Does quantum physics destroy materialism as such?

[ComradeMan]

Thoughts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism#Scientific_rejection_of_materialism

Edit- someone who can please correct the "n" in qua(n)tum! :)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Absurd on the face of it. Of course our conceptions of the material world change as we find out more about it, in fact there is absolutely no reason to expect that physics behaves exactly the same at all scales of time and space.

Ever since we discovered the weirdness that can be found at the scales quantum mechanics operates, there has been a veritable parade of cranks, kooks, frauds and charlatans from many diverse fields that constantly attempt to gain philosophical capital by co-opting the language of quantum mechanics, to give their pablum that much-needed ring of authenticity.

All of which does not change the fact that classical physics is a pretty good description of the world as we personally experience it. You will never get rich by quantum tunnelling in and out of a bank vault.

[ComradeMan]

All of which does not change the fact that classical physics is a pretty good description of the world as we personally experience it. You will never get rich by quantum tunnelling in and out of a bank vault.

So then it becomes existential?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So then it becomes existential?

Elaborate, please.

[ComradeMan]

Elaborate, please.

Because what you've said boils things down to existence as we experience it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Because what you've said boils things down to existence as we experience it.

Well, most of us don't have access to the kind of sensitive instruments that can detail the subtle (on our scales) effects of quantum mechanics and relativistic physics.

Even on the rare occasions that quantum effects become relevant at familiar scales, tunnel diodes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_diode) hardly represent some kind of grand philosophical paradigm shift.

[ComradeMan]

Well, most of us don't have access to the kind of sensitive instruments that can detail the subtle (on our scales) effects of quantum mechanics and relativistic physics.

Even on the rare occasions that quantum effects become relevant at familiar scales, tunnel diodes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_diode) hardly represent some kind of grand philosophical paradigm shift.

But surely limiting our interest to merely that which we can perceive is against the spirit of scientific enquiry? Again, even Dawkins has said that refusing to accept that which cannot be seen is absurd.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But surely limiting our interest to merely that which we can perceive is against the spirit of scientific enquiry? Again, even Dawkins has said that refusing to accept that which cannot be seen is absurd.

If we cannot perceive something, even with the aid of instruments, how can we possibly say that it exists at all except as a concept?

[ComradeMan]

If we cannot perceive something, even with the aid of instruments, how can we possibly say that it exists at all except as a concept?

Can you physically perceive pi, or the square root of two? Yet we use these concepts in the "material" or physical world. However there is also a difference between asserting something that cannot be proven and refusing to accept the possibility of something merely on the basis of a lack of evidence.

[Sir Comradical]

Why, because not even matter can be proven to exist? Meh, that's some tired shit.

[ComradeMan]

Why, because not even matter can be proven to exist? Meh, that's some tired shit.

Not really when you have people who insist that they are rational because they base their whole world outlook on a materialist basis and de facto everyone else is irrational.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Can you physically perceive pi, or the square root of two? Yet we use these concepts in the "material" or physical world. However there is also a difference between asserting something that cannot be proven and refusing to accept the possibility of something merely on the basis of a lack of evidence.

Mathematicians can "show their work", i.e. they can demonstrate in discrete logical steps how their calculations are sound.

[Nox]

Quantum mechanics is some fucked up shit.

[ComradeMan]

Quantum mechanics is some fucked up shit.

Is that the title of your Nobel prize winning thesis for science? :D

I do not like it, and I am sorry I ever had anything to do with it. -Erwin Schrödinger (1887-1961)

[ComradeMan]

6fWtBq8uWKE

Max Planck (1944) : As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.

Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], Firenze, Italia (1944) (Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797)

[Imposter Marxist]

It is crucial to understand, and many Marxists make this mistake, Dialetical Materalism is not a MATERIALISM.

[ComradeMan]

It is crucial to understand, and many Marxists make this mistake, Dialetical Materalism is not a MATERIALISM.

No- it seems to be in even more perilous straights and about to sink.

[Revolution starts with U]

You can't destroy materialism qua materialism. If it happens, it happens. If it is shown that the universe is/has a conscious mind (directing it) then THAT becomes the material reality.
There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. The. Metaphysical.

[ComradeMan]

You can't destroy materialism qua materialism. If it happens, it happens. If it is shown that the universe is/has a conscious mind (directing it) then THAT becomes the material reality.
There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. The. Metaphysical.

There is no such thing as material reality as we know it.

[Revolution starts with U]

Why don't we stick to making coherent sentences.
Im touching a keyboard right now. There is a material reality.
Saying "there is no material reality as we know it" and "there is no material reality" is saying two totally different things. Ya, maybe we don't exactly knowing what is happening. But that's the point of scientific endeavor.

[ComradeMan]

Why don't we stick to making coherent sentences. Im touching a keyboard right now. There is a material reality. Saying "there is no material reality as we know it" and "there is no material reality" is saying two totally different things. Ya, maybe we don't exactly knowing what is happening. But that's the point of scientific endeavor.

LOL!!! But at the end of the day are you a particle or a wave and if we look hard enough we could only find your "packets" because we were looking at them- otherwise they might not even be there.

[Desperado]

Yeah, just as a side note, Marx was never a materialist (or "physicalist" as is used today) in the narrow philosophical sense in which it's used today - he was rather an instrumentalist i.e a theory's worth isn't in it's inherent trueness but it's usefulness in accurately predict a set of data from another. What he means is that he's not a dualist, which quantum mechanics to my knowledge has never touched upon.

He briefly says of the idealism/materialism debate in the sense which we use the words today as an irrelevant scholarly question - typical of Marx's "stuff philosophy let's make revolution" attitude.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

LOL!!! But at the end of the day are you a particle or a wave and if we look hard enough we could only find your "packets" because we were looking at them- otherwise they might not even be there.

So why do macroscopic objects behave like particles? I certainly can't go through two different doors at once, even though a single photon in a double slit experiment can.

What's wrong with the idea that physics works differently at extreme scales relative to the one we're familiar with?

[ComradeMan]

"a theory's worth isn't in it's inherent trueness but it's usefulness"

:ohmy:

That should set enough alarm bells ringing....

[Nox]

Surely how we, as humans, interpret something is what really matters...

[Desperado]

That should set enough alarm bells ringing....

Enough alarm bell to make you question the statement on Marx's belief, or the worth of instrumentalism as a method?

[Revolution starts with U]

LOL!!! But at the end of the day are you a particle or a wave and if we look hard enough we could only find your "packets" because we were looking at them- otherwise they might not even be there.

It doesn't matter. If I am a particle, the material reality is that I am a particle, and vice-versa for a wave.
You CANNOT "destroy" materialism qua materialism. Whatever happens IS the material reality.

[ComradeMan]

So why do macroscopic objects behave like particles? I certainly can't go through two different doors at once, even though a single photon in a double slit experiment can.

What's wrong with the idea that physics works differently at extreme scales relative to the one we're familiar with?

But where is the dividing line between these scales? I think you're referring to wave-particle duality- well in that case the answer is sometimes but not always and as far as I know this isn't predictable (although I am not sure about the last point).

The idea of the two doors is interesting because perhaps, perhaps in another universe, dimension or whatever you actually have walked through the other door. In "our world" you walk through door A but your associated waves go through door B too.

[ComradeMan]

Enough alarm bell to make you question the statement on Marx's belief, or the worth of instrumentalism as a method?

Both to be honest but more the latter.

[Desperado]

Both to be honest but more the latter.

Well I hardly care about debating the latter, but do you have anything to contribute other than "alarm bells" and one liners to the former? I'll dig up my books and quote you Marx's precise passage if you want.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But where is the dividing line between these scales?

If I remember my physics correctly, then there's sort of a fuzzy border region somewhere between the atomic and the sub-atomic. Electrons are tiny and display quantum mechanical behaviour, whereas atomic nuclei, especially the larger ones, display more classical behaviour.


I think you're referring to wave-particle duality- well in that case the answer is sometimes but not always and as far as I know this isn't predictable (although I am not sure about the last point).

I didn't say that the photon always went through both slits at once, I said that they can, whereas that is something I will never achieve in a lifetime. I imagine if you did the double-slit experiment with, say, carbon nuclei, they'd go through one of the slits more often than the smaller photon.


The idea of the two doors is interesting because perhaps, perhaps in another universe, dimension or whatever you actually have walked through the other door. In "our world" you walk through door A but your associated waves go through door B too.

Sure, but this just means there are different material universes where I did different things. Doesn't this idea also result in an infinitude of universes?

[ComradeMan]

---fuzzy---

Well at this "point" it all gets fuzzy and too much quantum can give you a bad headache in whatever-verse. :D

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well at this "point" it all gets fuzzy and too much quantum can give you a bad headache in whatever-verse. :D

C'mon, gimme a break. I'm trying to actually have a civil discussion with you for once.

[black magick hustla]

Does quantum physics destroy materialism as such?

No.

When marxists use the term "materialism" they don't imply the world is made of only matter, but that its easier to understand the world in terms of the concrete. I don't see how that is against QM, which is an explanation of concrete phenomena. Besides, QM is mathematically deterministic (The Schrodinger equation only has certain solutions, so the probability curves are already determined). Unfortunately, the myth that QM makes everything "random" was perpetuated by people who want to sell their pop. sci lit.

[ComradeMan]

C'mon, gimme a break. I'm trying to actually have a civil discussion with you for once.

And I was agreeing with you (for once):D- just pointing out that with quantum it does get a bit too "weird" at times. Perhaps it's an age thing, but a lot of stuff I learnt at physics during school seems to suddenly go out of the window:ohmy:. I still remember the Steady State theory still had some currency too, albeit dwindled since the 60s and also people still spoke about the universe being infinite in vague terms. :lol:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And I was agreeing with you (for once):D- just pointing out that with quantum it does get a bit too "weird" at times. Perhaps it's an age thing, but a lot of stuff I learnt at physics during school seems to suddenly go out of the window:ohmy:. I still remember the Steady State theory still had some currency too, albeit dwindled since the 60s and also people still spoke about the universe being infinite in vague terms. :lol:

Back when I used to use the library a lot, one of my favourite kinds of books to check out were the ones on modern and theoretical physics. I'd devour anything that had something to do with cosmology, string theory, supersymmetry, M-theory and twistor theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twistor_theory), and I learned of things such as chirality, topology (makes geometry look static and dull) and mirror matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_matter).

Which is why I get really annoyed when people treat physicists (or members of any other branch of science for that matter) as some kind of homogenous hivemind that crushes dissent and originality.

[Hit The North]

Marx's materialism is not a theory of the natural world, except where it has been distorted by various epigones. It is a theory of human history which is seen to be grounded in the natural world. In other words, the materialism for Marx concerns how we best explain the development of human history, i.e. as successive modes of production that are determined by specific material relations of production between man and nature and man with himself. Marx observes that every mode of production has laws of development which eventually bring the forces and relations of production into conflict with each other. This conflict must be resolved through revolution in order for human beings to realise a higher (as in more productive) mode of production. In terms of the philosophical or theoretical role of materialism, it is important in Marx's attempt to settle the question of the role of ideas in human history. Marx argues that ultimately ideas, although a motive force in human social relations, have their origin in the material relations that underpin them. Perhaps more importantly, the power that ideas have (their motive force) is dependent upon how they fit with the material reality of society. Hence, although we can trace communistic ideas back before capitalism, communism as a motive ideology only gains real force once capitalism has created the proletariat as a universal class able to construct a communist society.

I think it is important to conduct a study that examines the relationship between the scientific revolution in Europe and the emergence of a new philosophy of society. Marx argues that the French materialist philosophers adopted a view of human society which was indebted to the mechanical materialism of Newtonian physics. Its limit was thus reached at the point where it accepted the view of the natural world as metaphysical: unchanging and ever-present. On the other hand, the German idealists were able to project the idea of change and development but, also constrained by the view of a mechanical materialism, they could only do this by shifting reality into the world of ideas. According to Marx and Engels, Hegel was at least able to build a philosophical system whereby ideas and human society could be considered as constituting a unity. However, they considered it as an inverted view which gave predominance to the idea over the material.

The alleged breakthrough of Marxist materialism is that it is able to produce a view whereby the real movement of change is not in the world of ideas but in the material relations of human society.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with quantum physics. However, some have argued that quantum physics has a similar stress on the relational aspects of phenomena as Marx's dialectical approach to human history. However, this is not the same as claiming that human history operates according to the same rules as the quantum universe. This would be taking things too far.

[ComradeMan]

Back when I used to use the library a lot, one of my favourite kinds of books to check out were the ones on modern and theoretical physics. I'd devour anything that had something to do with cosmology, string theory, supersymmetry, M-theory and twistor theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twistor_theory), and I learned of things such as chirality, topology (makes geometry look static and dull) and mirror matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_matter).

Me too, I was more interested in mathematical approaches which is how I came across *gulp" "Gaia hypothesis" and subsequent "Gaia theory". :crying:
Dare I speak it's name? :D


Which is why I get really annoyed when people treat physicists (or members of any other branch of science for that matter) as some kind of homogenous hivemind that crushes dissent and originality.

Well I don't do that- and I don't support young earth creationism or intelligent design as scientific theories. I think they should be taught in theology class or philosophy after, and only after, the bogus science is combed out of them- if possible ;). I do think a lot of the problem comes from the use of the word "theory" and its different meanings in different fields and usages.

I also get fed up with pop-science. I don't mind the idea of popular science but that does mean popular-bogus science. It's important that the non-specialist public have a good idea of science and admittedly it's difficult because of the level of expertise and terminology- not everyone can have a Phd in advanced particle physics or chemistry etc. At the same time making science popular shouldn't be touting trash science.

It amazes me at times, and I am not trying to claim to be Fibonacci either, how mathematically and scientifically illiterate people are at times- even with basic calculations and comments.

[Rafiq]

Surely how we, as humans, interpret something is what really matters...

Such a notion is Idealist