Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 29-oct.-06, à 17:43, David Nyman a écrit :
> > Peter, when you said that the physical might be 'relations all the way
> > down', and I asked you what would you find if you went 'all the way
> > down', you replied 'primary matter'. IOW, you posit primary matter as a
> > 'bare substrate' to which are attached whatever properties theory or
> > experiment may suggest. Consequently, isn't it the case that you are
> > defining this 'bare substrate' (which by posit has no properties of its
> > own) as whatever-it-is that is RITSIAR (i.e. you might say that it's
> > what exists)? Bruno, aren't you making essentially the same claim for
> > AUDA, in attempting to derive all properties from it?
> P. Jones posit a primary matter having no properties, and he does not
> explain how things with properties can emerge from that.

I don't explain *rationalistically* -- that is I do not show how
properties are entailed by inevitable logic from the posit of
matter -- because I am not in the business of rationalism.

That matter has the properties it has is an contingent
fact which is known empirically.

(Of course everyone is a contingentists to some extent,
since no-one can show that the non-existence of matter
of contingency is itself necessary).

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