On 19 Aug 2009, at 10:33, Flammarion wrote:
> On 19 Aug, 08:49, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> On 19 Aug 2009, at 02:31, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>> This is not the point. The point is that if you develop a correct
>>>> argumentation that you are material, and that what we "see"
>>>> around us
>>>> is material, then the arithmetical P. Jone(s) will also find a
>>>> argumentation that *they* are material, and that what they see is
>>>> material. The problem is that if you are correct in "our physical
>>>> reality" their reasoning will be correct too, and false of course.
>>>> then your reasoning has to be false too.
>>>> The only way to prevent this consists in saying that you are not
>>> Why can't I just say I'm not Turing emulated? It seems that your
>>> argument uses MGA to
>>> conclude that no physical instantaion is needed so Turing-
>>> emulable=Turing-emulated. It
>>> seems that all you can conclude is one cannot *know* that they have
>>> a correct argument
>>> showing they are material. But this is already well known from
>>> "brain in a vat" thought
>> OK. But this seems to me enough to render invalid any reasoning
>> leading to our primitive materiality.
>> If a reasoning is valid, it has to be valid independently of being
>> published or not, written with ink or carbon, being in or outside the
>> UD*. I did not use MGA here.
> That is false. You are tacitly assuming that PM has to be argued
> with the full force of necessity --
I don't remember. I don't find trace of what makes you think so. Where?
> although your own argument does
> not have that force.
If there is a weakness somewhere, tell us where.
> In fact, PM only has to be shown to be more
> plausible than the alternatives. It is not necessarily true because of
> sceptical hypotheses like the BIV and the UD, but since neither of
> them has much prima-facie plausibility, the plausibility og PM
> is not impacted much
? Ex(x = UD) is a theorem of elementary arithmetic.
I have been taught elementary arithmetic in school, and I don't think
such a theory has been refuted since.
You will tell me that mathematical existence = non existence at all.
You are the first human who says so.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at