On 24 Sep, 16:16, "david.nyman" <david.ny...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/9/24 Flammarion <peterdjo...@yahoo.com>:
>
> > Why harp on the fact that CTM isn't physicalist enough, if you think
> > physicalism is equally sueless? After all, phsycialism is just PM
> > +structure.
> > The difference is that the structure is finer-grained.
>
> Agreed.  But the harping was motivated entirely by its relevance to
> the supervenience dispute within CTM.  If CTM is a physical theory, it
> should be able to appeal directly and consistently to the low-level
> physical account;

So you, and only you, say.

>if it can't, we need another strategy to
> disambiguate its actual relation to the physical account.  The latter
> conclusion is what motivates the reversal of matter and mathematics in
> comp.

There is no ambiguity in the reduction  of computation
to physics. The remaining problem is the HP.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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