Le 25-mars-06, à 23:13, 1Z a écrit :

> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Le 25-mars-06, à 19:17, 1Z a écrit :
>>>>>> You will miss the consequences of the assumption. All science is  
>>>>>> based
>>>>>> on implicit or explicit assumption, related to (non definable)
>>>>>> world-views.
>>>>> Almost all science is based on the implicit assumption of a  
>>>>> "stuffy"
>>>>> world view.
>>>> No. This is a simplifying methodological assumption, but there is no
>>>> evidence it is necessary. Few physicists use it.
>>> I can assure you that real-life physicsists do use it.
>> Give reference please.
> Typing "physics matter" into google produces 108,000,000 hits...
> http://www.google.co.uk/search? 
> hl=en&q=physics+matter&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
> ...happy reading.

Didn't find the reference. Nor even with "assumption mater". You help  
me to realize that physicist never assume the existence of primitive  
matter, nor do they postulate it with the notable exception of  
Aristotle, and of those moderns who show that a boolean conception of  
matter is contradicted by the facts and/or the QM theory. In the  
meantime if you can find a more circumscribed set of references ...
Actually I find the word "matter" more vague and ill-defined than  
consciousness, and I believe the "matter hard problem" is harder than  
the so-called hard problem of consciousness. I will not explained given  
that this is exactly what I have make precise through the comp  



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@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to