On 19 Aug, 13:35, David Nyman <david.ny...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It doesn't.  It just has to be *amenable* of spelling out: i.e. if it
> is a posteriori compressed - for example into 'computational' language
> - then this demands that it be *capable* of prior justification by
> rigorous spelling out in physical terms for every conceptual
> reduction.  MGA claims to show that this is impossible for the
> conjunction of CTM and PM.  Of course, CTM on the basis of
> arithmetical realism is not spelled out either, but is immunised from
> physical paraphrase by making no appeal to PM for justification.

Err. yeah. The hard part is reducing mentation to computation.
The physical paraphrase of computation is just engineering,

> I understand both your discomfort with arithmetical realism and your
> defence of PM, but this discussion hinges on "CTM +PM = true".
> Couldn't we try to focus on the validity or otherwise of this claim?

OK. It's invalid because you can't have computaiton with zero phyiscal
activity.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to