On 24 Sep, 16:48, David Nyman <david.ny...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Accordign to whom?

>It's demonstrably as
> dependant on AR as comp is;

What is dependent on AR? Materialism?

>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.

Really ????  If I say I'm gopig to give you the £100 I owe you,and
give  you a 3-day old haddock instead, is that a merely
lingusitic distinction?

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