Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Brent meeker writes: > > > > But even existence can be defined as a bundle of properties. If I am > > > wondering whether the pencil on my desk exists I can look at it, pick it > > > up, > > > tap it and so on. If my hand passes through it when I try to pick it up > > > then maybe it is just an illusion. > > > > Maybe it's a holographic projection - in which case the projection (a > > certain state > > of photons) does exist, and other people can see it. Even an illusion must > > exist as > > some brain process. I understand Peters objection to regarding a "mere > > bundle" of > > properties as existent. But I don't understand why one needs a propertyless > > substrate. Why not just say that some bundles of properties are > > instantiated and > > some aren't. Anyway, current physical theory is that there is a material > > "substrate" which has properties, e.g. energy, spin, momentum,... > > Saying that there is a material substrate which has certain properties is > just a working > assumption to facilitate thinking about the real world. It may turn out that > if we dig into > quarks very deeply there is nothing "substantial" there at all, but solid > matter will still be > solid matter, because it is defined by its properties, not by some mysterious > raw physical > substrate.
I am not using the Bare Substrate to explian "solidity", which is as you say a matter of properties/behaviour. I am using it to explain contingent existence, and (A series) time. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
