> 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
> >>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
> > 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
> 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
There is good reason to believe that there is some sort of reality out there as
opposed to the
solipsistic alternative, but there is less reason to believe that there is some
basic material substrate
on which the various properties of physical objects are hung. The two ideas are
not the same.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at