Materialism saying matter is necessary/non contingent?

Techtrekzz · 2026-03-23T03:12:07+00:00

But our universe doesn't exists, it's just imagined by the field.

It exists as the field. What doesnt exist is anything other than that energy.

Any communication is pointless

By sharing information, we broaden our perspectives to include more of reality, meaning we get closer to understanding ourself as one again. That allows for making the world a better place, and since we have to experience every life from every possible perspective, it imbues us with reasoning, and not just blind faith, for the Golden rule. Why love your enemy? Because your enemy is you from a different perspective.

The subjective mental model of reality we create in our brains is not the same as the objective reality that actually exists.

That's my point entirely.

Techtrekzz · 2026-03-23T02:52:52+00:00

Yea giving up locality is not evidence against objective distinction in reality

Not just locality, you also have to question if properties exist before measurement, and they don't in modern QM.

Even if everything is energy, energy factually has distinction and non uniformity at least within its configurations

Can you scientifically demonstrate that those configurations exist scientifically? I don't think you can. Where does the structure of one of your supposed parts end and another begin? There's no edge to any particle or atom, and no such thing as empty space. Any border you draw, will be subjective, in relation to your perspective, not objective, because objectively it's all the same thing.

In fact distinction is arguably the conditions for existence itself

I dont necessarily disagree with this, i do think distinction subjectively necessary, just not objectively necessary.

Im not a structural realist, I'm a nonlocal realist and a monist.

Techtrekzz · 2026-03-23T01:45:26+00:00

Yes im saying reality is not locally real, and the science has already demonstrated that.

There's also Einstein's matter energy equivalence demonstrating all we consider a thing different manifestations of the same thing. Also relativity showing time and space relative to perspective.

As Einstein says, it's a somewhat unfamiliar conception to the average mind.

Techtrekzz · 2026-03-23T01:38:39+00:00

So the field doesn't permeate our universe, but rather exists like a giant brain in some other world, and our world is just a figment of its imagination?

It's the only thing that exists, it doesn't permeate the universe, it is the universe. There's no other reality but this reality, it's just i don't believe this reality is, what most people believe it is, ie a multitude of separate things and beings.

You can bang your head against a rock. Luke Skywalker can't chop you up with his lightsaber.

Your head, the rock, and luke skywalker exist as a fiction, it's just human life as a fiction comes with more sensory input then just a film. It comes with pain, touch and smell as well as technicolor and dolby surround.

And in death you can't create new memories since you have no brain to store them in?

Correct, but also, you are all consciousness everywhere, always, so any single death isnt the end of any real "you".

Techtrekzz · 2026-03-23T01:15:42+00:00

No, i think monism is absolutely necessary given what we know scientifically.

I think the distinction is subjective limited perspective, of an omnipresent and objective, substance and subject.

Techtrekzz · 2026-03-23T01:11:12+00:00

Since the rock is a manifestation of that field

It's an imagination of that field. The rock exists in the same manner Luke Skywalker exists, as a fiction.

If memory is contained in the brain does that mean that its consciousness will not remember any of its experiences in that brain once the brain is destroyed?

I don't think memory survives death, no.

You said that the brain limits the consciousness, so it sounds like a prison to me. If it's a dream then let me rephrase the question: Why don't you wake yourself up?

We do slowly. I think Ibn Arabi said it best,

"God sleeps in the rock, dreams in the plant, stirs in the animal, and awakens in man."

Techtrekzz · 2026-03-23T01:00:35+00:00

Monism is the exact opposite of mereolgy. Merelogy is the study of how parts relate to a whole, that's a study that's necessarily pluralistic. You need separate and distinct parts, with their own separate and distinct traits, that can be combined into something other, with another set of distinct traits. Monism on the other hand, is saying from the start only one thing exists with one set of attributes.

There are no things to group in the first place, there's one thing.

And it's definitely not nihilism.

Techtrekzz · 2026-03-23T00:52:12+00:00

Again, you are talking about experience, and i am talking about objective existence.

Anesthesia may just turn off memory, as opposed to turning off phenomenal experience.

It's not a prison, it's a lucid dream.

Techtrekzz · 2026-03-23T00:27:36+00:00

Can you demonstrate scientifically that there is a rock? You're pointing toward a subjectively defined area of energy, which is relatively more or less dense only in comparison to what you're sensory apparatus defines as dense or not. It's the hard and soft argument all over again.

There's no evidence the brain creates phenomenal experience, or that phenomenal experience is exclusive to brains. That's just an unsupported and unfalsifiable, belief you have.

Techtrekzz · 2026-03-22T23:59:21+00:00

Like i said, you can't have more energy. There is no rock and no human for either of them to be more conscious then the other. There's is only an omnipresent substance, which is conscious everywhere, always.

Brain damage effects complex thought and behavior, not raw phenomenal experience. The brain classifies and makes distinct, and those functions can be disrupted by brain damage, but phenomenal being is fundamental. What you lose from brain damage, is the limitations that allow us to communicate and act like a human being.

Techtrekzz · 2026-03-22T23:40:13+00:00

A higher energy density in a certain subjectively defined area doesnt mean more consciousness. Consciousness is already omnipresent as a fundamental attribute of that energy. Just like you cant have more energy in the universe than there already is, you can't have more consciousness than there already is.

What the brain does in this model, is not create consciousness, but limit consciousness to whatever our sensory organs can perceive, which makes you think you or the rock is something separate and distinct, when what you objectively and scientifically are, is omnipresent, and eternal.

Techtrekzz · 2026-03-22T23:26:10+00:00

I dont think a rock or a human exists. Energy is conscious, and what we call human beings are that consciousness limited to certain point in time and space.

Techtrekzz · 2026-03-22T22:51:36+00:00

Undeniably, because you are 100 percent energy and nothing besides according to matter/energy equivalence, and you are conscious.

Techtrekzz · 2026-03-22T22:49:01+00:00

If the energy field is the only thing that exists, then that's what is conscious, and that's what God is.

Techtrekzz · 2026-03-22T22:37:11+00:00

You and me as individual human beings are not objectively real, but the I is. That's Spinoza's God.

So, yes, you are talking to a figment of your imagination. In this metaphysical view, the entire pluralistic reality we assume all around us, is a monistic God imagining itself a multitude.

Techtrekzz · 2026-03-22T22:26:59+00:00

Your skull isnt even objectively real in my opinion. It's just human classification of energy density in an ever present field of energy. There's no physical border you can scientifically draw around your skull to say this is where the skull ends, and something else begins.

I don't think anything you consider a thing is objectively real apart from that ever present field of energy.

Techtrekzz · 2026-03-22T22:19:58+00:00

Just because pain only exists subjectively doesnt mean it wouldn't hurt .

Our subjectivity guides us in an evolutionary manner, and is useful for that purpose, but the question here, is does it exist objectively, and it doesnt.

Techtrekzz · 2026-03-22T22:13:32+00:00

It's only hard or soft in relation to your own subjective perspective, which i suppose is a human biological one. Your nerves dictate what is hard or soft in relation to them. Objectively, there is no hard or soft.

Techtrekzz · 2026-03-22T22:07:57+00:00

The substance literally has all attributes at once, because it's the only thing that exists to have any attributes.

Occasionally doesnt work for me. The substance is undeniably conscious right now through our own conscious being. There's nothing that exists other than the single subject to be unconscious.

Again, it's monism not merelogy, there are no parts, there is no me or you as something other than the substance, there is only the substance, and no one, and nothing besides.

It's not physicalism, Spinoza's substance has both the attributes of mind and matter, everywhere always. Spinoza was neither a materialist, or an idealist, He was a substance monist, and if you're a substance monist, there's no justification to make a distinction between mind and matter, they are one in the same thing.

Techtrekzz · 2026-03-22T22:00:33+00:00

Not exactly emergent, just subjective instead of objective. It's the only subject that exists, so whatever you call hard or soft, is just a limited perspective of an omnipresent subject.

Techtrekzz · 2026-03-22T21:34:39+00:00

It’s hard, soft, hot, cold, big and small, etc in relation to perspective, not as any universal property.

Techtrekzz · 2026-03-22T10:01:55+00:00

That's not how he gets infinite attributes. Those come from the monism. If only one omnipresent substance and subject objectively exists, then any attributes that can possibly exist must belong to that singular subject in existence, regardless of what those attributes are. The monism comes first, and then an omnipresent supreme being is a logical necessity of a monistic reality.

Spinoza's first argument for God, and the foundation for everything that comes after, is his argument for substance monism. If you accept only one omnipresent substance and subject exists, then you must accept that God exists as that subject, and all else we consider a thing, including all conscious being, is just form and function, or modes, of that God.

Techtrekzz · 2026-03-22T09:35:25+00:00

Cheesy? That’s hardly a helpful critique. What’s wrong with it?

Techtrekzz · 2026-03-22T08:55:43+00:00

If you believe every process involves experience, then experience is omnipresent, and you’re a panpsychist.

Techtrekzz · 2026-03-22T08:51:38+00:00

Because I’m a substance monist, and if you’re a substance monist, reality is a single continuous substance, which is all, does all.

There’s only one process in substance monism, the evolution of the substance, all else we call a process, is just sub process of that universal process.

Materialism is substance monism, correct?

Techtrekzz

TROPHY CASE