On 8 Apr, 23:01, Quentin Anciaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >  From: 1Z
> > Brunoism relies on Platonism as well as computationalism.
> > Computationalism can be as true as tue can be, but so long as
> > Platonism is false, so long as a computer needs a physical instantion,
> > Brunoism does not follow.  Brunoism doesn't follow from physicalism,
> > it is in oppostion to it.
> Could you explain what is "physical instantion" ? What means "physical" ?
> Brunoism (as you called it in pejorative way) only requires as Brent said
> realized infinities... that's the only way to the UD to generate all
> programs... if there exists a "thing", a way to show that even "if" an
> algorithm could be "run" for an "infinity of time" (with unbounded memory
> space), something will prevent it to do so, then intuisonism will be shown as
> true and I'll have to abandon this belief.

Intuitionism can be false without Platonism being true. The falsehood
of intuitionism implies a logical thesis, bivalence, not an
ontological thesis about what is real. (Platonism is offered as a
justifcation for bivalence, but that is an if, not an iff..)

> Quentin

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