Le 07-sept.-06, à 16:42, 1Z a écrit :

> Rationalists, and hence everythingists, are no better off because they
> still have to appeal to some contingent brute fact, that *onl*
> mathemematical
> (or computational) entities exist, even if *all* such entities do.
> (Platonia
> is broad but flat). Since no-one can explain why matter is impossible
> (as opposed to merely unnecesary) the non-existence of matter is
> a contingent fact.

I guess here you mean "primary matter" for "matter".

Would you say that a thermodynamician has to appeal to the "contingent 
brute fact" that car are not pulled by invisible horses?

Does molecular biologist have to appeal to the "contingent brute fact" 
that the vital principle is a crackpot principle?

Should all scientist appeal to the "contingent brute fact" that God is 
most probably neither white, nor black, nor male, nor female, nor 
sitting on a cloud, nor sitting near a cloud ...

Let me be clear on this: comp reduce matter to number relation, it does 
not make matter impossible, it explain it from something else, like 
physics explain temperature from molecules cinetical energy.
And then you come and talk like if physicists would have shown 
temperature impossible?

Do I miss something?

Comp makes primary matter dispensable only like thermodynamics makes 
phlogiston dispensable.
And I think that's good given that nobody ever succeed in making those 
notion clear.
I still don't know what do you mean by "primary matter".



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to