On 19 Aug 2009, at 10:33, Flammarion wrote:

## Advertising

> > > > 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 >>>> correct >>>> 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. >>>> But >>>> then your reasoning has to be false too. >>>> The only way to prevent this consists in saying that you are not >>>> Turing-emulable, >> >>> 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 >>> experiments. >> >> 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. Bruno > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---