Materialism is absurd

[Consul]

Matter matters to me, but nothing matters to matter.

Something matters to those material objects which are conscious subjects.

[Pattern-chaser]

No matter whether or not its temporal dimension is finite, spacetime has always existed and will always exist, because there wasn't and couldn't have been any time in the past when spacetime didn't exist, and there won't and couldn't be any time in the future when spacetime doesn't exist. That is, the notion of a pre- or post-spacetime time is self-contradictory.

This looks wrong to me. Spacetime contains/includes time, so referring to it as an apparently external thing is wrong. Spacetime exists, or has existence. But we can't say that spacetime has always existed, because that takes time outside of spacetime. When you refer to spacetime as a thing, which is perfectly valid, you can make no comment about its chronic existence; it doesn't make sense (to me). How can or could there be a "time in the past", "when spacetime didn't exist"???

[Consul]

No matter whether or not its temporal dimension is finite, spacetime has always existed and will always exist, because there wasn't and couldn't have been any time in the past when spacetime didn't exist, and there won't and couldn't be any time in the future when spacetime doesn't exist. That is, the notion of a pre- or post-spacetime time is self-contradictory.

This looks wrong to me. Spacetime contains/includes time, so referring to it as an apparently external thing is wrong. Spacetime exists, or has existence. But we can't say that spacetime has always existed, because that takes time outside of spacetime. When you refer to spacetime as a thing, which is perfectly valid, you can make no comment about its chronic existence; it doesn't make sense (to me). How can or could there be a "time in the past", "when spacetime didn't exist"???

That's impossible!
To say that spacetime has always existed is to say that it exists at all times, which means that there is no time when spacetime doesn't exist. There is no transcendent "hypertime" due to all times being part of spacetime; but spacetime has nonetheless a temporal existence, about which I can coherently "make comments". However, it might be better to say that spacetime exists with time rather than in time. Analogously, spacetime cannot properly be said to exist in space (unless there is a >3D hyperspace which includes 3D space).

[Pattern-chaser]

No matter whether or not its temporal dimension is finite, spacetime has always existed and will always exist, because there wasn't and couldn't have been any time in the past when spacetime didn't exist, and there won't and couldn't be any time in the future when spacetime doesn't exist. That is, the notion of a pre- or post-spacetime time is self-contradictory.

This looks wrong to me. Spacetime contains/includes time, so referring to it as an apparently external thing is wrong. Spacetime exists, or has existence. But we can't say that spacetime has always existed, because that takes time outside of spacetime. When you refer to spacetime as a thing, which is perfectly valid, you can make no comment about its chronic existence; it doesn't make sense (to me). How can or could there be a "time in the past", "when spacetime didn't exist"???

To say that spacetime has always existed is to say that it exists at all times, which means that there is no time when spacetime doesn't exist.

OK...

There is no transcendent "hypertime" due to all times being part of spacetime; but spacetime has nonetheless a temporal existence, about which I can coherently "make comments".

No. Spacetime has "existence", of course, but spacetime has no "temporal" existence. There is no time outside spacetime because spacetime contains its own time dimension.



Ah! Wait a minute! I've been thinking of "spacetime" as "the spacetime universe". Is that what you mean, or is it your intention to refer to spacetime as a 4D extension of our concept of 'space', within which the spacetime universe exists? If so, then it's difficult to see how, and in what way, spacetime exists at all. Do 3D Cartesian axes exist, or are they just a conceptual framework on which we hang stuff? I tend to the latter, I think.

[Consul]

There is no transcendent "hypertime" due to all times being part of spacetime; but spacetime has nonetheless a temporal existence, about which I can coherently "make comments".

No. Spacetime has "existence", of course, but spacetime has no "temporal" existence. There is no time outside spacetime because spacetime contains its own time dimension.

Right, but it does have a temporal existence by having a temporal dimension and temporal parts.

Ah! Wait a minute! I've been thinking of "spacetime" as "the spacetime universe". Is that what you mean, or is it your intention to refer to spacetime as a 4D extension of our concept of 'space', within which the spacetime universe exists? If so, then it's difficult to see how, and in what way, spacetime exists at all. Do 3D Cartesian axes exist, or are they just a conceptual framework on which we hang stuff? I tend to the latter, I think.

By "spacetime" I mean "the spacetime universe" ("the spatiotemporally extended material universe") with its three spatial dimensions and its one temporal dimension.

[Consul]

By "spacetime" I mean "the spacetime universe" ("the spatiotemporally extended material universe") with its three spatial dimensions and its one temporal dimension.

So what I mean is "MEST" = "the matter-energy-space-time world".

The OED defines "eternal" as "infinite in past and future duration; without beginning or end; that always has existed and always will exist."

As far as MEST as a whole is concerned, it has always (at all times) existed and will always (at all times) exist, even if it is not the case that it is "infinite in past and future duration, without beginning or end." That is, even if MEST has a temporal boundary in the past and the future, there was never a time beyond its boundary in the past when it didn't exist, and there will never be a time beyond its boundary in the future when it doesn't exist.

[Pattern-chaser]

By "spacetime" I mean "the spacetime universe" ("the spatiotemporally extended material universe") with its three spatial dimensions and its one temporal dimension.

So what I mean is "MEST" = "the matter-energy-space-time world".

The OED defines "eternal" as "infinite in past and future duration; without beginning or end; that always has existed and always will exist."

As far as MEST as a whole is concerned, it has always (at all times) existed and will always (at all times) exist, even if it is not the case that it is "infinite in past and future duration, without beginning or end." That is, even if MEST has a temporal boundary in the past and the future, there was never a time beyond its boundary in the past when it didn't exist, and there will never be a time beyond its boundary in the future when it doesn't exist.

The MEST has a temporal dimension. Therefore, it has a start and (presumably) an end. If we imagine a time axis to our graph, there will be points on that axis that come before the birth of the MEST, and other points beyond its end. The MEST has not "always (at all times) existed"; those points on the time-axis say otherwise. Ditto time beyond the end of MEST.

The meaning of time outside MEST's time dimension is dubious, admittedly. But time, like distance, is a nothing; it's just a yardstick of our invention, a measurement-standard that allows us to make and use measurements of aspects/attributes of the MEST (or something else, if there is, or can be, something else).

[Belindi]

By "spacetime" I mean "the spacetime universe" ("the spatiotemporally extended material universe") with its three spatial dimensions and its one temporal dimension.

So what I mean is "MEST" = "the matter-energy-space-time world".

The OED defines "eternal" as "infinite in past and future duration; without beginning or end; that always has existed and always will exist."

As far as MEST as a whole is concerned, it has always (at all times) existed and will always (at all times) exist, even if it is not the case that it is "infinite in past and future duration, without beginning or end." That is, even if MEST has a temporal boundary in the past and the future, there was never a time beyond its boundary in the past when it didn't exist, and there will never be a time beyond its boundary in the future when it doesn't exist.

Eternity is true and MEST (and all Mest's myriad creatures) is true. Eternity and MEST are aspects of nature. There may be yet more aspects of nature for all we can know.

[Consul]

The MEST has a temporal dimension. Therefore, it has a start and (presumably) an end. If we imagine a time axis to our graph, there will be points on that axis that come before the birth of the MEST, and other points beyond its end. The MEST has not "always (at all times) existed"; those points on the time-axis say otherwise. Ditto time beyond the end of MEST.

The meaning of time outside MEST's time dimension is dubious, admittedly. But time, like distance, is a nothing; it's just a yardstick of our invention, a measurement-standard that allows us to make and use measurements of aspects/attributes of the MEST (or something else, if there is, or can be, something else).

Speaking of time (or space) outside or beyond MEST isn't just "dubious", it's nonsensical—no matter whether its temporal (or spatial) dimension is finite or infinite, since MEST contains all times (and places). Of course, if the Big Bang isn't the absolute beginning of MEST as a whole, but just a local event in MEST, then its temporal (and spatial) dimension doesn't begin with the Big Bang, in which case there is pre-BB time (and pre-BB space). But even if there is, there can be no trans-MEST time (or trans-MEST space); and it is still true that MEST has always (at all past times) existed and will always (at all future times) exist, since there can be no trans-MEST time when MEST doesn't exist.

[value]

Philosopher Dr. Bernardo Kastrup on iai.tv: Materialism will be mocked.

Despite decades of space exploration, it has never been tested whether Earth life, including microbes, plants, and animals, can remain alive at distances beyond the Moon. That simple fact raises a question: why has that remained unexplored?

The answer seems to be found in the stubborn cultural belief in materialism, combined with the assumption that life is independent of the solar system because humans have been culturally ingrained through films such as Star Trek to believe that they will travel through the cosmos as independent biochemical bundles of matter.

NGC about 'the science of Star Trek like space travel' (2016)

Star-Trek-Hi-Res-Cover.jpg (73.34 KiB) Viewed 780 times

Perplexity.AI concluded that "there is currently no evidence to suggest that life can remain alive independent of a fundamental energy source in the solar system. Currently, there are no known factors in the solar system or the universe aside from neutrinos that could potentially provide the fundamental energy required for life to be possible." This fact highlights the importance of energy to make life possible and the specificity of the energy required for life's specific directional energetic organizing behavior.

Despite this fact, humans are confidently being sent to Mars without ever having tested whether earth life, including microbes, plants, and animals, can remain alive at a further distance than the Moon. This fundamental negligence to test whether earth life can remain alive deeper in space before investing trillions of USD to prepare for sending humans to Mars might provide a case for groundbreaking evidence that materialism has been a fundamental mistake of humanity.

Furthermore, there is a risk that Earth life forms may not survive on Mars through neutrino energy due to the difference in distance between Mars and the Sun compared to the distance between Earth and the Sun. Neutrinos are very weakly interacting particles, and their interactions with matter are largely dependent on distance. As the distance between the source of neutrinos (in this case, the Sun) and the recipient (Earth or Mars) changes, the number of neutrinos that interact with matter changes as well.

If Earth life is indeed bound to a region around the Sun, that could have profound implications for the understanding of life, consciousness, and the ambitions to explore the cosmos.

The fact that it was never tested whether Earth life can remain alive in space at a further distance than the Moon before investing trillions of USD to prepare for sending humans to Mars might provide a case for groundbreaking evidence that materialism has been a fundamental mistake of humanity.

[value]

In the book In It Together by the founder of onlinephilosophyclub.com it seems to be argued that materialism is linked to greed and a money-addicted culture. This might help explain why humanity might have a difficulty to depart from materialism.

"Consider our greed, our overindulgence, our money-addicted materialism and our gluttony. These are various symptoms and varying words for a shared fundamental quality, call it what you will. Whatever you call it, it is by itself as problematic as the problems it seems to cause."

[Consul]

Philosopher Dr. Bernardo Kastrup on iai. tv: "Materialism will be mocked".

"Because materialism cannot explain experience…" – B. Kastrup

Source: https:// iai. tv/articles/every-generation-scorns-the-picture-of-reality-which-came-before-auid-1349

Can antimaterialism explain experience?!

[value]

I am unable to defend the position of Bernardo Kastrup, however, antimaterialism is still based on the idea of materialism. At question is: what is reality or how can it be explained? When materialism is invalid then that does not imply that an 'opposite' would need to be the case.

The notion that materialism considers experience to be a product of the material world is an aspect that I have been questioning myself.

An example of a materialist on this forum:

I'm an atheist.

So I'm a physicalist. I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes.

1. Do you believe in intrinsic existence without mind?
2. Do you believe that mind has a cause within the scope of physical reality?

Yes and yes. I'm a realist and a physicalist (aka "materialist").

What would be your defence of materialism in the face of the critique by Bernardo Kastrup? Your comment makes it appear that you would have to agree with him that materialism cannot explain experience. Is that correct?

p.s. when you would buy the book In It Together for $4.99 you would become an admin on the forum so that you can post links and edit posts.

[Pattern-chaser]

Despite this fact, humans are confidently being sent to Mars without ever having tested whether earth life, including microbes, plants, and animals, can remain alive at a further distance than the Moon.

There are many more assumptions and suppositions associated with space exploration than just this one. Many, many, more.

[value]

Despite decades of space exploration, it has never been tested whether Earth life, including microbes, plants, and animals, can remain alive at distances beyond the Moon. That simple fact raises a question: why has that remained unexplored?

There are many more assumptions and suppositions associated with space exploration than just this one. Many, many, more.

Wouldn't you agree that it should have been the first thing to test? And doesn't it appear to be a cultural belief in materialism that is the cause of the negligence?