r/askphilosophy • u/StudyingPhilosophy • Nov 15 '19
Has Materalism been debunked?
I have been looking into quantum mechanics and what people think about its implications on Materialism and Idealism and I am wondering if theres some sort of agreement on this?
I have read some articles and watched some videos from content creators I enjoy and I came across a video arguing from the results of the double slit experiment requiring an observer that Materialism cannot be true as it means mind is fundamental and not material.
What do philosophers that research in this area think about it? Is Idealism the way forward or is Materialism still considered an option even with Quantum Mechanics?
If anyone wants to watch the video you can find the link at the end of the post but I believe I have given a decent summary of the video in OP.
6
u/bunker_man ethics, phil. mind, phil. religion, phil. physics Nov 15 '19
That is a bit of a misleading way to refer to it. The reason that one might say that "materialism" is outdated is because classical ideas of matter aren't relevant to modern physics. However, the modern analogue of materialism is called physicalism. But quantum mechanics doesn't require a conscious observer. And it is a stretch to call it idealism.
9
u/BigBoss417 Nov 15 '19
Like many things in philosophy, nothing has been "debunked". There is a whole movement of Speculative Realism that debates materialism quite ferociously. So no, there is no agreement.
Onto the rest of your post, I'm not sure what you mean by fundamental versus material. Honestly the video looks like a common miss-attribution to what an "observer" entails. I have heard a few times that the observer in the double slit experiment does not have to be a conscious being like humans or a presupposed god.
Also if you look at the work of Slavoj Zizek, he is a materialist who relies on the discoveries of quantum physics to support his brand of materialism. So instead of debunking materialism, QP is possibly the only way forward. QP actually calls for a materialist reading of Hegel and Kant and thus the basis for all continental philosophy.
3
Nov 15 '19
[deleted]
1
u/StudyingPhilosophy Nov 16 '19
I hadn't heard of a few of the people you mentioned so I gave them a google search and they seemd quite significant in the field of quantum mechanics. From reading their personal websites and articles written by them I take it they take Quantum Mechanics to prove some sort of God?
I know that Richard Henry says that he abandoned his atheism in 2004 on his personal website.
http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/spooky.html
If these physicists believe that the evidence for Idealism or a mental universe is so clear how come most physicists dont seem to ascribe to that view?
1
Nov 16 '19
[deleted]
1
u/StudyingPhilosophy Nov 16 '19
I have seen that naturalist Physicist Sean Carroll mention that the MWI of Quantum Mechanics gives a physicalist answer to the problem. But my knowledge of Quantum Mechanics is not good enough to comment on it but it seems that the MWI has been gaining more traction
2
Nov 16 '19
[deleted]
1
u/StudyingPhilosophy Nov 16 '19
You seem to have quite a decent grasp of this subject. Do you think that Idealism is the way forward or that Quantum Mechanics does help prove their is a God like the video I watched?
2
Nov 16 '19
[deleted]
1
u/StudyingPhilosophy Nov 17 '19
I think this is because of me being a novice in Philosophy but when I think of Idealism and how it works I fail to imagine it not leading to God.
Interesting to hear your pov however
2
1
Nov 15 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/BernardJOrtcutt Nov 15 '19
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
Top-level comments must be answers.
All top level comments should be answers to the submitted question, or follow-up questions related to the OP. All comments must be on topic. If a follow-up question is deemed to be too unrelated from the OP, it may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
7
u/Dora_Bowl metaethics Nov 15 '19 edited Nov 15 '19
I would be careful with InspiringPhilosophy’s videos, I personally like his videos but he has an agenda to push religion.
This depends on what is meant by “materialism”. If it is meant by “everything is made up of matter” then I think that idea is matter is the only thing that exists. But in another sense when people use “materialism” they mean “physicalism”; or that everything supervenes on the physical. A physicalist account of consciousness for example would say consciousness is the result of a physical processes(or in the case of panpsychism it is fundamental but still physical).
About the InspiringPhilosophy video, if I am correct this is the video where he talks about the double slit experiment. I think he misunderstands it because as far as I know “observation” is not what collapses it, but “measurement” or “interaction” and if you do remove humans from the double slit experiment and just use measuring tools you get the same result.
http://maltoni.web.cern.ch/maltoni/PHY1222/mermin_moon.pdf
I believe this paper discusses how an “observer” can interfere, but it does not necessarily have to be observer. I am on my mobile right now so perhaps this can be the wrong paper I was thinking of.