# Quantitative vs. qualitative and its implications for materialism

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/quantitative-vs-qualitative-and-its-implications-for-materialism/14404>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Created:** [October 15, 2021, 8:58am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/quantitative-vs-qualitative-and-its-implications-for-materialism/14404 "2021-10-15T08:58:44Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [October 16, 2021, 7:35pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/quantitative-vs-qualitative-and-its-implications-for-materialism/14404/21 "2021-10-16T19:35:31Z")

</div>

> [@LogosOfLogic](#):
>
> I disagree with your assessment that it’s caused by a neurochemical state. The neurochemical state simply measures and explains what the levels of particular neurochemical such as endorphine and dopamine are in the brain of the experiencier at any particular moment.

Okay, but then I think your disagreement presents you with a huge problem of explanation for the relationship between the contents of conscious experience(including it’s presence or absence) and it’s response to physical and chemical stimulus.

> [@LogosOfLogic](#):
>
> That does not explain what love is or why love is BUT only how love is maybe who love is(only as far as the experiencers concerned and not who or what he is in love with) and possibly where love is as far as the specific location in the brain.

I don’t see how positing that consciousness is fundamentally immaterial and was created by a god provides any more, or a superior answer, to the questions of an explanation of what love is or why love is, than to say consciousness is a fundamentally material product of brain activity, and that the brain evolved. What is it that I’m supposed to take from the former that I don’t get from the latter?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [October 16, 2021, 8:12pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/quantitative-vs-qualitative-and-its-implications-for-materialism/14404/22 "2021-10-16T20:12:48Z")

</div>

> [@LogosOfLogic](#):
>
> I would say it sounds pretty fair but my point is that some things have a quantitative nature it means that they can be measured therefore they’re empirical and other things have a qualitative nature which means they cannot be measured but they are subjective experiences or viewpoints or values as you state

“Empirical” is not a synonym of “quantitative.”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LogosOfLogic](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/logosoflogic/32/13093_2.png) [@LogosOfLogic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/LogosOfLogic)\
**Post date:** [October 16, 2021, 8:15pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/quantitative-vs-qualitative-and-its-implications-for-materialism/14404/23 "2021-10-16T20:15:06Z")

</div>

Empirical means that which can be quantified using sensory data input

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [October 16, 2021, 8:16pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/quantitative-vs-qualitative-and-its-implications-for-materialism/14404/24 "2021-10-16T20:16:52Z")

</div>

No, as I noted, zero quantification is required.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LogosOfLogic](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/logosoflogic/32/13093_2.png) [@LogosOfLogic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/LogosOfLogic)\
**Post date:** [October 17, 2021, 2:01am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/quantitative-vs-qualitative-and-its-implications-for-materialism/14404/25 "2021-10-17T02:01:43Z")

</div>

Okay that’s fine but that doesn’t change the fact that most materialists and naturalists always discount discredit anything that cannot be Quantified

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AlanFox](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/alanfox/32/3495_2.png) [@AlanFox](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/AlanFox)\
**Post date:** [October 17, 2021, 12:56pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/quantitative-vs-qualitative-and-its-implications-for-materialism/14404/26 "2021-10-17T12:56:09Z")

</div>

How did you establish what most materialists and naturalists think?

I think you are wrong about quantification. Science can deal with any phenomenon that leaves a trace, however small or indirect, of its existence. Science cannot study imaginary concepts.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Frank\_robert](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/frank_robert/32/9272_2.png) [@Frank\_robert](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Frank_robert)\
**Post date:** [October 17, 2021, 11:58pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/quantitative-vs-qualitative-and-its-implications-for-materialism/14404/27 "2021-10-17T23:58:38Z")

</div>

> [@LogosOfLogic](#):
>
> I disagree with your assessment that it’s caused by a neurochemical state. The neurochemical state simply measures and explains what the levels of particular neurochemical such as endorphine and dopamine are in the brain of the experiencier at any particular moment. That does not explain what love is or why love is BUT only how love is maybe who love is(only as far as the experiencers concerned and not who or what he is in love with) and possibly where love is as far as the specific location in the brain.

I think you are over-categorizing. We experience love as both an emotional and physical level which will have correlative effect in different locations of the brain. You say you are are a mystic, so am I. I experience love as a paradox that needs to be embraced and not necessarily understood at a conscious level . Others may/will experience it differently.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LogosOfLogic](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/logosoflogic/32/13093_2.png) [@LogosOfLogic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/LogosOfLogic)\
**Post date:** [October 18, 2021, 4:29pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/quantitative-vs-qualitative-and-its-implications-for-materialism/14404/28 "2021-10-18T16:29:48Z")

</div>

Technically science itself is an abstract mental concept therefore it is an imaginary like any religious belief as well. You could argue the same of any theoretical concept such as the singularity that it only exists through math on paper, but not in reality or actuality.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LogosOfLogic](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/logosoflogic/32/13093_2.png) [@LogosOfLogic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/LogosOfLogic)\
**Post date:** [October 18, 2021, 4:30pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/quantitative-vs-qualitative-and-its-implications-for-materialism/14404/29 "2021-10-18T16:30:15Z")

</div>

That may be a fair enough assessment, however my point is that science may have most of the answers and the answers it doesn’t have maybe found in non-quantitative and non-empirical means and methods.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\
**Post date:** [October 18, 2021, 4:38pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/quantitative-vs-qualitative-and-its-implications-for-materialism/14404/30 "2021-10-18T16:38:13Z")

</div>

Some people are atheists because they were never taught religion when they were young. Most atheists are well aware of religion and reject the idea in whole or in part. Bear in mind that the atheists you encounter online are not a representative sample of the whole - you are much more likely to encounter those who want an argument.  
Note that being an atheist does not require the concept of a Christian God, any theology will do. So if you don’t believe in Odin or Ra, then you are an atheist too. 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LogosOfLogic](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/logosoflogic/32/13093_2.png) [@LogosOfLogic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/LogosOfLogic)\
**Post date:** [October 18, 2021, 5:38pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/quantitative-vs-qualitative-and-its-implications-for-materialism/14404/31 "2021-10-18T17:38:18Z")

</div>

Absolutely correct all theists such as Buddhists Christians and Hindus are grouped together as theists. The same way all atheists would be grouped together regardless of what God they have disbelief in, including communists would be grouped together with atheists. Although all atheists are not communists, all true communists are atheists.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\
**Post date:** [October 18, 2021, 6:19pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/quantitative-vs-qualitative-and-its-implications-for-materialism/14404/32 "2021-10-18T18:19:26Z")

</div>

A quibble: Buddhism is both a philosophy and a religion; It’s possible to accept the philosophy but not the religion, and be both Buddhist and atheist at the same time. I have an acquaintance who spent a few years in a Buddhist monastery who would scold me if I failed to mention this. 🙂

Grouping atheists together is problematic. [It’s like a Golf Club for people who don’t play golf.](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/atheism-the-we-dont-play-golf-club/1644) Most labels like “Communist” describe qualities or beliefs a person has, while A-Theism is a quality or belief a person _does not have._

> [@LogosOfLogic](#):
>
> Technically science itself is an abstract mental concept therefore it is an imaginary like any religious belief as well. You could argue the same of any theoretical concept such as the singularity that it only exists through math on paper, but not in reality or actuality.

Science is a method with material application. We might describe religion as a method with material application too. Both are concepts, not real in the material sense, but have real power to influence people. I’d like to say there is a categorical difference between the concepts, but it’s a little hard to pin down. Science has defined rules bounding the concept, while religion has rules that are arbitrary in some sense (not arbitrary to the practitioner! 😉 ).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LogosOfLogic](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/logosoflogic/32/13093_2.png) [@LogosOfLogic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/LogosOfLogic)\
**Post date:** [October 18, 2021, 6:21pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/quantitative-vs-qualitative-and-its-implications-for-materialism/14404/33 "2021-10-18T18:21:33Z")

</div>

Tell me about it! It’s hard enough to believe in one-eyed drunk guy who committed suicide by hanging himself, but it takes even more faith to believe in a guy that supposedly is immortal yet died and was reformed after being eaten by an crocodile.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LogosOfLogic](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/logosoflogic/32/13093_2.png) [@LogosOfLogic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/LogosOfLogic)\
**Post date:** [October 18, 2021, 6:21pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/quantitative-vs-qualitative-and-its-implications-for-materialism/14404/34 "2021-10-18T18:21:38Z")

</div>

Interesting to note Ra was the first even before his merger with Osiris in the underworld, so everything was only 1 there would have to logically only be 1 God before they could be 2 or 3. Even the Rig-Veda written in Sanskrit and the oldest continously practicing religion on Earth; Hinduism, originally was monotheistic before it deteriorated into polytheism.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LogosOfLogic](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/logosoflogic/32/13093_2.png) [@LogosOfLogic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/LogosOfLogic)\
**Post date:** [October 18, 2021, 6:21pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/quantitative-vs-qualitative-and-its-implications-for-materialism/14404/35 "2021-10-18T18:21:47Z")

</div>

The Vedic concept of God believes in one and only one God with no mediator in between and God is omnipotent, omnipresent, all pervading, never born, never dying, all knowing and creator of the Universe.

Na dvitityo Na triyaschthurtho naapyuchyate|  
N a panchamo Na shshtah sapthmo naapyuchyate|  
Nashtamo Na navamo dashamo naapyuchyate|  
Yagna yetham devamekavritham veda||  
Sa sarvassai vi pashyathi yachha praanathi yachhana|  
Tamidam nigatam sah sa yesha yeka yekavrideka yeva|  
Ya yetham devamekavritham veda||  
Atharva 13.4[2]19-20

There is no second God, nor a third, nor is even a fourth spoken of  
There is no fifth God or a sixth nor is even a seventh mentioned.  
There is no eighth God, nor a ninth. Nothing is spoken about a tenth even.  
This unique power is in itself. That Lord is only one, the only omnipresent. It is one and the only one.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LogosOfLogic](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/logosoflogic/32/13093_2.png) [@LogosOfLogic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/LogosOfLogic)\
**Post date:** [October 18, 2021, 7:05pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/quantitative-vs-qualitative-and-its-implications-for-materialism/14404/36 "2021-10-18T19:05:45Z")

</div>

1. I agree with you Buddhism is a philosophy as well there are Buddhists that are atheist. One can even argue that the entire religious path of Buddhism doesn’t involve God either it only involves the self, the conscious mind, meditation. One will then free oneself of wants and focusing only on the needs in order to end suffering. Thereby one can achieve self realization and escape the negative cycle of rebirth and redeath or Samsara and achieve liberation or Nibbana or Nirvana. I am aware there’s even a form of reform Judaism that is atheistic now.
2. It may be somewhat problematic but so is quantum mechanics and both are still true.
3. I agree completely with your assessment religions and their adherents tend to be more dogmatic and science and its practitioners tend to be more pragmatic.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AlanFox](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/alanfox/32/3495_2.png) [@AlanFox](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/AlanFox)\
**Post date:** [October 18, 2021, 7:06pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/quantitative-vs-qualitative-and-its-implications-for-materialism/14404/37 "2021-10-18T19:06:10Z")

</div>

> [@LogosOfLogic](#):
>
> Technically science itself is an abstract mental concept therefore it is an imaginary like any religious belief as well.

Well we can carry on playing semantic games if you like but the scientific method is a completely practical method for examining real phenomena. Science depends on data, obtained by observation, measurement and experimentation. Scientific theories become so when they fit the facts and make accurate predictions. There’s no central authority that decides. Useful theories become mainstream, useless theories are discarded.

This is not like religion. Organised religions seem to rely on authority.

> [@](#):
>
> You could argue the same of any theoretical concept such as the singularity that it only exists through math on paper, but not in reality or actuality.

No, I couldn’t. Isaac Asimov wrote a little essay on how scientific theories get less wrong as scientific discoveries (and technological developments in observing and measuring) build on previous results.

> **[Nature%20of%20Science\_Asimov.pdf](https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dbalmer/eportfolio/Nature%20of%20Science_Asimov.pdf)**
>
> 95.19 KB

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Puck\_Mendelssohn](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/puck_mendelssohn/32/11849_2.png) [@Puck\_Mendelssohn](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Puck_Mendelssohn)\
**Post date:** [October 18, 2021, 7:06pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/quantitative-vs-qualitative-and-its-implications-for-materialism/14404/38 "2021-10-18T19:06:38Z")

</div>

Three shall be the number thou shalt count,  
and the number of the counting shall be three.  
Four shalt thou not count,  
neither count thou two,  
excepting that thou then proceed to three.  
Five is right out!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LogosOfLogic](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/logosoflogic/32/13093_2.png) [@LogosOfLogic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/LogosOfLogic)\
**Post date:** [October 18, 2021, 7:53pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/quantitative-vs-qualitative-and-its-implications-for-materialism/14404/39 "2021-10-18T19:53:09Z")

</div>

1. Semantics by definition is what words mean so it’s very important to assign the proper definition to what we’re discussing. Either way they both are mental constructs.
2. Some organized religions may rely on authority as well as written or oral tradition and mantra, however the spiritual quest relies upon faith and the pursuit of the truth along the thin narrow righteous path.
3. The logical fallacy and appeal to authority is not sufficient nor does it detract from the fact that mathematical models are theoretical and not actual.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LogosOfLogic](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/logosoflogic/32/13093_2.png) [@LogosOfLogic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/LogosOfLogic)\
**Post date:** [October 18, 2021, 7:54pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/quantitative-vs-qualitative-and-its-implications-for-materialism/14404/40 "2021-10-18T19:54:15Z")

</div>

It’s a really funny joke, but you affirmed the validity my argument. Without the number 1 you can never count to 2 3 4 or 5 or I’m sorry forget about 5 leave it out. One would have to leave it out if they didn’t know about the number one first!

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/quantitative-vs-qualitative-and-its-implications-for-materialism/14404.md?page=1)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/quantitative-vs-qualitative-and-its-implications-for-materialism/14404.md?page=3)