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 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---