> someone2 wrote:

>> On 24 Jun, 19:35, ABC inmail24.com> wrote:

>>> someone2 wrote:

>>>> I was wondering which of you can understand the following reasoning,
>>>> and perhaps which of you object to it:

>

>>>> M refers to the physical entity in question.
>>>> B(M) refers to the behaviour of M in question.
>>>> P refers to the a property in question.

>

>>>> Where M is the same in (1) and (2), B(M) is the same in (1) and (2),
>>>> and P is the same in (1) and (2).

>

>>>> 1) B(M) is explained by the laws of physics without requiring
>>>> knowledge of whether it has P or not.

>

>>>> 2) Presence of P or lack of, does not influence/affect B(M), else the
>>>> explanation of behaviour could not be the same with or without P.

> ...

> On 24 Jun, 19:54, ABC inmail24.com> wrote:

>> someone2 wrote:

>>> On 24 Jun, 19:35, ABC inmail24.com> wrote:

>>>> someone2 wrote:

>>>>> I was wondering which of you can understand the following reasoning,
>>>>> and perhaps which of you object to it:

>>

>>>>> M refers to the physical entity in question.
>>>>> B(M) refers to the behaviour of M in question.
>>>>> P refers to the a property in question.

>>

>>>>> Where M is the same in (1) and (2), B(M) is the same in (1) and (2),
>>>>> and P is the same in (1) and (2).

>>

>>>>> 1) B(M) is explained by the laws of physics without requiring
>>>>> knowledge of whether it has P or not.

>>

>>>>> 2) Presence of P or lack of, does not influence/affect B(M), else the
>>>>> explanation of behaviour could not be the same with or without P. ...