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
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 email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at