Bertvan@aol.com writes
in message <7c.2b77fc3.25fbcbd5@aol.com>:
<snip to the crux:>
> Science deals in definitions; non materialism includes the
> undefinable. (such as free will, creativity or an undefinable
> "God") Non materialists regard the non definable as part of
> reality, and capable of influencing reality.
What do you mean by non-definable? I know many people
who argue that "free will", "creativity" and "God"
can be well-defined.
> Non materialists are skeptical of materialistic confidence that
> all of nature will eventually be explained by science.
If they have a reason for this skepticism, that reason can be
examined with the tools of science. In principle, I can think
of no way to know anything with confidence without being able
to verify it in ways approaching the scientific method.
> Apparently, most materialists believe the universe is the result
> of accidental, impersonal processes, without plan, purpose,
> meaning or design. Non materialists entertain the possibility
> of design and teleology.
Maybe, maybe not, depending on what you mean by design.
Did Thor create the Earth? Not likely.
> Materialism assumes the "laws of nature" are absolute. Non
> materialism is comfortable with the probabilistic nature of
> quantum physics.
Materialists are perfectly comfortable with quantum physics.
I don't know what you mean, here.
> Non materialists might regard mathematical formulas as crude
> way to describe reality, while a materialist would consider them
> precise.
Depends on what you mean by "describing reality". I know of no
single mathematical formula that describes reality.
> Those are off the top of my head, and I'm ready to rethink any
> of them. Whatever the differences, people rarely seem to have
> trouble sorting themselves out, and deciding whether they are
> a materialist and non materialist.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 13 2000 - 15:01:28 EST