Hi Stephen P. King  

The properties of spacetime things are what can be measured (ie facts).
The properties of beyond spacetime things are propositions that can't be 
contradicted (necessary truths).

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen 

----- Receiving the following content -----  
From: Stephen P. King  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-11-03, 07:17:58 
Subject: Re: Emergence of Properties 

On 11/3/2012 5:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 

The arithmetical property of numbers are innate to the numbers, logic and the 
laws we assume. 

Dear Bruno, 

    How? How are properties innate? This idea makes no sense to me, it never 
has as it does not allow for any explanation of apprehension of properties in 
my consideration... The only explanation of properties that makes sense to me 
is that of Leibniz: Properties are given by relations. We might think of 
objects as "bundles of properties" but this is problematic as it implies that 
properties are objects themselves. I think of properties similar to what 
Leibniz did: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/#DesSpiLei 

"Leibniz's substances, however, are the bearers of change (criterion (iv)) in a 
very different way from Aristotle's individual substances. An Aristotelian 
individual possesses some properties essentially and some accidentally. The 
accidental properties of an object are ones that can be gained and lost over 
time, and which it might never have possessed at all: its essential properties 
are the only ones it had to possess and which it possesses throughout its 
existence. The situation is different for Leibniz's monads?hich is the name he 
gives to individual substances, created or uncreated (so God is a monad). 
Whereas, for Aristotle, the properties that an object has to possess and those 
that it possesses throughout its existence coincide, they do not do so for 
Leibniz. That is, for Leibniz, even the properties that an object possesses 
only for a part of its existence are essential to it. Every monad bears each of 
its properties as part of its nature, so if it were to have been different in 
any respect, it would have been a different entity. 
Furthermore, there is a sense in which all monads are exactly similar to each 
other, for they all reflect the whole world. They each do so, however, from a 
different perspective. 
For God, so to speak, turns on all sides and considers in all ways the general 
system of phenomena which he has found it good to produce?nd he considers all 
the faces of the world in all possible ways?he result of each view of the 
universe, as looked at from a certain position, is? substance which expresses 
the universe in conformity with that view. (1998: 66) 
So each monad reflects the whole system, but with its own perspective 
emphasized. If a monad is at place p at time t, it will contain all the 
features of the universe at all times, but with those relating to its own time 
and place most vividly, and others fading out roughly in accordance with 
temporal and spatial distance. Because there is a continuum of perspectives on 
reality, there is an infinite number of these substances. Nevertheless, there 
is internal change in the monads, because the respect in which its content is 
vivid varies with time and with action. Indeed, the passage of time just is the 
change in which of the monad's contents are most vivid." 
    The difference in my thinking to that of Leibniz is that a monad is never 
"at place p at time t" (location is defined solely interns of mutuality of 
perspectives) and monads are only "substances" in that they are eternal. I find 
it best to drop the idea of substance altogether as it can be completely 
defined in terms of invariances. 

    After I wrote the above I can see how you would think of properties as 
being innate, but I see this as just a mental crutch that you are using to not 
think too deeply about the concept of property. The situation is the same for 
your difficulty with my hypothesis of meaning. We learn to associate meanings 
to words so that words are more than just combinations of letters, but this is 
just the internalization of the associations and relations within our thinking 



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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to