>> This conception can, I think, be indeed taken for granted by every
>> scientifically minded person.
> Why ? It is an assumption too. What could we taken it for granted?

Yes, it is an assumption - that is why is wrote "scientifically minded" 
- if you are in any way naturalist (and all the more if you are 
materialist), then you can assume the above.

> And this assumption is quite close to comp in the sense that nobody  
> knows about
> any "natural" machine not being turing emulable. Even quantum machine,  
> accepting QM without collapse.

That is true, but we have to be careful in our reasoning.

Look at Thesis M:

That is quite different from CT. And while the two may be identical in 
the real world (empirical question), they are logically distinct.
(and, as you can read in the article, hypercomp would refute comp, 
showing that logical distinction remains even if we can let them 
coincide in this universe).

> All known physical causal system are Turing emulable.

Yes - "known". There could be others (I don't believe it, but there could)

> I don't see why this COMP has to be assumed, and not the other  
> slightly enlarged version.
> Both are assumption.

Agreed - but many more scientists will be prepared to assume the first 
and not COMP. It is simply the difference between materialism and 
computationalism, and most natural scientists are materialists.

> And none of KIM 2.1 (= UDA 1), nor KIM.2.3 (= UDA 3) assumes the
> digitality. This is done at step 7. We used only  the replicability.

ok, no problem. Just wanted to clear up terminology.

> I agree that the UDA does not apply to natural machine whose function  
> cannot be replicated. But nobody has ever seen or even conceive such a  
> machine. You have to assume a non repeatable phenomenon, hard to get  
> from QM without collapse. 

Indeed - it would for instance be Penrose style Quantum grav collapse.

>That is "non comp", but I doubt Harnad  
> believe in such non-comp. He has to say explicitely the machine have  
> non replicable functions, it seems to me.

Harnad does not clarify further in the paper which version he endorses - 
the quote was just very nice to introduce a physcial version of CT 
(thesis M).


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to