## Advertising

On 19 Aug, 15:16, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > 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? Well, if it;s tacit you wouldn't find a trace. Other than that. all pointing out that I might be in a UDA and therefore wrong doesn't mean I am wrong now. only that I am not necessarily right. If you don't think the UDA is meant to show that I am not necessarily right, maybe you could say what it is meant to show > > although your own argument does > > not have that force. > > If there is a weakness somewhere, tell us where. The conclusion of your argument *is* a necessary truth? > > 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. backwards-E x=UD is indeed true. Schools should not be teaching that backwards-E means ontological existence, since that is an open question among philosophers. > 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. I am not the first formalist. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---