>Wow, that's a strong statement. (Are we using the same definition of materialism?) I'm probably not using the same definition. I'm just of the view that what

>Wow, that's a strong statement. (Are we using the same definition of materialism?) I'm probably not using the same definition. I'm just of the view that what we think of as material often gets reduced to atoms or particles representing the four forces for which no other 'outside' component can be entertained to exist. To me, this is a over simplification that erases all the other seemingly non-material components of our material world (thoughts, feelings, experiences, math itself, and etc). It's easy to assume it to be true, but every time I bump into this argument I always point out that the number 1 isn't of any singular substance but the number itself exists everywhere there is any form of divisibility or unitary attribute in use.