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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to