Yes, so please give me an example of something that lacks consistency.
Abstractions for instance. I don't have an example of an inconsistent
substance because I think such things are
insubstantial, and that "things" are made out of material as their
medium.
I certainly don't think I can make conscious systems out of an immaterial medium that lacks any consistency (your original question), I really don't think that is possible. I am saying that the substance of the universe comes out of it's consistency.
I tried to offer an example. If randomness is not a lack of consistency, I don't know what is ... and I still think your boundary arbitrary.
Radiation isn't entirely random though it exists along a known probability has known effects and some of it's basis for existing is known.
For the purposes of science, dealing with a collections of atoms is done to obtain the predictability of the probability distribution. It's not done to deny that individual atoms are unpredictable. So, a collection of atoms may be an example of consistency, but that makes a single atom an example of inconsistency. The system of atoms, then, is material, but the single atom is immaterial. I happen to think that is how it will always be - that whatever one calls material will be made of immaterial constituents. To try to drive the definition of material all the way down the infinite chain of turtles seems to me a fallacy of modifying the definition every time something comes up that doesn't suit some unspoken desire.
Our measurements of radiation happening in a known probability distribution for a given atom configuration would lead to the proposition that their basic mechanism isn't entirely random, that there are rules governing when the atom emits radiation.
Random is just another word for "unpredictable", and to be able to absolutely prove that all the substance of universe is made up entirely of inherently consistent things would be to have a full theory of everything.
Since knowledge, especially theoretical knowledge is based upon abstraction which is a
simplification of global reality a complete theory is therefore would be known to be impossible.
We
know there are physical limits on observation if Heisenberg is to be believed, thus we are always going to see some part of the universe as random regardless of if there are rules governing every thing.
Basically you are just requiring me to
know everything to discount objectively immaterial things (and by "immaterial things" we mean "pure randomness" here because we are working with my own admittedly imperfect definition), even if we don't have the first clue how to conceptualize them, deal with them ect.
You're right I can't prove a negative. What is my reason for believing that objective things can be inherently inconsistent or even contradictory?
Why should I make the metaphysical leap here to think that consciousness can be made out of out of something that I would define as immaterial? Or that anything can draw substance from something that is fundamentally inconsistent? How would I go about this?
Our ability to conceptualize "the random" is just as poor as conceptualizing unity (if not worse since there are no rules to simplify or abstract from it) so I don't see an advantage here.
With a unity we at least have the option of dividing it up and making general observations and rules.
That's what never seems to surface in these discussions. Why do people so tenaciously hold to some undefined need to call everything material? What harm is done if some other class of substance is identified?
I'm not saying you're being dishonest with me, but it just feels like you're not telling me everything - that I'm not getting the real reason why you want to put everything in this single category of material. Why is the word "material" so special that it must be a unity?
I need an example of something that you would consider as lacking consistency. Otherwise, we're just talking in circles. You've given me nothing to explain why you hold these beliefs.
We are talking in circles because of course you are asking for an example of something substantial I don't think exists as a substance.
Next you can ask me to draw you a square circle and reverse digest my food by sticking it in my anus.