What is the basis for scientific materialism?

Materialism is the definition of Satanism. Thats where it comes from and why theistics are inclined to question science's beliefs and motives.

There is no wave particle duality. The particle is an illusion. The wave is real.

The curse on earth was the increase in density. God did not create the material world for souls. He created it as an anchor, a root system for Eden. We used to swim like fish, you me and Eve. Now we crawl through the mud. The temptations of flesh has nothing to do with sex. Temptations to worship the tabernacle, the space suit, the prison cells, the quarantine walls..

originally posted by: Prene
Materialism is the definition of Satanism. Thats where it comes from and why theistics are inclined to question science's beliefs and motives.

There is no wave particle duality. The particle is an illusion. The wave is real.

The curse on earth was the increase in density. God did not create the material world for souls. He created it as an anchor, a root system for Eden. We used to swim like fish, you me and Eve. Now we crawl through the mud. The temptations of flesh has nothing to do with sex. Temptations to worship the tabernacle, the space suit, the prison cells, the quarantine walls..

LOL

Satanism/Satan is an invention of Christianity. It means opponent, and was initially used to designate rival Christian sects. Over time it was applied to anything perceived as immoral/evil from Christian point of view.

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: Prene
Materialism is the definition of Satanism. Thats where it comes from and why theistics are inclined to question science's beliefs and motives.

There is no wave particle duality. The particle is an illusion. The wave is real.

The curse on earth was the increase in density. God did not create the material world for souls. He created it as an anchor, a root system for Eden. We used to swim like fish, you me and Eve. Now we crawl through the mud. The temptations of flesh has nothing to do with sex. Temptations to worship the tabernacle, the space suit, the prison cells, the quarantine walls..

LOL

Satanism/Satan is an invention of Christianity. It means opponent, and was initially used to designate rival Christian sects. Over time it was applied to anything perceived as immoral/evil from Christian point of view.

Why is it believers tend to be ignorant of what they believe in?

a reply to: neoholographic

If you want to know the basis then you need to look to the philosophy of materialism through european scientific revolution

I read a book called "the secret history of the world" by Johnathan black and in this book he outlines exactly the argument between a materialist view and a spirtualist / Idealist view that consciousness had manifested reality and not matter to mind
but mind to matter.

it was a really interesting book
and a good read and highlights the origins of this age old argument .

I am still quite on the fence however my own personal experience I am leaning more to a idealist view due to my own subjective experiences
and how my life has manifested through my own conscious effort to manifest my reality !

I am start to believe that consciousness does manifest reality

However I lean strongly with JBS Haldane and his quote from "possible worlds"
that there are many different ideologies and philosophies and religions which give pretty good explanations but nothing sufficient to explain the complex mystery that is the universe and reality. To think that we humans could provide an answer to cover something like the universe and existence.
I am quite happy to adhere to his idea that , its stranger than we can suppose!

Nothing we humans ever come up with will ever reduce the universe to a measurable , answer , law !

it will and always has been a mystery even to the greatest minds the universe can create

It's because all evidence points to that being the case. For example, if consciousness existed outside the body why does one's perception of the world, aka consciousness, change when the brain becomes damaged?

a reply to: neoholographic

How do you explain inertia?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
It's because all evidence points to that being the case. For example, if consciousness existed outside the body why does one's perception of the world, aka consciousness, change when the brain becomes damaged?

There's a theory about this called the "receiver hypothesis". It means the brain act as a receiver for the mind in a similar way to how radio's and antenna tv's act as receivers for wireless frequencies. But as Bernardo Kastrup has said it is part of a dualistic worldview (Matter and consciousness being different).

www.bernardokastrup.com...

The article and the comments below it are an interesting read.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: dug88

If you're a scientist, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. Half of what you say is incoherent babble. It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about because you posted links without any context. Scientist don't talk about exact truth. You just posted links and said go fish LOL. So I will go fishing for you since you don't understand what you posted. The fact is you destroyed your own argument with your blind posts. First you posted about Hogan and the holometer but you failed to read this from a link you posted.

The Fermilab holometer aims to test one interpretation of the so-called holographic principle, which states that the amount of information that can be crammed into a region of space and time, or spacetime, is proportional to the region's surface area. If the holographic principle holds, then the universe is a bit like a hologram, a two-dimensional structure that only appears to be three-dimensional. Proving that would be a big step toward formulating a quantum theory of spacetime and gravity. The principle implies a kind of information shortage that, according to the experimenters, makes it impossible to say precisely where an object is. The holometer aims to prove that position is inherently uncertain. Not everyone cheers the effort, however. A co-inventor of the holographic principle says the experiment has nothing to do with his brainchild. Others say they worry that the experiment will give quantum-gravity research a bad name.

science.sciencemag.org...

Again, this is a link you posted. One of the people that came up with the Holographic Universe says the experiment has nothing to do with his theory 3 years before hand and Hogan's experiment has nothing to do with recent papers like this:

From Planck Data to Planck Era: Observational Tests of Holographic Cosmology
Niayesh Afshordi, Claudio Corianò, Luigi Delle Rose, Elizabeth Gould, and Kostas Skenderis
Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 041301 – Published 27 January 2017

journals.aps.org...

Here's an article on the paper.

Professor Kostas Skenderis of Mathematical Sciences at the University of Southampton explains: "Imagine that everything you see, feel and hear in three dimensions (and your perception of time) in fact emanates from a flat two-dimensional field. The idea is similar to that of ordinary holograms where a three-dimensional image is encoded in a two-dimensional surface, such as in the hologram on a credit card. However, this time, the entire universe is encoded."

Although not an example with holographic properties, it could be thought of as rather like watching a 3-D film in a cinema. We see the pictures as having height, width and crucially, depth—when in fact it all originates from a flat 2-D screen. The difference, in our 3-D universe, is that we can touch objects and the 'projection' is 'real' from our perspective.

In recent decades, advances in telescopes and sensing equipment have allowed scientists to detect a vast amount of data hidden in the 'white noise' or microwaves (partly responsible for the random black and white dots you see on an un-tuned TV) left over from the moment the universe was created. Using this information, the team were able to make complex comparisons between networks of features in the data and quantum field theory. They found that some of the simplest quantum field theories could explain nearly all cosmological observations of the early universe.

Professor Skenderis comments: "Holography is a huge leap forward in the way we think about the structure and creation of the universe. Einstein's theory of general relativity explains almost everything large scale in the universe very well, but starts to unravel when examining its origins and mechanisms at quantum level. Scientists have been working for decades to combine Einstein's theory of gravity and quantum theory. Some believe the concept of a holographic universe has the potential to reconcile the two. I hope our research takes us another step towards this."

phys.org...

This is very important and could actually point to data that may have given birth to our universe.

You found some articles about Hogan and the Holometer but I haven't mentioned Hogan. I talked about Hoof't and Susskind. The Holometer has nothing to do with anything I've posted. This is why you just blindly posted without any context. Here's what Physicist I have posted said about the Holometer years before Hogan's experiment started.

Ralph Bousso:

But some experts on the holographic principle think the experiment is completely off-target. “There is no relationship between the argument [Hogan] is making and the holographic principle,” Bousso says. “None whatsoever. Zero.” The problem lies not in Hogan’s interpretation of the uncertainty relationship, but rather in “the first step of his analysis,” Bousso contends.

Bousso notes that a premise of special relativity called Lorentz invariance says the rules of physics should be the same for all observers, regardless of how they are moving relative to one another. The holographic principle maintains Lorentz invariance, Bousso says. But Hogan’s uncertainty formula does not, he argues: An observer standing in the lab and another zipping past would not agree on how much an interferometer’s beam splitter jitters. So Hogan’s uncertainty relationship cannot follow from the holographic principle, Bousso argues.

The experiment can do no good in testing the holographic principle, Bousso says, but running it could do plenty of harm. The holometer has garnered an inordinate amount of attention in the blogosphere and in press accounts, he says, raising unrealistic expectations. “They’re not going to have a signal and then there is going to be a backlash saying that the holographic principle isn’t valid, and we’ll look like we’re on the defensive,” Bousso says. “That’s why I’m trying to get the word out [that the experiment won’t test the principle] without appearing to make excuses.”

Susskind:

Not everyone cheers the effort, however. In fact, Leonard Susskind, a theorist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, and co-inventor of the holographic principle, says the experiment has nothing to do with his brainchild. “The idea that this tests anything of interest is silly,” he says, before refusing to elaborate and abruptly hanging up the phone.

www.math.columbia.edu...

Please, stop blindly posting things you don't understand. This way I don't have to dig through your links because you haven't read them. This way you can post a link then add some interesting comments on the links instead of incoherent babble.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Alright well if I just speak in incoherent babble maybe this person's long and rambling explanation of a material universe would be more to your liking.

a reply to: dug88

You need to

There's no evidence to support an objective material reality. Why are you now posting a thread that's in the Philosophy & Metaphysics forum? They put it in that forum for a reason. The post is talking about their philosophy and doesn't provide ANY scientific evidence to support materialism. Did you even read what was said?

So where does that leave us? Our current situation is that we appear to be experiencing a material world, and we learn about this world through sense experiences, which are conscious experiences, and we have no satisfactory explanation for what conscious experiences are. We can establish a clear relationship between these conscious experiences and the material system, but no sufficient causal explanation for the exact properties the conscious system seems to have. In the absence of a full explanation, it feels like we ought to explore the world of possible explanations for this state of things, and reason about what explanations fit and what don't, based on what we can observe and reason. The fact that we can't resolve these fundamental problems probably means it is worth broadening our domain of solutions to contain both material and extra-material explanations, because the problem may be with considering the material paradigm we are experiencing to be the necessary base reality.

This has nothing to do with Science. This has everything to do with Philosophical discussion which is why it's in that forum. What I did in the SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY forum is present EVIDENCE according to you. You said:

You've posted links to evidence that supports the theory of a non-3d universe....that's all...

This is what you do when you're debating Science. You PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THE THEORY!

a reply to: neoholographic

Step in front of a bus and see how far your subjective reality where no such bus exists gets you.

Ps. don't actualy do this.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
It's because all evidence points to that being the case. For example, if consciousness existed outside the body why does one's perception of the world, aka consciousness, change when the brain becomes damaged?

Because the brain acts as a receiver and consciousness can access this information.

Brain works like a radio receiver

Initial evidence is found that the brain has a 'tuning knob' that is actually influencing behavior. Brain circuits can tune into the frequency of other brain parts relevant at the time. The scientific magazine Neuron is publishing the results of researchers at Radboud University the Netherlands on January 22.

www.sciencedaily.com...

Here's something else I have discussed in this forum many times. It's the recall of memories. How can the material brain tell the material brain which memories it wants the material brain to recall?

It makes no sense unless there's a conscious operating system so to speak, that can access this information. That can tune the brain to that memory.

For instance, I just recalled a memory from the Army and a memory from an old job. How does the material brain tune the material brain to tune into these memories out of all of the memories I have accumulated over my lifetime?

We have evidence that human consciousness can cause a random system like a RNG or the wave function to behave in a non random way. This is impossible with materialism and there's no rule of the universe that says all things must be explained using materialism.

“My brain is only a receiver, in the Universe there is a core from which we obtain knowledge, strength and inspiration. I have not penetrated into the secrets of this core, but I know that it exists.”

Tesla

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: neoholographic

The problem is the lack of philosophy involved in science. Read Des cartes that will clue you into what you're asking about. The reality is that we can't know anything with absolute certainty except that we our Consciousness at least exist. If we can't agree on that there can be no agreement on anything you have to start from the foundation of what you actually know with certainty. Then you can determine what is likely and so forth.

Jaden

Nope - it's a whole subject area

Philosophy of science is a sub-field of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science.

From Wikipedia...

Educate thyself before yee speak.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Nope - it's a whole subject area Philosophy of science is a sub-field of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science.

That kind of misses the point. Science is a Philosophy that allows you too see some of the world in a certain way.

It is a tool and all tools have limitations.

a reply to: neoholographic

What we call information is an abstract idea.

Perhaps it is something like consciousness or mind that is the primary existence.

a reply to: nOraKat

I think information is very real. Read about Claude Shannon, the founder of Information Theory.

Claude E. Shannon: Founder of Information Theory

With the fundamental new discipline of quantum information science now under construction, it's a good time to look back at an extraordinary scientist who single-handedly launched classical information theory
www.scientificamerican.com...

New article by Bernardo Kastrup, Henry Stapp and Menas Kafatos.

Coming to Grips with the Implications of Quantum Mechanics
The question is no longer whether quantum theory is correct, but what it means

For almost a century, physicists have wondered whether the most counterintuitive predictions of quantum mechanics (QM) could actually be true. Only in recent years has the technology necessary for answering this question become accessible, enabling a string of experimental results—including startling ones reported in 2007 and 2010, and culminating now with a remarkable test reported in May—that show that key predictions of QM are indeed correct. Taken together, these experiments indicate that the everyday world we perceive does not exist until observed, which in turn suggests—as we shall argue in this essay—a primary role for mind in nature.

Over the years, we have written extensively about why QM seems to imply that the world is essentially mental (e.g. 1990, 1993, 1999, 2001, 2007, 2017a, 2017b). We are often misinterpreted—and misrepresented—as espousing solipsism or some form of “quantum mysticism,” so let us be clear: our argument for a mental world does not entail or imply that the world is merely one’s own personal hallucination or act of imagination. Our view is entirely naturalistic: the mind that underlies the world is a transpersonal mind behaving according to natural laws. It comprises but far transcends any individual psyche.

According to QM, the world exists only as a cloud of simultaneous, overlapping possibilities—technically called a “superposition”—until an observation brings one of these possibilities into focus in the form of definite objects and events. This transition is technically called a “measurement.” One of the keys to our argument for a mental world is the contention that only conscious observers can perform measurements.

They go on to explain why inanimate objects cannot collapse a wave function, rule out decoherence and the notion that massive objects do not have entanglement. And finish with the following:

Now that the most philosophically controversial predictions of QM have—finally—been experimentally confirmed without remaining loopholes, there are no excuses left for those who want to avoid confronting the implications of QM. Lest we continue to live according to a view of reality now known to be false, we must shift the cultural dialogue towards coming to grips with what nature is repeatedly telling us about herself.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I'd read that medical science is leaning towards the human brain being more holographic in nature, that you could lose a large portion of your brain and still retain your memories etc !

not sure how much further they have researched this field though

I believe that consciousness is a yet undiscovered field of reality ,which like gravity affects all matter
to varying degrees depending on its energy levels and complexity
I dont know but I guess it has something to do with DNA being able to act as a receiver of consciousness when organised into complex structures such as neurons!
DNA is holographic in the sense that you can get the blueprint of the entity from its DNA
So when DNA is present and depending on the complexity of the being , it receives consciousness field at a higher rate / frequency!

originally posted by: TheBandit795
New article by Bernardo Kastrup, Henry Stapp and Menas Kafatos.

Coming to Grips with the Implications of Quantum Mechanics
The question is no longer whether quantum theory is correct, but what it means

For almost a century, physicists have wondered whether the most counterintuitive predictions of quantum mechanics (QM) could actually be true. Only in recent years has the technology necessary for answering this question become accessible, enabling a string of experimental results—including startling ones reported in 2007 and 2010, and culminating now with a remarkable test reported in May—that show that key predictions of QM are indeed correct. Taken together, these experiments indicate that the everyday world we perceive does not exist until observed, which in turn suggests—as we shall argue in this essay—a primary role for mind in nature.

Over the years, we have written extensively about why QM seems to imply that the world is essentially mental (e.g. 1990, 1993, 1999, 2001, 2007, 2017a, 2017b). We are often misinterpreted—and misrepresented—as espousing solipsism or some form of “quantum mysticism,” so let us be clear: our argument for a mental world does not entail or imply that the world is merely one’s own personal hallucination or act of imagination. Our view is entirely naturalistic: the mind that underlies the world is a transpersonal mind behaving according to natural laws. It comprises but far transcends any individual psyche.

According to QM, the world exists only as a cloud of simultaneous, overlapping possibilities—technically called a “superposition”—until an observation brings one of these possibilities into focus in the form of definite objects and events. This transition is technically called a “measurement.” One of the keys to our argument for a mental world is the contention that only conscious observers can perform measurements.

They go on to explain why inanimate objects cannot collapse a wave function, rule out decoherence and the notion that massive objects do not have entanglement. And finish with the following:

"Now that the most philosophically controversial predictions of QM have—finally—been experimentally confirmed without remaining loopholes, there are no excuses left for those who want to avoid confronting the implications of QM. Lest we continue to live according to a view of reality now known to be false, we must shift the cultural dialogue towards coming to grips with what nature is repeatedly telling us about herself.

Now that the most philosophically controversial predictions of QM have—finally—been experimentally confirmed without remaining loopholes, there are no excuses left for those who want to avoid confronting the implications of QM. Lest we continue to live according to a view of reality now known to be false, we must shift the cultural dialogue towards coming to grips with what nature is repeatedly telling us about herself.

Excellent post and a excellent article!

New video related to this subject:

The Emergent Universe

originally posted by: neoholographic

What's the basis for materialism in science?

Many scientists claim the only real science that can be done is on things that can be measured. They are at a loss to explain the qualia of consciousness so they pretend it doesn't exist.