tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3736365491401043672.post5037185816892502367..comments2024-01-16T09:31:45.073-04:00Comments on Anderson Brown's Philosophy Blog: Materialism and the Two Existential QuestionsAnderson Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18358008464457746997noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3736365491401043672.post-75177004446123133112011-02-11T21:36:50.982-04:002011-02-11T21:36:50.982-04:00This post espouses some pretty interesting ideas. ...This post espouses some pretty interesting ideas. I had a few thoughts on it that might be worth bringing up. (Apologies if they're mentioned elsewhere; I haven't quite had the time to keep up as much with your blog as I'd like to lately.)<br /><br />Materalism in its original form (or that presented by the Enlightenment philosophers even) is undoubtedly a problematic philosophy in the light of modern physics. I am not sure whether work has been done to extend it into the framework of modern theoretical physics; perhaps it can, but I cannot see a convincing argument at hand. Your own thesis that any universe that can sustain intelligent/rational beings is naturally ordered is a very empirical one, and probably the fairest safe conclusion.<br /><br />It is certainly my view, and perhaps that of others, that the boundaries between theoretical physics, mathematics, and philosophy (and some would even say computer science) are becoming much more blurred these days. The gradually forming view that the universe has evolved from a single homogeneous entity into a complex structured form by the means of symmetry breaking is an appealing one in some ways. The fact that matter, the four fundamental force fields, etc. have condensed, so to speak, out of nowhere, may suggest that the truest reality lies in no more than abstract mathematical laws and symmetries. The interpretation and consequences of such laws can then become quite arbitrary, perhaps even subjective to intelligent beings. Even at the evidently non-fundamental (truly fundamental) level of quantum mechanics the definition of what "exists" is quite contentious. Physics suggest that the lack of knowledge of an "absolute" reality is inherent to the universe, in fact. Then there is the question of whether a Theory of Everything, existing, is even attainable to knowledge.<br /><br />I'll leave the implications of this and the mind-body problem aside for now, as a lot could be said about it. Suffice to say, the operation of the brain (and thus mind) is likely less mechanistic that we once thought. Roger Penrose has expressed interesting thoughts and theories on this subject in the past.Noldorinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08729604801591094046noreply@blogger.com