Re: computationalism and supervenience

From: 1Z <peterdjones.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 18:48:41 -0000

Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> Le Tuesday 29 Août 2006 20:23, 1Z a écrit :
> > Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> > > Le Tuesday 29 Août 2006 17:32, 1Z a écrit :
> >
> > t be of a large measure... till there is one !
> >
> > > > We are all individuals, and as such have the same measure..
> > >
> > > What do you mean by that ? measure is about an OM.
> >
> > OM's are even more individual than observers.
>
> So what ? Do you mean every OM has the same measure ?

I don't have, or need, a theory of measure.

All I am saying is that you cannot claim that The Poor Person
has a higher measure than The Rich Person, since inidividuals
are individuated by many other factors.

> in an absolute sense ?
> (in which case I would agree partially though complexity measure should play
> a role here) or in a relative sense ? (here I would disagree)
>
> Quentin


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Tue Aug 29 2006 - 14:50:39 PDT

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