Stephen writes (BTW, thanks for using plain text :-)
> I keep reading this claim that "only the existence of the algorithm
> itself is necessary" and I am still mystified as to how it is reasoned for
> mere existence of a representation of a process, such as an implementation
> in terms of some Platonic Number, is sufficient to give a model of that can
> be used to derive anything like the world of appearences that we have.
> AFAIK, this claim is that mere existence necessarily entails any
> property, including properties that involve some notion of chance.
What properties do you have in mind that pure platonic algorithms seem to
lack? Anything, that is, besides *time* itself?
P.S. I am not up to speed on this thread at all.
> That's exactly the point of Bruno I think... What you've shown is that
> physicalism is not compatible with computationalism. In the UD vision,
> there is no real "instantiation" even the UD itself does not need to be
> instantiated, only the existence of the algorithm itself is necessary.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at