On 05 Feb 2011, at 14:14, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 4, 4:52 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
On 04 Feb 2011, at 13:45, David Nyman wrote:
I am saying that IF comp is true, then the laws of physics are
derivable/emerging on the computations, in the limit defined by the
first person indeterminacy.
So, for someone who want comp false, it has to hope the 'observed
physics' is different from the comp extracted physics.
They don't have to do that, because they can resist the conclusion by
refuting AR (qua Platonism) or MGA
Computationalism needs Church thesis which needs AR (Arithmetical
And you cannot refute an argument by anticipating a refutation. So if
you have a refutation of MGA you should present it.
I could say that Fermat theorem is false, because in one billion years
someone will eventually find a flaw in Wiles' proof!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at