Physicalism or materialism. The idea that everything there is arises from physical matter. If true would mean there is no God or Free Will, no immortal soul either.

Seems to be what most of academia bases their world view on and the frame work in which most Science is done.

Often challenged by Dualism and Idealism but only by a loud fringe minority.

I’ve heard pan-psychicism is proving quite the challenge, but I hear that from people who believe crystals can cure autism

I hear that “Oh actually the science is moving away from materialism” as well, but that seems to be more crystal talk as well.

So lemme ask science instead of google.

Any reason to doubt physicalism? Is there anything in science that says “Huh well that seems to not have any basis in the physical at all and yet it exists”

Edit: I have heard of the Essentia Foundation and Bernado Kastrup but since it’s endorsed by Deepak Chopra I’m not sure I can trust it

  • GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    It sounds like you’re trying to use the wrong tool, though. Science is a great system for learning about the observable universe, but less so for other things. To put it another way, science is great for telling you how, philosophy is great for exploring why.

      • reliv3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        Science isn’t actually “physicalist”. In fact one major theory in science, Quantum Mechanics, would probably challenge physicalism since quantum suggests that there will always be unknowable physical quantities regarding any given particle of matter. It also suggests that particles of matter (and light) must interact with an observer in order to exist in a state where some physical quantities can be known; else these particles exist only in an exotic state of indefinite probalistic fluctuations.

        I must say though, even though quantum challenges physicalism, quantum’s model of the universe truly rejects the possibility of any omniscient entity. Omniscience requires the ability to know everything about the universe and quantum suggests that this is in fact impossible; therefore a truly omniscient god would be impossible. It was for this reason that god-fearing Albert Einstein rejected quantum mechanics up until his death bed.

        • QueenHawlSera@sh.itjust.worksOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          It also suggests that particles of matter (and light) must interact with an observer in order to exist in a state where some physical quantities can be known; else these particles exist only in an exotic state of indefinite probalistic fluctuations.

          That is not how the Dual Slit works

            • QueenHawlSera@sh.itjust.worksOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              To be honest, I can’t, I don’t understand it.

              But I do know that “Oh reality isn’t set in stone until you look at it.” is a common misunderstanding propped up by peddlers of “Quantum Mysticism”

              • reliv3@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                Not trying to be rude or anything; but It’s curious that you can claim certainty about a complex element of quantum mechanics; yet admit to not being able to model the basic phenomenon of light traveling through a dual slit.

                  • reliv3@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    9 hours ago

                    I doubt you know that. Modeling matter and photons as a non-deterministic wave function is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics. If this has been debunked, then quantum mechanics would have been debunked.

                    The bottom line here is you are incorrect. The question is whether you’re willing to update your viewpoint or not. But that’s for you to decide.

                    I think this might be where my role ends as the random internet guy trying to help you realize the error in being overly confident about a concept you clearly know little about.