Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> 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
>>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

I agree with your conclusion.  But matter isn't that which feels solid, etc (as 
sure you know).  One defintion is, "Matter is what kicks back if you kick it."  
less colorfully it is what you can manipulate.  This changes depending on our 
theories of physics.  Before Einstein space could be regarded as purely 
relational - 
it didn't kick back.  Now we think it does.

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

Reply via email to