Galen Strawson >*What does the word ‘physical’ mean in its most general theoretical > philosophical use? It’s used in many different ways, and it’s hard to > imagine that philosophers could reach agreement on a best use. * >
Yes, and that's why unlike physicists and mathematicians philosophers haven't discovered anything new in a thousand years, they can't even agree on what questions to ask much less find the answers. > *> Should we tie the meaning of ‘physical’ closely to physics?* > Obviously physics is the study of the physical so the answer is yes. > To do so (in a non-circular way) > All definitions of "physical" or of anything else becomes circular if you go far enough, that's why language needs examples to give words meaning, so physics is what physicists study. > *is to run the risk of ruling out the possibility that there might be two > different universes that were ‘formally’ or structurally identical or > homomorphic although substantially different—made of different stuff.* > I don't know what identical but substantially different means but another good definition of physical is one of Richard Feynman's favorite words, "stuff". John K Clark -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0SRJ3DfVEgr%2B-RnUsnBtwDgqPwWX14JTSfOpFqTOGu%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com.
