On 01 Sep 2009, at 17:46, Flammarion wrote:

>
>
>
> On 1 Sep, 16:32, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> On 01 Sep 2009, at 16:32, Flammarion wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 1 Sep, 15:00, David Nyman <david.ny...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1 Sep, 13:08, Flammarion <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> That is the point.  I should say that my starting position
>>>>>> before encountering Bruno's views was against the tenability of
>>>>>> CTM on
>>>>>> the basis of any consistent notion of physical process.  Bruno
>>>>>> hasn't
>>>>>> yet persuaded me that an explicitly non-computational theory of
>>>>>> mind
>>>>>> on some such basis is actually untenable.  But he has awakened me
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> the reverse realisation that a non-materialist world-view can
>>>>>> tenably
>>>>>> be founded on CTM
>>
>>>>> coupled with Platonism.
>>
>>>> With respect, Peter, you continue to miss the point.  What Bruno  
>>>> has
>>>> demonstrated is that CTM as a mind-body theory (which is what UDA-8
>>>> shows it must be) makes no ontological commitment *by its very
>>>> virtuality*.  Or rather, any such commitment is shown to be  
>>>> vacuous.
>>
>>> There's got to be somehting at the bottom of the stack. Bruno
>>> wants to substitue matetr with Platonia as the substrate.
>>> If there is nothing at the bottom
>>> of the stack, there are no virtualisations running higher up.
>>
>>>> Consequently under CTM, one is committed to RITSIAR=virtual, not
>>>> RITSIAR=platonic.
>>
>>> CTM only suggests that I *could* be virtualised. Alternatively
>>> I could be running on the metal. I do wish you guys would undertand
>>> that
>>> Possible X => actually X
>>> is a fallacy.
>>
>> So you have a problem with the indexical approach of time, and space.
>
> i don't know what you mean by that.


The indexical approach of time is that now, is any moment as see as  
from that moment point of view. Similar ideas have been used by  
Galilee, Everett, Einstein, and there is a modern movement in  
philosophy of physics which vindicates a more general use, like the  
one I am using where actuality is possibility or consistency "as seen  
from inside". All block universe approaches are based on that idea.  
See for example:

Now, Time, and Quantum Mechanics, edited by Michel Bitbol and Eva  
Ruhnau, Frontière, Paris, 1994.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




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