On 9 June 2014 18:24, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6/8/2014 4:03 PM, LizR wrote: > > David Nyman gave a much more rigorous definition of primitive materialism > in another thread (he calls it "primordial"). > > ISTM that what is supposed to be "primordial" about a specific set of > entities and their relations is precisely that they *exclusively* underlie > (or more correctly, comprise) everything that is "really real". So the > hierarchical structure of everything we observe thereafter - be it > physical, chemical, biological, physiological, etc. - would be deemed to be > underpinned, exclusively and exhaustively, by such a primordial substratum. > > That's a definition of ur-stuff, but it doesn't say anything about > "material". I agree with Bruno that saying the most basic ontology is > "matter" is meaningless because "matter" isn't well defined. Physicists > have regarded it as substances, particle, fields, quantum fields, > strings,... If it's computation or arithmetic those are just the basic > ontologies of different theories. What's really of interest is whether the > theory can describe and predict what happens at level of kicking things and > have them kick back. >
OK, so please provide a definition of primitive materialism. Why doesn't the proton like the electron? "He's always so negative!" -- my son (15) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
