Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Le 11-juil.-06, à 16:24, 1Z a écrit :
>
>
>>>How could a substantial world be' a modest metaphysical posit?
>>
>>By explaining a lot from on e premiss.
>
>
>
> I could agree that it eases the mind. Like God's notion. But it
> explains nothing, like when "God" is used as an (empty) explanation.
> Today, physician relates numbers with numbers (like in F = ma, or E =
> mc^2), but we still don't know if particles exist, in which sense, if
> they are as big as the universe like expanding waves, etc.
> (You talk sometimes if physics was not confronted to conceptual
> difficulties, which can be enlightened by MWI ideas, but, wait, there
> is still many remaining questions OK?
>
>
>
>>>First nobody knows what such a "substance" can be defined without
>>>infinite regress.
>>
>>"No one" ? But there are far more materialist
>>philosophers than idealist ones , nowadays.
>
>
>
> For the same reason they are far more Christians than Buddhist. And
> none of your materialist even try to define matter. They take it for
> granted, following mainly Aristotle. Almost all materialist react by
> knocking a table when they want me to realize matter exists.
But that is consistent. You assume arithmetic is real and so you seek an arithmetical definition of
matter. A scientists assume the matter gives an operational definition, e.g. as Vic Stenger does:
matter is what kicks back when you kick it. You cannot criticize people who don't believe in
Platonia for giving non-platonic definitions.
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 Tue Jul 11 2006 - 20:13:02 PDT