On 19 Aug 2009, at 10:36, Flammarion wrote:
> On 19 Aug, 01:29, David Nyman <david.ny...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bruno's position is that only one of the above can be true (i.e. CTM
>> and PM are incompatible) as shown by UDA-8 (MGA/Olympia). I've also
>> argued this, in a somewhat different form. Peter's position I think
>> is that 1) and 2) are both false (or in any case that CTM and PM are
>> compatible). Hence the validity of UDA-8 - in its strongest form -
>> seems central to the current dispute, since it is essentially this
>> argument that motivates the appeal to arithmetical realism, the topic
>> currently generating so much heat. UDA-8 sets out to be provable or
>> disprovable on purely logical grounds.
>> I for one am unclear on what
>> basis it could be attacked as invalid. Can anyone show strong
>> for this?
> Of course, no argument can validly come to a metaphysical
> in this
> case, that matter does not exist --without making a single
> metaphysical assumption.
I completely agree with that point, but I don't see the relevance.
Comp, alias CTM, is an hypothesis in cognitive science/philosophy-of-
mind/metaphysics/theology. It is certainly not an hypothesis in
mathematics. It relates the preservation of my consciousness through a
substitution of my (generalized) brain ( a priori "material").
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