On 22 Sep 2009, at 20:12, Flammarion wrote:
> > > > On 21 Sep, 08:58, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 20 Sep 2009, at 02:49, Brent Meeker wrote: >> >> >> >>> So does being "pure thought" mean "without a reference", i.e. a >>> fiction? As in "Sherlock Holmes" is a pure thought? >> >> Consider the Many world theory of Everett, or the many histories of >> comp. Does it make sense to say that Sherlock Holmes exists in such >> structure? The problem is that a fiction like Sherlock Holmes is not >> well defined. It is a bit like unicorns. I would not compare such >> essentially fictional construction with a mathematical object, like a >> computation or like a number, which admits forms of realism. > > > I would not compare them in rigour or clarity. > I would compare them in ontology. ? You talk here like if you knew that primary matter exists. You told me that you can doubt that primary matter exists. I don't understand. Also, I have no clue how primary matter and matter (as object of study by physicists) are related. Is primary matter made of parts? I think Plotinus did already understand that Aristotelian primary matter cannot belong to 'being', and has to be retrieved from a 'bastard calculus" based on what God cannot determine. (This fits very well in the comp frame: cf even God or any conception of 'truth') cannot determine the first person indeterminacy). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
