What is Physical?

[Paradoxum]

I understand the desire to look for a graceful exit, so let me give you a hint: answer my questions as glibly as possible and don't ask new ones.

You can't tell me what to do!

I thank you for the opportunity to vet my definition. I worked on it again this morning and think it is improved. I offer the opportunity for you to do the same, and think that would be the best use of our time if the conversation resumes at some point.

Glib glub

"Brain" would not be a translation of the word, but a poor interpretation of it.

Well I'm still not sure what soul means then. Perhaps we'll come back to this.

I can't help but think there is some intentional obtuseness in this reply.

I am only ever acute or reflex, never obtuse.

Do you know of anything that does not have an opposite?

Someone might throw out something like "lemon". What is the opposite of a lemon? But that is to play the substance/property game - a common one for physicalists. Surely you know that game. Is a substance the sum of it's properties? (In terms of language this asks if a noun is a collection of adjectives). The temptation is to answer, "No." But how is the substance of an apple different than a lemon? Hmm. One can't answer such a question without referring to properties.

So, a lemon is sour. The opposite of sour is sweet. An apple is sweet. Therefore, I can propose an apple as the opposite of a lemon. You could argue that ad infinitum, but you'll never convince me a lemon is a thing for which I cannot describe some other differentiated thing.

I didn't say that there was no word which was the opposite of physical/material/ natural (depending what what we mean). The opposite of physical might supernatural or spiritual (how people normally understand the words). I just don't think such things actually exist.

I think not-magic stuff exists, but that doesn't mean magic must exist for me to say not-magic.

Likewise with "material". As soon as you describe it to me, you also tell me what it is not ... and it is virtually certain I can identify an existing thing that is outside your definition ... unless you resort to saying "the material is all". If you go there I'll happily let you, but I will also insist you've resorted to some sort of nihilism - which I believe I've mentioned to you before ... yes, I've got it right here on the chart I keep of our conversations.

Perhaps 'physical' is the idea that things work by mathematical laws, rather than by the will of a being. I'd have to think about it more.

Do you think anything contradicts that?

 

[Resha Caner]

I didn't say that there was no word which was the opposite of physical/material/ natural (depending what what we mean). The opposite of physical might supernatural or spiritual (how people normally understand the words). I just don't think such things actually exist.

Again, a pointless game. If I tell you victate is the opposite of astion, what does that mean to you? It has to be about more than the words.

Perhaps 'physical' is the idea that things work by mathematical laws, rather than by the will of a being. I'd have to think about it more.

Do you think anything contradicts that?

Hmm. When I employed "physical" as an active verb rather than a noun you didn't like it - though I never understood why since it's straight out of the dictionary. Now it seems that's what you're doing.

Regardless, I would need to know better what you mean. Is a "mathematical law" a closed-form deterministic equation? If you're going to admit stochastic equations, the boundaries are going to get a bit fuzzy. That's a bad math joke, yet still an important detail since you'll need to explain why we material beings - our wills - are not simply probabilistic machines.

 

[nebulaJP]

What does it mean for something to be physical or material? What does it mean for something to be supernatural or spiritual?

In my opinion, once you think about it more the difference seems to blur.

Consider that there could be other universes with different laws, and we would consider them physical. So saying everything within the universe is physical doesn't work.

What do you think?

What I think is that there is no such thing as matter. Only awareness of experience is real. The idea of Matter is an interpretation of experience that leads to a belief. It's not a belief that I hold, personally.

 

[Paradoxum]

Again, a pointless game. If I tell you victate is the opposite of astion, what does that mean to you? It has to be about more than the words.

It says to me that the words mean opposite things. I don't see your point.

Hmm. When I employed "physical" as an active verb rather than a noun you didn't like it - though I never understood why since it's straight out of the dictionary. Now it seems that's what you're doing.

I don't think the word is being used as a verb here. Anyway, I don't think I was against your definition before because it was a verb, but because I disagreed with the definition (used in this way).

Regardless, I would need to know better what you mean. Is a "mathematical law" a closed-form deterministic equation? If you're going to admit stochastic equations, the boundaries are going to get a bit fuzzy. That's a bad math joke, yet still an important detail since you'll need to explain why we material beings - our wills - are not simply probabilistic machines.

I'm not sure it would be fully deterministic... there could be probabilities involved too. Probability laws are math too.

What I think is that there is no such thing as matter. Only awareness of experience is real. The idea of Matter is an interpretation of experience that leads to a belief. It's not a belief that I hold, personally.

Idealism?

 

[Resha Caner]

It says to me that the words mean opposite things. I don't see your point.

Sigh.

 

[Paradoxum]

Sigh.

I wasn't being awkward on purpose answer that. I didn't know how you wanted me to answer.

 

[Resha Caner]

I wasn't being awkward on purpose answer that. I didn't know how you wanted me to answer.

You keep missing your opportunity to end the conversation. Why is that?

Anyway, please give me definitions of victate and astion.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I don't know if energy is a thing, or if it's just a label to understand how matter acts.

So is energy physical or not?

Also, at the heart of it, most things are just labels we apply to understand how something behaves. I could say the same of matter.

What do we mean by matter? If a ghost or angel has extension, would it have to be made of some sort of matter?

To me, matter should be composed of atoms and/or molecules. I often wonder if things smaller than atoms (protons, electrons, bosons, etc) are really "matter" at all.

How are they matter when they are really just probability functions?

I think "matter" only applies at the macro scale. The whole concept of "matter" and "energy" is taken from a pre-quantum mechanics era before we knew how messed up the universe really is.

And with Einstein's famous equation, we now know that anything with mass is also energy. But what about things without mass? For example, photons are generally said to be massless while also having momentum which is very bizarre.

The universe is incredibly, incredibly weird. It makes my head hurt.

If another universe has particles with difference qualities, I suspect we would call them physical.

That's the thing with the whole "physical" vs. "supernatural" distinction. Its ultimately just a word game. You can just call "everything that is" == "physical" and hence "the supernatural" doesn't exist by definition.

As I said before, the awe-inspiring complexity as well as the weirdness of the universe has enough "supernatural" in it for me as it is.

Well dark matter and energy are probably just matter and energy. We just call them dark because we don't know what they are.

And if we called them "supernatural", what would that imply?

What do you consider supernatural?

"The deep emotional conviction of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God"

I know its wishy-washy, but its a quote from Einstein and it aligns perfectly with my views.

The idea of "God of the Gaps" goes like this: The more we learn about the universe, the less room there is for God.

In my experience it is "God of the Gaps": The more we learn about how incredibly complex and mysterious the universe is, the more room there is for God.

Or the popular graduate student adage: "The more you learn, the less you know"

 

[nebulaJP]

Idealism?

Yes. Here is an article about how it may work.

But I'm more interested in my own experience rather than getting too caught up in theories or 'isms'. We know for sure that there is awareness of awareness itself and of the current thought, sensation or perception, i.e. 'experience'. Everything else is just an attempt at an explanation of that.

 

[com7fy8]

I think material things are natural . . . including atoms and molecules and the energy forms like sunlight that effect atoms and molecules in ways that can be measured using physical devices.

But we humans are deeper than just what is material. Our personalities can not really be measured by material devices. So, who we really are, deeper than our physical bodies, is spiritual. And so we can not be measured, really, by what is a physical standard. So, spiritually . . . deeper than our material bodies, we are supernatural . . . in our spiritual level of being.

And we are personal. Physical things are not personal, not able to love or be selfish.

Then there is the issue of how "natural" or "supernatural" we are in our personalities. A more "natural" person can be more attentive to and controlled by outward material circumstances. A "natural" personality's emotions are greatly or mainly effected by material things; but a spiritually minded person might be lovingly attentive to material events, but not emotionally controlled by physical things, because the spiritual person is caring mostly about being with God and loving people . . . being personal with God and people.

And in the Bible we have > "For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace." (Romans 8:6)

By being attentive mainly to spiritual things of God, a person has "life and peace" because of not being controlled and troubled by outward and physical circumstances.

Jesus says, "'Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.'" (John 14:27)

So, if we are "supernatural" in our personalities, we have Christ's peace keeping us safe from being "troubled" by this world's activities. But in this peace we can be sensitive and caring about what's happening, and clear-minded for being creative in how we deal with things

God's grace makes us succeed in doing this. We have trusted in Christ so we have peace with God and so now our Father keeps us safe, emotionally, from being "natural" or "carnal". But instead we can be caring and sharing, not fearing how others might not always be good with us. So, this is supernatural loving that we have in Jesus . . . ready to forgive, strong enough not to be hurt so we are ready with forgiveness

But if we are natural, we can be busy with analyzing what's happening only in the physical universe, and this can get us quite tied up . . . since even physical reality is past finding out. God's ways are "past finding out", we have in Romans 11:33. So, this is why His physical creation with His ways involved in it can't be figured out. But in relating in love, we discover how the ways of God are "past finding out", but we have peace because we are being attentive and prayerfully sensitive to how our Father has us relating

 

[apache1]

What does it mean for something to be physical or material? What does it mean for something to be supernatural or spiritual?

In my opinion, once you think about it more the difference seems to blur.

Consider that there could be other universes with different laws, and we would consider them physical. So saying everything within the universe is physical doesn't work.

What do you think?

Ask Olivia Newton John. After all, she sang "Let's Get Physical".

 

[Eudaimonist]

Ask Olivia Newton John. After all, she sang "Let's Get Physical".

I'm pretty sure she would say that the physical is that which is perceived by the senses and is open to empirical investigation.

And it has something to do with leg warmers.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ToddNotTodd]

What does it mean for something to be physical or material? What does it mean for something to be supernatural or spiritual?

In my opinion, once you think about it more the difference seems to blur.

Consider that there could be other universes with different laws, and we would consider them physical. So saying everything within the universe is physical doesn't work.

What do you think?

If there's one thing I learned from my Philosophy degree, it's that language is inherently imprecise, and some words or phrases are imprecise enough (and are for the most part individually defined) that discussing them is just mental mastur... well, you get the idea.

Supernatural is definitely one of those words...