On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 12:47:32PM -0600, Joseph Knight wrote (to Bruno):
> 
> Could you elaborate on the 323 principle? It sounds like a qualm that I
> also have had, to an extent, with the MGA and also with Tim Maudlin's
> argument against supervenience -- the notion of "inertness" or "physical
> inactivity" seems to be fairly vague.
> 

I discuss this on page 76 of my book.

AFAICT, Maudlin's argument only works in a single universe
setting. What is inert in one universe, is alive and kicking in other
universes for which the counterfactuals are true.

So it seems that COMP and single world, deterministic, materialism are
incompatible, but COMP and many worlds materialism is not (ie
supervenience across parallel worlds whose histories are compatible
with our present).

But then the UDA shows that parallel realities must occur, and
consciousness must supervene across all consistent histories, and that
the subjective future is indeterminate.

Cheers

-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics      hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales          http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
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