"Actually , materialism does not have any answer for what 'drives ' any organization , when you take the broad view . Meaning that their reliance on terms like 'law ' , 'force ' , 'energy ' , etc. , are only labels for unobserved non-corporeal , non-substantial , non-mateial , 'drivers ' , that are inferred from observations of certain repetitive , iterated 'change ' phenomena/effects detected within this temporal , physical , substantial , corporeal universe . What these 'drivers ' are , in and of themselves , is beyond materialism 's power to explain , so it simply evades that fundamental question and starts with a universe , a reality , that 'just happened , that 's all ' . Ex nihilo . Ab nihilo ."
"But it does have an answer , as long as ( and I see no reason to infer otherwise ) 'organisation ' is defined , as are many scientific concepts , as a human-imposed description of the sum of a multitude of physical cause/effect phenomena . Remember when we argued about entropy ? I essentially stated ( or admitted , if you want to see it that way ) that the concepts that we label 'entropy ' , 'order ' , 'disorder ' and even 'particle ' are human-imposed abstracts applied for ease of understanding . Again referencing a point I have previously made , the maths that backs up the areas of physics ( which necessarily includes chemistry/biology ) that are confirmed with near-certitude , is equally as-certain-as-possible , but is impossible to satisfactorily translate into ordinary language ; hence the terms employed that , relative to the maths , are so vague and easily misinterpretable . My best example is the uncertainty principle , which can be explained in words , but can only be shown to be an uncontrevertible fact by using maths . The great thing about the UP is that it is not even necessary to perform a real experiment ; given certain parameters ( already known ) the UP is inevitable . The POV I am justifying here is one that does not even begin to reference such terms as 'organisation ' and what may 'drive ' it . This may be a personal thing , but ideally IMHO the scientific method should never assume 'organisation ' or 'drives ' , it should only look at facts and figures . After this analysis has been done mathematically , there may ( and indeed always are ) patterns discernible that we , humans , can label 'organisation ' and 'drives ' , but these things do not exist in and of themselves . They are abstracts , simplifications , words used so that we do not have to talk in complex equations . Given all this , when we come to the Four Fundamental Forces , we do actually know ( ie we are almost certain ) that these phenomena are a part of the world of facts and figures , not part of the world of human-imposed concepts . My best supporting argument for this is that the FFFs can not ( yet ) be further reduced to anything simpler . There are plenty of other 'forces ' such as kinetic energy , potential energy etc that derive their very existence from the FFFs . The FFFs are anything but non-material , as they are intermediated by known , defined , observed particles/quanta or in the case of gravity , the medium of spacetime . The only confusion comes when trying to determine `` What is a particle ? What is spacetime ? `` Regardless of the answers , surely we have to assume that particles and spacetime are material , for if not , then nothing is ."
"materialism does not have any answer for what 'drives ' any organization terms like 'law ' , 'force ' , 'energy ' , etc. , are only labels for unobserved non-corporeal beyond materialism 's power to explain"
"But it does have an answer , as long as ( and I see no reason to infer otherwise ) 'organisation ' is defined we label 'entropy ' , 'order ' , 'disorder ' and even 'particle ' are human-imposed abstracts Given all this , when we come to the Four Fundamental Forces , we do actually know ( ie we are almost certain ) that these phenomena are a part of the world of facts and figures , not part of the world of human-imposed concepts . ``"