Re: computationalism and supervenience

From: Russell Standish <>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 04:28:53 +1000

On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 01:32:14PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Bruno Marchal writes:
> > > The other sticking point is, given computationalism
> > > is right, what does it take to implement a computation? There have
> > > been arguments
> > > that a computation is implemented by any physical system (Putnam,
> > > Searle, Moravec)
> > > and by no physical system (Maudlin, Bruno Marchal).
> >
> >
> >
> > OK. To be sure Maudlin would only partially agree. Maudlin shows (like
> > me) that we have:
> >
> That sentence summarises the problem pretty well. We have to agree that there is this dichotomy before proceeding further, and I don't think most computationalists do.

To be sure, this is not how I interpret Maudlin or the movie-graph
argument. I interpret it as NOT COMP or NOT PHYS SUP or NOT SINGLE_UNIVERSE.

In a multiple universe (eg Everett style MWI), all counterfactuals are
instantiated as well, so physical supervenience (over all branches) is
compatible to COMP, and not equivalent to a recording.


*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics                         	       0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                      
            International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Tue Aug 22 2006 - 00:03:04 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:12 PST