• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Material vs Physical

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
We spend a lot of time talking about the material world or the physical world and the possibility of a world that isn't one or the other of those. But what do these concepts really mean?

For example, material is defined to be 'relating to, derived from, or consisting of matter'.

Physical, on the other hand, is defined as 'of, or relating to, natural science' but also 'of, or relating to, material things'

Are these definitions sufficient? Are the two concepts the same? How do we determine if something is 'material'? How it is 'physical'?

For example, everyone pretty much agrees that a piece of rock is physical. But so is air. So are atoms. And all of these are material also.

But is light material? Is it physical? How about electrons? individual photons? Quarks? Dark matter? Dark energy?
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
To me, a distinction can be drawn between material and physical. For instance, consciousness (so far as I understand it) is not physical. However, it is still material because it is an emergent property of a physical (and therefore material) reality, and is apparently dependent on that reality to exist. Same goes for something like love, compassion, etc.

Basically, all physical things are material things, but not all material things are physical things. Physical things are a subset of material things.

Those are my conclusions -- for now.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
To me, a distinction can be drawn between material and physical. For instance, consciousness (so far as I understand it) is not physical. However, it is still material because it is an emergent property of a physical (and therefore material) reality, and is apparently dependent on that reality to exist. Same goes for something like love, compassion, etc.

Basically, all physical things are material things, but not all material things are physical things. Physical things are a subset of material things.

Those are my conclusions -- for now.

That's interesting, because my inclinations are the exact opposite. I tend to think of 'material' things as being made of atoms, while 'physical' things are more general, like light, and dark matter, etc. So, in my usage, all material things are physical, but not vice versa.

Very curious!
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
I'm going to take the easy way out and say anything physics can study is physical. The rest is up for grabs... oh and I personally don't talk about material outside of some odd debate. When I think about material I think something used in a product or maybe an ore...
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
That's interesting, because my inclinations are the exact opposite. I tend to think of 'material' things as being made of atoms, while 'physical' things are more general, like light, and dark matter, etc. So, in my usage, all material things are physical, but not vice versa.

Very curious!

Would you include something like consciousness, love, or compassion in either the physical or material categories?

I don't wish to argue the point, but you defined material as, 'relating to, derived from, or consisting of matter'. So if -- and this is up to you -- you believe consciousness, love, compassion, and such to be "derived from matter", wouldn't it then be logical to say those things are "material but not physical"?

At least that's my reasoning. You or others might have better.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
We spend a lot of time talking about the material world or the physical world and the possibility of a world that isn't one or the other of those. But what do these concepts really mean?

For example, material is defined to be 'relating to, derived from, or consisting of matter'.

Physical, on the other hand, is defined as 'of, or relating to, natural science' but also 'of, or relating to, material things'
As you have defined these adjectives, "material" is obviously much more specific and specifiable than "physical". For instance, your first definition of "physical" raises the question of what is "natural science". Is mathematics a "natural science"? If not, why not? Is social psychological a "natural science"? If not, why not?

The adjectives "material" and "physical" are only needed for purposes of philosophical discussion, particularly metaphysics. Presumably one does not need such adjectives for purposes of science, i.e., for purposes of employing the scientific method or the findings obtained by the scientific method.

Frankly I think it's best, even in philosophical discussions, to try to avoid the use of such adjectives. And when it is convenient to use them, one should use them in the most specific and specifiable way possible, and be able to define what one means. If ultimately all one can do to define one or more of these adjectives is to appeal to another adjective (e.g., "natural") that cannot be specifically defined, then one hasn't accomplished much.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
We spend a lot of time talking about the material world or the physical world and the possibility of a world that isn't one or the other of those. But what do these concepts really mean?

For example, material is defined to be 'relating to, derived from, or consisting of matter'.

Physical, on the other hand, is defined as 'of, or relating to, natural science' but also 'of, or relating to, material things'

Are these definitions sufficient? Are the two concepts the same? How do we determine if something is 'material'? How it is 'physical'?

For example, everyone pretty much agrees that a piece of rock is physical. But so is air. So are atoms. And all of these are material also.

But is light material? Is it physical? How about electrons? individual photons? Quarks? Dark matter? Dark energy?
I make no philosophical distinction between the two adjectives.
It might seem odd to some, but I consider EM waves & even
"empty" space to be both material & physical.

Note also that in legal documents, "material" is synonymous
with "having significant effect".
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
OK, so what is it that makes something susceptible to study by physics?
You're not letting me take the easy way out? ... fine. :D I'll try to explain.

Things we can study are made of things that have physical properties or at least interact with the physical world in a way that can be detected by physical instruments. It's sort circular reasoning, but I see no way around it.

(oh and I was editing my post a bit when you replied)
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
OK, so what is it that makes something susceptible to study by physics?
Forces. I tend to think the forces coming from things give us the illusion of physical yet everting is made of the same and everything can transform one way or another, energy to gravity/mass/matter and vice versa. Otherwise the math wouldn’t make everything relative to each other.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Would you include something like consciousness, love, or compassion in either the physical or material categories?

I don't wish to argue the point, but you defined material as, 'relating to, derived from, or consisting of matter'. So if -- and this is up to you -- you believe consciousness, love, compassion, and such to be "derived from matter", wouldn't it then be logical to say those things are "material but not physical"?

At least that's my reasoning. You or others might have better.

I think of them as physical processes. As in, subject to study by the methods of physics. But I also don't use the word 'material' as much, partly because it gets really ambiguous when dealing with subatomic particles, which are certainly 'physical'....well, as I use the word.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I think of them as physical processes. As in, subject to study by the methods of physics. But I also don't use the word 'material' as much, partly because it gets really ambiguous when dealing with subatomic particles, which are certainly 'physical'....well, as I use the word.

Just out of curiosity, do you see, say, "love" as either physical or material?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
You're not letting me take the easy way out? ... fine. :D I'll try to explain.

Things we can study are made of things that have physical properties or at least interact with the physical world in a way that can be detected by physical instruments. It's sort circular reasoning, but I see no way around it.

(oh and I was editing my post a bit when you replied)

OK, so let's run with this one. We can all agree that chairs and rocks are physical. And we can make things like wood and iron into 'physical instruments'.

So, is it true that anything that interacts (and so can be detected) with the physical is also physical? Can we do an inductive definition here?
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I see it as an emotion. And emotions are physical processes in the brain.

What about the qualia of love? The subjective experience of what loving is like? Not the feeling of loving, which is an emotion, but the observation of the feeling. Is that also physical?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
What about the qualia of love? The subjective experience of what loving is like? Not the feeling of loving, which is an emotion, but the observation of the feeling. Is that also physical?

Truthfully, I've never been able to make sense of the notion of a quale. How is the experience different than the feeling? I see how the observation is different, but isn't it like all observations in that sense? How is the qualia of love different than the emotion of love??

Yes, I see experiences as supervening on the physical: if we know everything about the physical, we can deduce everything about the experience. So, yes, they are physical.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Truthfully, I've never been able to make sense of the notion of a quale. How is the experience different than the feeling? I see how the observation is different, but isn't it like all observations in that sense? How is the qualia of love different than the emotion of love??

Yes, I see experiences as supervening on the physical: if we know everything about the physical, we can deduce everything about the experience. So, yes, they are physical.

Ok. I was just curious how you viewed things. Quale is a tough to grasp concept. Took me forever to see what they were talking about. And even then, I wax and wane on whether the concept is useful.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Ok. I was just curious how you viewed things. Quale is a tough to grasp concept. Took me forever to see what they were talking about. And even then, I wax and wane on whether the concept is useful.

OK, so do you see qualia as material or physical?
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
OK, so do you see qualia as material or physical?

By my wacky distinction between material and physical, I see them as material but non-physical because I think of them as emergent properties of physical processes and define material as, in part, anything "derived from or dependent on the physical".

"Material", to me, is much more a philosophical term, than a scientific one.
 
Top