Philosophy Now Forum

MATERIALISM FALSIFIED AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

After the Higgs Boson was eventually discovered at the Large Hadron Collider mass was found to be constructed from energy arising paradoxically
from massless particles which interacted with each other. The physicists kept on dividing till eventually there was nothing left to divide no more
No longer therefore could atoms be regarded as the fundamental building blocks of matter because matter now no longer existed or indeed had
ever existed. What is a game changer here is not an alternative to materialism for that already exists in idealism. But is a philosophical position
rather than a scientific one so is not subject to potential falsification. The Higgs discovery is and so it is proof that physical reality is an illusion

Which means that every thing we perceive is false. One could in theory make an argument for the perception of materialism [ as opposed to the
actuality of it ] And though it is true that we do perceive our environment as fundamentally physical it actually is not no matter how convincing
the illusion is. Our brains are remarkably adept at fooling us into making us think that what we experience is real. So the Exclusion Principle for
example absolutely for bids physical contact between any objects any where in the entire Universe. The illusion that we actually do experience
touch is so powerful it is never questioned outside of quantum mechanics [ due to ignorance of the Exclusion so is understandable but even so ]

The supreme irony here is that our brains them selves are capable of being reduced to nothing just like everything in the known Universe. And
yet they construct the artificial reality of materialism as a coping mechanism for survival. But while this may be required from an evolutionary
perspective it is not so from an intellectual one. And it would admittedly be difficult to experience reality in one format whilst simultaneously
thinking of it in an other. But that does not alter the fact how ever that physical reality is not a reality as such but instead a complete illusion

Although this does provide a reason as to why the Universe came from nothing as a valid hypothesis for if everything can be reduced to it then
it is not necessary for anything other than it to exist as the precursor for anything following it. For it used to be the answer to this question of
how can something come from nothing ? was that there was no such thing as nothing. Now how ever it should be that there is no such thing as
something. Now ever since Max Planck discovered the existence of quanta back in 1900 our understanding of reality at its most basic level has
been tested to breaking point. But the Higgs discovery suggests that the requirement of something to be logically understood in order for it to
be true cannot no longer apply [ the impossibility of independently measuring quantum fluctuations back in the first half of the last century ]

It is not going to get any easier. If all matter is an illusion then that ultimately means that our own physical existence is an illusion also. This is
pushing counter intuition to its limit. For it means that nothing at all exists. The entire Universe is but a construct of our mind which itself is a
construct of quantum potentiality. This means that nothing can exist independent of it being perceived that then begs the question of whether
any thing existed before humans [ or indeed any conscious beings for that matter ] perceived of it. So it sounds ridiculous but quantum theory
has been falsified so this question is not at all nonsensical. And besides subjective interpretation of objective reality is of no consequence here
What matters is whether something is true or not. Everything else is incidental. Although because we exist in the classical world and so not the
quantum one then we will continue to use the language of it in spite of the falsification of materialism. Because the illusion of physicality is so
convincing and necessary that it is too counter intuitive to just deny it in spite of the Higgs discovery. But an illusion no matter how convincing
it is still remains just that. The falsification of materialism has made reality far much more stranger and it might then get to a point where we
stop trying to understand it altogether and just accept it instead. As the complexity required to analyse it is just simply way beyond our ability

I don't see why the discovery of Higgs Boson falsifies materialism. There's a good case for arguing that the fundamental constituents are not atomos as Democritus suggested 2500 years ago, but few physicists believe that anyway. As I understand it, Higgs Boson is a product of the Higgs Field. It is the field rather than the boson that imbues matter with mass, basically the field permeates all of space and matter particles have to move through it and the field creates drag; bear in mind that atoms are composed of electrons and quarks which are tumbling over each other at up 10% of the speed of light. Matter itself is thought by some physicists to be products of quantum fields, in effect whirlpools for matter (Fermions) and waves for force (Boson). If so, then matter is very different to how we perceive it, but it isn't illusory.

surreptitious57 wrote:atoms be regarded as the fundamental building blocks of matter. Because matter now no longer existed or indeed had ever existed

What excatly causes matter to disappear? If I kick you in the balls, then it hurts, because you and I and the rest of reality consist of matter.

Surreptitious57, great post, it's well written and shows how reality will be accepted to exist by future intelligence. This view is one I have gladly accepted, as it does away with almost all of the paradoxes created by our brains conceptual applications, and projections.

Higgs exists, so he discovers something that proves that Higgs doesn't exist, that he is an illusion? If Higgs is not a physical reality, his discovery is an illusion, too, and should be denied.

Conde Lucanor wrote:Higgs exists, so he discovers something that proves that Higgs doesn't exist, that he is an illusion? If Higgs is not a physical reality, his discovery is an illusion, too, and should be denied.

Higgs was the man who first proposed the theory that that explained how particles obtained their mass. As far as I am aware he took no part in the actual discovery. I also think that he is still alive, but quite elderly. So yes, he actually exists.

The point this thread is making, is not that mass, or physical attributes don't exist, but that they exist as a result of our mental interpretation of what does exist objectively, which is not physical mass, but the forces by which these concepts are made possible. So the resistance between positive and negative energy, gives the impression that physical objects are present, but in reality what is present is the concentration or strength of energetic forces.

It can be made to sound like mystic fantasy, but anyone that really understands the ideas that support it, can see it as a necessary and inevitable solution to the paradoxical notion of matter.

Ginkgo wrote:

Conde Lucanor wrote:Higgs exists, so he discovers something that proves that Higgs doesn't exist, that he is an illusion? If Higgs is not a physical reality, his discovery is an illusion, too, and should be denied.

Higgs was the man who first proposed the theory that that explained how particles obtained their mass. As far as I am aware he took no part in the actual discovery.

By the same criteria, we would have to say that neither Newton, nor Einstein, took part in discovering laws of physics.

Ginkgo wrote:I also think that he is still alive, but quite elderly. So yes, he actually exists.

I personally never doubted it. But I guess that if one holds as truth what is being proposed in this thread, he has to be considered a mere illusion.

James Markham wrote:The point this thread is making, is not that mass, or physical attributes don't exist,

You should read the thread more carefully:

Because matter now no longer existed or indeed had ever existed.

it is absolute proof that physical reality is an illusion

everything we perceive is false.

Our brains are remarkably adept at fooling us into making us think that what we experience is real.

the fact however that physical reality is not a reality at all but a complete illusion

our own physical existence is an illusion too

James Markham wrote:but that they exist as a result of our mental interpretation of what does exist objectively,

The only interpretation that can be given of this sentence is that physical objects are apprehended in our minds subjectively, but that's not what this thread is particularly advocating for. Actually it's advocating for matter or physical reality not being existent objectively, but only subjectively. Pure old idealism.

James Markham wrote:...what does exist objectively, which is not physical mass, but the forces by which these concepts are made possible.

Again, that is not what this thread is proposing. Buy anyway, the existence of massless entities in the universe does not constitute an argument for the non-existence of mass. As far as I know, it is still there in Einstein's formula.

James Markham wrote:So the resistance between positive and negative energy, gives the impression that physical objects are present, but in reality what is present is the concentration or strength of energetic forces.

It can be made to sound like mystic fantasy, but anyone that really understands the ideas that support it, can see it as a necessary and inevitable solution to the paradoxical notion of matter.

It is not "made to sound like". It is mystic fantasy. Of course, anyone that really understand the ideas that support the virgin birth of Jesus or the almighty power of Zeus, can see it as a necessary and inevitable solution to the paradoxical notion of the supernatural.

Conde, you sound very sure of your position in regards to this question, so maybe you will be the first person able to give me a rational answer to how matter popped into existence out of nothing, and how given a certain degree of force it can pop back out?

James Markham wrote:Conde, you sound very sure of your position in regards to this question, so maybe you will be the first person able to give me a rational answer to how matter popped into existence out of nothing, and how given a certain degree of force it can pop back out?

Well...the Law of Conservation, developed by Lavoisier and refined by Einstein, states that matter and energy cannot be created, nor destroyed, nor they are interchangeable. Leaving physicists aside, a more interesting question would be: how do you explain rationally the existence of nothingness, since you seem to be pretty sure it is "something" and other things come out of it.

Conde, so that's a no to my question, deflected with a question of your own. You have no idea how mass can exist, and your only belief in it is based on your mental interpretation of what your senses detect. Do you at least understand that the two things are different? The ideas your mind creates are different to that which stimulates your creation of concepts, for instance, you don't percieve the world as a collection of interacting energetic quanta, which is actually what it is.

James Markham wrote:You have no idea how mass can exist, and your only belief in it is based on your mental interpretation of what your senses detect.

That rather neatly sums up the difference between rationalism and empiricism. Any 'mental interpretation' is basically metaphysics unless or until it makes claims that can be tested and shown to have some predictable effect on the physical (strictly speaking, phenomenal) world.

James Markham wrote:The ideas your mind creates are different to that which stimulates your creation of concepts, for instance, you don't percieve the world as a collection of interacting energetic quanta, which is actually what it is.

Well, yes. But with the understanding that 'energetic quanta' are also ideas that minds (Max Planck's in particular) have created. Quanta, as I understand them, are basically the differences in energy levels necessary to change the orbits of electrons, as such they are empirically verifiable, but beyond that, no one knows what they actually are. Perturbations in quantum fields is popular with those in the know, whatever that means.

James Markham wrote:Conde, so that's a no to my question, deflected with a question of your own.

I was actually pointing at the fallacy in your loaded question (how matter popped into existence out of nothing), which to be answered would need to take for granted a couple of things:

1) That matter popped into existence. But you don't know that matter popped into existence and it would defy a known physical law (the Law of Conservation).

2) That nothingness exists. But that would be a contradiction in terms.

In summary, what you're asking for is an explanation for the First Cause, without proving first that a First Cause is necessary. We can argue about the cosmological argument embedded in your question, but where is then all the science falsifiability stuff that was supposed to be the base of this thread?

James Markham wrote:You have no idea how mass can exist,

Again, you seem to be confusing the question of how can something begin to exist, and how can its existence be objectively explained. Actually, this thread started with the statement that the Higgs boson was discovered, and by that it means that it has been proved to have objective existence, it is not an illusion, and even more than a theoretical possibility. It means that anyone, at any time, will find it again and will say: "eureka, it exists". But so are other particles, to which the boson is related to, all of which are also known to be existent (fermions, for example, typically associated with matter). All of this constitutes a "model of everything" that does not support the idea that matter of physical reality does not exist.

James Markham wrote:and your only belief in it (mass) is based on your mental interpretation of what your senses detect.

Yes, my senses detect mass and the whole physical world. If I only had that (my sense perceptions and its mental representations), there wouldn't be good chances of asserting with extreme confidence that mass exists objectively, outside of my mind, independently of the subjects, and that it can be discovered and its behavior predicted consistently, by anyone, at any time. Fortunately, we humans are capable of going beyond our sense perceptions and experience the world (subjectively) as the objective reality it actually is. There are tools and methods to assess that reality, reach conclusions about it, assert fundamental laws, develop equations, etc., even for those things that are not accesible through simple observation. So, knowledge is not produced by sensory experience alone, but that's a whole lot different from assuming that sensory experience is illusory.

James Markham wrote:Do you at least understand that the two things are different? The ideas your mind creates are different to that which stimulates your creation of concepts, for instance, you don't percieve the world as a collection of interacting energetic quanta, which is actually what it is.

That seems to advocate for mental representations of the world not being the world itself, which I agree, independently of what we think that world is. But that goes against this statement: "nothing can exist independent of it being perceived", which is actually supporting the idea that the world is subsumed in some sort of universal mind. It's pure old idealism, disguised as science.

Content replaced by a subsequent post.