"The One" is unbounded nature (or existence) and materialism is one way of talking about, or describing, nature that explicitly excludes "immaterial" entities. — 180 Proof

The Permanent One of Existence would be such as the quantum 'vacuum' fields, they forming all else, the temporaries, beginning with field quanta, via arrangements of itself.

I believe “supernatural” is a vacuous term because we do not yet know the limits of the natural world. — Art48

'Miracles are not against nature but against what we know of nature' ~ St Augustine.

'Miracles are not against nature but against what we know of nature' ~ St Augustine. — Wayfarer

In other words, 'signs of the holy sacred divine ...' are just, at minimum, expressions of human ignorance. Lord forgive me but again I agree with the ernestly confessing Bishop of Hippo. :pray: :sweat:

Face it 180, life would hardly be worth living without Christians to bait. :rofl:

:up:

Also, I’d say Newtonian Mechanics is wrong. It gives the right answer to a certain number of decimal places but if you go far enough (10th decimal, 100th decimal), it gives an answer that disagrees with Relativity and with reality. — Art48

Depends on what you mean by Newtonian mechanics as well as whether you separate philosophical interpretation, mathematical modeling, and applied technological predictive modeling.

Newtonian mechanics cannot be proven wrong as only a specific Newtonian model is wrong and not Newtonian modeling if Newtonianism is understood in the widest or unlimited sense that many see it as. How do you test F=ma? You can only know the value given to the forces other things have on you by use of either Newtonian modeling making it a circular 'proof' or by use of a Non-Newtonian model which presumes its own destruction by assumption.

A model can be curve fit incorrectly but a curve fitting practice can only be preferred or avoided. Not deemed 'wrong' or 'true'.

Newtonian mechanics didn't die by virtue of disproof. The old guard died off and the new crowd thought the previous thinking was too 'antiquated' while they performed the same modeling techniques under different labels.

Newtonian mechanics didn't die by virtue of disproof. The old guard died off and the new crowd thought the previous thinking was too 'antiquated' while they performed the same modeling techniques under different labels. — substantivalism

That's not remotely true, that's a completely bonkers narrative that I would expect only from a flat earther.

That's not remotely true, that's a completely bonkers narrative that I would expect only from a flat earther. — flannel jesus

Which part? That a paradigm shift resulted from a change in thinking coming from the younger generations or that a large majority of the same classical intellectual biases pervade how modern day physicists continue to model?

The Aether didn't die. . . they just called it analogue modeling and continued doing what physicists before were doing. They continued the same mathematical curve fitting, trial & error matching, and enslaving themselves to a few interpretations of a mathematical model when thousands of others could be made up without issue.

Scientific anti-realists have been beating this tired narrative to a pulp for the past a hundred years and yet it seems it still falls on deaf ears.

"they performed the same modeling techniques under different labels." - this sounds like you're saying "the model of relativity is just the model of Newtonian mechanics, under a different name." Is that not what you mean?

"they performed the same modeling techniques under different labels." - this sounds like you're saying "the model of relativity is just the model of Newtonian mechanics, under a different name." Is that not what you mean? — flannel jesus

That depends on how you define Newtonian mechanics and what it means to say anything is 'Newtonian'. It can't merely be the mathematical structure as Newtonian mathematical models can be as statistical as quantum mechanical ones if not make use of the same mathematical machinery that such modern 'theories' make use of.

If its the interpretation then what exactly is supposed to distinguish Classical from Non-Classical? There have been thinkers in the Classical past who denied any distinguishing factor between space and matter or proclaimed that there was some close connection between the two concepts. That or how, even if rare, people played around with forms of indeterminism or discreteness in nature. These concepts aren't new or novel in light of the history of philosophical thought nor is it the case that modern physics 're-invented' the wheel here so to speak. These base concepts that form its backbone are as old as philosophical/physics practice.

180 Proof: If you agree hard solipsism cannot be disproven, then wouldn’t the minimum that we must necessarily presuppose be our consciousness and sensations, and nothing else? — Art48

There are compelling grounds to doubt "solipsism" (e.g. disembodiment, immaterialism, brain-in-vat, etc) which suffice for dismissing it. — 180 Proof

I fail to see how this addresses my question. I say the minimum we must acknowledge is our consciousness and the sensations in it. Are you saying you'd add materialism to the list? The point of my video is that we never directly experience matter and so matter is a theoretical construct which explains what we directly experience, rather than what we directly experience.

***

Also, I’d say Newtonian Mechanics is wrong.

Well I say that beyond all doubt, above the Planck scale, shorter than Relativistic distances and slower than Relativistic velocities, "Newtonian Mechanics" is (almost) completely accurate. — 180 Proof

It's almost right, i.e., it's wrong.

I believe “supernatural” is a vacuous term because we do not yet know the limits of the natural world.

***
Physical laws and constants make explicit (some? many? most?) "limits of the natural world" and, after countless billions upon billions of experimental observations, that there is no evidence of violations of any physical laws is, imo, compelling grounds to doubt your "belief", Art. — 180 Proof

I'm saying we cannot with justification say something is supernatural. It may be a natural phenomena we don't understand yet (like lightening once was). I can't determine if you are agreeing or disagreeing in your response.

I believe “supernatural” is a vacuous term because we do not yet know the limits of the natural world. — Art48

'Miracles are not against nature but against what we know of nature' ~ St Augustine. — Wayfarer

It seems to me, by that definition miracles need not be supernatural.