I'm pretty sure defining everything as physical isn't the same as presenting an argument that everything is physical.
What is the difference between defining everything as physical and arguing that everything is physical; doesn't each one imply the other?
Well, if someone is arguing that everything is physical, they must be arguing against some perspective that everything is not physical, right?
Physical properties imply a plurality of perspectives upon the same physical reality.
I suppose the only delineation that people
really have a problem with is whether or not to consider the imaginary components of
reality as physical. And shockingly enough, here comes a tangent that we'll have to tie back to the conversation farther down the line-
You know, QM wave particle duality is like picking out ice cream after you've decided you're going to get some. You've got all these options, but you're more likely to pick from certain flavors that you like than you are to pick from the flavors that don't really correspond to your favorite types. So, while every one in a while you grab something off the wall, there is a distribution of flavor selections.
So the imaginary development of the wave function of your decision making process doesn't become real
until the imaginary process of selection collapses and you pick an actual flavor. Does this mean the wave function that exists in your mind is any less real that the ice cream you selected?
So really, wave particle duality may be the whole "physical/mental" dichotomy. They are really one, but the mental is sort of "lots of different options, a little fuzzy at times) and the physical is the form that the mental wave function ultimately selects. So is the divide along the lines of "selection" and "existence", or does it move all over the place according to our current perspective, but as we get wiser, the line becomes more clear, and we become more relaxed about dancing around it.