On 19 Aug, 13:35, David Nyman <david.ny....domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> It doesn't. It just has to be *amenable* of spelling out: i.e. if it
> is a posteriori compressed - for example into 'computational' language
> - then this demands that it be *capable* of prior justification by
> rigorous spelling out in physical terms for every conceptual
> reduction. MGA claims to show that this is impossible for the
> conjunction of CTM and PM. Of course, CTM on the basis of
> arithmetical realism is not spelled out either, but is immunised from
> physical paraphrase by making no appeal to PM for justification.
Err. yeah. The hard part is reducing mentation to computation.
The physical paraphrase of computation is just engineering,
> I understand both your discomfort with arithmetical realism and your
> defence of PM, but this discussion hinges on "CTM +PM = true".
> Couldn't we try to focus on the validity or otherwise of this claim?
OK. It's invalid because you can't have computaiton with zero phyiscal
activity.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 - 13:26:15 PDT