What exactly is the difference between physicalism, materialism, and naturalism?
When I google these terms, I find it difficult to understand the difference between them.
Physicalism is the view that everything is physical. While (ontological) naturalism is the position that only natural laws and forces operate in the universe. That is, everything is accounted for by reference to physical and chemical properties. But how is that any different from just saying that everything is physical?
Then there's materialism, which claims that everything arises from or depends on physical processes. Which again makes me question how this is any different from just claiming that everything is physical (or supervenes on it)? I suppose one could argue that materialism doesn't account for the existence of phenomena that are non-spatiotemporal such as energy or massless particles. But doesn't it go against the whole point of materialism to deny the existence of phenomena that are generally accepted by the scientific community?
And either way, it seems that philosophers like Chalmers are using the terms materialism and physicalism interchangeably. In his article 'Conciousness and Its Place in Nature', Chalmers talks about how materialism is a position "on which conciousness is itself seen as a physical process." So it looks like he's using the term materialism when he really means physicalism?
So, can anyone explain what the difference actually is between these theories?