Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Peter Jones writes: > > >>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, that they >>exist. >>What does it mean to say something exists ? "..exists" is a meaningful >>predicate of concepts rather than things. The thing must exist in some >>sense to be talked about. But if it existed full, a statement like >>"Nessie doesn't exist" would be a contradiction ...it would amout to >>"the existing thign Nessie doesnt exist". However, if we take that the >>"some sense" in which the subject of an "...exists" predicate exists is >>only initially as a concept, we can then say whether or not the concept >>has something to refer to. Thus "Bigfoot exists" would mean "the >>concept 'Bigfoot' has a referent". >> >>What matter adds to a bundle of properties is existence. A non-existent >>bundle of properties is a mere concept, a mere possibility. Thus the >>concept of matter is very much tied to the idea of contingency or >>"somethingism" -- the idea that only certain possible things exist. > > > But even existence can be defined as a bundle of properties. If I am > wondering whether the pencil on my desk exists I can look at it, pick it up, > tap it and so on. If my hand passes through it when I try to pick it up > then maybe it is just an illusion.
Maybe it's a holographic projection - in which case the projection (a certain state of photons) does exist, and other people can see it. Even an illusion must exist as some brain process. I understand Peters objection to regarding a "mere bundle" of properties as existent. But I don't understand why one needs a propertyless substrate. Why not just say that some bundles of properties are instantiated and some aren't. Anyway, current physical theory is that there is a material "substrate" which has properties, e.g. energy, spin, momentum,... >If it passes all the tests I put it through > then by definition it exists. If I want to claim that some other object > exists, > like Nessie, what I actually mean is that it exists *in the same way as this > pencil exists*. The pencil is the gold standard: there is no other, more > profound standard of existence against which it can be measured. I agree. But the gold standard is not just that you see and touch that pencil - you might be hallucinating. And you can't see an electron, or even a microbe. So what exists or not is a matter of adopting a model of the world; and the best models take account of a consistent theory of instruments as well as direct perception. 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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
