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).
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at