Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Brent meeker writes:
> > > 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,...
> Saying that there is a material substrate which has certain properties is
> just a working
> assumption to facilitate thinking about the real world. It may turn out that
> if we dig into
> quarks very deeply there is nothing "substantial" there at all, but solid
> matter will still be
> solid matter, because it is defined by its properties, not by some mysterious
> raw physical
I am not using the Bare Substrate to explian "solidity", which is as
a matter of properties/behaviour.
I am using it to explain contingent existence, and (A series) time.
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