RE: Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist
September 24, 2015 at 4:38 am
(This post was last modified: September 24, 2015 at 4:39 am by bennyboy.)
Instead of going back and forth about the same ideas, I'd like to introduce a new perspective: the relationship between principles and expressions of those principles. Would you argue (without regard whether we're talking about the current view on QM/QFT) that the most fundamental building blocks of reality "just are," and that everything we say about them is purely descriptive? Or would you argue that anything that exists is an expression of some underlying principle, which we may or may not be able to infer?
I'd argue that whatever exists is preceded (logically if not temporally) by some kind of framework which has the capacity to bear that existence, and which has embedded in it those rules or principles by which things may be brought into existence. However, those rules and principles cannot be said to "exist," because the framework cannot also be the members whose existence it supports without a nasty paradox.
Would you guys agree with this?
I'd argue that whatever exists is preceded (logically if not temporally) by some kind of framework which has the capacity to bear that existence, and which has embedded in it those rules or principles by which things may be brought into existence. However, those rules and principles cannot be said to "exist," because the framework cannot also be the members whose existence it supports without a nasty paradox.
Would you guys agree with this?
