Good point. But then time should be mentioned in the post. “let’s say that the essential property of physical stuff is geometric—that is, spatial. Everything in the physical world happens within space or is a state of space.” And “ pure geometry only gives us a static description.”
And does that cover energy and information? Those are states of space?
When I think of geometry, I think of Euclid. His geometry didn’t mention time. Modern physics uses space-time and non-Euclidean geometry. Maybe that’s inclusive enough.
As Steve’s footnote notes, I am not arguing against his point that there are immaterial things that are real. So is this just a quibble? I guess that depends on where he wants to take this idea. I am fine with saying that there are things that exist that aren’t matter. I am less certain that there are things that aren’t physical. But I have a sort of tautological conception of what is physical. If it can interact with the physical world, then it’s physical. If it can’t interact with the physical world, how would we even know about it?
So the question is, what does he want to do with this immaterialism? What does it get us?
To answer your last question first, it's clear this article is only introductory, and at the least asserts that there exists a concept called metaphysics which is distinct from physical matter.
As to why geometry, this again is only an example. It doesn't matter how you choose to describe physical matter - geometrical is only one, simple descriptor - but the upshot is that all descriptors fail when it comes to explaining why the forces that govern the interaction between individual items of physical matter exist and have power - leading to the ultimate acceptance of metaphysicality.
> this article […] asserts that there exists a concept called metaphysics which is distinct from physical matter.
That is trivial. Energy is distinct from matter. Okay, Einstein says one can be converted into the other, but they are still distinct. And information isn't matter. The article seeks to say more than that, but I am not sure what. The terminology is a bit confusing.
> all descriptors fail when it comes to explaining why the forces that govern the interaction between individual items of physical matter exist and have power - leading to the ultimate acceptance of metaphysicality.
This seems like a non sequitur. How can ignorance of one thing lead to acceptance of another?
> All was not literal. Refers to a class of descriptors - all descriptors that are employed to describe the nature of physical matter - whether geometric, which the author employs, or otherwise. Since they all fail, it leads to acceptance, or at least consideration of, of a new class of descriptors which are qualitatively and quantitatively different.
> I am not referring to energy, but to the laws that govern them. Described in Step 3 of the article.
I don’t understand at all. Why are we talking about the descriptors? How Do they fail? Why would we expect a descriptor to explain why anything does anything, rather than just describing what it does?
Reality itself is made of the immaterial. Reality is not matter. Therefore, everything in our realities is made of the immaterial even though it appears otherwise. Indeed, there needs to be a reality in order to recognize the existence of the material. There is nothing in the material that has the ability to create reality.
Therefore where does reality take place? As you said, "only exist within our minds." Reality doesn't exist outside of Mind. Once one realizes this, another dimension opens up that we had no idea existed.
Why geometry? Don’t we need time? Geometry does not capture time. Is time part of geometry? If not, does the post make sense?
What about information? Is that material or not?
Radiation? Gravitation? Physical, but are they geometric?
I have no problem with the conclusion that immaterial things exist. I don’t understand the geometric approach taken in the post.
Wouldn’t time simply be another dimension of geometry? x,y,z + t?
Good point. But then time should be mentioned in the post. “let’s say that the essential property of physical stuff is geometric—that is, spatial. Everything in the physical world happens within space or is a state of space.” And “ pure geometry only gives us a static description.”
And does that cover energy and information? Those are states of space?
When I think of geometry, I think of Euclid. His geometry didn’t mention time. Modern physics uses space-time and non-Euclidean geometry. Maybe that’s inclusive enough.
As Steve’s footnote notes, I am not arguing against his point that there are immaterial things that are real. So is this just a quibble? I guess that depends on where he wants to take this idea. I am fine with saying that there are things that exist that aren’t matter. I am less certain that there are things that aren’t physical. But I have a sort of tautological conception of what is physical. If it can interact with the physical world, then it’s physical. If it can’t interact with the physical world, how would we even know about it?
So the question is, what does he want to do with this immaterialism? What does it get us?
To answer your last question first, it's clear this article is only introductory, and at the least asserts that there exists a concept called metaphysics which is distinct from physical matter.
As to why geometry, this again is only an example. It doesn't matter how you choose to describe physical matter - geometrical is only one, simple descriptor - but the upshot is that all descriptors fail when it comes to explaining why the forces that govern the interaction between individual items of physical matter exist and have power - leading to the ultimate acceptance of metaphysicality.
> this article […] asserts that there exists a concept called metaphysics which is distinct from physical matter.
That is trivial. Energy is distinct from matter. Okay, Einstein says one can be converted into the other, but they are still distinct. And information isn't matter. The article seeks to say more than that, but I am not sure what. The terminology is a bit confusing.
> all descriptors fail when it comes to explaining why the forces that govern the interaction between individual items of physical matter exist and have power - leading to the ultimate acceptance of metaphysicality.
This seems like a non sequitur. How can ignorance of one thing lead to acceptance of another?
2nd point first, again.
> All was not literal. Refers to a class of descriptors - all descriptors that are employed to describe the nature of physical matter - whether geometric, which the author employs, or otherwise. Since they all fail, it leads to acceptance, or at least consideration of, of a new class of descriptors which are qualitatively and quantitatively different.
> I am not referring to energy, but to the laws that govern them. Described in Step 3 of the article.
I don’t understand at all. Why are we talking about the descriptors? How Do they fail? Why would we expect a descriptor to explain why anything does anything, rather than just describing what it does?
A very good article thought provoking for me.
Reality itself is made of the immaterial. Reality is not matter. Therefore, everything in our realities is made of the immaterial even though it appears otherwise. Indeed, there needs to be a reality in order to recognize the existence of the material. There is nothing in the material that has the ability to create reality.
Therefore where does reality take place? As you said, "only exist within our minds." Reality doesn't exist outside of Mind. Once one realizes this, another dimension opens up that we had no idea existed.
This comment states a conclusion without argument or evidence. Why are those claims more plausible than their negations? Should this be obvious?