RE: Definition of physical
May 21, 2016 at 7:00 am
(This post was last modified: May 21, 2016 at 7:03 am by robvalue.)
Cheers Boru 
Yeah... it seems sensible that would be the case, that a mirror-type thing would be physical.
The thing is... how could you ever establish the existence of a non-physical thing? Let's say we have done some measurements and there is some kind of effect that's unaccounted for. We've examined all known physical factors. Now what?
How can we know that the remaining thing isn't physical? How can we know it's not made of something, but just something that doesn't interact in ways we are used to?
It seems that "concluding" the effect is caused by something non-physical is necessarily an argument from ignorance.
I know theists are basically trying to say, "But magic tho! What if there's all this mysterious shit!" Yeah... but is this shit made of anything? If not, how did you determine that without using the argument from ignorance? Just because we can't yet "see" what it's made of, it doesn't mean we never will; and even if we never do, it doesn't mean it's not there either. Science neither needs to or desires to disprove such magical concepts, hence methodological naturalism. I honestly don't know what "supernatural" even means.
I was thinking about forces, such as gravity. I don't think you'd scientifically say such a force "literally exists", but rather it is physical objects acting upon each other. How, exactly, is probably ultimately unanswerable and beyond the scope of science. We can model as best we can.

Yeah... it seems sensible that would be the case, that a mirror-type thing would be physical.
The thing is... how could you ever establish the existence of a non-physical thing? Let's say we have done some measurements and there is some kind of effect that's unaccounted for. We've examined all known physical factors. Now what?
How can we know that the remaining thing isn't physical? How can we know it's not made of something, but just something that doesn't interact in ways we are used to?
It seems that "concluding" the effect is caused by something non-physical is necessarily an argument from ignorance.
I know theists are basically trying to say, "But magic tho! What if there's all this mysterious shit!" Yeah... but is this shit made of anything? If not, how did you determine that without using the argument from ignorance? Just because we can't yet "see" what it's made of, it doesn't mean we never will; and even if we never do, it doesn't mean it's not there either. Science neither needs to or desires to disprove such magical concepts, hence methodological naturalism. I honestly don't know what "supernatural" even means.
I was thinking about forces, such as gravity. I don't think you'd scientifically say such a force "literally exists", but rather it is physical objects acting upon each other. How, exactly, is probably ultimately unanswerable and beyond the scope of science. We can model as best we can.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum