Can the world be entirely reduced to material objects ?

[Bugmaster]

Materialism

Materialism is the worldview that, ultimately, everything in the world is made of material things. Things which are traditionally identified as immaterial -- such as minds, souls, abstract concepts -- either do not exist at all, or are our mis-interpretations of material things.

By "material", I mean, "objects that can be observed through evidence, directly or indirectly". Thus, rocks are material, because you can touch them. Electrons are material too; you can't touch them, but you can measure their current. Virtual particles are also material: you can detect the radiations they emit as half of them fall into black holes.

Numbers, on the other hand, are not material. You can have two apples, or two volts, but you can never measure or detect a "two". Thus, a materialist (such as myself) would argue that numbers are a human invention, and do not objectively exist.

Alternatives

Some alternatives to materialism include the very popular dualism: the notion that material things (such as rocks) exist, but spiritual or mental or Platonic things (such as souls) exist also; and the somewhat less popular idealism: the notion that only spiritual things exist (such as mathematical concepts), and material things are just illusions. QED has proposed on this thread another worldview: that both spiritual things and material things are illusiory manifestations of a third substance (which I have dubbed QEDium).

Previous Arguments

Harvey1 has argued on this thread that materialism cannot be true; unfortunately, that entire thread got a bit off-topic, and I lost track of it when punctuation replaced grammar. I have ended up arguing that the human minds specifically can be reduced to material components on this thread of mine (though that was irrelevant to the thread's main topic). And of course, Harvey1 started a new thread defending mind-body dualism specifically, though the jury is still out on that one.

For the purposes of this thread, though, I am less concerned with mind-body dualism specifically. My topic is twofold:

1). Is it logically possible that materialism is true ?
2). Assuming (1) is true, are we justified in believing that materialism is most likely true ?

[Bugmaster]

I take it to mean is it logically possible that everything expressed in the world has material origins. Relations are thus always between material things.

If we posit that there exist material things, but also relations, which are immaterial (as far as I can tell), wouldn't that be dualism ?

[Curious]

1). Is it logically possible that materialism is true ?

1). If materialism is true then it would not have to be logically possible? The question seems to ask whether materialism is possible in the realm of the immaterial.

I take it to mean is it logically possible that everything expressed in the world has material origins. Relations are thus always between material things. For example, a material object -- say a motor car like a Corvette Stingray has a certain immaterial component (a spirit if you like) which some people are attracted to. Other people may adopt a spirit of concern for the environment and come to despise the spirit of the 'vette. But without the material car acing as intermediary in this relationship between two spirits, those spirits could not have any meaningful existence nor could they influence one another.

You take it to mean??? This is almost as good a response as I could hope for. I have a problem with your reference to the spirit of the corvette though. You seem to believe the "spirit" of the vette is tied more closely to the vette than to the perception of it. This is obviously not the case. The car is an inanimate object and any "spirit" is bestowed by virtue of it's appeal. The car's appeal is immaterial in nature and is entirely dependent upon the perception of it. Of course, the term spirit here is almost certainly a deliberate attempt to pass a Trojan horse. Such a reference to spirit from an atheist is always suspicious in any case.
You say the car acts as an intermediary here which I find a little confusing. Are you suggesting that the material is merely intermediary to the immaterial?

[Goat]

I take it to mean is it logically possible that everything expressed in the world has material origins. Relations are thus always between material things.

If we posit that there exist material things, but also relations, which are immaterial (as far as I can tell), wouldn't that be dualism ?

In my opinion, no , it would not be. That is because the relationship has to do specifically with material things, and has a material explanation. This relationships are observable, testable, and you can make predictions about them. These 'relationships' are subject to scientific analysis.

In Dualism, I would say that 'Spirit' and 'Soul' would be dualism.

[Cathar1950]

It seems the relationships are what makes it material. Because of relationship that matter is real but secondary. It seems to me dualism would separate the two in some unrelated and unnecessary way.
It seems that matter and relationship are descriptive of what is real.
At the same time I don’t understand how the universal could be true or relevant without relationships to reality.

[Curious]

It seems the relationships are what makes it material. Because of relationship that matter is real but secondary. It seems to me dualism would separate the two in some unrelated and unnecessary way.
It seems that matter and relationship are descriptive of what is real.
At the same time I don’t understand how the universal could be true or relevant without relationships to reality.

So you don't think relationships are "unreal". Do you believe that the stalker relationship is "real" for example?...

[Cathar1950]

What kind of stalker? If you mean some one stalking some one it isn't a mutual relationship.
Relationships are what is material and what is real and they don't exist with out something to relate to.
We have moved beyond a billiard ball view of matter. At the subatomic level it is dynamic and relational. I am just rejecting that there is a universal or relationship with out a Predicate or Object. I am sure I am not being clear and I could use a little help in from our physicists.

[QED]

For example, a material object -- say a motor car like a Corvette Stingray has a certain immaterial component (a spirit if you like) which some people are attracted to. Other people may adopt a spirit of concern for the environment and come to despise the spirit of the 'vette. But without the material car acing as intermediary in this relationship between two spirits, those spirits could not have any meaningful existence nor could they influence one another.

I have a problem with your reference to the spirit of the corvette though. You seem to believe the "spirit" of the vette is tied more closely to the vette than to the perception of it. This is obviously not the case. The car is an inanimate object and any "spirit" is bestowed by virtue of it's appeal. The car's appeal is immaterial in nature and is entirely dependent upon the perception of it.

No such ties were implied. I was not attempting to identify the location of the spirit. I only see such things as mental constructs such that a degree of internalization has to take place (i.e. an object or being has to be perceived by a conscious entity in order for it to be extended into the "spirit world" so to speak).

Of course, the term spirit here is almost certainly a deliberate attempt to pass a Trojan horse. Such a reference to spirit from an atheist is always suspicious in any case.

There are no ulterior motives behind what I say. These statements of mine simply reflect my understanding of the world. Our language is rooted in times past when the options on the way the world was understood were far fewer. This leaves us with a shortage of suitable words for some newer concepts and I've often noticed that this leads to trouble in these sorts of debates. I sincerely hope you don't believe that I'm out to trick anyone here.

You say the car acts as an intermediary here which I find a little confusing. Are you suggesting that the material is merely intermediary to the immaterial?

"Merely" implies a subservient role for the material which I would not concede to. Unfortunately this distinction between the material and the immaterial also harks back to earlier philosophies constructed prior to our discovery of the operation of the world at the Quantum level. I think this fact might be presenting us with a false dichotomy when considering subjects like this one -- which are centered on the fundamental meaning of the terms. By way of a contrast, in everyday life, when we apply these terms to large-scale objects such as cars, then the distinction can be useful.

I do, however, find myself wondering how you would go about persuading me that perceptions such as these are something other than the sort of spirit which people hold to be "holy" in some way? The net effect seems as if it could be the same and we do know that the further we go back in philosophical time, the more embroidered many of the ideas can be. Some of these ideas can be quite persistent too.

[BeHereNow]

Goat In Dualism, I would say that 'Spirit' and 'Soul' would be dualism.

This is a particular type of dualism. There can be dualism without spirits or souls.
There is duality of mind and body. Typically this type of duality does lead to a belief in souls, but not necessarily.
If I see myself as separate from other objects or people in the world I am experiencing dualism. If I see any material thing separate from another material thing, I have a dualistic point of view.
[Me<>it], [I<>they], [Archer<>arrow], [marksman<>bullet], [Tennis player<>tennis ball], [frog<>pond] are examples of dualism, particularly as taught in Zen, but in a broader sense as well.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
In the example of QED’s Corvette, I would say the “spirit” of the vette is connection of the commonality of viewer and object. The viewer feels they have a special connection with the Corvette. They understand or observe things about it that distinguishes it from a Chevette, or other vehicles. They understand things about it that others might not. They share in the being of the Corvette.
If someone is completely disconnected from an object (experiencing duality), there will be no perception of spirit.
The closer relationship we have with a, material object, the more likely we are to have the feeling it has spirit, in QED’s sense.
If the material object is living, and we see a great deal of this non-spiritual spirit, we might make the leap to the spiritual. This leap would be driven by emotion rather than reason.

[Curious]

I do, however, find myself wondering how you would go about persuading me that perceptions such as these are something other than the sort of spirit which people hold to be "holy" in some way? The net effect seems as if it could be the same and we do know that the further we go back in philosophical time, the more embroidered many of the ideas can be. Some of these ideas can be quite persistent too.

I would not even attempt to persuade you that perceptions are anything other than perceptions. I am almost certain that the universe is "real" but I am absolutely sure that my perception of it is real. The only thing I am really sure about is that I perceive it. I don't think it possible to reduce the world to material objects as they are ultimately unprovable. The only thing that is provable is mind.

[Cathar1950]

I can bend my mind with a spoon.