[Alamo-Girl]

What a magnificent essay-post, dearest sister in Christ! This one is definitely a "keeper" for me.

Instantly, a certain problem seems to arise here: If everything that exists is either "physical" (or "supervenes" on the physical) or "material," then how do we characterize mathematics? Scientific theories? The laws of Nature (the presupposition of which is absolutely essential for the conduct of science itself)? Has anyone ever seen any of these things running around on (physical) legs, so to speak?

No! They are non-physical, immaterial, and moreover universal.

Precisely so.

[betty boop]

Thank you so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your kind words of encouragement!

[Texas Songwriter]

No! They are non-physical, immaterial, and moreover universal.

You and Betty pique a question. That is, "How does the evolutionist attend, epistemologically, with the order of mind, consciousness, or any other abstract, invarient universal entity. It seems that as one asserts that a biological entity is declared to have any of these abstract entities, especially consciousness, it is declared to have evolved an entity which has no way to explain its origin. If it is said to have developed superveniently upon this universe (something derived from another entity which it does not have) it has abandoned naturalism and have embraced panpsychism. But in embracing panpsychism, it has abandoned physicalism and naturalism and cannot yet account naturalistically for theirphysicalist worldview. No, naturalism is in its death rattle and its devotees must come to grips with these questions or abandon that worldview. It has embraced a metaphysical episteme for what they say is an evolutionary worldview.