On 20 Nov 2008, at 19:08, m.a. wrote:

> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Let us go back to the point. The point of MGA is to show that MEC +  
>> MAT implies a contradiction. You can see that it is equivalent with
>> - the proposition saying that MEC implies NON MAT  (mechanism  
>> refutes materialism).
>> - the proposition saying that MAT implies NON MECH (materialism  
>> refutes mechanism)
>> Now, MECH implies " NON MAT" can be made constructive. This means  
>> MECH provides the complete constraints of how a physical laws looks  
>> like and come from, meaning physics is a branch of computationalist  
>> theory of mind (itself a branch of number theory, in a slightest  
>> more general sense of "number").
>> Now, imagine that luckily we arrive at a proof that the  
>> "arithmetical" electron weights two kg. Then we will know that  
>> mechanism is false.
> But only in our universe, right. In some other universe couldn't  
> electrons actually weigh 2kg?

Not really. If we prove that electrons (assuming we can defined them  
in the physics extracted from comp) weigh 2 kg, then they have 2 kg in  
all possible universes. If there is an 1,9 kg electron in some  
universe, that could be used as a counter-example showing that the  
proof was not valid, or that comp is false.



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 

Reply via email to