Materialism - In Our Time - Melvyn Bragg / Anthony Grayling

MATERIALISM - Listen to 'In Our Time' with Melvyn Bragg, Anthony Grayling et al

Find out more about this subject by using our research page

The philosophy of materialism holds that the only thing that can be truly proven to exist is matter, and is considered a form of physicalism. Fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena are the result of material interactions; therefore, matter is the only substance. As a theory, materialism belongs to the class of monist ontology. As such, it is different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism.

"If we go back to the beginning we shall find that ignorance and fear created the gods; that fancy, enthusiasm, or deceit adorned or disfigured them; that weakness worships them; that credulity preserves them, and that custom, respect and tyranny support them."

It’s provocative stuff even today and certainly was in 1770 when published by Baron D’Holbach in his book The System of Nature. The baron’s boldness was underpinned by Materialism, a philosophical idea so dangerous that every copy of the book was condemned to be burnt. Despite this, or perhaps because of it, materialism dominates much of our understanding of the world today.

But what does materialism really mean, how has it developed over time and can we still have free will if we are living in a materialist world?

Contributors

Anthony C Grayling (ACG), Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck College, University of London

Caroline Warman (CW), Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford

Anthony O’Hear (AH), Professor of Philosophy at the University of Buckingham

Transcription - the best bits!

ACG (1.15) - Materialism is the view that the only thing that exists in the universe is matter and the forces that act on matter and the processes that those forces bring about in matter so by entailment that there nothing immaterial in the universe - that is not part of the physical universe, for example, no independantly existing minds, or deities or angels or supernatural things of any kind. Their just is matter.
MB: matter is ideas aswell?
ACG: 2.30 brains give rise to thoughts and consciousness. Thales was first materialist (water is fundamental). Anaximenes (air),- universe is fundamental material in nature. 4:00 In 15th century atomism of ancients was revived (Pierre Gasenndi)
CW: 4.37 Epicurus - (Epicurus.info) matter / pleasure - only one substance in universe - that is matter. Aristotle believed in essences, Epicurus did not.
AH: 8.30 - Lucretius (Roman poet & Epicurean philosopher 'on the nature of things') - atom means indivisible - religion frightens people with goblins - in effect no gods. Death nothing to be scared of - once we die, nothing to experience - so nothing to afraid of. Philip Larkin (atheist) - there is something to afraid of in death!
12.30 - Materialists are hostile to idea of final causes - Aristotle - nature is an interlocking system - may have been designed by an intelligent designer. Socrates was not a materialist.
MB: 14.00 - 4th Century - next 1200 years - Christianity blocked out other thought - repressed materialism
ACG: 15.00 Plato - immortal soul, ethical view: the idea that matter is bad and spirit is good - infuses Christianity - a Dualist view - until differant ways of thinking about spirit and matter was introduced by Rene Descarte (b.1596)
MB: 16.30 Arians 4th Century said Christ was just a man (not a god).
ACG: 16.50 - Descartes - can think of physical (science / natural philosophy - treat as clockwork) and spiritual (church) world separately.
AH: 18.00 Galileo - science concentrate on physical properties - feel, taste etc - Descarte gave justification for Galileo. Science should be based on mathematics.
CW: Pierre Gasenndi - empirical approach (evidence) - thought - there are only surfaces - moves away from idea of soul - reinject Epicurus into scientific debate
ACG: 21.30 - corpusular theory - made up of particles
MB: 22.40 - church had dominated for so long with ideas of soul, spirit, mystery, to be revered in.
AH: Thomas Hobbes - atomism - only things that exist were bodies - (even god was a body!). Humans are bodies and thought - experience caused by materialistic view. Ability of thought and consciousness takes to a differant level.
CW: 26.00 Baron d'Holbach poors scorn on represion by religion - have to be atheist.
MB: Reformation started in 1517 by Martin Luther - freethinking - dam of Christianity was being threatened by torrents of thought by scientists
ACG: 27.20 - d'Holbach - science shows that only thing is material - nothing else exists in it eg spiritual - makes a claim on us - morality - political system - divine right of kings - all goes out of the window.
AH: 29.00 - Descarte - reduction and science can show nature of world, human soul of mind - could not be explained by materialism. Hobbes and d'Holbach - want to bring human mind into Cartesian principle. Scientific materialism. William Blake thought repulsive - it left out - spirituality, beauty, nature. if all that exists is atoms.
ACG: 32.00 - 18th century - psychogy - matter in motion can produce mind David Hume - how can give rise to consciousness - still remains a mystery - brain structure and mental life - a lot known now. In 18th century - ideas and thought - place of reason and emotions - matter and mind - free will question - moral responsibility -
CW: 34.50 - Denis Diderot - free will and consciousness, what is the mind?
AH: 36.30 - Immanuel Kant - moral experience unsuccessfully tried to reconcile with materialism, free will and deterministic picture. Logic and reason - dont seem to have to do with materialism. Gottfried Leibnitz - if could look at brain dont see thoughts and ideas - consciousness - a single self unified - acts and chooses freedom. Materialism has a big problem
MB: 39.30 - ACG will words like feelings, memories, desires will be as ancient as pre-Galilean ideas of the universe? Will materialism make us think in a differant way (like a multistage rocket - these ideas will fall away by the ideas of materialism).
ACG: 40.00 - Paul Churchland and Patricia Churchland - eliminative materialists - can eliminate concepts like , hopes, memories, desires, thoughts - ONCE we have explained how brain gives rise to all mental phenomena - ultimately moral terms to brain physiology, chemical and physical - overambitious. Think that physcological concepts is explorable by materialistic science.
MB: Hagel, Philip Pullman, Marx, quantum physics - not talked about - we do try to put a quart into a thimble!!

Multiverse - Melvyn Bragg - In Our Time podcast - 21st Feb 2008

Download (40mb mp3) / Info on 'In Our Time'.

Melvyn Bragg:
If you look up the word ‘universe’ in the Oxford English Dictionary you will find the following definition:

“The whole of created or existing things regarded collectively; all things (including the earth, the heavens, and all the phenomena of space) considered as constituting a systematic whole.”

That sounds fairly comprehensive as a description of everything, but for an increasing number of physicists and cosmologists the universe is not enough. They talk of a multiverse – literally many universes – to explain aspects of their theory, the character of the universe and the riddle of our existence within it. Indeed, compared to the scope and complexity of the multiverse, the whole of our known reality may be as a speck of sand upon a beach.

But what might a multiverse be like, why are physicists and cosmologists increasingly interested in it and is it really scientific to discuss the existence of universes we may never know anything about?

Contributors

Lord Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society and Professor of Cosmology and Astrophysics at the University of Cambridge

Fay Dowker, Reader in Theoretical Physics at Imperial College

Bernard Carr, Professor of Mathematics and Astronomy at Queen Mary, University of London

My Notes about the discussion:

Martin Rees: we know about this Universe: since 1920 we know that our galaxy contains 100 billion stars - just one of many billions of other galaxies we can see - started off with Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago - we can see galaxies 10 billion light years away but no further - still a horizon that we can observe - cf in Ocean - what is beyond the horizon - may be parts of space and time that we cannot directly observe; are there galaxies we cannot see but are the aftermath of the Big Bang. Could there be other Big Bangs? We cannot observe other big bangs; can we infer anything beyond what we can observe?; we believe in Einsteins theory of relativity but cannot see inside a black hole. We believe - must be openminded eg big bang was pure speculation 50 years ago - whereas now that is part of serious science.

Fay Dowker: Not part of science to speculate about in principle unobservable objects? No! if theory tested / well founded - then have good grounds - have to sure about theory if cannot see it directly - predicts other non observable universes this is acceptable as good science but the theory has to be strong; regions /other patches. Need greater confidence in (in theory) unobservable stuff.

Bernard Carr: can we explain the big bang - in last 20 years - half a dozen theories of big bang - theories are tested - is tricky - expanding universe in inflationary universe - due to nature of vaccuum - according to inflationary theory it expanded exponentially with time - accelerating - reason is the nature of the vacuum- the universe that we can observe is tiny; other bubbles / domains - say the laws are differant - other patches - these domains / patches may NOT have the same law of physics - these are the multiverse - when inflation occured - microscopic size grew to size of grapefruit. Inflationary theory predicts:-

• what we can see of our universe is only a minscule amount of what there is
  
• there are other domains or patches or bubbles with entirely differant laws of physics - the multiverse
  

MR: surprising that laws of physics of observable universe are the same; but are their other domains - from the aftermath of different big bangs - have differant laws

FD: black holes , quarks, LHC - working with unobservable is still science. Sort of unobservability - quarks; branch universes. In a multiverse nothing that occured in there could cause something to happen in our universe. This is unlike quarks which although unobservable could have an effect on our universe.

MR: idea of other universes is conjectural. metagalaxy - part of the universe we can observe.

FD: big bang: big bounce theory or proposal - for theory of a multiverse - many big bangs /followed by expansion then big crunches/ laws of physics could be different in each bounce - spread in time (rather than space); each cycle lasts longer than the previous cycle; universe must be flat in beginning

BC: inflation - huge number of universes spread out in space - bouncing universes are spread out in time

MR: extra spatial dimensions cf bugs walking on a 2D universe- another universe a millimetre away with a 4th dimension - speculative ideas - idea will be narrowed down - ideas based on very early hot universe - one day may be able to test in a lab.

FD: anthropic principle - we should take account of fact we are special - we Carbon based life late on in evolution of the universe - we see universe now because of the beings we are; stars must form and die for carbon to be made - carbon is produced late in life cycle of stars; carbon is formed only when universe is OLD; this can give some explanatory power.

BC: anthropic principle based on fine tuning Various forces in nature - the coupling constantants - relationships between constantonts - there is fine tuning between constants of nature - masses of elementary particles and cosmological constant (describes acceleration of the universe). Defines constants of fine tuning required to within 10%. Physics does not explain it. No fine tuner or God - most physicists do not want to bring in a creator; small fraction if multiverse exists. Multiverse theory the is legitimisation of anthropic principle; if you have many universes then it a natural selection effect - we have to been a universe where the correct constants are required for life to exist.

FD: existence of multiverse - if established multiverse - many differant possibilities; multiverse are many differant possibilities. We see these constants or laws of phyics- only type of universe that we could have evolved in.

BC (22 mins): this observable universe is special - that is what the multiverse concept is going against - that is the history of science - we always want to think we are unique - the earth is at centre of the universe is wrong - the Milky Way galaxy is at the centre of the Universe - that is wrong - Some of us think that the observable Universe is all there is. Now I think we have the glimmering of evidence that 'this is the only Universe' is wrong! Its the story in our continual humiliation that we are not special or unique.

MB: but is it humiliation when ? Because nobody has so far said anything about something producing what is hear!

BC : universe is designed for intelligence - mankind is physically insignificant - continual humilliation - humilliation in sense that we are physical insignifiance - could be wiped out by an asteroid - intelligence has occurred - man in 200 years now understands universe - some bubble are stillborn; other bubbles may be far more advanced than our

MR: (25 mins) first atoms, first stars, understand of laws of nature have particular values - special place - rather than a stillborn universe, around a special star - entire cosmic volume of our universe is special. Most of other bubbles of Multiverse (in BC terms) would be stillborn - other universes could be more advanced than ours. We are not necessarily the most complex organisms.

BC: Physicists have independantly come up with multiverse idea - not just to explain the fine tuning of our universe. Since the Multiverse is a sensible thing to discuss - that is the explanation for the anthropic fine tuning. That is why the anthropic principle has become more acceptable. not just as an explanation of anthropic (greek word for man) - nothing to do with man - too conceited - really means life can arise somewhere.

MR (26mins): laws of physics in observable universe is the same; surprising they are the same throughout; but that could be just a tiny fraction of what is out there. eg other domains further away or from the aftermath of differant big bangs were the laws could be different (he repeats himself).

MB (27' 20"): Can you explain how the Multiverse and the universality of the law of physics relates to search for fundamental theory or theory of everything

MR: we are searching for a formula that combines the very small with the very large. Will theory give
unique formula - for basic numbers in nature eg strenght of gravity or mass of electron etc. Are numbers just brute facts - if so there is no room for the anthropic selection arguement. The theory of everything will no predict the exact values of the laws of nature. Some say that strength of gravity or mass of an electron is just an environemental accident. So in a differant big bang the strength of gravity could be completelty differant.
What aspects of physics are truly universal.

Will theory of everything give unique results or just environmental accidensts of electron; what laws of nature are truly universal and which laws of nature are environmental accidents cf. snowflake - all hexagonal - that is feature of water molecule - really fundamental . Which laws of nature are really fundamental - which are environmental accidents (eg differant shapes of snowflakes - even though they ALL hexagonal). Until we know which are the fundamental properties of nature and which are created by the environment - we will not be able to give a complete theory of everything. String theory may not pan out

FD (30mins) : string theory predicts not one unique vacuum state or set of laws for particle physics - but a large number of 10 to 500 power laws for vacuua; each of differant vacua; theory of quantum gravity; granular theory of spacetime - may be able to detect granularity. Multiverse could be formed out of vacuaa.

MB: what made you to a convert of Multiverse possiblitity?

FD: bouncing cyclic model of universe - quantum gravity proposal - explains fine tuning - shape of early universe has to be flat. if wait long enougth.

MR: long haul to unified theory - which are truly universal? Understand nature of space.
link quantum effects - space is trillions and trillions smaller than protons or neutrons. It is part of science - speculative science - not just metaphysics.

MB: 5% of physicists 20 years thought multiverse could exist - now many more think multiverse exist - how do you TEST it!!

FD (35mins) : string theory for quantum gravity. only a dozen physicists work on granular theory of spacetime - is not smooth - test depends on the theory. How could theory of granularity change the property of light from distant sources?

BC (36 mins): test for inflationary theory - tiny fluctuations give rise to galaxies - can see fluctuations in Cosmic Background Microwave radiation; 5 years ago seen; fluctuations in temperature are 1 in 1000 - inflationary theory predicts formation of galaxies - testable.

MR: relates tiny fluctuations - link between small and large. Essential

FD: link gravity and quantum theory - interplay with theories and cosmology - observations made constrain theories. Look out to cosmology - interplay between quantum gravity - will inform cosmology - constrain the theories.

BC: is multiverse part of legitimate science - multiverse is predicted by string theory - if can test string theory - then can show indirectly that multiverse is possible; string theory / M theory or quantum gravity - may never be testible - energy is too high; or is M theory just maths not physics / science; legitimate science - may have to wait 200 years before we can solve mystery of universe

FD: quantum gravity - very confident that it can be tested; we will know that multiverse is possible; deep confidence in unity of physics - we will know whether multiverse is real
MR: must be optimistic and try very hard to find any answers at all!!

Melyn Bragg - Antimatter

reposted from: Melvyn Braggs Newsletter today

Hello

.... contradictions between matter and antimatter.

One thing that fascinates me when I enter into the area of physics is the glossary that I usually get hold of. The glossary of physics terms.

Antimatter itself, of course: “material made from antifermions”,
fermions: “any particle that has odd-half-integer (1/2, 3/2 ...) intrinsic angular momentum (spin), measured in units of h-bar”, boson, hadron, kaon, photon, positron … I can understand why Christopher Marlowe was so entranced by the great names of cities and places which came out of the East and understand the allure of the shipping forecast to all of us – Seamus Heaney wrote a memorable poem about it which is a poetically-shaped listing of that reassuring, but somehow gallant, tour of these islands.

And so to antimatter. Once again, you have to be impressed by the generosity of people who are at the coal-face of modern physics, taking the time and finding the energy to communicate elliptically and, I thought, extraordinarily clearly, knowledge accumulated over so many years and making of such complicated matter (sorry) an understandable case.

At times, there is a faint whiff of the past. Is it a new version of how many angels can dance on the point of a needle?

In a sense, of course, it is.

Some men and women have always bent their minds to find out what is most difficult to discover, whether that has been of a philosophical, a religious or a scientific nature doesn’t much matter in one sense, ie: the sense that it is the exercise of intelligence itself which is the pleasure and the drive.

I’m Now off to endure a piece of science myself - a cataract to be removed. Not so very long ago, this was an operation spoken of in hushed tones, as if some curse had to be lifted. Now everybody tells me that it is the easiest thing in the world, a blink, a cinch, little more than brushing your teeth. I hope they’re right. I have a lot of reading to do as I am deep into Cormac McCarthy at the moment. I started on him two or three years ago and have now gone back to read as much of him as I can.

Now for a walk in Regent’s Park to limber up for the op. Should be wonderful this time of year, the leaves just turning to brown. I suppose being born in October might mean that you have a closer affinity with it. Discuss?

Best wishes

Melvyn Bragg

Visit the In Our Time website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/

or download the latest edition as an mp3 file: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime.shtml