On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 03:03:38PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Don't tell me you were believing I was arguing.
You were asserting a lot of stuff. That's commonly considered arguing, except you weren't providing any evidence so far. So, maybe you weren't.
Indeed I wasn't. In general I don't like to much argue on hypotheses.
Also, I don't like to repeat to much arguments, so, if you want to argue
please look at the links to the UDA (Universal Dovetailer Argument) in my
web page (url below). Those are links to this very list.
('course, in case you know french you can read my thesis).
Now I am not sure you will be interested because I *assume* Arithmetical
Realism AR (I put it in the definition of the computationalist hyp.) and it seems
you consider that hypothesis as a "glib" (whatever that means: it is not in
my dictionary but I can infer the sense.).
Btw I have not perceived your argument against AR. You just keep repeating
that something abstract can exist only if some piece of matter apply it.
Giving that I don't take "matter" as granted (it's exactly what I try to explain) and
giving that the word "apply" could only be used in an analogical, fuzzy or
anthropomorphical way, it is hard to figure out where your argument relies.
To be honest I don't like at all your tone which only witnesses the fact that you
have decided in advance what to think about this point. I guess David is right
when he says that you seem to be getting a little hot under the collar!
About AR I did send a quote by the mathematician HARDY which sums up
quite well my feeling about it. You can take a look at: