In a last post, I argued that materialism (the belief that everything which exists is reducible to particle and energy) is self-refuting because its truth itself cannot be identical to a bunch of interacting molecules.
That’s fair enough but what is the fact that materialism is identical to?
Normally the fact corresponding to a truth claim made it logically inevitable.
Take for example the truth S “The sun does not rotate around the earth”. The corresponding fact is the periodic movement of the earth around the sun. Given its reality, it naturally follows that S is true and it could not be otherwise.
Consider now the truth of materialism M: there is NO world containing non-material things.
The fact would be (for example) the 10E+57754757785 particles of all existing universes.
But there is a huge problem here. The truth of materialism is not logically entailed by the particles themselves. For their existence is entirely compatible with the existence of a paralell world with non-material things.
I think that the problem lies in the words “everything” and “no other”. They seem to be abstract concepts beyond the reach of materialism.
The fact that the particles are everything which exists cannot be contained within the particles themselves.
If I am right, it seems that materialists should give up their grandiose claims about the entire reality and limit themselves to definition such as “everything in our universe is reducible to matter.”
Now I am curious to see how I am going to be challenged, though I hope I am (at the very least) on to something 🙂