On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 06:10:34PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> >Agreed. As I said, I never had a problem with the conclusion, just the
> >argument.
> >
> >Also, I am concerned about any disproof of physical supervenience
> >(regardless of the primitivity question), as supervenience is an
> >important ingredient for the Anthropic Principle, and ISTM necessary
> >to avoid the Occam catastrophe.
> It seems to me that those two paragraphs contradict themselves.
> After MGA we have to drop physical supervenience (called
> "supervenience" in the philosophy of mind literature). Of course,
> keeping comp (and abandoning primitive matter and physicalism), we
> have to use a form of comp-supervenience (and extract matter
> observation from that). This is what AUDA does in all details (even
> if it is a toy theology, perhaps).
> The logic of observation is given by the modality Bp & Dt & p, for p
> restricted with DU-accessibility (= sigma_1 arithmetical
> restriction).
> Best,
> Bruno

But SUP-COMP is not identical to SUP-PHYS, which is also not identical



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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to