/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3396481]

I think we all agree that physicalism is true.

Thus even concepts are physical objects (certain configurations of matter in the human brain).

Thus moral concepts are physical objects too. Is it reasonable to say that two mutually exclusive claims about the same object can both be right? No it isn't.

Thus moral relativism is false.

[Anonymous No.3396484]

> I think we all agree that physicalism is true.
I think we all agree your a troll that deserves death

[Anonymous No.3396486]

>>3396484

We are on /sci/ here. You got any evidence for non-physical stuff?

No?

Then gtfo

[Anonymous No.3396488]

>>3396481
you don't seem to understand physicalism, or morality.

[Anonymous No.3396491]

>>3396488

According to physicalism every entity in existence is a phsyical object.

[Anonymous No.3396522]

Let S be the set of all possible universal configurations. Then the amount of information that can be stored in the universe is |S|. But the cardinality of the power set of S is strictly larger than S, which means no 1-to-1 correspondence exists between S and its power set.

Thus each subset of S cannot be associated with a physical object, because the universe cannot vary enough to contain them all.

Therefore physicalism (as you have defined it) is false.

[Anonymous No.3396535]

Morality is essentially a meaningless abstraction. Abstractions don't actually exist. Morality is just a primitive justification for our natural drives, which are intended to perpetuate our genes. Things which perpetuate the geneline=good, things that hinder it's perpetuation =bad.

Also you sound like an asshole since you asked a question in >>3396486 and then out-of-hand assumed an answer without even giving anyone a chance to provide a response. Also you completely misinterpreted his post to arrogantly mouth off.

Finally, I disagree with your very first statement. The notion of materialism is not falsifiable, and therefore not scientific. Therefore, it has nothing other then logical backing. The same can be said for crystal waving.

[Anonymous No.3396537]

>>3396522

But possibility =/= existing entity.

[Anonymous No.3396547]

>>3396535
>The notion of materialism is not falsifiable

Sure it is. Demonstrate that something exists that isn't material.

[Anonymous No.3396552]

>>3396537
You missed the point. OP's quote is:
>even concepts are physical objects

Every subset of S is a concept, so under his assertion, it must correspond with a physical object. But the universe cannot contain all of them.

[Anonymous No.3396554]

>>3396535
>Morality is essentially a meaningless abstraction.

How about we stop saying "morality" then and instead talk about "the concept of well being/prosperity/flourishing of sentient creatures"?

[Anonymous No.3396555]

>>3396547

>>Sure it is. Demonstrate that something exists that isn't material.

Or the other way: Demonstrate that something IS material.

You're making the claim, it's your responsibility to provide the evidence.

[Anonymous No.3396558]

>>3396552
>Every subset of S is a concept

A concept can not exist if there isn't somebody or something that conceives it. Just like knowledge can not exist without somebody who possesses it.

You are talking about possible concepts that in principle could exist but, for the reasons you mentioned, can not exist all at the same time.

[Anonymous No.3396560]

>>3396554

Because those are all abstractions as well, and therefore no different.

[Anonymous No.3396562]

>>3396555

Everything made out of matter is material.

A bowling ball is made out of matter - therefore material objects exist.

[Anonymous No.3396566]

>>3396560

You are saying that the concept of well being is meaningless?

So when somebody says "I feel good" he is talking nonsense?

[Anonymous No.3396568]

>>3396562

Let me rephrase this. Prove that Materialism more accurately represents reality then Idealism.

The thing is that no matter which is correct, you'd get the same results. Therefore neither of the two are falsifiable.

[Anonymous No.3396570]

>>3396558
You're veering from OP's post. I'm arguing against OP, not your new argument.

[Anonymous No.3396575]

The reality of physicalism does not obviously entail the reality of all valuation. See for example tarski on the undefineability of truth. Predicates are slippery fucks.

[Anonymous No.3396578]

moral relativism does not challenge the existence of morals (using ops definitions) but their usefulness in specific envirionments

-> there are potentially as many moral systems as there are brains, which may or may not be useful for a given system

but if you insist on moral absolutism, all but maybe one of them have to be false
-> even worse

[Anonymous No.3396581]

>>3396566

The notions of absolute morals/"well being" are the same. What makes one person feel good makes another person feel bad, like when someone assaults someone in revenge.

Looking at it simply from the perspective of what makes a being feel good or bad makes moral relativism even simpler to come to.

[Anonymous No.3396582]

>>3396568

According to idealism everything is mental, i.e. part of a mind.

It can not all be part of the same mind because this mind would be necessarily my own (for you your own) and since things happen to us that we perceive as being novel (like learning a new language or having sex for the first time) it makes no sense to say that they are already part of our mental framework. If we would do this we would turn the term "mental" into an arcane, supernatural concept that basically has no known limitations.

Thus either there is an outside world that isn't itself based on a mental activity or the outside world and we in it are part of somebody else's mental activity.

Who's? We don't know. Do we have any reason to assume such a mind exists? Nope.

All we need now is Ockhams razor and we are done.

[Anonymous No.3396627]

>>3396581

I am arguing that the perspective itself is a physical object about which one can, in principle, learn facts like one does with any other object.

Theoretically this would entail that we could know more about somebody's emotional framework than the person itself. We could tell them that they are mistaken about what they think makes them happy as we do with the fictional character Ebenezer Scrooge. We all know from the beginning that Scrooge's own assessment of what makes him happy is just based on a lack of knowledge about himself.

You say that somebody may profit from the misery of somebody else. To me this just sounds like Scrooge saying that he doesn't enjoy the company of others. I think the person who thinks is better off harming somebody else is mistaken. He lacks knowledge about himself and the other person. Because if he would have enough knowledge about the other person he would share his emotions just like anticipating the upcoming parts of a familiar song and thus would have empathy.

I think empathy is nothing more than a form of knowledge of facts about the mental states of other creatures. Moral facts.

[Anonymous No.3396634]

>>3396627

[Anonymous No.3396652]

/thread