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

Reply via email to