2

I have not studied philosophy although find interesting reading about. According to new theories in modern physics the concept of matter is an illusion. Matter is just a wave. We understand materials through the curvature of the space. Although we could say that our civilization is based on one major value and this is the matter. So according to the new physics findings the question is:

By "illusion" I mean that humans realize the universe and matter as a reflection of the brain. Human reality is actually partial or false. An argument on this is that the human brain can understand only three out of many possible dimensions of the universe. By this way we can talk about false reality perception.

Is actually our civilization based on an illusion?

  • 1
    To say that "matter is just a wave" does not mean taht matter is an illusion; it is... a wave. And thus, modern physics does not imply in any way that "the universe and matter are a reflection of the brain". Quantum physics means also nuclear energy and nuclear weapons and I do not think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Chernobyl and North Corean experiments are a "reflection of the brain". – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Nov 2 '17 at 15:34
  • But the same wave could be perceived entirely different under a different neural system for example. Human neural system perceives this wave as matter, not as a wave. – Anastasios Vlasopoulos Nov 2 '17 at 15:39
  • 3
    You can describe a red rose as a material flower or as a symbol of love. Thereby, it does not seize being a material flower. It's just two different standpoints from which to look at it. The baseball bat in your face doesn't hurt any less because you "know" it is made of very small particles with a lot of nothing in between or waves. It's all of them and more than each of them (or even "the sum" of them) at the same time, and depending on the discourse you are engaging in, one or the other is of practical importance. To say "the neural system perceives" is a jump between different discourses. – Philip Klöcking Nov 2 '17 at 15:49
  • 1
    Rainbow is an illusion, but it does not make it a "reflection of the brain". That what we conceive as reality is partially "false", i.e. that we have misconceptions about it, is a triviality that we do not need modern physics for. So it is unclear what you are asking or how to answer it in a non-subjective manner. – Conifold Nov 2 '17 at 18:03
  • Civilisation is based on lots of illusions - but they're not the illusions you're talking about – Mozibur Ullah Nov 3 '17 at 3:41
4

This is an interesting question, but first a few comments are in order:

  1. "According to new theories in modern physics the concept of matter is an illusion. Matter is just a wave. We understand materials through the curvature of the space." : No, according to modern physics (quantum mechanics, that is), matter is not a wave. Matter has both wave aspects and particle aspects. Nor does the curvature of space time have anything to do with it, that concept is from a different branch of physics, which is general relativity. In fact reconciling general relativity and quantum mechanics has been problematic for theoretical physicists.
  2. You seem to be addressing three types of questions at the same time in your post: Ontological (what is the world made of?), epistemic (are we sure about our knowledge of the world?), and axiological (does our civilization value the right things?). The ontological questions and the epistemic are related, but the axiological is outside of the scope of the question and unrelated to the other two.

Now to answer your questions:

By "illusion" I mean that humans realize the universe and matter as a reflection of the brain.

You want look up immaterialism and subjective idealism, most famously defended by Berkeley:

He starts from an empiricist point of view. For an empiricist, when we speak of an apple, the only thing we can really speak of is our observations of the apple. I can say anything of the apple other than that it is red, round, tastes sweet. These are all sense data, that is impressions in our mind and not direct properties of the apple itself. This is the position of all empiricists.

Berkeley however goes much farther, stating that we cannot know anything about the apple directly, only what our sensations of the apple, which are all ideas in our head, and so the apple really only exists as sensations/ideas in our head. All that exists is just ideas. See also this SEP article on Challenges to Metaphysical Realism.

Human reality is actually partial or false. An argument on this is that the human brain can understand only three out of many possible dimensions of the universe.

Here you seem to be hinting at the fact that reality is constructed. Kant was a major proponent of this view, and introduced the concept of "Ding an sich" - things in themselves, as opposed to things as we see them:

And we indeed, rightly considering objects of sense as mere appearances, confess thereby that they are based upon a thing in itself, though we know not this thing as it is in itself, but only know its appearances, viz., the way in which our senses are affected by this unknown something. - Prolegomena, § 32

See also the noumenon/phenomenon distinction.

Kant's considerations are more epistemic, while Berkeley starts with epistemic considerations, but draws ontological conclusions from them.

Note that the issue of reality and its existence or not outside of the mind has been discussed for a long time, and is independent of physics theories - quantum mechanics just added fuel to the debate. For references on these questions as they relate specifically to quantum mechanics and idealism/materialism, see here and here.

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.