On Mar 7, 1:45 pm, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> > For example, they [Dawkins and Stenger] never say that they *assume* the
> > existence of a primary physical universe
> Do they really have to state that they assume existence exists?
That statement assumes the same thing. It conflates all possible
existence with physical existence, neglecting that we only detect
physical phenomena through our body's interaction with other bodies.
The idea of a circle or a square can be said to 'exist' just as much
as anything physical...more really, since matter is infinitely mutable
in configuration but adheres to abstract morphological regularities
regardless. Bruno is right about matter not being primitive, but I
disagree that numbers are any more primitive - numbers are only one
part of how the universe makes sense.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at