Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Brent Meeker writes:
> > > 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
> > > substrate.
> >
> > But I don't think we ever have anything but "working assumptions"; so we 
> > might as
> > well call our best ones "real"; while keeping in mind we may have to change 
> > them.
> That's just what I meant. If you say, this is *not* just a working 
> assumption, there is some
> definite, basic substance called reality over and above what we can observe, 
> that is a
> metaphysical statement which can only be based on something akin to religious 
> faith.

By youur definitions, it's a straight choice between metaphysics and
I choose metaphsyics.
We can posit the unobservable to expalint he observable.

(BTW: it it is wrong to posit an unobserved substrate, why is it
OK to posit unobserved worlds/branches ?)

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to