Posted: Oct 06, 2018 7:37 pm
Andrew4Handel wrote:I think a problem with the physical is that it is tautologous. There is nothing to compare the physical with to differentiate it, if it is everything.
It is hard to illustrate this succinctly, however imagine this sequence a a a a z a a a You can see that "z" is not the same as "a" but you may not be able to describe why, but you can say "either a or z" or "either a or not a". Something is defined by not being identical to something else.
The only meaning for physical and material seems in opposition to an alternative which is the non physical.
Physical and materialism are not strict scientific causal terms . Science refer to entities and concepts like atoms, time and space.
Yes, that is potentially a problem for the physical. It's not dissimilar to the reason I said I don't really defend physicalism or materialism.
The problem comes when you then work your way around to this:
Andrew4Handel wrote:I think Descartes proved that experience is more real then its contents and science shows that immediate perception is not identical to proposed entities causing it.
You've not only implicitly solved your own problem (which I don't think you have at all) you've claimed that someone has proved that the physical is "less real" than the mental, which they clearly haven't.
We do not see mental interactions without corresponding physical interactions, according to your implicit resolution of the problem of describing the boundary of the physical by contrasting it with the mental.
Andrew4Handel wrote:I don't think accepting the non physical validates religion, if that is peoples fear.
It's not mine. I object to it because it involves multiplying entities beyond necessity. I see no evidence for it whatsoever.