mathematical models and descriptions of how the universe works and so can neither be true or false by definition. If you want to claim that our universe actually "is" a 4d Lorentzian manifold that would disprove physicalism since abstract mathematical objects would actually exist and wouldn't just be mental models we use to cope with reality.
>If you show me a *thing* that violates ALL of these laws
I could easily come up with a mathematical universe where the laws of physics were completely different than anything we've come up with thus far, but I suppose the salty taste I feel in my mouth is a "thing" and it obeys no mathematical laws at all, even if you could come up with a mathematical description of it you wouldn't truly get *it*.

>>18480197
Nw, but you should thank him not me, tbf he was pretty notorious on /x/ for actually providing sources and not just talking out of his ass like most people there, too said he was gone, you could of asked him about any subject and he would somehow have 30 sources

File: Screenshot 2026-05-16 at (...).png (39 KB, 732x299)

39 KB PNG

>>18480202
That's an appeal to authority. And why you're wrong has been explained and you couldn't refute it

>>18480181
>My point was that classical mechanics didn't magically stop working just because we discovered relativity.
It did though because now we know that it predicts false things. And so what is conceivable according to your definition was at one point evidently false. How do you define what "largely unchanged" even means here?

>>18480193
This one seems interesting
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228712565_Exploratory_study_The_random_number_generator_and_group_meditation

>>18480220
The Conclusion

Our predictions for the meditation data, yogic flying and Vedic observatory data were significantly supported and were in the predicted direction. Our work adds to the premise that certain activities that foster transcendental experiences 314 Lynne I. Mason, Robert P. Patterson, and Dean I. Radin (Alexander & Langer, 1990; Mason et al, 1997; Orme-Johnson et al., 1988; Travis et al, 2002) may reflect a more decreasing directional trend (increased proportion of zeros) in RNG outputs. Alternative explanations do not clearly account for the observed results. The results were still significant even after controlling for a possible cumulative drift of the mean from an unknown source. To our knowledge this is the first experiment with specific predictions for the direction of a mean shift, and it involves the largest number of synchronized meditations recorded with a local RNG on site. Having a population doing a standardized mental technique on a regular basis is advantageous in studying various aspects of the phenomenon. Further research appears warranted to explore group meditation as a venue for anomalous results with the RNG. Future research could test the direction of the results, distance effects from the group, possible lag or entrainment effects, experimenter effect, non-xoring data techniques, group size effects, number of RNGs and possible auxiliary factors.

>>18480216
>It did though
Really? Try running against a wall, let's see if the laws of classical mechanics stopped working kek.
You seem to conflate the search of a "theory of everything" with a set of theories that are pretty damn good explanations of reality. Physicalism makes no statements about the former

>>18480230
Theoretical questions could include a continued inquiry (Hagelin, 1987; Nader, 2000; Nelson, 2002d; Radin, 2002; Routt, 2005) as to whether or not consciousness is a causal factor. What is the possible practical contributions and application of this research? It is conceivable that RNGs could be used to indicate directional changes in a proposed global collective consciousness. Just as changes in seismic meters are used to detect high and low indications of impending earthquakes, RNG outputs could warn us of changes in collective consciousness while considering any anticipatory effects. RNGs could also be employed to evaluate preventive and ameliorative measures that utilize collective consciousness. For example, the RNG could evaluate the efficacy of various technologies from many traditions, including group meditations to reduce collective stress in global consciousness in order to prevent and reduce local and global tragedies.

>>18480209
Is that board worth browsing? I mean that's the kind of stuff I wish happened here.

>>18480206
>The theories you described are mearly mathematical models and descriptions of how the universe works and so can neither be true or false by definition
Huh? They absolutely can be false. You're confusing highly abstract mathematical concepts with fundamental physical laws.
Just as an example: the law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. If we suddenly observed an entity that would do such a thing, than that law would be blatantly false. But we don't.
>I could easily come up with a mathematical universe where the laws of physics were completely different than anything we've come up with thus far
Sure you could, but that won't make that universe magically spawn into existence or teleport you into it. We can make up all kinds of shit. Physicalism doesn't concern itself with made up bullshit.

>>18480238
>the law of thermodynamics states
The first law*

File: Screenshot 2026-05-16 at (...).png (111 KB, 821x835)

111 KB PNG

>>18480231
Yes they stopped working because we can actually measure relativistic effects and therefore the predictions it makes about what is conceivable or not are not absolute truth. Even a broken clock is right twice a day and all that. I am not conflating the ideas. In fact it was the physicists who believed it was a theory of everything (regarding motion).

>>18480235
short answer: No
Long answer: If I'm honest its only good like 80% of the time, not really worth it. You only get a good effort post every 2 weeks the rest, is just stupid bullshit or just sceptics. The anon who gave one of the sources did make a general though >>42393682
But he kinda left because the janitors kept deleting his threads and i remember sometimes they would delete it off the archives

>>18480238
>law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed
Surely you know that energy is defined mathematically, and is typically defined SO AS to be conserved (in classical mechanics) and is later generalised.
In GR for instance energy as "classically defined" isn't actually conserved.

>>18480260
>Surely you know that energy is defined mathematically, and is typically defined SO AS to be conserved (in classical mechanics) and is later generalised.
In classical mechanics, energy is defined from dynamical quantities (kinetic energy ½mv2, potential energy from force fields).
Conservation of energy is then derived, not defined you brainlet. See Noether’s theorem, you don't fucking "choose" to conserve energy, once again if it were merely definitional, it would be vacuous and scientifically uninteresting. Instead, conservation of energy makes powerful, falsifiable predictions.
>In GR for instance energy as "classically defined" isn't actually conserved.
Wow i wonder why physicists don't just redefine the conservation of energy if it's just a dumb definition and not actually foundational. It's almost like it IS an actual physical constraint.

File: para.jpg (787 KB, 983x1373)

787 KB JPG

>>18480120
>>18480116
>>18480111
>>18480110
No way /his. knows about Parapsychology, fun fact their is an agender against it

>>18480273
>Conservation of energy is then derived, not defined you brainlet.
In your intro to classical mechanics course maybe, but do you think energy was defined before people discovered it was conserved or the other way around?
>See Noether’s theorem
Ok perhaps you took a course on Lagrangian mechanics then, get back to me when you've read Arnold though.
>you don't fucking "choose" to conserve energy
Once you've started with the mathematical model of classical mechanics it indeed follows that energy is a conserved quantity under time evolution, do you think I dispute this?
>It's almost like it IS an actual physical constraint.
Define energy without using mathematics.

>>18480285
>but do you think energy was defined before people discovered it was conserved or the other way around?
The former obviously, what kind of retarded question is that. Concepts in physics rarely arrive fully formed, they’re iteratively refined until they "carve nature at its joints."
>r-read Arnold
Arnold’s symplectic picture just is Noether in coordinate-free clothing. It doesn’t help you unless you elaborate, it actually helps me kek
>do you think I dispute this?
What is your fucking point then? if every conserved quantity is “defined to be conserved,” the observation has no content.
>Define energy without using mathematics.
You could demand this of any physical quantity. Requiring mathematical precision doesn’t make something an arbitrary convention. We use mathematics because it’s the only language precise enough to express these relationships without ambiguity

>>18480317
>The former obviously
Energy wouldn't be an interesting quantity in classical mechanics unless it were conserved under certain constraints, is the point I'm making.
>What is your fucking point then
That energy as classically defined is conserved UNDER THE MODEL OF CLASSICAL MECHANICS.
>Requiring mathematical precision doesn’t make something an arbitrary convention
I didn't say it was an arbitrary convention, nor did I deny that the model is attempting to get at something "real". My original claim was simply that these are models and by proposing that they are genuinly "real" you are actually arguing against physicalism and not for it.
It is however concievable that these models are only approximately accurate when applied to some situations and that it doesn't hold on large or small enough scales... which is of course not just concievable but is agreed upon by every physicist on earth.
Classical mechanics contradicts relativity, contradicts Quantum, etc.

Moreover there is no reason to assume everything that is "real" can be expressed mathematically to begin with, just like how some people cannot see or experience the color green and this can never be expressed mathematically.

>>18480358
I guess I misunderstood your point then, sorry anon. But I'm not sure what you're arguing for or against now

>>18478219
>I'm a physicalist, which means I only believe things that are in principle falsifiable by observation or experiment are real, take that chuds!
>Oh really basedjak? I happen to be a physicalist myself! Here, look at this!
>Gigachad wtf are you doing, don't throw that hecking baby into an active volcano!!!1 NOOO WTF!!
>Why are you crying Basedjak? No experiment could EVER prove he was conscious. Now come here for a moment...

>>18480480
One of the more retarded strawmans I've recently read

>>18478219
>physical is something that is in principle falsifiable by observation or experiment
Surely you meant to write something different here.

>>18480732
No, I meant what I said. What's wrong with it?

>Only that which is physical is real
>That which is physical is that which is falsifiable
>That which is real is that which is falsifiable
I don't know how to argue against this position to begin with, you're just asserting that certian things aren't allowed to be called real.
Since your definition doesn't even attempt to explain what actually is real (only what isn't allowed to be) I assume you would use the scientific method to exclude certian physical things from being real? Still what is the criteria for something actually being real?
Is it mearly that which is consistent with our best physical models?
You seem to dislike people talking about consciousnes but this seems to be a clear example of something that cannot be falsified by experiment or observation that is not meaningless.
What would it take for you to be convinved your worldview were false?

>>18480041
>or at least it isnt verifiable.
That's perfectly fine
Physicalism is the view that everything is ontologically reducible the physical, not that everything is epistemically reducible to the physical
I don't get why people get hung up on this

File: het.jpg (134 KB, 750x1000)

134 KB JPG

>>18480105
Same reason God is not falsifiable by sending cosmonauts up to heaven

>>18480936
So Ghosts are above creation which includes the heavens?

>>18480815
>you're just asserting that certian things aren't allowed to be called real
Yes
>only what isn't allowed to be
Why is that a problem?
>I assume you would use the scientific method to exclude certian physical things from being real?
No, the falsifiability is about making conclusions about the physical world. It's not the things themselves that are falsifiable per se (they just are), it's statements about physical things.
>You seem to dislike people talking about consciousnes but this seems to be a clear example of something that cannot be falsified by experiment or observation that is not meaningless.
Correct, consciousness from a dualist perspective is not falsifiable. Consciousness from a physicalist perspective is, because we can measure conscious properties and falsify statements about consciousness.
>What would it take for you to be convinved your worldview were false?
Let's say a person is dead but we somehow can still measure neural signals long after they died. This would go against our entire current understanding of the world and the only alternative legitimate understanding would be that there is indeed some nonphysical force triggering those signals. And since we never would be able to determine what it is unless it reveals itself to is, we'd just have to accept it.

>>18481196
>long after
And by long after I don't mean minutes or sometimes hours, that is happening and is perfectly explainable within a physical model, but like days or weeks.

>>18478219
>something that is in principle falsifiable by observation or experiment
Can you falsify this definition/principle with observation or experiment?

>>18480734 #
The statement doesn't apply to itself and so contradicts/refutes itself.
You can't empirically prove the first principles of empiricism/physicalism/naturalism.
I.e your premise that only physical things exist is not itself a physical thing that you can test under physicalism. Empiricism is not empirical. Naturalism is not a naturalist thing.

>>18481293
No, but you need at least some basis. I never said physicalism isn't a belief (worldview), just that it is the most correct belief. Any belief needs axioms, and I think this axiom is more legitimate than other axioms. Now why that is the case is a wholly different question, and we go into meta-metaphysics
>>18481299
See above. I never said you can, just like you can't prove the existence of a god controlling the physicalist universe. But I never claimed it's an all encompassing solution to everything, if it was then you wouldn't need any other beliefs and I could just easily denounce any retardation on a completely objective basis.

>>18481307
>and we go into meta-metaphysics
No. It's just basic metaphysics.
>Any belief needs axioms,
Begging the question

File: leaky-boat.jpg (90 KB, 1800x1200)

90 KB JPG

>>18481307
>I never claimed it's an all encompassing solution to everything
>T.
>AT LEAST I'M FLOATING!

>>18481308
>No. It's just basic metaphysics.
Metaphysics concerns itself with the basis of reality. We are now discussing the concerns that concern themselves with the basis of reality, that's why I jokingly said, meta-metaphysics.
>Begging the question
Not really. Unless you propose an alternative definition of "belief". A METAPHYSICAL belief or worldview by definition has a base set of axioms that are unprovable. But feel free to provide a counterexample.
I'm not even exactly sure what your problem is, this applies to any metaphysical worldview, so the question is how do we compare the axioms and decide which are better/more sensible. And imo that's where physicalism is practically undefeated

>>18481312
If physicalism is true nothing can be metaphysical.

>>18481315
I think you fundamentally misunderstand what metaphysical means and apply some sort of mysticism to it. I guess you use the second, supernatural definition

>>18481315
>>18481308
>>18481299
>>18481293
What I'm simply saying is that Physicalism isn't Physicalist. Hence it contradicts its own premise by its mere existence.
Demanding nonphysicalist capacity for true knowledge. That we can know true things independently of the empirical. (Like the judgement that physicalism is otherwise often reliable.)

>>18481323
>What I'm simply saying is that >Physicalism isn't Physicalist. Hence it contradicts its own premise by its mere existence.
>Demanding nonphysicalist capacity for true knowledge.
This applies to every metaphysical belief, thus this is just retarded sophistry

>>18481326
>metaphysical
Metaphysics isn't the denial of metaphysics. It's not a self-negating category. Aka is it is self referential.
The exact opposite of your problem.

>>18481328
>physicalism is self referential and that's le bad
>metaphysics is self referential and that's totally fine, in fact it's le exact opposite!
Ok lmao, now fuck off retard

>>18481326
>This applies to every metaphysical belief, thus this is just retarded sophistry
>Metaphysics isn't Metaphysical
Wow

>>18481333
>>18481331
Smooth brain confirmed thread over.
Self refuting =/= self reifying.

>>18481337
>no u
Lmao

>>18481337
>Smooth brain
Get your head out of your ass op

>>18481196
>Consciousness from a physicalist perspective is, because we can measure conscious properties and falsify statements about consciousness.
How could you test whether another living organism actually has a subjective experience of the world via experiment?
It's a property of *things* that cannot be tested even in theory and yet isn't nonsensical and has relevant implications.
>Buh muh trolls, muh unicorns
Trolls and unicorns belong to a set of things that cannot be shown to exist at all, but you know yourself to have a subjective experience of the world, meaning it's a property of *things* that by your own definition is not physical.

This is of course not a gotcha argument, it doesn't prove consciousness is caused by something "nonphysical" but it does prove that there are *real* properties of things that cannot be tested experimentally.

>>18481368
>How could you test whether another living organism actually has a subjective experience of the world via experiment?
What prevents you from doing so? There's already experiments testing subjective experience. You're presupposing impossibility for some magical reason and conveniently not telling me why it's impossible. You know this is not even the first time in history this happened. ALL of these arguments were once applied to vitalism, we also thought "how could we possibly detect a vital force if we're living beings ourselves". Nowadays vitalism is only seen from a historical perspective as we figured out life is nothing fucking special or magical.
>It's a property of *things* that cannot be tested even in theory
Why not?
You say it's not possible, but don't say how or why
>Trolls and unicorns belong to a set of things that cannot be shown to exist at all
Same applies to a nonphysical supposed consciousness. Funny how that works both ways
>but you know yourself to have a subjective experience of the world
Yes
>meaning it's a property of *things* that by your own definition is not physical
Why? You literally never answer this question. WHY is consciousness supposedly not physical?
>This is of course not a gotcha argument, it doesn't prove consciousness is caused by something "nonphysical"
Suddenly huh
>but it does prove that there are *real* properties of things that cannot be tested experimentally.
you didn't even manage to prove that, you just stated it and assumed it's true.

>>18481388
>There's already experiments testing subjective experience
Such as...? At best you can test whether a subject responds to stimuli, but how does that illustrate they're not a P-Zombie?
>as we figured out life is nothing fucking special or magical
You cannot seriously be pretending that we've solved the question of life because we've discovered DNA or have half-assed definitions relating to entropy.
>Same applies to a nonphysical supposed consciousness
It does not apply to consciousnes itself since you know yourself to have it.
>WHY is consciousness supposedly not physical?
Because according to you it has to be a falsifiable property of *things* and consciousnes isn't.
>you just stated it and assumed it's true.
It can't be tested experimentally because brain activity doesn't necessarily imply consciousnes.

>>18481401
>Buh the existence of P-Zombies is unfalsifiable!!!
So is the existence of other people with a subjective experience of the world. Leaving the human for the animal world the problem becomes even more pronounced.

>>18481401
>such as?
We have experiments showing people have very similar neural patterns if they're imagining doing a things vs actually doing it. We have neurological cases like Achromatopsia that directly show you literally lose the experience of Color due to physical damage. This ALREADY fits some qualia definition but now dualists and other retards obviously go "ok sure, but how do you KNOW they experience it this way", basically doing a god of the gaps bullshitting.
>p zombies
Not this shit again, we've already explained that it is a circular argument and you can argue for any supernatural force with this reasoning
>You cannot seriously be pretending that we've solved the question of life
We kinda have, but feel free to go full schizo, I'd love to see it. We know how to get organic compounds out of non organic ones, we know how reproduction works, we know all of the genetic encoding and information flow necessary for life. But i guess now you'll do a god of the gaps again and say "ok but you don't know 100% so life can still be nonphysical!!! Until you *arbitrary constraint that's far off into the future*, you are wrong!"
>It does not apply to consciousnes itself since you know yourself to have it.
You also know yourself to be alive
>Because according to you it has to be a falsifiable property of *things* and consciousnes isn't.
Why not? Still no answer to this
>It can't be tested experimentally because brain activity doesn't necessarily imply consciousness
This statement can be made about literally anything, thus it's meaningless.

TLDR: you think you're clever because you discovered linkrelated
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps