On 12/7/2012 9:02 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
"There are no "substances", there are only processes"
In terms of category theory, this is like
"there are no categorÃes, there are only arrows!"
Dear Alberto,
Indeed! Have you studied a bit of N-Category theory
<http://arxiv.org/abs/q-alg/9705009>? Any "object" is constructed from
arrows of another level. What I am claiming is that all of the
properties that we define "substances" as can be shown to be merely
invariances in some collection of transformations. In other words, there
are no primitive substances, there are only processes. Please read this
article on the concept of Substance in philosophy to see the ideas that
I am considering: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/
The discussion of "substantivalism" in physics is particularly
interesting as seen here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-holearg/
2012/12/7 Stephen P. King <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
On 12/7/2012 7:04 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen,
I think that's just more materialist wishful thinking, because
mind and body
are completely different substances, no matter what your
philosophy or
science, and cannot interact. The failure to solve the "hard
problem"
shows that.
[Roger Clough], [[email protected]] <mailto:[email protected]]>
12/7/2012
Dear Roger,
There are no "substances", there are only processes.
--
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
