On 22 Sep 2009, at 20:12, Flammarion wrote:

>
>
>
> On 21 Sep, 08:58, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> 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 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