Is "matter" a property vs "not matter"?
later you substituted 'matter' with 'substrate' when you drew the identity
as being "interchangeable" to. So is radiation "matterly matter" or an
interchange? I told you I am nitpicking.
I am not accepting the identification of existence as "exist" must be. Then
you bring in "things" and "concepts", hard to follow, when you deny the
existence of HP things "literally" existing ONLY in the mind.
You missed a reply about the numbers.
Destroying 'matter'? one mysterious way is to let it be absorbed in a BH,
the other - with your words - to 'interchange' (I still did not get whether
radiation IS matter or only "interchangeable" into).
I wanted to illustrate that the "words" we use are captured by different
persons in different meanings/connotations.
Once it comes to non-conventional thoughts, we do not have the words.
I hope I did not irritate you. I tried hard to be difficult.
----- Original Message -----
From: "1Z" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Everything List" <email@example.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: Difficulties in communication. . .
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Communication - human and in language, I suppose, depends on words we
> > 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
> > thank you):
> > Properties: Would you reduce them to green, hard, big, hot etc.? Isn't
> > that jazz in the physics books about 'properties' in another sense?
> Properties are whatever distinguishes one thing from another. Whether
> green, hard, big etc are reducible to the properties of physics is
> > Roles to perform: you mean roles we 1.) know about, 2.) accept as
> > or even does everything have to perform a role?
> > Instantiated: represented by a 'role' we acknowledge. And if we don't?
> > nature
> > subject to our approval (or even knowledge)?
> > Existence: what is it?
> A very tricky question. My take is that "..exists" is a meaningful
> of *concepts* rather than things. The thing must exist in some
> sense to be talked about ...in what sense ? Initially as a concept,
> and then we can say whether or not the concept has something
> to refer to. Thus "bigfoot exists" means "the concept 'bigfoot' has
> a referent".
> > 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
> > our universe) have it.
> The don't *literally* exist in minds.
> > 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
> > numbers "in nature". (No offense, numberist members!)
> > Propertiless change: as I assume: existence is a property even of
> > Destroy matter and its property of 'existence' will change (BH
> How do you destroy matter ?
> > Of
> > course the big question remains: is 'radiation' (waves?) matter or
> Mass/energy are interchangeable and are both the "substrate"..
> > Just for a lazy Sunday afternoon, with friendship
> > John Mikes
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "1Z" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Everything List" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 12:30 PM
> > Subject: Re: Difficulties in communication. . .
> 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 email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at