How do Naturalists/Materialists account for the immateriality of morals, laws of logic or information?

[stevevw]

If you claim isn't based on science, then keep it that way -- No QM for you. QM is science not some esoteric philosophy. You use it both ways in this single paragraph. Ugh.

And I used the science of Wheelers delay choice experiment and the extended versions which have been scientifically verified. This finding like all QM findings and their interpretations require philosophy as they lead to counterintuitive results that cannot be explained by classical science.

Now you are confusing our understanding of reality with reality. If I look out at the trees I can see reality. If we both agree it is there then we can be sure it is reality and not a figment of our minds. What that reality is made of has not changed, but our understanding of it has. I don't get why this is so hard. (Oh, yeah, I guess it's because you think minds create reality. A position that you cannot support with actual science. And people wonder why I slag on philosophy here.)

These findings are science. They are the findings from experiments like Wheelers delayed choice and Wigner's Friend and extended versions that show observation, choice is fundamental in creating reality.

Quantum woo, Deepak, just quantum woo.

Actually this idea was proposed by Henry Stapp a Quantum physicist who worked with Pauli, Heisenberg and Wheeler. He has for 60 years been a leader in exploring the role of mind/psyche/consciousness/experience in the ontology of quantum mechanics. So its not quantum woo but from scientists who pioneered QM.

 

[stevevw]

So, how does this work then? The universe has planets popping into existence all the time, just as life forms capable of observing those planets evolve on them? And they rewrite the entire history of the universe to make it look like they were always there?

I'd love to see the science experiment that shows that! All you have is something that shows it happens on the subatomic level, dealing with the behaviour of individual photons. That's a VERY long way to show that animals can observe whole planets into being.

I think it's far more likely that you are misinterpreting what the study says.

Well you only have to read up on Wheelers Delayed Choice and Wigner's Friend experiments and their extended versions which have all been scientifically verified and the interpretations from this applied to reality. All interpretations of QM are counter intuitive. Why are you so conflicted by this particular interpretation and not others like the Many worlds which is also very counterintuitive and perhaps more so and yet people happily accept it.

 

[Kylie]

Wheeler's Delayed Choice and Wigner's friend both operate at the quantum level. That is a far cry from saying that planets pop into existence when life forms evolve on a planet that didn't exist at all until that moment.

 

[stevevw]

Wheeler's Delayed Choice and Wigner's friend both operate at the quantum level. That is a far cry from saying that planets pop into existence when life forms evolve on a planet that didn't exist at all until that moment.

Like I said this is an interpretation of QM based on scientific experiments. At the fundamental level of the physical world there is only potentialities and this is verified. There is no objects to evolve. Any conception of the universe is in our Minds and its how we choose to measure it. As you said either classical physics is wrong or QM is wrong. QM is one of the best verified theories. Classical physics is questionable on several fronts.

Tests have also shown that quantum weirdness happens at larger scales in the classical world.
Quantum Superposition Bridges the Classic World

Quantum Superposition Bridges the Classic World

Cracks have begun to show in one of quantum’s biggest controversies. The well-known Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment, which sought to illustrate the absurdity of applying quantum theory to the macro-physical world ruled by classical physics has been challenged by a recent advancement in...

projectqsydney.com

Quantum effect spotted in a visible object
Physicists in California have observed true quantum behaviour in a macroscopic object big enough to be seen with the naked eye. This is the first time this feat has been achieved and it could shed light on the mysterious boundaries between the classical and quantum worlds.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/mar/18/quantum-effect-spotted-in-a-visible-object

Quantum effects enter the macroworld
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/45/22413

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't think these are good arguments for materialism, since one could just say that morals are constructs, etc.

Besides the usualy rational arguments that qualia of consciouness can't be reduced to material substance, the case of terminal lucidity is also medically unexplained, where otherwise dying individuals will often suddenly have a period of mental clarity before suddenly dying. There is also evidence that memory is not stored in the brain- scientists have successfully conditioned planarian worms, and they've retained their training up to 15 days after being decapitated.

 

[Stephen3141]

You are addressing basic philosophical issues. Not narrow considerations
of the physical sciences. Just pointing this out.

Even those who believe that the
physical" world alone, exists, must try to explain
how human consciousness exists. And free will.
And human reasoning about abstract concepts.

You're asking a basic philosophical question, not a question
that has been solved by strict materialists.

 

[variant]

You are addressing basic philosophical issues. Not narrow considerations
of the physical sciences. Just pointing this out.

Even those who believe that the
physical" world alone, exists, must try to explain
how human consciousness exists. And free will.
And human reasoning about abstract concepts.

You're asking a basic philosophical question, not a question
that has been solved by strict materialists.

Positing that there are things other than the physical world don't explain such concepts either.

 

[stevil]

You are addressing basic philosophical issues. Not narrow considerations
of the physical sciences. Just pointing this out.

Even those who believe that the
physical" world alone, exists, must try to explain
how human consciousness exists. And free will.
And human reasoning about abstract concepts.

You're asking a basic philosophical question, not a question
that has been solved by strict materialists.

The great thing about Science is that there is Theoretical Science and Physical Science. People theorise using logic and reason and then people do experiments to prove or disprove the theory.
I couldn't imagine all the crazy things that Theoretical Scientists would come up with if they were never corrected by the physical experiments.

It isn't turtles all the way down.
You don't have to first have intelligence to get intelligence, nor first have morals to get morals or logic to get logic.

It is very trivial to work out basic logic.
Mum has a lolly and a toy. Little Jimmy and Little Sarah have to choose who gets the lolly and who gets the toy.
They quickly realise they can't have Little Jimmy AND Little Sarah both each getting both the lolly AND the toy.
They realise instead it is OR. They didn't need to be taught this, they didn't need a higher power bestowing this knowledge upon them. Just experience of the world and being faced with this situation lets them understand the difference between AND and OR.

Morality comes about when one is faced with living in a society, rather than living alone. Pretty soon the rest of society gets upset with you when you do things that are detrimental to society. Like making loud noises when everyone else is sleeping, or taking all the food for yourself. Quiet time at night gets labeled as "good", taking only your share of the food gets labelled "good", contributing to society gets labelled "good". It's a pretty simple concept that has meaning in the context of a society. It is arbitrary but also relative to the needs of those living in society.

 

[Astrid]

You are addressing basic philosophical issues. Not narrow considerations
of the physical sciences. Just pointing this out.

Even those who believe that the
physical" world alone, exists, must try to explain
how human consciousness exists. And free will.
And human reasoning about abstract concepts.

You're asking a basic philosophical question, not a question
that has been solved by strict materialists.

Anyone who actually thinks, instead of
just believing things "must" try to explain.

 

[Astrid]

The great thing about Science is that there is Theoretical Science and Physical Science. People theorise using logic and reason and then people do experiments to prove or disprove the theory.
I couldn't imagine all the crazy things that Theoretical Scientists would come up with if they were never corrected by the physical experiments.

It isn't turtles all the way down.
You don't have to first have intelligence to get intelligence, nor first have morals to get morals or logic to get logic.

It is very trivial to work out basic logic.
Mum has a lolly and a toy. Little Jimmy and Little Sarah have to choose who gets the lolly and who gets the toy.
They quickly realise they can't have Little Jimmy AND Little Sarah both each getting both the lolly AND the toy.
They realise instead it is OR. They didn't need to be taught this, they didn't need a higher power bestowing this knowledge upon them. Just experience of the world and being faced with this situation lets them understand the difference between AND and OR.

Morality comes about when one is faced with living in a society, rather than living alone. Pretty soon the rest of society gets upset with you when you do things that are detrimental to society. Like making loud noises when everyone else is sleeping, or taking all the food for yourself. Quiet time at night gets labeled as "good", taking only your share of the food gets labelled "good", contributing to society gets labelled "good". It's a pretty simple concept that has meaning in the context of a society. It is arbitrary but also relative to the needs of those living in society.

If you are interested in the crazy things people
people came up with, you can read the history of
medicine, astronomy, geography, biology, physics,
etc.

Lucretius wrote a good compilation for his day.