Dear Bruno, > I have already presented an argument (an easy consequence of the > Universal Dovetailer Argument, which is less easy probably) showing that: > > - CRH implies COMP > - COMP implies the negation of CRH > - Thus, with or without COMP (and with or without the MUH) the CRH does > not hold.
Regarding: COMP implies the negation of CRH Is this also in your Sane 2004 paper? (then I missed that point) - if not, where did you argue this? Cheers, Günther -- Günther Greindl Department of Philosophy of Science University of Vienna [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.univie.ac.at/Wissenschaftstheorie/ Blog: http://dao.complexitystudies.org/ Site: http://www.complexitystudies.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
