On 19 Aug 2009, at 10:33, Flammarion wrote:
>
>
>
> On 19 Aug, 08:49, Bruno Marchal <marc....domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>> On 19 Aug 2009, at 02:31, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>>> This is not the point. The point is that if you develop a correct
>>>> argumentation that you are material, and that what we "see"
>>>> around us
>>>> is material, then the arithmetical P. Jone(s) will also find a
>>>> correct
>>>> argumentation that *they* are material, and that what they see is
>>>> material. The problem is that if you are correct in "our physical
>>>> reality" their reasoning will be correct too, and false of course.
>>>> But
>>>> then your reasoning has to be false too.
>>>> The only way to prevent this consists in saying that you are not
>>>> Turing-emulable,
>>
>>> Why can't I just say I'm not Turing emulated? It seems that your
>>> argument uses MGA to
>>> conclude that no physical instantaion is needed so Turing-
>>> emulable=Turing-emulated. It
>>> seems that all you can conclude is one cannot *know* that they have
>>> a correct argument
>>> showing they are material. But this is already well known from
>>> "brain in a vat" thought
>>> experiments.
>>
>> OK. But this seems to me enough to render invalid any reasoning
>> leading to our primitive materiality.
>> If a reasoning is valid, it has to be valid independently of being
>> published or not, written with ink or carbon, being in or outside the
>> UD*. I did not use MGA here.
>
> That is false. You are tacitly assuming that PM has to be argued
> with the full force of necessity --
I don't remember. I don't find trace of what makes you think so. Where?
> although your own argument does
> not have that force.
If there is a weakness somewhere, tell us where.
> In fact, PM only has to be shown to be more
> plausible than the alternatives. It is not necessarily true because of
> sceptical hypotheses like the BIV and the UD, but since neither of
> them has much prima-facie plausibility, the plausibility og PM
> is not impacted much
? Ex(x = UD) is a theorem of elementary arithmetic.
I have been taught elementary arithmetic in school, and I don't think
such a theory has been refuted since.
You will tell me that mathematical existence = non existence at all.
You are the first human who says so.
Bruno
>
> >
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Wed Aug 19 2009 - 16:16:09 PDT