2009/9/1 Flammarion <peterdjo...@yahoo.com>:

>> This clearly unmasks any such notion of PM as a
>> superfluous assumption with respect to CTM, and Occam consequently
>> dictates that we discard it as any part of the theory.
>
> Au contraire, occam requires us to throw away the assumptions
> that we are 1 level deep, 2 levels deep... in  a virtualisation.
>
> Real reality is the simplest assumption

Peter, you need to keep firmly in mind that the superfluity of PM
follows on the *assumption* of CTM.  The razor is then applied on the
basis of that assumption.  If you prefer a theory of mind based on
"real reality", fair enough, but then you must face the conclusion
that CTM is no longer tenable in that role.

David

>
>
>
> On 1 Sep, 01:21, David Nyman <david.ny...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 31 Aug, 15:14, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>>
>> > I would not put AR on the same par as PM(*).
>>
>> > I know that Peter have problem with this, but AR does not commit you
>> > ontologically. It is just the idea that arithmetical propositions are
>> > either true or false.
>>
>> Yes, I think I finally understand your view on this.  It relies on the
>> denial of CTM+PM as a theory of mind,
>
> I thought it was supposed to be a disproof
>
> Anyone can deny something
>
>> but does not thereby rule out
>> the conceivability of a level of zero-virtuality supervening on PM.
>> Rather it shows that, for any putative computational realisation of
>> mind, any such attribution is both absolutely unknowable and causally
>> irrelevant.
>
> I have argued that it is unknowable in the sense that
> sceptical hypotheses sucha s the BIV are undisprovable,
> We generally disregard them anyway,
> since, for one thing, we would have no idea which to accept.
>
>
>> This clearly unmasks any such notion of PM as a
>> superfluous assumption with respect to CTM, and Occam consequently
>> dictates that we discard it as any part of the theory.
>
> Au contraire, occam requires us to throw away the assumptions
> that we are 1 level deep, 2 levels deep... in  a virtualisation.
>
> Real reality is the simplest assumption
>
>> IOW it is the
>> prior assumption of CTM itself that drives the chain of inference, as
>> you have always claimed.  And I further agree that *on the basis of
>> CTM* it then follows that no meaning of 'exist' should be taken
>> literally.  It is very much to your credit that you have laid bare
>> these hidden implications of CTM, as I think they are central to most
>> of the myriad confusions that surround it.  If people have a complaint
>> about the implications, they cannot now dodge the fact that this
>> disquiet is unavoidably entailed by CTM itself.
>>
>> David
>
> >
>

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