Materialism is logically imposible

[Terrapin Station]

If it is so then how an state of matter evolve under materialism?

You'd have to explain what you have in mind by "state of matter evolving" first off.

Anyway, not that an explanation of "how states of matter evolve," whatever that amounts to exactly, would have any bearing on whether one is a materialist of not. One could say, "I haven't the faintest idea how states of matter evolve" and still be a materialist. The point is simply that being a materialist has no logical connection, no correlation, to one's stance on physical laws.

[Conde Lucanor]

S is initial state of any system under consideration. When you decide to do anything you expect that something happen, that is definition of C.

There are many different systems, with their internal rules or regularities. The fact that they are all material systems does not imply that they are all determined by the same set of causes and effects. The set of rules that apply in a fluid system will not apply in an electric system. A study of the movement of inanimate objects will not suffice to explain the migration of birds. And yet, they are all material systems.

S' in the other hand is what should happen following laws of nature. There is no reason to believe that C should be related to S', but C always is related to S'. That makes materialism impossible.

You fail to take into account which kind of system is that where human agency applies. You also fail to take into account that there are open and close systems and the determination of outcomes is very different from one to another. Minerals don't "behave" with willfulness and even the behavior of biological entities will depend on multiple variables, including context, chance, etc. And finally you also fail to take into account that human expectations will be based both on deductive and inductive learning of how all these different systems work, that is, their internal rules or regularities and the contingent aspects of the world. So human expectations are hypothesis of how the world will be, what will most likely happen, given the different possibilities of material causes. That there might be no relation between our hypothesis and what actually happens does not cancel the material properties of the world.

[bahman]

I'm saying that C is part of S. Therefore S' is determined by S, including the C part of it. Now you say C is not part of S, which is not a very materialistic view.
Supervene does not apply to states or things, it applies to ontologies. C supervenes on the physical under physicalism. S is not 'the physical', it is one state. Part of that state is the intention C.
I see consciousness as a process, like combustion. Combustion supervenes on the physical. Combustion can causally reduce the length of a candle. Contrast this with the ancient view that heat was one of the four fundamental elements.

It doesn't involve materialism. A state is related to prior states via physical law. This is true in materialism, dualism, and even idealism. All those isms and their variants are different ontological interpretations of what is experienced. Don't confuse physicalism with physics. Our modelling of physical law is not concerned with ontology, it is concerned with predicting and improving your experience.

Materialism additionally asserts that material does not supervene on a deeper ontology, and in that sense I'm not a materialist. But I cannot find a sound logical objection to that assertion, so I don't find it logically impossible.

What is C? You are in a situation, S. You experience S and decide to do something. You expect that you do something, C, based on your decision.

S however evolve to S' based on laws of nature.

So the problem we have is why what we expect to happen, C, should matches to what happen, S'.

[bahman]

You'd have to explain what you have in mind by "state of matter evolving" first off.

Anyway, not that an explanation of "how states of matter evolve," whatever that amounts to exactly, would have any bearing on whether one is a materialist of not. One could say, "I haven't the faintest idea how states of matter evolve" and still be a materialist. The point is simply that being a materialist has no logical connection, no correlation, to one's stance on physical laws.

You observe changes. Either changes are based on laws of nature or not. Do you believe that matter move based on laws of nature?

[bahman]

There are many different systems, with their internal rules or regularities. The fact that they are all material systems does not imply that they are all determined by the same set of causes and effects. The set of rules that apply in a fluid system will not apply in an electric system. A study of the movement of inanimate objects will not suffice to explain the migration of birds. And yet, they are all material systems.

You are wrong. The same set of laws explain fluid as it can explain solid. That is why it is called laws of nature.

You fail to take into account which kind of system is that where human agency applies. You also fail to take into account that there are open and close systems and the determination of outcomes is very different from one to another. Minerals don't "behave" with willfulness and even the behavior of biological entities will depend on multiple variables, including context, chance, etc. And finally you also fail to take into account that human expectations will be based both on deductive and inductive learning of how all these different systems work, that is, their internal rules or regularities and the contingent aspects of the world. So human expectations are hypothesis of how the world will be, what will most likely happen, given the different possibilities of material causes. That there might be no relation between our hypothesis and what actually happens does not cancel the material properties of the world.

We are discussion human which of course have mind. Human is not a close system because s/he experience, etc.

[bahman]

There are many different systems, with their internal rules or regularities. The fact that they are all material systems does not imply that they are all determined by the same set of causes and effects. The set of rules that apply in a fluid system will not apply in an electric system. A study of the movement of inanimate objects will not suffice to explain the migration of birds. And yet, they are all material systems.

You are wrong. The same set of laws explain fluid as it can explain solid. That is why it is called laws of nature.

You fail to take into account which kind of system is that where human agency applies. You also fail to take into account that there are open and close systems and the determination of outcomes is very different from one to another. Minerals don't "behave" with willfulness and even the behavior of biological entities will depend on multiple variables, including context, chance, etc. And finally you also fail to take into account that human expectations will be based both on deductive and inductive learning of how all these different systems work, that is, their internal rules or regularities and the contingent aspects of the world. So human expectations are hypothesis of how the world will be, what will most likely happen, given the different possibilities of material causes. That there might be no relation between our hypothesis and what actually happens does not cancel the material properties of the world.

We are discussion human which of course have mind. Human is not a close system because s/he experience, etc.

[Terrapin Station]

You'd have to explain what you have in mind by "state of matter evolving" first off.

Anyway, not that an explanation of "how states of matter evolve," whatever that amounts to exactly, would have any bearing on whether one is a materialist of not. One could say, "I haven't the faintest idea how states of matter evolve" and still be a materialist. The point is simply that being a materialist has no logical connection, no correlation, to one's stance on physical laws.

You observe changes. Either changes are based on laws of nature or not. Do you believe that matter move based on laws of nature?

I don't want to go off on a tangent re whether we believe in physical laws or not, why we should or shouldn't believe it physical laws, what we believe in otherwise, etc. The point is that believing in physical laws has no connection to whether one is a materialist and vice versa. If you disagree with that, argue instead for why the two are necessarily connected ideologically.

[bahman]

You'd have to explain what you have in mind by "state of matter evolving" first off.

Anyway, not that an explanation of "how states of matter evolve," whatever that amounts to exactly, would have any bearing on whether one is a materialist of not. One could say, "I haven't the faintest idea how states of matter evolve" and still be a materialist. The point is simply that being a materialist has no logical connection, no correlation, to one's stance on physical laws.

You observe changes. Either changes are based on laws of nature or not. Do you believe that matter move based on laws of nature?

I don't want to go off on a tangent re whether we believe in physical laws or not, why we should or shouldn't believe it physical laws, what we believe in otherwise, etc. The point is that believing in physical laws has no connection to whether one is a materialist and vice versa. If you disagree with that, argue instead for why the two are necessarily connected ideologically.

I think a system of belief is complete when it explain what stuff is and explain how stuff move. Don't you think? Again, do you believe that matter moves based on laws of nature?

[Terrapin Station]

I think a system of belief is complete when it explain what stuff is and explain how stuff move.

What does that have to do with why materialists would necessarily be realists on physical laws?

And is materialism necessarily a "complete" system of belief per your definition? What's the argument that it is necessarily that?

[bahman]

What does that have to do with why materialists would necessarily be realists on physical laws?

I think we have been in this point before. What you mean with being realists? Why do you answer my question with another question? How materialism explain that matter moves?

And is materialism necessarily a "complete" system of belief per your definition? What's the argument that it is necessarily that?

Well, materialism claims that everything is made of matter. It has to explain that how matter moves too.

[Noax]

What is C? You are in a situation, S. You experience S and decide to do something. You expect that you do something, C, based on your decision.

S however evolve to S' based on laws of nature.

So the problem we have is why what we expect to happen, C, should matches to what happen, S'.

You're repeating yourself and saying nothing new. C is part of S, so part of laws of nature, and thus part of the cause of S'.

[Terrapin Station]

What does that have to do with why materialists would necessarily be realists on physical laws?

I think we have been in this point before. What you mean with being realists?

First, if I keep using a term like that and you don't know what it refers to, don't wait until we've gone back and forth umpteen times before finally pointing out that you don't even know what I mean by the term.

Realism refers to the belief that the thing/phenomenon in question exists extramentally--that it's not simply a mental construct, a way to think about it.

Why do you answer my question with another question?

In this case because your comments had nothing to do with why materialists would necessarily be realists on physical laws, whereas that's what I'm focusing on. So I'm asking you to either tell me what, in your mind, your response has to do with the logical connection between materialists and physical laws or to instead address that.

How materialism explain that matter moves?

Materialism isn't a stance on "how matter moves." If a materialist explains that, and makes a comment about physical laws while doing so, they might have any conceivable stance on "how matter moves" and what the status of physical laws are. Those stances don't affect that the materialist is a materialist. That's just the point.

Well, materialism claims that everything is made of matter.

That part is correct (well, more or less--it depends on whether you're thinking about it so that relations and processes are included).

It has to explain that how matter moves too.

This part has nothing to do with whether something counts as materialism or not though.

It's similar to this: if we were to invent a term, "Toyotaist," to denote someone who thinks that the only kinds of automobiles that should exist are Toyotas, then maybe you'd think that they should have an opinion on tire brands, too. And maybe some Toyotaists would have opinions on tire brands--some might think there should only be Hankook tires, some might think that both Hankooks and Michelins are okay, etc. But their opinions on tires would have nothing to do with whether they're Toyotaists or not. "Toyotaist," as a conventional term, is ONLY about their view of what sorts of cars should exist. There are Toyotaists who want only Hankook tires and Toyotaists who like all sorts of tires, etc.

"Materialist" works the same way with respect to opinions about (the status of) physical laws.

[bahman]

What is C? You are in a situation, S. You experience S and decide to do something. You expect that you do something, C, based on your decision.

S however evolve to S' based on laws of nature.

So the problem we have is why what we expect to happen, C, should matches to what happen, S'.

You're repeating yourself and saying nothing new. C is part of S, so part of laws of nature, and thus part of the cause of S'.

You are repeating yourself too. Again C is not part of S. It supervene on S.

[bahman]

First, if I keep using a term like that and you don't know what it refers to, don't wait until we've gone back and forth umpteen times before finally pointing out that you don't even know what I mean by the term.

I asked several time that what you mean that materialists would necessarily be realists on physical laws, but you didn't answer.

Realism refers to the belief that the thing/phenomenon in question exists extramentally--that it's not simply a mental construct, a way to think about it.

That definition I know. To me laws of nature is something that matter governs it so to me is meaningless to say that materialists is necessarily be realists on physical laws.

In this case because your comments had nothing to do with why materialists would necessarily be realists on physical laws, whereas that's what I'm focusing on. So I'm asking you to either tell me what, in your mind, your response has to do with the logical connection between materialists and physical laws or to instead address that.

Well, matter moves so it is relevant to ask this question whether it moves based on laws of nature, or move randomly, etc. Description of matter is incomplete until we address this question, how matter moves?

Materialism isn't a stance on "how matter moves." If a materialist explains that, and makes a comment about physical laws while doing so, they might have any conceivable stance on "how matter moves" and what the status of physical laws are. Those stances don't affect that the materialist is a materialist. That's just the point.

So materialism is an incomplete system of belief since it cannot explain how matter moves.

That part is correct (well, more or less--it depends on whether you're thinking about it so that relations and processes are included).

Cool.

This part has nothing to do with whether something counts as materialism or not though.

We know that matter move in very specific way. Matter moves based on laws of nature even if we agree with your comment. Needless to say again
that to me materialism is incomplete if it doesn't explain that how matter moves.

[Noax]

Again C is not part of S. It supervene on S.

This is a self contradictory statement. So what does 'supervene' mean to you then?