Tamminen wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2019, 7:00 pm And the logic that proves the impossibility of the world without subjects is not our ordinary formal logic, because it is based on understanding where the limits of logic are, and the possibility of the world without subjects is beyond the limits of logic. So the "proof" is more like dialectical or transendental than logical, and I have tried to sketch its key points in several posts. Here we must do Cartesian meditations, not logical calculus.Ontology precedes logic. Logic can be applied only to phenomena within logical space, and logical space coincides with the space within which it is used, the subject-world relationship. We cannot say anything about a world without subjects in logic, e.g. that it is possible or impossible. But using transcendental deduction, or dialectic if you like, we can understand that such a world cannot exist.
As Wittgenstein said, there cannot be logic before the existence of the world, and the existence of the subject is the ontological precondition of the existence of the world and logic. Logic does not float in a Platonic Heaven. Therefore you have no justification to say "a world devoid of subjects is definitely not a logically impossible world". This is the minimum of what you should admit. Then, as I said, we can give convincing arguments for the absurdity of the idea of the possibility of the subjectless world and conclude that it cannot exist. And now we are at the core of the question whether materialism is plausible or not. My answer is no, as you have probably noticed.