/lit/ - Literature

>>20681584
I'm hesitant to recommend this one because people take it the wrong way. They aren't familiar with philosophy of science and think it totally cripples physicalism.

I don't think it does. It's arguments on the hard problem show how it would be impossible to get a satisfactory answer for why experience is the way it is out of scientific models (which are themselves something we experience), even if physicalism was true.

That said, the early parts are an excellent primer on the problems with the physicalists ontology every student in the West is taught from grade school on, and how you can have science without that ontology (indeed, because scientists think about this stuff more, many are idealists or dualists, or just as often ontological agnostics).

The ontology it presents seems ad hoc and is less than convincing but it is still a great intro to problems with contemporary models. All the chapters are free peer reviewed papers so you can just search them. The first ones are the best.

Wilczek's The Lightness of Being is far from entry level of you don't know QFT and QCD, and less about these issues, but shows how increasingly physicists see nature as fundementaly informational or mathematical, not "physical." For quarks he says, "the it is the bit."

>>20603696
Every chapter of this book is available as a peer reviewed paper. It lays out all the major problems with physicalism as an ontology. Unfortunately, the idealist ontology is puts forth is less than convincing.

The Routledge Introduction to Metaphysics is great for a deeper dive here.

>>20544582
Agree 100%. There are also some very large flaws in physicalism as a whole that pic related points out very well. Unfortunately, the ontology he puts forth to replace physicalism isn't super convincing, but the critiques are very solid, if not super original.

I feel like every natural sciences student should be forced to read the first few chapters of this, The Case Against Reality, and a summary of Hemple's Dilemma. It would help with forming a replacement immensely.

>>20117996
Ah fuck, you said 21st.

There is tons of good stuff but it's mostly interdisciplinary. Chaos theory, information theory, complexity, evolutionary epistemology, and semiotics are the big movers I see now.

Evolutionary epistemology is a giant pragmatist cope and the big thing going on now is efforts to replace it with semiotics and dialectical (inspired by Hegel but separated from Absolute Idealism and formalized, for semiotics it's abandoning Sausser, who the Continentals love, for Piercean tripartite semiotics because it works with science way better) on the one hand. On the other, side of the observer/observed epistemic cut, the big idea is symmetry (gauge invariance, etc.) This can also be represented by Pierces ideas of Firstness, Second less, and Thirdness.

The "big" books have already been written but history won't tell us which they are for another twenty years.

Deacon's connection of Shannon Entropy to Boltzmann Entropy in the formulation of a biosemiotics grounded in the physics instead of the humanities might price a big step.

Information ontology works will probably end up being remembered for giving us a new answer to the Hard Problem, but the dogma of physicalism is still so embedded that these are rejected out or hand right now.

Pic related doesn't have particularly new arguments but might get remembered long term for offering a very accessible but still analytically rigorous critique of physicalism.

>>20098078
I'm not an idealist, but this is a cogent, well supported argument for idealism that makes a lot of sense.

You will probably find a lot of worth here.

I had similar issues and have grown a lot in my faith, but I sort of had to do it on my own. I haven't found a theology that I found particularly compelling.

Somebody please tell me there is a contradiction of this. I've spent my whole life being an physicalists, to the point of trolling idealistfags and dualtards relentlessly and my entire ontology is crumbling.

Someone mentioned this guy in an argument and that he was a CERN physicist as proof he wouldn't have a dumbass take on quantum foundations. But I've read lots of sloppy as fuck "magical reality" type books by people with credentials.

This ended up being analytically tight though, to the extent that it is totally fucking with me. Have I been the bugman all along?