Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Peter Jones writes:
>
>
>>Matter is a bare substrate with no properties of its own. The question
>>may well be asked at this point: what roles does it perform ? Why not
>>dispense with matter and just have bundles of properties -- what does
>>matter add to a merely abstract set of properties? The answer is that
>>not all bundles of posible properties are instantiated, that they
>>exist.
>>What does it mean to say something exists ? "..exists" is a meaningful
>>predicate of concepts rather than things. The thing must exist in some
>>sense to be talked about. But if it existed full, a statement like
>>"Nessie doesn't exist" would be a contradiction ...it would amout to
>>"the existing thign Nessie doesnt exist". However, if we take that the
>>"some sense" in which the subject of an "...exists" predicate exists is
>>only initially as a concept, we can then say whether or not the concept
>>has something to refer to. Thus "Bigfoot exists" would mean "the
>>concept 'Bigfoot' has a referent".
>>
>>What matter adds to a bundle of properties is existence. A non-existent
>>bundle of properties is a mere concept, a mere possibility. Thus the
>>concept of matter is very much tied to the idea of contingency or
>>"somethingism" -- the idea that only certain possible things exist.
>
>
> But even existence can be defined as a bundle of properties. If I am
> wondering whether the pencil on my desk exists I can look at it, pick it up,
> tap it and so on. If my hand passes through it when I try to pick it up
> then maybe it is just an illusion.
Maybe it's a holographic projection - in which case the projection (a certain state
of photons) does exist, and other people can see it. Even an illusion must exist as
some brain process. I understand Peters objection to regarding a "mere bundle" of
properties as existent. But I don't understand why one needs a propertyless
substrate. Why not just say that some bundles of properties are instantiated and
some aren't. Anyway, current physical theory is that there is a material
"substrate" which has properties, e.g. energy, spin, momentum,...
>If it passes all the tests I put it through
> then by definition it exists. If I want to claim that some other object exists,
> like Nessie, what I actually mean is that it exists *in the same way as this
> pencil exists*. The pencil is the gold standard: there is no other, more
> profound standard of existence against which it can be measured.
I agree. But the gold standard is not just that you see and touch that pencil - you
might be hallucinating. And you can't see an electron, or even a microbe. So what
exists or not is a matter of adopting a model of the world; and the best models take
account of a consistent theory of instruments as well as direct perception.
Brent Meeker
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sat Aug 26 2006 - 16:46:24 PDT