On 28 Dec 2011, at 22:04, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 12:23:43PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But SUP-COMP is not identical to SUP-PHYS, which is also not
The philosopher of mind uses just (weak) supervenience in the sense
of (weak) SUP-PRIMITIVE-PHYS.
Some conflate SUP-PRIMITIVE-PHYS with SUP-PHYS, others do
not. SUP-PRIMITIVE-PHYS roughly correlates with what is called "naive
Physicalism" in my bool, and SUP-PHYS (the usual meaning of
supervenience) with materialism. Looking back at my notes (helpfully
summarised on page 177 of my book), I see I noted that Chalmers
conflates physicalism with materialism, but other such as Lockwood do
draw the distinction.
This probably explains some of the problems I had with Chalmers's
classification scheme. ISTM, for example, that emergence (even strong
emergence, AKA downward causation) is perfectly compatible with
materialism, even though Chalmers lists emergentism as being an
Supervenience is a tricky notion. Like causality, deduction,
entailment, and even implication, it is easy to mix the subject and
the object, or to add modal nuances when there are none, in some use
of those terms. Supervenience, once formalized, is a typically modal
notion. The literature on it is very confusing. The stanford entry is
not so bad (but not simple), and describe both the weak and the strong
forms, the strong form having only one box more. What strikes me is
that they take physicalism for granted, both in the illustrations and
in the applications which consist in using supervenience to define
physicalism. It seems to occur to no one that physicalness *might*
supervene on something else.
I will try to write something clear on this. It might certainly help
to get the essence of MGA/Maudlin type of deduction.
Of course we could also interview the LUMs on this, but this needs the
extension of G and G* to the first order qG and qG* (with
quantifiers), which are not decidable theories and can lead to very
complex questions (qG*, which represent a bigger portion of the
"Noùs", is not even complete with Arithmetical Truth as oracle, as
shown by the Russian logicians. This is also proved in Boolos 1993.
God is overwhelmed by its creation! This means we cannot reasonably
count on the LUMs to verify MGA from some arithmetical definition of
supervenience in qG*/arithmetic. That notion is intrinsically
difficult which is a good news for those who like to cut the airs!
But the conversation here has been very useful indeed. And it is not
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