> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>> Peter Jones writes:
>> > Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> >
>> > > I can agree. No physicist posit matter in a fundamental theory.
>> >
>> > All physical theories are theories of matter (mass/energy).
>> True, but they are not theories of what matter *actually is*.
> Hence the need for a metaphysical account of
> matter-as-Bare-Substance to complement the
> physicst's account of matter-as-behaviour.

If that is done isn't what you call metaphysics the 'actual physics' and
the physicist's account of 'matter-as-behaviour' the metaphysics? Just a
rhetorical terminological gripe.

Also, if the universe is treated as a mathematics ( of
"matter-as-bare-substance" ), isn't the scientist its metamathematics,
built of it? (With all the Godellian implications..) i.e. Scientists are
what could be called the 'metamathematics of the noumenon'?

and....To be an instance of this metamathematics.. is to be a scientist
and have qualia. The scientist and the qualia would both be natural
expressions of the same noumenon. The existence of qualia _at all_ is
logical proof that the choice of which 'matter-as-Bare-Substance' (to make
a universe with scientists in it) is limited to be only that class which
are capable of expressing what might be termed qualia. Hence this is a
scientific proposition. It might not predict to a comfortable level of
specificity (as to what this matter-as-bare-substance is) , but it
certainly is a scientific (empirically supportable) constraint.

Qualia thus become an empirical key to a door to the noumenon.

Colin Hales

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 

Reply via email to