Physicalism Refuted

[sandwiches]

So, would it bother you if someone defined, say, light as non-physical?

Well, it interacts with stuff under the same laws all other stuff we've ever observed does and it behaves like stuff (among other things.) So, it doesn't bother me, but it seems incorrect.

 

[Resha Caner]

Well, it interacts with stuff under the same laws all other stuff we've ever observed does and it behaves like stuff (among other things.) So, it doesn't bother me, but it seems incorrect.

Well, I would assume that if something is non-physical, it has to possess unique characteristics - characteristics no other "stuff" has.

IIRC measurements are not yet accurate enough to say neutrinos are FTL (and most physicists seem to think they aren't). Further, IIRC tachyons are still merely hypothetical. As such, light is the only thing that can travel at its characteristic speed and is the only thing with its dual nature (wave-particle).

If that's wrong correct me, but light does seem truly unique - it does seem to be a very special case amongst all the things we know of. If "physical" equates to "all things," it seems a rather useless definition. It seems when people are objecting about pink unicorns and such, the real argument is over existence/non-existence, not physical/non-physical. So, maybe we should put this useless term to work for us.

 

[Jro]

I thought that many subatomic particles (eg electrons, etc.) could be induced to behave as either a particle or a wave?

 

[sandwiches]

Well, I would assume that if something is non-physical, it has to possess unique characteristics - characteristics no other "stuff" has.

IIRC measurements are not yet accurate enough to say neutrinos are FTL (and most physicists seem to think they aren't). Further, IIRC tachyons are still merely hypothetical. As such, light is the only thing that can travel at its characteristic speed and is the only thing with its dual nature (wave-particle).

If that's wrong correct me, but light does seem truly unique - it does seem to be a very special case amongst all the things we know of. If "physical" equates to "all things," it seems a rather useless definition. It seems when people are objecting about pink unicorns and such, the real argument is over existence/non-existence, not physical/non-physical. So, maybe we should put this useless term to work for us.

It does seem like light is unique among all other physical things. And I agree with you that "all things" is very useless a definition and in fact, I almost voiced just that issue in my last post but I see it almost like the definition of "universe," for me. "Universe" means, to me, is a term for all that exists. ALL. EVERYTHING. And the opposite of being part of the "universe," let's say "nonuniversal" is meaningless to me as it essentially translates to "nothing." I feel the same way when speaking of "outside the universe" and similar phrases, as it simply seems absurd. Nonsense.

So, since "physical" is a useless term, I think we should just completely forget about the words "physical" and "non-physical" and instead, let's worry about how, say... ghosts, the mind, spirits are supposed to differ from french fries, cars, or more to the point, computer processes and let's see where that lead us.

 

[The Nihilist]

Because the mental realm is the perfect medium for catching these “waves” of reality that come to us, so to speak. It has the ability to create “stand-ins” the same way a wave on a shoreline might form an indentation, or something. Is the neuro-physical self-luminous, like a flashlight? Does it have the necessary reflexivity to mirror reality and not only imitate it?

The mental realm is like an opening in an otherwise sealed container, is I suppose the best example of what I mean. When I have a thought (preferably of something physical, in this case) it is as though I commune with it. There is a rapport that exists between the thought and the thing thought about. A one-to-one correspondence. If it was only a complicated physical cause, then I’m guessing it would have to redound back on itself, so that the thought and what is "beyond" the thought (which would have to be it itself), become enmeshed together in a type of illusion.... I don’t have any better expression useful for what I mean unfortunately. Only, of course, where would the “beyond” come into such a picture? Of course there wouldn’t be such a thing. That’s exactly the point. There would be no sufficient outlets in such a case, to know the external world… The mental is the only sure outlet... Unless, MAYBE, it came about indirectly. By a tortuous interpretative frame... That however would itself leave the world mostly unknowable, and simply an outcome of our biology, a trick of our physical selves.... No room for certainty there.

I think you're assuming as a premise that we have true knowledge of the world, and you're using that to conclude a special quality of the mental realm. Is that accurate?

 

[Resha Caner]

I thought that many subatomic particles (eg electrons, etc.) could be induced to behave as either a particle or a wave?

I was unsure on that point, so I'm open to correction on the details. However, it still seems light has something unique about it.

So, since "physical" is a useless term ...

Only as some define it. That was my only point. I wasn't advocating that we throw it out, but merely that we use it in a different way. Let us say, then, that the physical must have mass.

From there it is an honest question. Would physicists object to calling light "non-physical"? If so, why? What utility is there in including light in the category of physical ([edit] seeing as we seem to agree it's a pretty useless word as it stands)?

It does seem like light is unique among all other physical things ...

... instead, let's worry about how, say... ghosts, the mind, spirits are supposed to differ from french fries, cars, or more to the point, computer processes and let's see where that lead us.

Because I'm certain you don't believe in 2 of those 3 things, and I'm not sure what you believe about the 3rd (mind). So, let's make this simple. We'll just define something to be non-physical. I'm not saying the world is going to accept that, but I'm curious what the objections might be.

I think laying out those objections would prove very useful to this discussion ... even moreso since we're using an example where we don't have to argue about its existence, what interactions it has, etc.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well, I would assume that if something is non-physical, it has to possess unique characteristics - characteristics no other "stuff" has.

Yeah, but no one can tell us what those characteristics are supposed to be. It's just introduced as a magical solution to various scientific problems as if merely mentioning the name was enough to give us a solution.

IIRC measurements are not yet accurate enough to say neutrinos are FTL

They're not - BREAKING NEWS: Error Undoes Faster-Than-Light Neutrino Results - ScienceInsider

As such, light is the only thing that can travel at its characteristic speed and is the only thing with its dual nature (wave-particle).

This is almost completely wrong. There are other massless particles, and being massless has nothing to do with having wave-particle duality. Electrons show the same thing, as do larger particles and molecules (c.f. Real-time single-molecule imaging of quantum interference : Nature Nanotechnology : Nature Publishing Group).

 

[Eudaimonist]

As far as I know, "physical" in science means something like this dictionary definition:

Of or relating to matter and energy or the sciences dealing with them, especially physics.

Only the concept "matter" would be explicitly tied with the property of mass, not what is physical.

I personally find it sloppy reasoning to conclude that consciousness is "energy" because it seems non-physical, as New Agers tend to do. Energy is just as physical as matter.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Resha Caner]

I personally find it sloppy reasoning to conclude that consciousness is "energy" because it seems non-physical, as New Agers tend to do.

I agree.

Energy is just as physical as matter.

But again, why? What is it about this idea of "physical" that makes you think energy fits within that category? Agreeing to define energy as non-physical would not, in my mind, justify calling consciousness non-physical. I thought that might be one objection - that such a concession would provide implicit assent to such leaps. So, if that is not the case, what other objections might there be?

 

[Eudaimonist]

But again, why? What is it about this idea of "physical" that makes you think energy fits within that category?

Mainly because this conforms to sensible definitions. What is "physical" can be studied by the discipline of "physics". Physical things interact through natural cause and effect, and they or their effects can be sensed by our senses, such as our power of sight. Physical things also appear to be part of our universe, having at least a rough location.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Resha Caner]

Physical things interact through natural cause and effect, and they or their effects can be sensed by our senses, such as our power of sight.

This keeps coming up - the idea that physical means an object which we can sense and interact with. I'm not aware of any scientific definitions of "physical". If there is one, I'd be interested to see it. And common dictionary definitions are not all the same, and are plagued by circularity. I don't know where you got yours, but consider this one:

Physical | Define Physical at Dictionary.com

If you chase "material" (used in the definition), it refers to "matter" and matter refers to "physical." Hmm.

But these definitions don't imply the exclusive tie to interaction or the ability to sense that is mentioned in this thread.

I realize you didn't voice your opinion on whether these definitions make the term "physical" useless. I'd like to know what you think of that. If you think the term still has a use, I'd like to know what that is. As I said, it seems what people are really arguing is existence, not the nature of the physical.

It's the exclusivity of these definitions that intrigue me. I don't see it in other definitions of kind. We don't define a species as something that only interacts with species. We don't define oxygen as something that only interacts with oxygen. I can't think of any definition like that. If there is one, it would make for an interesting comparison to what is occurring here.

But as it stands, I see no reason to define physical as something that only interacts with itself.

And further, as with my example of light, I was keying off the comment that physical "stuff" seems to have some sense of being "solid." That is why I threw out the idea of defining the physical as something with mass. It seems a reasonable idea. It's better than "solid," since it would include liquids, gases, etc.

Why is it objectionable to say light is not physical? It's just a semantic issue that "physics" comes from the same root. It wouldn't suddenly mean that physicists can't study light. After all, what we call "physics" is what Newton called "natural philosophy." Again, it's just feels like a very odd grasp for exclusivity.

 

[sandwiches]

I was unsure on that point, so I'm open to correction on the details. However, it still seems light has something unique about it.

Only as some define it. That was my only point. I wasn't advocating that we throw it out, but merely that we use it in a different way. Let us say, then, that the physical must have mass.

From there it is an honest question. Would physicists object to calling light "non-physical"? If so, why? What utility is there in including light in the category of physical ([edit] seeing as we seem to agree it's a pretty useless word as it stands)?

Because I'm certain you don't believe in 2 of those 3 things, and I'm not sure what you believe about the 3rd (mind). So, let's make this simple. We'll just define something to be non-physical. I'm not saying the world is going to accept that, but I'm curious what the objections might be.

I think laying out those objections would prove very useful to this discussion ... even moreso since we're using an example where we don't have to argue about its existence, what interactions it has, etc.

My point is that defining "physical" one way or another won't change whether something is real or not; it's just semantics. For instance, let's say we go with your definition of "physical" and that which has no mass isn't physical. Fine. So, the non-physical exists, according to that specific definition of "physical." Where does this take us?

 

[Resha Caner]

My point is that defining "physical" one way or another won't change whether something is real or not; it's just semantics.

In some ways that's true. In other ways it's not.

I think agreeing that "interaction" is not exclusive to "physical" is an important step.

For instance, let's say we go with your definition of "physical" and that which has no mass isn't physical. Fine. So, the non-physical exists, according to that specific definition of "physical." Where does this take us?

With regards to semantics, you are correct in that (beyond what I said above) all this probably accomplishes is to provide us an analogy. I don't know how useful that is, but we can now revisit my question: Is a candle physical?

And, I'll make one modification. Is a burning candle physical? Based on the definition, it is no longer wholly physical. A transformation is taking place where the wax and wick (physical) are becoming light (non-physical).

Let's make it even more interesting. Let's put the candle in a dark room, where the only light is the light of the candle. And, let's put the candle in front of a mirror.

So, how do you sense the physical wax and wick? Does seeing it (via light - via a non-physical medium) count as sensing a physical object? You can sense it as physical - by the heat, by touch. But what of the sense of sight? Are you sensing an "image" of the physical, or the physical itself?

And what of the reflection in the mirror? There are intriguing layers here. The physical is producing non-physical light which creates a reflection in a mirror. The reflection originated with the candle. And it is an excellent representation of a burning candle - every twitch of the flame is mirrored exactly.

The reflection is real. It is light reflected from a physical surface. And even if we couldn't see the physical candle, we could determine with reasonable confidence that the reflection is an image of a candle, something that originated from a physical candle. So what is this real thing to be called? It's not a candle. It's a reflection of a candle ... a very succinct description of a very particular manifestation of non-physical light. While it is not physical, it is not really abstract either. It is not a mere physical brain state. It is not mere light, because it has a very particular origin.

 

[sandwiches]

In some ways that's true. In other ways it's not.

I think agreeing that "interaction" is not exclusive to "physical" is an important step.

Let me rephrase this so we don't start getting lost in the words:
"I think agreeing that "interaction" is not exclusive to "that which has mass" is an important step."

With regards to semantics, you are correct in that (beyond what I said above) all this probably accomplishes is to provide us an analogy. I don't know how useful that is, but we can now revisit my question: Is a candle physical?

Again, to rephrase:
Is a candle "that which has mass?" Yes.

And, I'll make one modification. Is a burning candle physical? Based on the definition, it is no longer wholly physical. A transformation is taking place where the wax and wick (physical) are becoming light (non-physical).

Is a burning candle "that which has mass?" Yes.
However, a burning candle emits "that which doesn't have mass," light.

Let's make it even more interesting. Let's put the candle in a dark room, where the only light is the light of the candle. And, let's put the candle in front of a mirror.

So, how do you sense the physical wax and wick? Does seeing it (via light - via a non-physical medium) count as sensing a physical object? You can sense it as physical - by the heat, by touch. But what of the sense of sight? Are you sensing an "image" of the physical, or the physical itself?

With or without a mirror, when we see a candle, we're only using "that which has no mass" to detect it, unless we touch it. We're using light. The light in the mirror is merely reflected from the candle. So, it's the same light. There's no difference by simply using a mirror. And simply looking at an object directly, doesn't make it sensing "the "that which has mass" itself." We're still only sensing light, which has no mass.

And what of the reflection in the mirror? There are intriguing layers here. The physical is producing non-physical light which creates a reflection in a mirror. The reflection originated with the candle. And it is an excellent representation of a burning candle - every twitch of the flame is mirrored exactly.

That which has mass is producing that which has no mass. Right. And the representation is pretty accurate because whether we use a mirror or not, we're looking at the same light.

The reflection is real. It is light reflected from a physical surface.

Right. Light is real.

And even if we couldn't see the physical candle, we could determine with reasonable confidence that the reflection is an image of a candle, something that originated from a physical candle.

But we are seeing the candle. Same light from the same candle.

So what is this real thing to be called? It's not a candle. It's a reflection of a candle ... a very succinct description of a very particular manifestation of non-physical light.

Reflection of a candle is what we would call light reflecting off a candle. Right.

While it is not physical, it is not really abstract either.

No one said "that which has no mass" is necessarily abstract. So, I agree with you here, as well.

It is not a mere physical brain state.

It is not a mere brain state "which has mass." I'm not really sure what this means. "Mere?"

It is not mere light, because it has a very particular origin.

It isn't "mere light" because it has an origin? So, the light we see reflected off a mirror coming from a candle isn't "mere light?" All light has an origin. All light, then, is not "mere light??"

I have to admit I don't see how any of this has any relevance with the amount of mass light has or doesn't have.

Let me recap what I've understood, so far:

Physical is that which has no mass. Light has no mass. Candles can emit light. Mirrors can reflect light. Light is what we sense with our brains. If light reflects from a mirror, then it doesn't simply exist in our brains. Light isn't mere light when it comes from something...

I'm not sure what I was supposed to get from this, to be honest.

 

[variant]

Physicalism can I think be easily refuted on the basis of this one analogy:

You have a mirror and objects facing it. The object in the mirror is identical to the object facing the mirror.

And here is where I burst into laughter.

If you are going to "refute" something like "physicalism" don't start by ascribeing to it a position that would never be taken by a physicalist.

Here you go for a definition:

Physicalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Physicalism is a philosophical position holding that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties; that is, that there are no kinds of things other than physical things. The term was coined by Otto Neurath in a series of early twentieth century essays on the subject, in which he wrote:"

A physicalist would never come to the conclusion that an object in a mirror was identical to the light reflected in it becasue they have differn't physical properties.

Sorry, bzzt, wrong, no, stop.

You can't reject physicalism by simply positing idealism and ignoring physicalist objections to that "premice".

NO physicalist is going to agree that the reflection and the object or the thought and the object are "the same" in any way because they ALWAYS have differn't physical properties.

So, physicalists, either you give up on knowledge about the external world or you accept the real possibility that when you think of an elephant, that elephant actually materializes in your own mind.

Or, the physicalist can say that mental states are physical phenomina that relate to key features of the elephant that are related to the being of the indivual thinking about the the elephant without ever actually recreateing anything but an immage of it.

Giveing up on "absolute" knoledge is not giveing up on knoledge because it is not how people "know" things in the first place.

 

[KCfromNC]

However, a burning candle emits "that which doesn't have mass," light.

Photons don't have a rest mass, but the do have mass - hbar*omega / c^2. May seem like nit picking, but the fact that we can know this so exactly is through repeated measurement and testing. Which reinforces the point that light is physical rather than magic (or non-physical, as we seem to be calling it in this thread).

 

[Eudaimonist]

I realize you didn't voice your opinion on whether these definitions make the term "physical" useless. I'd like to know what you think of that. If you think the term still has a use, I'd like to know what that is.

Yes, I think the term is useful.

It refers to entities that interact with the sort of cause and effect that can be studied by physics and are observable by our senses. Or to put it another way, it refers to any entities that have at least some physical properties. Such entities are what I regard as "physical".

I also happen to think that ALL entities are physical or have some physical aspect, or at least I have no reason to think otherwise. However, that doesn't mean that my concept of physical is simply a synonym for "existing". If an entity could somehow have no physical properties whatsoever, I would consider it "nonphysical".

Why is it objectionable to say light is not physical?

Light is clearly a part of our universe. It is clearly studied by science. That strikes me as quite enough of a reason.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Resha Caner]

Photons don't have a rest mass, but the do have mass - hbar*omega / c^2. May seem like nit picking, but the fact that we can know this so exactly is through repeated measurement and testing. Which reinforces the point that light is physical rather than magic (or non-physical, as we seem to be calling it in this thread).

I don't mind your nit-picking. The sooner we can put aside details like this, the better. So, yes, we should clarify the example to say light has no rest mass. As further nit-picking, though, most physicists seem to avoid using "mass" and "light" in the same sentence. Rather, they usually refer to momentum.

But this does nothing to establish light as physical. You'll need to be clear where you stand on exclusivity before we have anything to talk about.

I'm not sure what I was supposed to get from this, to be honest.

As a preliminary, I agree your original answer was correct. A candle is physical. I didn't mean to imply that I've trapped you or any such thing. I'm just trying to demonstrate some consequences that would result if we could agree on characteristics of the non-physical. If you want to use some term like "massless" or "without rest mass" in order to be clear on your position regarding light, fine. As I thought we had agreed, such things are just a matter of semantics and I find it a bit clumsy to avoid the term "non-physical" when that's a key idea for this thread.

If, however, you're still maintaining that the physical does entail some exclusive property, we have a problem. No one has explained to me why that must be.

Regardless, it seems you got quite a bit out of my last post:
1) The interactions mean non-physical can come from physical and vice-versa.
2) Our detection of something we interpret as physical may actually come via a non-physical media and vice-versa.
3) There is an interesting layering or circularity in the candle example. The physical produces a non-physical media which interacts with a second physical object to produce a second manifestation of the non-physical which we can interpret as evidence of a physical object. As far as it being the same light all the way from the candle to the mirror to our eye, we don't know that. Some of it might be, but we don't know if one of the photons from the candle was absorbed by the mirror and caused a different photon to be released by the mirror (i.e. some kind of flourescent effect).
4) Even if we agree on a characteristic of the non-physical, its interaction with the physical creates some difficulties in trying to separate out exactly what is physical and what is non-physical. Are you familiar with Design of Experiments (DOE)?

We can wrestle this a while longer if you wish, but I'm not sure if I can be any clearer. If we're not managing to understand each other I'm concerned that going at this too long will only tangle the conversation further rather than untangle it. It might be better to see if adding further aspects of the non-physical would help more.

 

[Resha Caner]

I also happen to think that ALL entities are physical or have some physical aspect, or at least I have no reason to think otherwise.

IMO you're subscribing to an exclusion principle that leaves us at an impasse.

However, that doesn't mean that my concept of physical is simply a synonym for "existing". If an entity could somehow have no physical properties whatsoever, I would consider it "nonphysical".

You're going to have to explain to me how this could be possible, or all I can conclude is that your reasoning is circular. For example, allow me to edit part of your post as follows:

it [physical] refers to any entities that have at least some physical properties.

Likewise, I would expect that the color red has red properties. IOW red is red. red = red. So, what you have said is, "Physical is physical." I don't find that very helpful.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You're going to have to explain to me how this could be possible, or all I can conclude is that your reasoning is circular.

If an entity cannot be studied by physics or interact with our senses even in principle, then it's nonphysical.

Perhaps this isn't possible in reality, but that doesn't make my reasoning circular.

Likewise, I would expect that the color red has red properties. IOW red is red. red = red. So, what you have said is, "Physical is physical." I don't find that very helpful.

I didn't say anything like that. I had said this:

[The word physical] refers to entities that interact with the sort of cause and effect that can be studied by physics and are observable by our senses. Or to put it another way, it refers to any entities that have at least some physical properties. Such entities are what I regard as "physical".

I'm not defining the word circularly. The key to understanding what is physical is that physical entities have properties that, in principle, can interact with our senses, or can interact with instruments such as those used in physics to enhance our ability to examine entities.


eudaimonia,

Mark