Physical vs. Material

[Straw Dog]

Hey RFers!

So there's a distinction that I'd like to discuss between physicalism and materialism which I think may have some bearing on spiritual matters. Most people tend to think they're referring to the same thing when in fact there are some very important differences.

Materialism says that everything is made of matter. To the spiritual person, this can't possibly be true as reality seems to have a certain depth and complexity to it that cannot be adequately explained by simple matter. In a way, they're right. Reality is much more complex, subtle, and "deep" than the existence of ordinary matter.

Enter physicalism. Now, physicalism has actually developed with the physical sciences to include more complicated aspects of physicality than just matter. This includes wave/ particle relationships, energy, space, time, physical forces and processes, structure, information, non-material forces, etc. Reality is much grander, more complicated, and more subtle than just matter.

Because of this I feel that it doesn't do the physicalist position justice to claim that it is more shallow than spiritual views. In fact, I find it very possible to plant my sense of spirituality within the depths of physical reality. People are correct when they say there are hidden dimensions and facets of reality beyond the material experience. They're just probably incorrect in their attempts to adequately explain it using abstract symbols passed down through cultures. Those symbols may still work as useful metaphors and vague descriptions however, but they're nowhere near as technical enough.

Just my take on it. Thoughts?

[Willamena]

They equally dismiss the idea as an actual thing.

[shawn001]

"An object cannot be mass-free and physical; it cannot react with energy without having energy"

So in order for something to physcally exist, it has to have mass or energy. Heance e=mc#

Right now most cosmologist believe most of the universe isn't made up of ordinary matter, but dark matter and dark energy they don't understand it yet.

There is also the science of Quantum Mechanics where things get really wierd in regards to energy and subatomic particles.

[The Sum of Awe]

I pretty much agree on you on the differences, but I think Physicalism can't be coincided with Spiritualism, unless the spiritual substance is physical in itself, which wouldn't make it spiritual.

But modernly, Spiritualism developed to the point where ghosts are just a person in fog form, and basically all of the spiritual stuff is no different than physical stuff.

[paarsurrey]

Originally Posted by Willamena

They equally dismiss the idea as an actual thing.

You mean the idea precedes existence of a thing?

Like we have a blue print first and then we construct the actual building on those lines. Even lines don't exist physically; cannot exist as per definition; so the idea and the symbol or a Word "to go" from some non-physical or attributive authority precedes the physical that is seen later; of course formed under a long process.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

[Shuddhasattva]

"An object cannot be mass-free and physical; it cannot react with energy without having energy"

So in order for something to physcally exist, it has to have mass or energy. Heance e=mc#

Right now most cosmologist believe most of the universe isn't made up of ordinary matter, but dark matter and dark energy they don't understand it yet.

There is also the science of Quantum Mechanics where things get really wierd in regards to energy and subatomic particles.

And here's the wilderness of mirrors; semantics. It almost doesn't come down to empirical science, it comes down to how you define "thing." Is a thing a discrete object? Can we even say now that there are such a thing as discrete objects, or only provisional ones? Is a network of relationships or effects between seemingly discrete objects itself a thing?

Insofar as it an observed pattern, physically semi-existing, and given reified existence in our minds, yes.

[paarsurrey]

My little question is can we weigh or measure an idea, physically; or can we draw a straight line, as it was use to be defined earlier of having length only and no breadth, physically?

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by paarsurrey

You mean the idea precedes existence of a thing?

Like we have a blue print first and then we construct the actual building on those lines. Even lines don't exist physically; cannot exist as per definition; so the idea and the symbol or a Word "to go" from some non-physical or attributive authority precedes the physical that is seen later; of course formed under a long process.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

No, I just mean that the idea that "idea is a thing" (for example, the idea that the blueprint contains) is not entertained by materialism or physicalism. Idea is put into another perspective where it is disallowed "thinginess," and hence existence.

I mean that within the scope of these philosophical theories we entertain a much smaller world than language normally embraces. So because of materialism and physicalism we get people back-tracking, saying contradictory things like, "Oh, it doesn't exist. It just exists as an idea."

But this is probably off topic.

[Straw Dog]

Originally Posted by shawn001

"An object cannot be mass-free and physical; it cannot react with energy without having energy"

So in order for something to physcally exist, it has to have mass or energy. Heance e=mc#

Right now most cosmologist believe most of the universe isn't made up of ordinary matter, but dark matter and dark energy they don't understand it yet.

There is also the science of Quantum Mechanics where things get really wierd in regards to energy and subatomic particles.

Yes, there is still certainly plenty of room for the contemplation of mystery and the unknown. Science hasn't sucked the soul out of humanity, but rather partially revealed its hidden dimensions and strangeness. It's up to us to adapt to reality and not for reality to conform to our abstract beliefs and cultural symbols.

[PolyHedral]

Originally Posted by Willamena

No, I just mean that the idea that "idea is a thing" (for example, the idea that the blueprint contains) is not entertained by materialism or physicalism. Idea is put into another perspective where it is disallowed "thinginess," and hence existence.

I mean that within the scope of these philosophical theories we entertain a much smaller world than language normally embraces. So because of materialism and physicalism we get people back-tracking, saying contradictory things like, "Oh, it doesn't exist. It just exists as an idea."

But this is probably off topic.

Ideas are things, because they are encoded in energy.