“Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)”
Physical Phys"ic*al, a.
Of or pertaining to nature (as including all created
existences); in accordance with the laws of nature; also,
of or relating to natural or material things, or to the
bodily structure, as opposed to things mental, moral,
spiritual, or imaginary; material; natural; as, armies and
navies are the physical force of a nation; the body is the
physical part of man.
Now this strikes me as a pretty damn wooly and open definition. We first need to know what “nature” is:
“Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)”
Nature Na"ture (?; 135), n. F., fr. L. natura, fr. natus
born, produced, p. p. of nasci to be born. See Nation.
The existing system of things; the world of matter, or of
matter and mind; the creation; the universe.
Hmm still not clear, whats this “matter” thingy?
“Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)”
Matter Mat"ter, n. OE. matere, F. mati`ere, fr. L. materia;
perh. akin to L. mater mother. Cf. Mother, Madeira,
Material.
…
That of which the sensible universe and all existent
bodies are composed; anything which has extension,
occupies space, or is perceptible by the senses; body;
substance.
Ok so heres the meat: physical = natural = material = sense object.
Since the physical is then anything that can be perceived, the non-physical must be that which cannot be perceived by the senses. If thats the case then we can never know anything beyond the physical although it may exist in some imperceptible way. Now the question is, is there a real distinction (in the same way that there is a real distinction between vertebrates and invertibrates) between physical and non-physical given that we can never verify the non-physical?
If not, then it looks to me like physical is a nonsense word, since all other categories have their verifiable opposites.
Consider being and non-being: we can say whether a thing exists or doesn’t - what basic category it belongs to. However we just can’t say if something exists in a “non-physical” way, making “physical” empty of ontological meaning.
The non-physical might be something that is perceived by the mind, i.e. the intellectual sense.
Think about the next sentence you’re going to post. At the moment that sentence does not exist as a physical fact. Hoever, does that mean your thought doesn’t exist? Or does it mean that your thought is a physical fact?
Generally, the converse proposition to “material” is “'abstract”. Many people consider this distinction important in order to discuss, for instance “the number 3” as opposed to “3 apples”.
According to current scientific dogma, everything is physical. Meaning, we have a schema in place where we have denoted elements as “matter”, “energy”, “forces”, “dimensions” (perhaps not an exhaustive list) and through mutually agreed procedures, set up “rules”, mostly in the language of mathematics that connect the above elements.
Encompassing all these broad concepts as ‘physical’ allows one to construct counterfactual blends where you can posit elements not covered by above, or disconnected from the physical elements. So, the word ‘physical’ is useful as a marker to indicate what domain you are referring to.
I don’t agree with the example of ‘thought’ given above. First, a “thought” is an event, not a thing. Second, your brain is a physical substrate. The processes in it are held to be physical as well.
Otherness and motion are what we sense. Fundamental particles of all existence, so to speak.
Structure is what allows 1 to be true.
This is all within the realm of physical, the idea that something is determined, that something exists that is not self refuting to the act of reading it etc…
Whatever isn’t physical, is the idea that something that is self refuting to the act of even reading or interpreting it, actually does exist as something other than simply a self refuting claim – even thought it only is a self refuting claim.
for example:
I exist.
I made existence.
This is an example of a claim that is self refuting. If you can get someone to believe both claims are true at the same time, then you have what is called “supernatural”; that which transcends the physical. That which does not need to exist in order to will (will, incidentally, that doesn’t exist) existence into being.
Actually we can. On my computer, I’ve got a physical CD / DVD combo drive. And I’ve got 2 virtual drives. Those drives don’t physically exist, they just function as drives, without being there as hardware.
Yes, the physical does indeed have no ontological meaning: Ontology is a branch of metaphysics (literally “after the physical”).
As stated in another thread, one can deny the metaphysical. However, one must then find physical explanations for such things as evil, thought, logic, maths, love, truth and beauty, all of which certainly exist: asking for physical proof of the metaphysical is like asking what ghosts weigh. (Similarly, one can deny the physical and say eg. atoms aren’t “real”.)
It seems to me that “metaphysical” is the nonsense word if, as you appear to be (somewhat arbitrarily) stating, something must be physically verifiable to have meaning?
Material vs abstract: you give “3” as an example of an abstract thing, however we can know 3 as it is a well defined thing that we can study the properties of.
Something that is truly non-physical could not be examined at all, given that it is not sensible and abstract things are sensible.
Optihut:
Yes, they do physically exist as bit-patterns in your computers memory. The name “Virtual Drive” here is a con: it would be more accurate to say that they’re a piece of software that emulates the functionality of a “physical” drive.
Of course we can, but those properties are not physical. You seem to be implying that because “3” is well-defined it must be “physical” rather than “abstract”. This is a rather curious claim, and certainly not one that appears in your OP.