Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Brent meeker writes:
>
> > > 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,...
>
> Saying that there is a material substrate which has certain properties is just a working
> assumption to facilitate thinking about the real world. It may turn out that if we dig into
> quarks very deeply there is nothing "substantial" there at all, but solid matter will still be
> solid matter, because it is defined by its properties, not by some mysterious raw physical
> substrate.
I am not using the Bare Substrate to explian "solidity", which is as
you say
a matter of properties/behaviour.
I am using it to explain contingent existence, and (A series) time.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Sun Aug 27 2006 - 13:30:48 PDT