What is meant by "materialist"? Usually when people use that word they mean "causal reductionism". — i aM

To begin, I don't see any direct correlation. Materialism would be the presupposition that only matter exists and nothing beyond that can possibly exist. Reductionism by cause is just, correct me if I am wrong, the concept of cause and effect. That every known form of existence of today can be logically reduced into a beginning. A simple example would be: dominoes moving each other. Such motion can be reduced back to an initiating domino that was moved by an unmoved mover, or totally something else. Thus, I see no direct correlation.

Uniquely, Reductionism can be practiced by: Super-naturalist and/or naturalist. A naturalist can presuppose that the causal origins of the universe was only instigated by more nature. A super-naturalist, against to a naturalist, would presuppose that something or someone beyond nature, was involved in the origins of the universe. That's the best correlation I can see, although it's indirect.

A few questions.

But when you follow our science to its logical end "causal reductionism" doesn't hold water. It leads to contradictions and inconsistencies. — i aM

I am a theist, but atheistic viewpoints have proposed, I would say, logical assumptions for the beginning of the universe. So, I think that causal reductionism would work finely for assumed beginnings — regardless of course if those assumptions were true. So please, elucidate a few contradictions and inconsistencies.

Obviously , there must be something beyond that, but whether or not that something can be considered "material" I don't know. But I suspect not. — i aM

As a theist, I suspect not as well. If you're inclining to a creator, then the creator would be immaterial, he/she would be beyond nature. But as I proposed, a materialist, naturalist, or a super-naturalist can still be causal reductionist. How is materialism and reductionism by cause not mutually exclusive?

What is meant by "materialist"? Usually when people use that word they mean "causal reductionism". — i aM

There is no one thing that is meant by "materialism." "Materialism" is a rather dated term, more often used in derogative contexts nowadays, with "physicalism" and "naturalism" being more favored by proponents, but there is no one meaning for those terms either. If you set yourself the task of nailing down these terms once and for all, you will almost certainly fail. It's better to examine specific claims and positions than to argue over isms.

I had in mind the Bell Inequality theorems and experiments which imply that a "realist" "causal" world cannot be supported. By "realist" I mean the belief that things have properties with definite values even when they're not being observed. By "causal" I mean that when you look at an interaction and say "A caused B", that A always preceded B.

What if one finds something "supernatural" and then manages to find ways to predict its actions? Wouldn't it then become "natural" or "physical"?

So I'm wondering what "supernatural" means. It seems to be anything that isn't yet a part of physics.

Supernatural beings are just things beyond matter and definitive construct of the world in itself. So you're correct.

It seems to be anything that isn't yet a part of physics. — i aM

___________

I had in mind the Bell Inequality theorems and experiments which imply that a "realist" "causal" world cannot be supported. — i aM

Can you cite an example how realism and causal reductionism are incompatible? I am really sorry, I don't understand much - a further extrapolation of your point will help.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments
These experiments, with the underlying theory, show that "local realism" is not possible. "Local" means that information can't travel faster than the speed of light. If it does, then causality is violated and effects can precede causes. "Realism" means that entities have properties whether or not they're being observed.

These experiments show that either "locality" (causation) or "realism", or both, are untenable.

They, like all positions, are just positions. Meaning they’re perspectives that can be applied with different degrees of success here more than there.

Generally when people say “I’m a physicalist” they don’t tend to mean this in any absolute sense. It is just a label that helps someone get a better idea of what their thoughts are on the matter at hand.

Much like with the political spectrum no one is a complete “liberal” or a complete “conservative”. Humans are much more confused and messy than that.

A “materialist” position is dependent upon the subject matter at hand, just like a “physicalist” position is.

My general understanding is that “materialism” is more rigidly defined and is less likely to deal with “concepts” and “abstractions” whilst “physicalism” is almost the same yet it is bathed in the light of the natural sciences which are founded on the principles of reductionism and empiricism, yet certainly not confined by them.

In day-to-day talk on forums like this such labels don’t serve discussions very well as often they’re so nuanced and varied that people tend to assume someone else’s position and attach certain ideas to them. I find it best if someone asks “Are you some kind of ‘physicalist’?” to answer “I’ve no idea. I’ve just presented my thoughts? If you think I hold to someone else’s general philosophy then I’d be interested to hear whose and see if reading their work helps.”

What I mean by materialism/physicalism is that the world is comprised of material in the "stuff" or (the modern scientific) "substance" sense, as well as relations and processes (dynamic relations) of stuff/substance.