RickLewis wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2026 12:01 pm
So you think the category of "physical" has become too broad to be meaningful or useful? That's an interesting suggestion.
The one link between everything in this category may be just as you say - that "physical" is everything discovered by science. But isn't that itself rather important, because it implies a continuity, that all of the different fields, waves, particles etc etc are all intelligible one in terms of one another, or else connected causally in ways that at least potentially we can understand?
That the things that are considered real in science are intelligible in terms of each other either directly or through connection to other things considered real likely says something. I'm not sure what. Idealists could consider ideas or non-corporeal 'things' intelligible in terms of each other. Perhaps even dualists in some way.
If so, are you saying that a Cartestian mind potentially is "physical" in this very broad sense that has grown up, and therefore potentially accessible to science as it continues to advance?
I think changing the title of the ism might remove a bias when dealing with claims of a possible 'thing'/phenomenon) that seems to be non-corporeal or has been considered non-corporeal by believers or critics or both. iow if there really isn't a substance requirement, we simply have a system of verifying. In the ideal this is the way things are now, but I think the implied substance criterion creates a bias.
It may matter less in science itself, but more in the ways science (physicalism) is used by people outside it. I do see this problem a lot in philosophy. I suspect it makes certain areas sort of off limits for scientists, or at least risky. It is more likely it slows things down rather than stops certain things from being found.
We can look back and say, well, everything we decided was real interacts with other things we call physical so they are physical. And, in a sense, fair enough. It's not a substance claim, but looking backwards it doesn't hurt. But looking forward, science doesn't really need to think of that. If something cannot be detected, by machines/devices or at least by humans (or animals, I guess) it's hard to study it. To demonstrate it exists. But we don't need to have a category for things. Of course if no one is sensing a specific something or measuring it on some device, we have a dead end. And in that situation, we have mostly likely no one saying it exists. Perhaps a Rationalist of some kind. But then the Rationalist needs to explain why whatever it is matters and perhaps there is something to sense (over time perhaps) or measure there.
But otherwise we have phenomena/events and someone thinks there is a pattern or they saw it but can't demonstrate it exists or that it wasn't merely some subjective experience that was misinterpreted. But if you get many reports, you don't have to mull over 'but I can't think of a physical force or material that would allow for what they claim'. The attitude can be 'well, let's see if we can document the pattern.'
Like infrasound communication in elephants. There the natives who claimed to hear the sound and who were dismissed. There was no measurable sound so it must be a supernatural claim. Nothing physical can do this. I think the substance issue creates fog. Of course cautious scientists could simply say there might be something physical here that we can't measure yet or haven't. But I think the substance issue adds to the fog, because it creates a category for the claim and one that rules out the claim.
But really don't need to know if the universe is monist, dualist, idealist, physical, etc. It doesn't matter if claims or patterns seem to indicate something non-corporeal. That doesn't matter. All that matters for the scientist is 'can I find a way to demonstrate this or can I measure something.'
Can we verify a pattern? is really the only question. If we can't (now) that doesn't mean we rule something out, but scientists can then ask 'what would you like me to do?' to the experiencers.
And it puts an end to all the discussions that boil down to but that's supernatural and there's nothing outside nature type debates where often both sides allow for an unnecessary substance focus. You could easily believe that the things catergorized as supernatural or transcendent or non-corporeal or the patterns thought to be present but not verified yet are natural. But you can have a long thread where neither side manages to get away from the substance debate or the believers are expected to demonstrate the non-corporeal can influence the corporeal. If everyone stopped worrying so much about what things were made of and does this rule out its existence we likely come to an impasse but at least it is a practical one, not pages of abstract speculation. Now you can move to what's the next step if I were to think you were on to something?