(September 1, 2026 at 11:01 am)Angrboda Wrote: @Jal :
You've said that in philosophy you learned the principle that the immaterial cannot affect the material. What fact or reason would prevent one from assuming the contrary? This just seems like an arbitrary principle that you've adopted for no particularly good reason. They say that oil and water don't mix. But they do influence each other. A liquid and a gas may minimally interact, but they aren't immutable towards each other. Philosophers discuss 'substance' which is a term of art which refers to the basic, atomic materials that make up our world. Thus what are described as different forms of matter all live under the umbrella of substance, with nothing preventing their interaction. So why can't substance subsume both the material and the immaterial? This just seems to be you deciding, here, but no further, for arbitrary, read: defenseless, reasons. What reasons do you have for adopting this principle and can a reasonable man differ on this principle?
Axiom: the intangible cannot impact the tangible.
Why is everyone acting like this is unrealistic? Suppose I want to hit a golf but not too far. Turns out I have a machine that can soften my club, to soften the blow.
So I try this out, but the ball went too far. I soften the club some more. Still a little too far - still a little too much IMPACT.
Eventually I achieve the limits of the machine - it softs the club to the absolute, making it as intangible as Casper the Ghost. How much impact NOW? Zero. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
If you think I need to disabuse myself of this conclusion, fine, but I don't see how to do it.
