Communication - human and in language, I suppose, depends on words we say,
understand and assign (some) meaning to. So here is a bit of nitpicking
about the words you used below: (please, Peter, don't take it personally -
thank you):

Properties: Would you reduce them to green, hard, big, hot etc.? Isn't all
that jazz     in the physics books about 'properties' in another sense?

Roles to perform: you mean roles we 1.) know about, 2.) accept as 'roles',
or         even does everything have to perform a role?

Instantiated: represented by a 'role' we acknowledge. And if we don't? is
nature
    subject to our approval (or even knowledge)?

Existence: what is it?

Possible things: possible in OUR (limited) view? or possible, even if we
'think' it     is impossible (for us)? BTW Harry Potter things are all
possible, they exist in         "our" universe, since human minds (part of
our universe) have it. So are the         numbers (according to D. Bohm:
human inventions) - they are part of nature,     since humans as part of
nature invented them with their minds - and now             containing the
numbers "in nature". (No offense, numberist members!)

Propertiless change: as I assume: existence is a property even of matter.
Destroy     matter and its property of 'existence' will change (BH etc.). Of
course the big     question remains: is 'radiation' (waves?) matter or not?

Just for a lazy Sunday afternoon, with friendship

John Mikes

----- Original Message -----
From: "1Z" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Everything List" <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: Difficulties in communication. . .


>
>
> 1Z wrote:
>
> > That is, there is no plurality of substances with essential
> > characteristics.
> > Just one bare subtrate.
>
> Matter is a bare substrate with no properties of its own. The question
> may well be asked at this point: what roles does it perform ? Why not
> dispense with matter and just have bundles of properties -- what does
> matter add to a merely abstract set of properties? The answer is that
> not all bundles of posible properties are instantiated. What matter
> adds to a bundle of properties is existence. Thus the concept of matter
> is very much tied to the idea of contingency or "somethingism" -- the
> idea that only certain possible things exist.
> The other issue matter is able to explain as a result of having no
> properties of its own is the issue of change and time. For change to be
> distinguishable from mere succession, it must be change in something.
> It could be a contingent natural law that certain properties never
> change. However, with a propertiless substrate, it becomes a logical
> necessity that the substrate endures through change; since all changes
> are changes in properties, a propertiless substrate cannot itself
> change and must endure through change.
>
>
> >
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.9/417 - Release Date: 08/11/06
>
>


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to