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
>>>> 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.


> >


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to