On Sep 24, 9:39 am, Flammarion <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Could you either
>> state clearly what work this label is supposed to do, beyond the posit
>> of AR on an abductive basis that we have already agreed on, or drop
>> your insistence on it?
> I have explained that several times. It clarifies the issue
> that AR needs to be an ontological commitment, not
> just a commitment to mathematical truth. Platonism
> is not an uncontroversial entailment of CTM or CT, hence
> "comp" is not the only premise needed. Hence the need
> to distinguish between comp, which embeds Platonism like
> a Trojan horse, and CTM which doesn't.

But this is the very hinge of disagreement.  CTM's Trojan Horse is the
incoherence of its posit of materialism.  It's demonstrably as
dependant on AR as comp is; there's no difference - that's Bruno's
point.  As to committing ontologically, whether to materialism or AR,
this is surely merely a linguistic distinction.  We have already
agreed that the only substantive distinctions are theoretical and
methodological.  If that amounts to an ontological commitment for you,
so be it.  But that doesn't bridge the gap to RITSIAR.  The acid test
of either posit in that regard will be its ability to get us to a
point where our hesitation on the brink of that gap can - just - be


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to