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. > > Stathis Papaioannou
I put "working assumption" in scare quotes because I think the fact that we can create models of the world that are successful over a wide domain of phenomena is evidence for an underlying reality. It's not conclusive evidence, but reality is more than just an assumption. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
