On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 5:55:46 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/20/2018 3:29 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 2:51:30 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10/20/2018 11:24 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 10:33:04 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/19/2018 11:32 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >> On 19 Oct 2018, at 23:43, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On 10/19/2018 11:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> I work with people who studied religion all the times. You seem >>> unaware that we can doubt Aristotle theology. >>> >> You seem unaware that there is not such thing. Your "Aristotle >>> theology" is a straw man you invented to beat with stick labelled "primary >>> matter". I'll bet that if you ask a 100 physicists, "Do you believe in >>> primary matter." you'll get 99 answers of "What??” >>> > Because they have been brainwashed since about 529, into the idea that >>> “matter” is “primary matter”. >>> >>> No, they are not. It's simply irrelevant to them. They seek theories >>> to explain phenomena. They don't start by assuming some metaphysics. >>> They only care that the theory works. That's why it has been physicists >>> like Wheeler, Tegmark, Hawking,...who have wondered why equations work >>> at all. >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> >> >> What physicist doesn't assume some metaphysical assumptions? >> >> The 3 mentioned above talked (1 still talks) about metaphysics all the >> time, of course. Even if they adopt a theory that someone else created, >> they are adopting the metaphysics of that theory. When Sean Carroll writes >> about the reality of the wave function, that's some heavy metaphysics. >> >> >> Sounds like physics to me. Does Carroll say the wave function is >> "primary", that there can be nothing more fundamental? No, he doesn't. He >> knows that QM >> and GR are incompatible and he no doubt hopes to find something that >> explains both of them. Does he care whether that new thing is "primary"? >> No. >> >> Brent >> >> > https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1051238813236752386 > > Sean Carroll @seanmcarroll > > "Realism about the wave function is a good idea. (Even better, … about > the quantum state, but I won’t be picky.)" > re: Realism about the Wave Function > http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/15153/ > > >> >> Every language has a metaphysics. >> >> - pt >> >> "The world does not speak. Only we do. The world can, once we have > programmed ourselves with a language, cause us to hold beliefs. But it > cannot propose a language for us to speak." > -- Richard Rorty, Contingency of Language > [pdf] http://web.augsburg.edu/~crockett/120/Rorty-Contingency.pdf > > > > Every language has an ontology, i.e. things it talks about. But that > doesn't mean that it assumes those things are primary. Bruno wants to > criticize physicists for assuming there's something he calls "primitive > matter". But this is just his straw man. In fact physicists almost > uniformly assume that the stuff in their theories has some deeper > explanation and is NOT primary. There's a difference between saying a > metaphysics assumes things and saying that it assumes things which are > "primary". > > Brent >
My point is that all physicists assume a metaphysics whenever they articulate or adopt a theory, because all theory is expressed in a language. As for "primary matter" (in particular, the "primary" part) this is all I know about what that means: https://www.britannica.com/topic/hylomorphism *Hylomorphism, (from Greek hylē, “matter”; morphē, “form”), in philosophy, metaphysical view according to which every natural body consists of two intrinsic principles, one potential, namely, primary matter, and one actual, namely, substantial form. * *Matter and form, however, are not bodies or physical entities that can exist or act independently: they exist and act only within and by the composite. Thus, they can be known only indirectly, by intellectual analysis, as the metaphysical principles of bodies.* What I call *codicalism* is basically a version of *hylomorphism*, except my "form" is "language", and there is no potential/actual distinction. - pt -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
