> someone2 wrote:

>> 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 ...