Peter Jones 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.
> I am not using the Bare Substrate to explian "solidity", which is as
> you say
> a matter of properties/behaviour.
> I am using it to explain contingent existence, and (A series) time.

We could say that matter is that which feels solid, reflects light, distorts 
spacetime etc. 
and leave it at that. Having these properties is necessary and sufficient for 
what we call 
existence, and it doesn't add anything to postulate a "bare substrate", any 
more than it 
adds anything to postulate an undetectable ether.

Stathis Papaioannou
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
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