On 1 Sep, 13:49, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 01 Sep 2009, at 13:04, Flammarion wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 1 Sep, 11:56, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> >> On 01 Sep 2009, at 10:49, Flammarion wrote:
>
> >>> Can't matter have processes?
>
> >> But in that line of discussion, the question should be: can primary
> >> matter have processes. You said yourself that primary matter is
> >> propertyless. How something without property can implement processes,
> >> with or without qualia?
>
> > PM has no essential properties, but is the bearer of all
> > otther properties.
>
> How could something without property be a bearer of property?

How can you write on blank paper?

> > It can implement a computation in just
> > the same way it can be red.
>
> How ?

By bearing properties

> Without properties, I don't see how it could implement a computation.


It can bear the propreties of any physical coputer you care to
mention.

> > (Althoguh the combinatin PM+red
> > is of course not PM. It is only PM as a bare substrate).
>
> >> I begin to think that your primary matter is even incompatible with
> >> physicalism.
>
> > !!!!
>
> Could you give any reference of a text in physics which uses the
> notion of primary matter?
>
> Could you give just a physical fact or proposition which would
> accredit the existence of primary matter?
>
> What is the relation between primary matter and space, time, and
> energy? Does primary matter have mass?

Mass is a property. But the existence of conserved
quantities is a clue to PM. PM must be endduring because
it has not proeprties to change.


Matter is a bare substrate with no properties of its own. The question
may well be asked at this point: what roles does it perform ? Why not
dispense with matter and just have bundles of properties -- what does
matter add to a merely abstract set of properties? The answer is that
not all bundles of posible properties are instantiated, that they
exist.

What does it mean to say something exists ? "..exists" is a meaningful
predicate of concepts rather than things. The thing must exist in some
sense to be talked about. But if it existed full, a statement like
"Nessie doesn't exist" would be a contradiction ...it would amount to
"the existing thing Nessie doesnt exist". However, if we take that the
"some sense" in which the subject of an "...exists" predicate exists
is only initially as a concept, we can then say whether or not the
concept has something to refer to. Thus "Bigfoot exists" would mean
"the concept 'Bigfoot' has a referent".

What matter adds to a bundle of properties is existence. A non-
existent bundle of properties is a mere concept, a mere possibility.
Thus the concept of matter is very much tied to the idea of
contingency or "somethingism" -- the idea that only certain possible
things exist.

The other issue matter is able to explain as a result of having no
properties of its own is the issue of change and time. For change to
be distinguishable from mere succession, it must be change in
something. It could be a contingent natural law that certain
properties never change. However, with a propertiless substrate, it
becomes a logical necessity that the substrate endures through change;
since all changes are changes in properties, a propertiless substrate
cannot itself change and must endure through change. In more detail
here

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to