On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 01:32:14PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Bruno Marchal writes:
> > > The other sticking point is, given computationalism
> > > is right, what does it take to implement a computation? There have 
> > > been arguments
> > > that a computation is implemented by any physical system (Putnam, 
> > > Searle, Moravec)
> > > and by no physical system (Maudlin, Bruno Marchal).
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > OK. To be sure Maudlin would only partially agree. Maudlin shows (like 
> > me) that we have:
> > 
> That sentence summarises the problem pretty well. We have to agree that there 
> is this dichotomy before proceeding further, and I don't think most 
> computationalists do. 

To be sure, this is not how I interpret Maudlin or the movie-graph
argument. I interpret it as NOT COMP or NOT PHYS SUP or NOT SINGLE_UNIVERSE.

In a multiple universe (eg Everett style MWI), all counterfactuals are
instantiated as well, so physical supervenience (over all branches) is
compatible to COMP, and not equivalent to a recording.


*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.

A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics                                    0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         [EMAIL PROTECTED]             
Australia                                http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
            International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02

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@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to