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 solipsism. 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 [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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
