Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Brent Meeker writes:
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > But I don't think we ever have anything but "working assumptions"; so we might as
> > well call our best ones "real"; while keeping in mind we may have to change them.
>
> That's just what I meant. If you say, this is *not* just a working assumption, there is some
> definite, basic substance called reality over and above what we can observe, that is a
> metaphysical statement which can only be based on something akin to religious faith.
By youur definitions, it's a straight choice between metaphysics and
solipsism.
I choose metaphsyics.
We can posit the unobservable to expalint he observable.
(BTW: it it is wrong to posit an unobserved substrate, why is it
OK to posit unobserved worlds/branches ?)
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 - 13:33:37 PDT