Re: idealism vs materialism

["John S. Denker" <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>]

Larry Smith wrote:
> One of the philosophy professors here stopped by my office
....
>  Please think philosophically so your response will be in his
> language.  Are we (still?) materialists?

Gimme a break.  We are not materialists.  We are physicists.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/cgi-bin/mw.cgi?dlookup=materialism

Main Entry: ma.te.ri.al.ism
Pronunciation: m&-'tir-E-&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1748
 a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental
 reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can
 be explained as manifestations or results of matter

> to ask if physicists are starting to deny materialism (in
> the philosophical sense).

Starting?  Starting???  I would be very surprised if any
significant number of physicists believed in materialism
(in the philosophical sense) at any time in the last 100 years.

> believe that we may live in an idealistic universe,
> one  whose reality may  depend on the mind.

Idealism is not the only alternative to materialism.
To argue that non-adherence to materialism implies
idealism is highly fallacious reasoning.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/cgi-bin/mw.cgi?dlookup=idealism
Main Entry: ide.al.ism
Pronunciation: I-'dE-(&-)"liz-&m, 'I-(")dE-
Function: noun
Date: 1796
  1 a (1) : a theory that ultimate reality lies in a realm
  transcending phenomena (2) : a theory that the essential
  nature of reality lies in consciousness or reason
  b (1) : a theory that only the perceptible is real
  (2) : a theory that only mental states or entities are knowable

You could perhaps have a discussion of the question of whether
"only the perceptible is real" but that would require figuring
out what philosophers mean by "perceptible" which is generally
not worth the trouble.  Is it possible to have something that
is totally completely forever imperceptible?  Physicists stopped
worrying about such questions more than 100 years ago.

Philosophers commonly claim that this-or-that physicist has
endorsed their ideas, but usually it's just name-dropping.

See also
  http://www.monmouth.com/~jsd/physics/reality-reductionism.htm

For an intelligent discussion of the intersection of
science and philosophy, see
  Douglas R. Hofstadter, _Gödel, Escher, Bach_.