Bruno Marchal wrote: > 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.
Every single one of the 108,000,000 hits is about the physical strudy of matter. > Nor even with "assumption mater". You help > me to realize that physicist never assume the existence of primitive > matter, It was not my intention to "help you realise that". it was my intention to get you to see that, as far as they are concerned, physicists do nothing all day but study 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. If a "boolean concept" of matter is wrong , then a boolean concept of matter is wrong. That does not mean that matter itself is non-existent. If you study something, you are going to make discoveries about it, and that will involve disproving some traditonal theories. But diproving a theory of matter is not disproving matter. Note, BTW, the extreme generality of the concept of matter I am using; matter is whatever makes one abstract form, rather than another, concretely exist. > In the > meantime if you can find a more circumscribed set of references ... ????? Can you point me to the paper in a journal of botany that definitely proves, for once and all, that plants exist ? > Actually I find the word "matter" more vague and ill-defined than > consciousness, wikipedia defines it as follows "Matter is commonly defined as the substance of which physical objects are composed." meaning that what you are seeking to deny , that physics utilises a concept of matter, is not merely true, but tautologously true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter > and I believe the "matter hard problem" is harder than > the so-called hard problem of consciousness. Hmm. I dare say it's hard for solipsists. That may tell you somehting about solipsism. > I will not explained given > that this is exactly what I have make precise through the comp > postulate. > > > Bruno > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---