Materialism is the belief that matter is the ultimate reality, that is to say that everything is material so that there are no such things as souls or numbers.
In a previous post, I argued that materialism seems to be self-contradictory because the concept of “everything” appears to be irreducible to anything more fundamental.
In the following blog post, I want to reformulate my argument in a way that makes it easier to be analysed and criticised.
It basically goes like this:
1) According to materialism, every truth corresponds to a material state of affairs independent of human language, i.e. a combination of interacting particles located in space and time.
2) But the truth of materialism itself cannot correspond to any such combination of spatially and temporally located interacting particles.
3) Hence materialism cannot be true.
3) is entailed by 1) and 2).
Consequently, you have to reject at least one of these to avoid the conclusion.
Can the truth of materialism correspond to a material state of affairs?
First of all, readers might be astounded by my assertion in 2). I shall try to lay out here what I mean by it.
The truth of materialism means that ALL things are material. This in itself consists of two conditions.
A) Entity 1, entity 2…entity n (whereby n can be infinite) are material, that is to say combinations of interacting particles located in time and space.
B) Entity 1, entity 2…entity n (whereby n can be infinite) are everything that exists.
This is illustrated in the following figure.
Materialism cannot just depend on condition A). For it not only entails that the entities in the circle are material but also that they are ALL THERE IS, so that there is NOTHING outside the circle.
And that very property can neither be located in space nor in time. Nor can it consist of 100,00; 10E+34 or any other number of particles.
What are truths under materialism?
This naturally leads us to examine claim 1).
They also believe that truths such as “It is dangerous to drive after having drunk a bottle of Vodka in five minutes” are ultimately nothing more than the product of human language describing material states of affairs, i.e. a representation in our brains of facts of the external world.
In that particular case, there is nothing over and above the fact that almost every actual human being having ever been in that state is totally incapable of coordinating a complex activity such as steering a car.
Now, what would it mean to reject claim 1)?
A first option would be to reject my assertion that a material state of affairs has to be a combination of particles located in time and space. It is certainly true that materialism itself isn’t well defined. But all materialists I know believe there are no objects outside of time and space and I think that any view denying this would deserve another name altogether.
Finally, you can reject my claim that materialism implies that every truth corresponds to a material state of affairs. That might perhaps be the best way to defeat my argument.
But at the moment, I fail to see how this could make any sense. Basically, this would amount to saying: “Everything is material but certain truths go beyond the material world” which sounds self-contradictory to me.
So I am under the impression that materialism cannot possibly be true.
I’d certainly be glad to learn where you think my reasoning is mistaken.
Could material facts account for the non-existence of any immaterial realms?
Someone objected that I haven’t proven that “there exists no immaterial realms” cannot correspond to a complex set of material states of affairs.
For materialism to be true, there must not be any immaterial parallel realm which has never been and will never be connected with our universe and has no common origin with it.
Could the particles in our universe along with their physical properties render the existence of such a realm impossible ?
Now, the state of the elementary particles making up our universe can have no logical consequence on a realm of existence that has never interacted and will never interact with them and that does not share any common origin with them.
This just isn’t possible unless the particles have some metaphysical power and would, thus, cease to be physical particles.
So I think that premise 2) is the safest part of my reasoning. Regardless of their spatial distribution and energy levels, the elementary particles our universe (or multiverse) is composed of cannot account for the fact of there not being anything else.
Why can’t “everything is material” just be such a material fact?
Someone said that my argument is fundamentally flawed because “everything is material” is a perfectly fine material fact.
At this point, it is important to reflect on the role of language and truth. For a materialist, concepts such as numbers, triangles, everything or nothing are only useful human conventions aiming at describing the empirical world. According to materialism, every truth corresponds to a material state of affairs independent on human language such as the temperature distribution on the surface of the sun.
So the sentences “there are no immaterial realms“, “The material multiverse is all there is” etc. aren’t physical facts as explained in premise 2).
Instead, if they were true they would be metaphysical facts as they would go beyond the physical world.
Whenever we imagine that the universe (or multiverse) is all that there is, we consider “everything” and “nothing” to be real features of the external reality rather than mere human conventions.
Thematic list of ALL posts on this blog (regularly updated)