Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Here's a good video on why physicalism should be questioned.
If you hadn't provided a video I'd have thought "physicalism" was something you made up. So what is physicalism and what is this guy's short argument against it?
Short answer from Wikipedia is:
Physicalism is the metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical, or that everything supervenes on the physical.
...There are some reasons why this way of thinking is incomplete.
Is that different from "materialism" or "philosophical naturalism"?
What is the basic case the speaker makes?
One case that I like, is how he explains that Physicalists unknowingly follow a belief system that cannot remain true, due to the inconsistencies between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and that since our understandings are constantly changing, and our current science will someday be obsolete as time goes on, as understood by pessemistic induction. He goes on to say that the few Physicalists who understand this, then turn their attention to a future end, that some day, science will eventually come to understand it all.
He concludes that these are both illogical positions to hold -one known to be currently wrong and the other, unknown.
He thinks the exclusivity of Physicalism, has proven itself flawed through the concepts:
Hempel's dilemma - Wikipedia
- Hempel's dilemma
- Irreducible mentality
- The evolutionary argument against physicalism
- The universal cracking of the casual closure
Irreducibility - Wikipedia
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cQFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2dKTZWUfsEHlbR_EjI0XiS
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://thesideview.co/journal/why-i-am-not-a-physicalist/#:~:text=Universals%20crack%20open%20the%20causal,such%20universals%2C%20such%20objective%20truths.&ved=2ahUKEwimn56BjaT3AhXjIEQIHTBWBlMQFnoECAwQBQ&usg=AOvVaw2tMWQAxyJxN5mUxG7u-le5
Thanks for your reply Landon.
From your description, the speaker wants to use incompatibilities between QM and GR to disprove physicalism, but the 4 examples aren't about physics. So I am baffled. (I may watch some of this later. We'll see.) Irreducible mentality is just a weird phrase, from which I can see no connection. I am curious.
I guess if I felt like I didn't know I would but through observing the world and the laws of cause and effect, I am pretty confident that "creation" has a creator. What that creative force looks like? I could honestly say "I don't know." I just have a hard time with thinking the entire universe was an accident that came from nothing.When you feel you don't have enough information to make a decision does it not make logical sense to adopt a neutral ("I don't know") approach until you have enough info to decide one way or the other?
OB
One case that I like, is how he explains that Physicalists unknowingly follow a belief system that cannot remain true, due to the inconsistencies between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and that since our understandings are constantly changing, our current science will someday be obsolete as time goes on, as understood by pessemistic induction. He goes on to say that the few Physicalists who understand this, then turn their attention to a future end, that some day, science will eventually come to understand it all.
He concludes that these are both illogical positions to hold -one known to be currently wrong and the other, unknown.
He thinks the exclusivity of Physicalism, has proven itself flawed through the concepts:
Hempel's dilemma - Wikipedia
- Hempel's dilemma
- Irreducible mentality
- The evolutionary argument against physicalism
- The universal cracking of the casual closure
Irreducibility - Wikipedia
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cQFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2dKTZWUfsEHlbR_EjI0XiS
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://thesideview.co/journal/why-i-am-not-a-physicalist/#:~:text=Universals%20crack%20open%20the%20causal,such%20universals%2C%20such%20objective%20truths.&ved=2ahUKEwimn56BjaT3AhXjIEQIHTBWBlMQFnoECAwQBQ&usg=AOvVaw2tMWQAxyJxN5mUxG7u-le5
How life started is part of the theory of evolution.
Yes they do with carbon dating. Science is cool.
I already got put in my place on that one. I believe I was thinking of radioactive dating or something like that.The half-life of carbon-14 is 5730 years; as a result radiocarbon dating can only be used for dating material that is less than 50,000 years old. It is mostly used in archaeology, and not for dating rocks.
Okay, what in the Gospels and the letters to the Churches is mythology if you don't mind me asking?Of course. Not that it is any of your business, but I do. Next you will no doubt insinuate that I disbelieve in Original Sin
They appear in various proportion throughout the book.
Okay, what in the Gospels and the letters to the Churches is mythology if you don't mind me asking?
Thanks for your input I was asking a Christian though with all due respectPersonally, I consider the miracle stories -- up to and especially including the resurrection -- as mythology.
The birth narratives barely reconcile with one another, and not in the slightest with any kind of secular history.
Jesus' arrest and trial before Pilate didn't happen as described... but we can chalk that up to dramatic license.
Just my two cents...
Thanks for your input I was asking a Christian though with all due respect
You make a good pointFair enough. But I would want to point out that the entire point of "mythology" is that it need not be historically accurate in order to teach essential moral lessons.
And what is the Bible best used for teaching: history, or morality?
None of it. Those texts belong to entirely different literary genres.Okay, what in the Gospels and the letters to the Churches is mythology if you don't mind me asking?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?