On 1 Sep, 11:09, David Nyman <david.ny...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
No, none of that follows from CTM alone. Bruno is putting
forward the Sceptical Hypothesis that I am being simulated
on a UD. However, if I am entiteld to assign a very low
likelihood to that SH along with all the many others, alowing me
to know in a good-enough way that matter is real, reality is
real etc. It is very important in these arguments to distinguish
between certain knowledge and good-enough knowledge.
BTW--why doens't O's R cut away Platonia in favour of
a smaller material universe?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at