On 8/16/2012 1:13 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Aug 2012, at 17:52, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
What is physical primitiveness ?
"primitiveness of X" means that we accept the existence, and some
property of X in the starting assumption we make for a theory.
Dear Roger and Bruno,
I must point out that this definition assumes the prior existence
and definiteness of the entities that are defining the theory itself.
This makes the theory contingent upon those priors in the sense that the
theory should not be assumed to have meaningful content in the absence
of those priors.
Physicalist believes that physics can reach such objects, like with
the notion of atom, and then elementary particles, or strings, etc.
With comp, this does not exist. The whole of physics is a branch of
digital machine's science, or arithmetic (or computer science).
The beliefs of the physicalist are contingent upon and even
supervene upon the prior existence and definiteness of properties of the
entities capable of being labeled as physicalist (or some alternative).
This is true for all entities capable of having a meaningful notion of
belief. It would be a self-contradiction to propose a theory that
disallows for the existence and definiteness of the entity that proposed
the theory. This error is known as self-stultification.
In arithmetic, we usually take as primitive the number zero, and
accept axiom like "0 ≠ s(x), for all x", with the intended meaning
that 0 is not a successor of any number. But note that the proofs will
not rely on any intended meaning.
But arithmetic, as a theory, does not float free of the minds (and
brains) of those that understand it. The idea that arithmetic or any
other abstract object or relation cannot have meaningful content in the
absence of a means for it to be both believed to possibly be true (or
false) and communicated about. Otherwise it is at best a delusion in the
mind of a single entity.
The idea that primary matter exists is very natural. I guess a cat
believe that milk is something of that sort. It has been explicitly
postulated by Aristotle, who is still vague if that primariness is
really an axiom of something to justify.
Aristotle simply was being consistent. He and many other
philosophers do not take their own existence and definiteness for
granted. Just as primitiveness is often a tacit or unstated axiom of a
theory, its justification is obvious: without the assumption of a object
of a theory, there is no theory.
But the followers of Aristotle will tend to reify it, and that will
lead to the modern physicalism. But such physicalism is problematical
once we bet that we are digital machine. At least, that is what I am
Maybe you are arguing against the positivist and empiricists that
would claim no curiosity as to the ontological implications and content
of the theories that they use to make predictions.
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon
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