2009/9/24 Flammarion <peterdjo...@yahoo.com>:

>> 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?

CTM.  But you still won't accept this; perhaps this is not resolvable.

>>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?

Thanks, Peter - that genuinely made me LOL!  I think that we're
diverging again in our use of RITSIAR.  You want any theoretical
entities proposed to be cashable as RITSIAR, and that's why you insist
on the ontological commitment.  I see what you mean, but I think that
this is perhaps to be in too much of a rush to close the gap.  In my
view, we just don't have a viable strategy for closing it, so why not
wait and see where the theories and their empirical consequences lead?
 If comp could get us near enough, that might be the time to resolve
exactly how AR = RITSIAR.


>  This message is part of the topic "Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology"
> in the Google Group "Everything List" for which you requested email updates.
> To stop receiving email updates for this topic, please visit the topic
> at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/t/de27ca4d35a34882
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

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