David Nyman wrote:
> Brent Meeker wrote:
> > But it's still a model, one based on arithmetic rather than matter, and the 
> > only way to       > judge whether it is a good model to see how it 
> > corresponds with "mere appearance"; just > like we test QM, general 
> > relativity, and every other theory.  It *might* be the really real     > 
> > model - but so might any other model that fits all the data.
> Yes, of course, Brent - hence my comments later on in my post. But in
> fact, comp implies that the normal physics model can't 'fit all the
> data', if we include (as we must) the 1-person pov itself in 'the
> data'.

Computationalism doesn't imply that. a conflict between
computationalism and physicalism would be be astonshing
and highly significant. A conflict between physicalsim and Platonism
is much less so.

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